121

1. AN OVERVIEW OF FUNDAMENTALISM.......................................................1.1. Fundamentalism: “it is said of...”...................................................................1.2. Only religious fundamentalism? ....................................................................

2. WHY? ....................................................................................................2.1. Postmodern culture: a breeding ground ........................................................2.2. Racism .............................................................................................................

3. RELIGIONS AND FUNDAMENTALISM: TOO OFTEN ALLIED ..........................3.1. Is fundamentalism inherent in Islam? ...........................................................3.2. Points that aid fundamentalism .....................................................................

4. WAYS OF HOPE ......................................................................................4.1. Notes for action ..............................................................................................4.2. Hope of dialogue ............................................................................................4.3. Does tolerance have limits? ...........................................................................4.4. Contradictions of fundamentalism ................................................................4.5. Interfaith dialogue ..........................................................................................

NOTES ..............................................................................................................................

33

75

71012121520202324252831

Jaume Flaquer, S.J. is Professor at the Facultat de Teologia de Catalunya. He has alsoa master in Islamic Studies.

Translation: Anita Howard • Printed on ecological paper and recycled cardboard • Editors:CRISTIANISME I JUSTÍCIA • R. de Llúria 13 - 08010 Barcelona (Spain) • Tel. 93 317 2338 Fax: 93 317 10 94 • info@fespinal.com • www.fespinal.com • Printed by: Estilo EstugrafImpresores, S.L. • ISBN: 84-9730-127-7 • Legal Deposit: M-51233-05 • December 2005

In recent years, words like fundamentalism, traditionalism, tole-rance, etc., have acquired such importance that we hear them onthe lips of journalists, politicians, religious figures... Rarely do we

fail to encounter them in one way or another during our daily rou-tine. And this, although it reveals that tolerance as a value has

come to be deeply absorbed by the democratic man, also showsthat it is threatened by multiple dangers.

Why must we be tolerant? Why should we yield in the face ofattitudes opposed to our own, especially when we are convincedof the truth of our position? More, how is it possible for us to betolerant about subjects that touch us as profoundly as religion?

The men of the Crusades thought they could not be tolerantbecause what was at stake was nothing less than eternal life, the

salvation of one's own soul and those of the impious Muslims.Therefore, will not modern religious tolerance prove to be the

fruit of resignation to an inability to dominate society any longer?In relation to this, a Jesuit who lives among the Muslim com-

munity of Chad, commented one day that the Muslims had oftensurprised him with affirmations like this one: “You Christians talk

of dialogue now because you are weak. We do not need it,because we are strong.”

This allegation is very serious because it questions the since-rity of our tolerance. But it is still more serious that that phraseshould suggest the following principle of action: “be intolerant

while you can”. Some Catholics –not many, thank God– are gui-ded by those principles when they dream of a return to the times

of Christianity and theocracy. For these people, democraticvalues –such as tolerance, liberty, etc.– are secondary to the

imposition and realisation of their own ideology.These examples can pose for us such questions as the follo-

wing: why has fundamentalism been linked so many times withreligious actions? Do they form an inseparable marriage?

This present study aims to tackle these questions, study theother types of fundamentalism, together with their causes, and

propose ways of solution and hope in the face of radicalism.

What has been said up to now per-haps suggests that the solution to fun-damentalism is relativism, this being therefusal to assume anything in life to befundamental. Relativism is the oppositeextreme to dogmatic radicalism. But thesolution is to be found in well-unders-tood tolerance. We will soon see furtheron that this is not about refusing to viewanything as essential but about not jus-tifying any method, though it may be to

achieve laudable ends, and always lea-ving dialogue and personal interpella-tion open.

1. When Darwin was condemnedFundamentalist attitudes have al-

ways existed. However, the concept hasonly come into use quite recently. It didnot begin as a denunciation of a method

3

1. AN OVERVIEW OF FUNDAMENTALISM

The words fundamentalism and traditionalism tend to be generallyused in an indiscriminate way, and understood as synonyms of fanati-cism, radicalism (in the pejorative sense), dogmatism... They are alsolinked with intransigence and mental inflexibility1. In all these conceptsthere is the idea of excess, of matters without importance being takentoo seriously. This is the attitude of the fanatic. 'Fanum', in Latin, means'sacred place'. The 'fanaticus' was the servant of the shrine and, due tothe impassioned attitude of some of these people, this word began tohave a pejorative meaning. Thus, a fanatic is a person who, in anuncompromising way, consecrates some aspect of reality. And whensomething becomes so disproportionately essential, it imposes uponthe individual a compulsive need to fight for that cause, a struggle whichis often violent.

1.1. FUNDAMENTALISM: “IT IS SAID OF...”

of procedure that was considered nega-tive, but as the self-appointed name of agroup of American Protestants. At thebeginning of this century –as R.Armengol observes2– there appeared aseries of Protestant publications collec-ted under the title: “The Fundamentals.A Testimony to the Truth”. These wri-tings aimed to define and defend thefundamental aspects of Christianity. Forthis purpose, they used as a source theBible interpreted in its most literalsense. With this they criticised Darwinharshly, because he was contradictingthe story of the creation according toGenesis. If the scriptures are of revela-tory origin, how to admit the possibilityof error in any content of theirs?

a fanatic is a person who,in an uncompromising way,

consecrates some aspectof reality

This attitude reached such an extre-me that in some areas of the U. S. A. tea-chers were forbidden to teach the theo-ries of Darwin3. All this extremism wascaused by a harmful interpretation of theBible. The fundamentalist is, therefore,the person who sets out to read the Biblewithout taking into account either thesymbols or literary genres it uses, or thehistorical time in which it was written.And if it is always a mistake to extracta phrase from its context within a story,it is no less so to detach a text from itshistorical context.

2. Traditionalist Catholics

Let us not think that only Protestantsfall into this type of error. The term tra-ditionalism was used by Catholics of thecentury and the beginnings of the twen-tieth with the intention of keeping theirfaith and their traditions intact. The pro-blem, then, was not that of the interpre-tation of texts, but it was similar. IfProtestant fundamentalism read thetexts of the past without taking theircontext into account, traditionalism as-sumed tradition “literally”, detaching itfrom its historical context.

Besides, the traditionalists rejectedthe incipient human sciences, and setout to look in faith for the answers to allproblems of private and public life.From an uncompromising fidelity to thedirectives set down by Rome, a war wasdeclared against modernity, naturalism,laicism and communism. Let us re-member that Pius IX4 condemned mo-dernity and that, only a few decadesago, theology professors were obligedto sign an undertaking never to supportits ideas5. In Spain, traditionalism wasconstituted as a political party at the endof the nineteenth century.

But we must not call all those peo-ple traditionalists if they take seriouslyto themselves some determined ethicalnorms which seem strange to us; inste-ad, we call them traditionalist if they arenot open to any type of dialogue and in-terpellation.

It is now the moment to analysewhether these terms are reduced to reli-gious matters or whether or not they canbe found in other realities.

4

After having described what funda-mentalist beliefs are, there arises a se-cond question: where do they manifestthemselves? What is the extent of thisterm? Following on from this question,two more queries are posed for us. Thefirst consists of finding out if funda-mentalism is something inherent in re-ligious actions. The second, in seeing ifwe value this behaviour in other areasof life.

We are stormed by the first questionas soon as we study a little of the his-tory of religions. The wars of religionquickly confront us. We remember thecrusades of the past, the predestinativeradicalism of the Calvinists and the an-ti-liberalism of the nineteenth-centuryChurch. We see the conflicts betweenPalestinians and Jews, between Shi'itesand Sunnis in Pakistan and in Irak, bet-ween Hindus and Muslims in India, thewar in Bosnia and the difficult Algeriansituation, in this past few years, amongmany other existing problems. The listcould be infinitely longer. We would ha-ve reasons for pessimism.

However, this radicalism is not es-sential to religious actions, but theirmost radical perversion (“corruptio op-timi pessima”). The Catholic Churchhas been intransigent for a long time; ithas needed outside criticism to advoca-te tolerance, and yet it is not difficult toperceive that this “new” value was so-mething intrinsic to the message ofJesus Christ. In this way Christianity

could, at the present time, contribute te-llingly to an education for tolerance.

The existence, in all religions, ofprofound believers with minds open toother positions and of great tolerance(often in spite of persecution) showsthat intransigence is not essential to re-ligious actions. But we must say stillmore: not only is it non-essential, butcontrary to them. The encounter with aforgiving and merciful God, lover of allHis creatures, cannot lead to the attitu-de of an implacable judge. When a fun-damentalist says that he bases his beliefson revelatory texts, he must be askedwhether, in interpreting them, he seeksobedience to God or his own security.We will return later to this subject.

It is easy also to see how intransigentattitudes overwhelm religious actions.We encounter intolerance in politics, inthe confrontations between opposingideologies, in what has come to be ca-lled “market fundamentalism”, in thecrimes of Nazism and other extreme na-tionalist movements, like those of theformer Yugoslavia or ETA, in the pre-sent-day “skinheads”... Also in racismand in the confrontations between fansof different football teams. Why doesevery team have its “extreme fans”?Finally, we encounter intolerance evenin the scientific community. How manytimes has a revolutionary theory beenharshly criticised by other scientists,with arguments that are also scientific?T. Kuhn6 describes with great accuracythe scientific conservatism which re-

5

1.2. ONLY RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM?

jects the new discoveries of other scien-tists –which contradicts its own theo-ries– through its inability to discount alifetime's research. This would leave ithaving to begin again. And if this hap-pens in science..

Therefore it is the human being (notreligion or culture or homeland) that isprofoundly exposed to the fundamenta-list temptation.

we are approachingthe causes of intolerance:

there is a profound insecuritywhich impedes

the openness to change,to the others,

to what is different

1. Intolerance as insecurityWe are approaching the causes of in-

tolerance: there is a profound insecuritywhich impedes the openness to change,

to the others, to what is different. It iscertain that the word “fundamentalism”adapts itself better to certain ways of li-ving religion. However, often, politicalparties, institutions, movements, etc.,also need to interpret their traditions orfounding ideologies in a way that re-news them while maintaining theiridentity. Thus there is room for a literalinterpretation or an adaptation to thenew times.

We see extremism present through-out history, especially in the religioussphere as all of ancient culture was im-pregnated with references to the trans-cendent. Afterwards, the space left openby the retreat of religious presence fromthe public sphere compelled certain in-dividuals of a fundamentalist persona-lity to cling to other spheres of potential“fundamentality”. Such is the case withsome ideologies.

We can conclude, therefore, thatfundamentalist attitudes move beyondthe religious sphere, although, as weshall see, they find very fertile soil the-re. What concerns us now is to study thereasons why they appear, to note downafterwards ways of hope.

6

2.1. POSTMODERN CULTURE: A BREEDING GROUND

1. Fear of technological progress

There has always been fundamenta-lism, because man has always had rea-sons to fearing change. Still, today, in aworld of such technology, and such ra-

pid transformations, some people feelthe fear and cling to their securities. Wefind one interesting example in somesects in the USA, which have decided toanchor themselves in the nineteenthcentury.

7

2. WHY?

As men and women we need a certain “basic trustfulness”7, that per-mits us to accept and assume the risk inherent in a mature life whichconfronts the new and different as a possibility of growth. When thisbasic trustfulness is lacking, or destroyed, we become rigid and intole-rant.

We build this fundamental trustfulness from our first experiences offamily life. In human groups we live and develop it when we live in com-munal atmosphere of which we feel ourselves to be members, becau-se we share their values and they offer us a shared sense of life. Whensocial processes destroy these communal experiences, society crea-tes, without realising it, the breeding ground where “fundamentalist per-sonalities” will develop, looking for their security in rigid and intolerantgroups. For this reason neo-liberalism, in advocating an individualistand competitive society, is unconsciously setting the social conditionsfrom which arise the extreme right wing, the sects and groups of tradi-tionalism and fundamentalism.

The film Witness (Dir. Peter Weir.Paramount Pictures, 1985) describesone of these for us. Why are the ways oflife of the previous century better thanour own? Perhaps because they are mo-re natural? But in that case, why not an-chor ourselves in times still more remo-te and close to nature? Would we haveto return to the Stone Age, since a grot-to is more natural than a house?

Let us take it that “artificial” means“made with art”, that is to say, to mouldsomething natural with our hands. Man,for as long as he has existed, has mode-lled and built objects. To refuse to useartificial things is to deny man himself.However, we can criticise the technolo-gical advancement of society because itoften depersonalises the human beingand treats him like a mere object or aproduction machine: the state recogni-ses us better by D. N. A. than by our na-mes, and at work we are valued accor-ding to how much we produce, and how.It seems that other aspects of the personare not taken into consideration. Thequantifying of all things eventually ma-kes us ourselves into objects.

Moulding nature does not mean sup-planting or destroying it, as is being do-ne, for example, in Amazonia, againstthe will of its inhabitants and with thedanger of making a lung of the planetdisappear.

Through this type of excess, theworld has become inhospitable formany people. The impact that the“stressful” and “depersonalising” life ofthe city has on the inhabitants of smalltowns is significant. It is not surprising,therefore, that numerous people look foran identity in totalitarian groups.

2. “It has always been done likethis...”

Security comes to human beingthrough the culture in which he or shelives. Culture provides the individualwith a certain answer to the most es-sential questions of life (where we aregoing to, where we come from, what wemust do . . . ) Tradition and customs per-mit us not to have to ask constant ques-tions about the why of all things. It is away of saving energy. No-one could be-ar to call all customs into question: whydo we celebrate some feastdays and notothers, why do we wear these clothesand not others... In the last analysis wecan only reply: “it has always been do-ne like this”.

However, what happens when a so-ciety, like our own, realises the aweso-me passage of time, that history exists,that things have not always been donelike this? Daily life becomes problema-tic and it is recognised that things couldbe different. But when our own cultureis called into question, the very founda-tions, the structure of our securities,sway. Whoever is capable of leaving be-hind this state of adolescent crisis, rea-ches an adult age. But whoever is mostpsychologically weak closes in on him-self or herself and denies the evidence.He or she regresses to childhood, to theworld of simple certainties. It will beimpossible to reason with such a person.

How to explain to a traditionalistthat a fixed ritual could or perhapsshould be adapted for the sake of theneeds of the present times? It is notabout change for change's sake. This isan adolescent attitude. We cannot denythat tradition creates jurisprudence and

8

that the human being has need of a cer-tain stability of culture (the values, tra-ditions, beliefs, rituals, etc). This is whyall value systems tend to present them-selves as eternal, universal and valid fo-rever. But it is necessary to have an openmind to be capable of tackling whatevermodifications may be necessary to re-main faithful to the original spirit.

This is the fundamentalist: the indi-vidual who, faced with the fear of a voidof values and meaning of life, clingsirrationally to certain “prefabricated”securities. In our time, named by manyas the postmodern age, everything hasalready been made problematic. Thelack of something eternal and absoluteproduces panic and insecurity. Therefo-re, we have the foundations of the pre-sent fundamentalist movements alreadyin place.

Culture as adaptation to theenvironment

Culture is man's particular way ofadapting himself to his environment8.The animal makes use of its instincts tosurvive. Its changes are very slow be-cause it can only adapt itself to its envi-ronment through genetic mutations. Themutation that will endure is the one thatallows the animal to confront its preda-tors with greatest success. But the hu-man being adapts through cultural con-ventions. These make it possible forman to adapt himself without having towait for a genetic mutation. If he wantsto have wings, he invents the aeroplane,and if he wants to be more intelligent,he invents the computer.

The cultural conventions of acountry are, generally, the best way thathas been found for meeting needs. Thisis why the culture of a people must notbe totally annhilated. Permanency in ti-me is what grants legitimacy9. However,it is essential that those people do notstagnate, and that it seeks new ways ofliving, more ways of tackling the newchallenges. The two extremes, of totaldestruction and stagnation, are equallypernicious. Each one fears and fights theother without imagining the possibilityof a compromise or an overcomingsynthesis.

in the postmodern age,everything has already been

made problematic.The lack of something eternal

and absolute producespanic and insecurity.Therefore, we have

the foundations of the presentfundamentalist movements

In our postmodern age (it is sympto-matic that we now name our time incontrast to the previous one) traditionalculture is entering into a more profoundcrisis and the ideological certainties ofmodernity are also collapsing. If cultu-re serves us as a form of adaptation,when this enters a state of crisis our ownfoundations tremble. It was difficult forthe Church to take on the necessarychange of Vatican II because it had allo-

9

wed the authoritarian methods that hadserved it so well in the times of the ab-solutist kings to stagnate.

Fear of pluralismLittle by little, we see that the fun-

damentalism of which we are speakingis essentially reactive. If we were tal-king up to now of the fear of change, wecan also say that there is a panic in theface of pluralism. Pluralism appears tobe the place of uncertainty. The mereexistence of other opinions questionsmy certainties. It is therefore necessaryto close the doors that connect me to theoutside world.

Only the mature man can live in plu-ralism. The child becomes lost. Theadult knows how to see the positive andnegative aspects of everything andeveryone. For the child, on the otherhand, only good and evil exist. There isno compromise. Do children not ask,when faced with a film, who are the“goodies” and who are the “baddies”?

When these two groups cannot be easilydelimited, they find it difficult to un-derstand the film. In this way, they areeducated in values. In the same childish,slowly way, however, fundamentalistsdichotomise reality.

They are afraid to lose identity. Todefine means to see where one thingends and another begins. Thus the fun-damentalist, in his need for personaldefinition, dichotomises reality, and cle-arly marks the separation of 'I' from 'notI', of good from evil, of what is to bepraised from what is to be obliterated.From this, we can say that all that tea-ching that seeks points of intersectionbetween people and cultures, all thatmakes us see that I do not end withinmyself but open and unfold in others,will be the teaching of peace-making. Ido not rely exclusively on myself10. I ha-ve need of the other, of he who is diffe-rent from me, because he has somethingthat I do not have. And this at every le-vel: personal, group level, professional,national, ecclesiastical...

10

2.2. RACISM

Faced with a massive immigrationof Maghribians, who would not fear theloss, not only of jobs but of the identityof our country, of its traditions...? Whohas not thought sometimes that if thenumber of immigrants were considera-ble, they would begin to claim the rightsto live their culture socially? Democra-

cy, out of respect for plurality, would ha-ve to allow it as long as they too weretolerant.

The “skinheads” of National Socia-list ideology (or the followers of Le Penin France) see in this a loss of Spanishcultural identity. And so they see them-selves obliged to fight a crusade against

the immigrant, and to scorn a demo-cracy which lacks weapons for this.Faced with this attitude, the person whois psychologically adult asks himself:“What is Spain?” An enormous multi-tude of people have passed through ourland. This is why to define Spain as aclosed entity is to falsify reality.

Essentially, racism is caused by afeeling of threat when faced with peo-ple who are appreciably different intheir physical and cultural characteris-tics. The rivalries between different cul-tural zones within the Spanish state can-not yet be called racism although theyare based on the same feeling of threat.If cultural diversity does not accompanyphysical differences then neither, nor-mally, does racism appear. Who despis-es the coloured players of the N. B. A.?

The phenomenon is very complex.The fear of the threat posed arises in theface of incompatible cultural conven-tions and also when faced with econo-mic “competitors”, especially if theseare socially and economically weaker.Why are there not racist attacks againsthigh-ranking Japanese executives orArab sheikhs, but against dark-skinnedMaghribians? The former have the pres-tige of money, power and culture; besi-des, they create jobs. The latter are ea-sily changed into “Turks' heads”,burdened with the responsibility for allcollective fears: unemployment, drugs,unsafe city life.

If the source of the problem werecultural and economic we could per-haps dispense with the term racism.Besides, hardly anyone admits to ha-ving racist feelings. But if you ever ha-ve the opportunity to work with skinhe-

ads, you become aware that the Negrorace really does generate in them a fee-ling of intense and immediate repulsion.That fear of difference has created inthem a powerful and instantaneous de-fence mechanism. These youths are theviolent extreme, but there are many lessradical racist positions: some parentswould have certain reservations aboutaccepting their children's mixed-race re-lationships.

the “skinheads”see themselves obliged

to fight a crusadeagainst the immigrant

We are talking about racism, but is itcorrect to classify human beings into ra-ces? Some time ago, numerous scien-tists rejected these classifications, con-sidering that genetic differences areinsignificant. It is always preferable totalk of ethnic groups, as this term inclu-des cultural conventions and the way inwhich people organise their lives.

Human beings are primarily cultu-ral. The biological is always on a secon-dary level. If we reduce the importanceof the biological in our everyday lan-guage, we can avoid racial prejudices.Not everything will be solved, becausewe still have the foundations of racismbefore us: cultural and economic con-flicts. The former can only be confron-ted with a broad mental horizon, and thelatter with a personal and collective ge-nerosity which surmounts egotism.

1. A great warning to humanityWhen one finishes reading the

Koran, one arrives at the conclusion thatthis holy book of the Muslims is a gre-at warning to humanity. If most of thebooks of the Old Testament are a narra-tion written by Jewish people to revealthe graces and punishments of God, theKoran is presented as though written bythat same God in the third person, sothat it could be recited by Mohammed.Thus, although events of the past are al-so narrated in the Koran, this is donewith a very clear pedagogical intention.Brief stories are selected, of peopleswho succumbed through not listening to

the prophets, and of those people whoobtained the favour of God. Many of thenarratives end by stating, in one or twosentences, the message that God wantsto offer us. Let us set down some exam-ples:

He is Who dominates His servants.He is the Wise One, the WellInformed. (Koran 6, 18)God does not direct the perversepeople. (Koran 9, 24)God knows well what they do.(Koran 10, 36)God watches everything. (Koran 33,52)God is indulgent, merciful. (Koran33, 52)11

12

3. RELIGIONS AND FUNDAMENTALISM: TOO OFTEN ALLIED

When one finishes reading the Koran, one arrives at the conclusionthat this holy book of the Muslims is a great warning to humanity.

3.1. IS FUNDAMENTALISM INHERENT IN ISLAM?

13

These and many other similar ma-xims are repeated over and over againas if they were choruses. Besides thenarratives, we encounter a high numberof rules of conduct and social structuredisseminated throughout the Koranictext. The warning of God is clear: be-lieve in the one God and share in thecommunity of Muslims, keeping the es-tablished laws. If you act in this way,then however much of a sinner you maybe, God will have mercy. The mercifulepithet is one of those most frequentlyrepeated in the Koran. Not evenMohammed is ever presented as a per-fect man. (Koran 80, 1).

The problem is, also repeated withgreat insistence, the phrase that the“Lord is disposed to pardon, but also topunish painfully” (Koran 41, 43). Thewarning of a severe judgement is cons-tant. However, the Muslim has it setdown very clearly that no-one deservespunishment for being unaware of a pro-hibition. (Koran 6, 54).

2. The West fears IslamThe West fears that Islam can only

be lived in a fundamentalist manner. Itis true that this fear is being confirmedby the news which reaches us fromAlgeria, Egypt, Sudan, Iran... Yet allthose countries live in the need of self-definition and recovery of identity fo-llowing the period of colonisation*.Their feeling of inferiority when facedwith the technological advances ofWestern culture has been very great.

The fundamentalism by which they liveis their concrete form of nationalism. Tothe whole situation we must add the enor-mous corruption of its rulers and the ex-treme poverty of a population which isgrowing more than the economy.

This situation causes us to forget thatin other times Islamic culture was muchmore advanced than our own. As we ha-ve seen already, fundamentalism has alot to do with the kind of interpretationone makes of the texts. Up to the tenthcentury, then, there was a great freedomof interpretation within Islam12. It wasthe time of the Ijtihad. This word meansthe effort which every believer must ma-ke to penetrate into the message of thetexts. Intellectual and mystical develop-ment13 is enormously vast at this time14.

However the time comes when, forfear of interpretations becoming toounorthodox, the prohibition of free in-terpretation is declared. The believermust have recourse to competent me-diums. It is declared that “the doors ofthe Ijtihad are closed”. From what wehave said up to now, we can easily de-duce that if interpretation is closed, if itis not possible to adapt religious lan-guage to new circumstances, every lookat the past will be done from a decon-textualisation.

3. The possibility of a tolerantIslam

Will Islam be capable of emergingfrom the fundamentalist phase in whichit is now submerged? Not a few Muslim

* The attempts at development within the capitalist model have resulted in the uprooting of great urban mas-ses with respect to the values of their traditional culture.

intellectuals declare the need for a newopening of the door of the Ijtihad. It istrue that the news we receive from manyArab countries is distressing. In no waywill the task be easy. But neither was thetask easy for Vatican II. Besides, who inthe 19th century expected the changesthat the Church itself was going to un-dergo?

We may be tempted to say that in theGospels we have, as essential ideas, thelove of one's enemy, forgiveness with-out limits, etc., which have allowed usto recognise more easily the values oftolerance, dialogue, freedoms, etc. It istrue, the Gospels are very different toKoran. However, Islam does not lackelements that could lay the foundationsof a more open way of thinking. Forexample, Islam does not oblige non-Muslims to keep its laws. This theoreti-cal principle has normally been respec-ted. Non-Muslims had to pay only a taxcorresponding to the obligatory almspaid by every well-off Muslim.

The problem of the Koran is that thetexts on strictly religious duties are min-gled with those on political duties. Butmany Muslims know how to distinguishbetween the importance of one and theother. To play down certain laws of com-munal living more in tune with the timein which they were made, and to adaptthem to the present moment, is to makea non-fundamentalist interpretation.

Sometimes we are shocked to findsuch concepts in the Koran as Sharialaw or “holy war”. But we should nolonger wonder that there is in theKoranic text an aspiration to organisesociety. The concept of an eye for an eyeand a tooth for a tooth meant an advan-

ce in the justice system of that time: youcannot pay off your enemy with a grea-ter coin. Jesus overcame even this lawby forgiving his enemies on the cross.However, justice in our countries is gui-ded more by Sharia law than by the lawof forgiveness, however much we saythat the fundamental mission of our pri-sons is social rehabilitation. Besides, theKoran also anticipates a relinquishmentof Sharia law. It will serve as atonementfor the believer. (Koran 5, 45).

With regard to holy war15, we willsay briefly that this is a more spiritualthan military concept. It consists of theinterior struggle against the evil that de-grades us16. It becomes military war aswell in the event of the Muslim faithbeing attacked or put into serious peril(Koran 8, 39). Whatever may happen incombat, there is an express prohibitionfrom dealing with the enemy in any ex-treme way. (Koran 2, 190)

The chance of a tolerant interpreta-tion of Islam is real, and would be mo-re internally coherent. Christianity hasimproved it because we have passedthrough an Enlightenment and throughcontinued criticisms of the Church's ul-tra-conservatism. Finally, the Churchhas taken on modernity and has accep-ted in all its radical nature –but not with-out opposition, incoherence and unwar-ranted sudden halts– the study of theBible from the standpoints of philology,sociology, history, etc. Islam has thisbattle pending. The Koranic text has stillnot been scientifically studied. This iswhy they deny that certain parts of theBook's content should have reachedMohammed through his contact withChristians and Jews. For them, the text

14

is God's dictation through an angel.Mohammed has put in no words ofhis own.

The problem of interfaith dialogue isnot due so much to the differences bet-ween both theologies as to the fact thatChristianity and Islam speak from dif-ferent paradigms. Christianity speaks

from modernity, and Islam from a posi-tion less mature in historical terms.

Let us now move to think about whyreligion has often been lived throughfundamentalist attitudes. Will it not bethe case that it has some theologicalpoints which fundamentalist personali-ties can easily interpret in a false way?

15

3.2. POINTS THAT AID FUNDAMENTALISM

1. Forgiveness and punishment

Religious experience should neverlead to intolerance, as we are enteringinto a relationship with God, Who is theessence of goodness. The portrayal of aharsh and punishing God is a projectionof our desires for vengeance or of oursocial need for “order”. Our justice un-derstands the law of Sharia, the redressof offences. But what is the Justice ofGod?

In the Gospel we see that the labou-rers who arrive at work at the last mo-ment earn the same amount as thosewho have worked all day. This genero-sity to the last of all seems an injusticeto us. Mercy overflows and goes be-yond justice. If deep within the founda-tions of every religious man there is aprofound experience of gratuitous andundeserved forgiveness, it is not possi-ble for intolerant attitudes to generate

from there. Rather will this man be theprotector who deals with the others.

Still, the experience of forgivenessstimulates a fight against evil. From thismoment on, the believer will be temp-ted to combat it with different weaponsto the ones God has used with him. Godhates evil but profoundly loves the onewho commits it. The human being willfind it much more difficult to make thisdistinction, and will tend towards theelimination of both.

Moreover, certain masochistic per-sonalities seek and need to be punished.They are unwilling to accept forgive-ness and want to be the ones to redeemthemselves. They will find personal re-affirmation and security in their patho-logical interpretation of religion. Theywill also be able to dichotomise all re-ality, beginning with the concepts ofgood and evil.

2. The temptation to control andknow God

All religions assume that God hasrevealed Himself to man. God wants toenter into a relationship with His crea-tures in order to give Himself and com-municate His wishes. He desires to helpman to find his happiness and, with thisintention, prescribes for him principlesof conduct and reveals to him some-thing of who He Himself is. One of thefirst temptations is that of wanting toknow God totally. To control God me-ans controlling the greatest of mysteriesand, as in God we may come to knowthe meaning of all the enigmas posed byman, the fundamentalist believes that hecan, in the end, control all uncertainty.The mystic's desire for God has a radi-cally different origin: a mystic wants tosee God in order to enter into full rela-tionship with his Beloved. But he leavesGod free, and does not try to dominateHim. He is aware of His transcendence.

The great temptation of religion is todefine God completely, and thus to beable to manage Him. God surpasses ourreason, and all the concepts we can at-tribute to Him are nothing more than hu-man ideas which, perhaps, point us to-wards what God is, but do not exhaustit. God is always greater, always newand surprising. He escapes any defini-tion.

The first Letter of St John tells usthat no-one has seen God (1 Jn 4, 12).In the Old Testament, Moses wishes tosee God. However, God only allowshimself to be seen fleetingly and “frombehind” (Ex 33, 23). The Muslims praya rosary that consists of repeating the ni-nety-nine names17 (characteristics) of

God. The hundredth name, ineffable, isomitted to express “the final impossibi-lity that human intelligence should cap-ture the ultimate essence of God”18.

Nonetheless, the temptation to con-trol God is always present, and it is notdifficult to believe that this can be achie-ved through the revelatory texts. It isonly a question of closing the doors topossible new interpretations. We havealready seen how Islam closed its doorsto free interpretation in the tenth cen-tury. Catholicism, for its part, reservedthe authority of correct interpretation ofthe Scriptures exclusively for the hie-rarchy of the Church. Protestantismfought against this.

The opposite extreme also has itsenormous dangers: as there are false in-terpretations, it is essential that thereshould be someone to sanction them.However, it is necessary that this some-one be open to new research into the sa-cred texts.

3. The concept of revelationIn order for man to be able to com-

prehend what God wishes to reveal tohim, it is essential that He speak to himin human language. The Jews receivetablets of the Law, Christianity a God19

made man, and Islam a Koran dictatedthrough the medium of an angel. In allthese three religions “of the Book”, Goddesires to communicate. But he has todo so in a language comprehensible toman. This incarnation of the message,or adaptation of God to the culture andhistorical moment of a people, is an es-sential element of removing fundamen-talism. It gives religion the duty, in later

16

times, of keeping up the essential ele-ment of revelation and adapting formsto the new times so that the message canbe intelligible. This is not a question ofchanging the message, but of keeping italive.

Christianity, as opposed to Islam,has an advantage in this task: In theBook of Revelation, God does not dic-tate to man. Christianity understandsthat the Biblical texts are the word ofGod in a different way to those of Islam.This is not a text written by God and re-vealed to a man, but God communica-ting with the heart of an individual whoafterwards will try to formulate that ex-perience of divinity in his own words.In this way, the writings of the Bibletransmit a true experience of Godthrough a language both intelligible andvalid for that culture and world view. Inthis day and age, it is necessary to se-parate the essential from these texts, toembody and formulate it in our langua-ge, although this may never be comple-tely possible.

When one considers that the formu-lation of the sacred text has been doneby human beings, and knows that inspi-ration respects personal or historicalparticularities, it is easier to accept thatthere must be things which may have tobe reformulated in the light of the newtimes. Nonetheless, what happens whenit is understood that revelation comesabout by means of dictation? The AngelGabriel is sent to Mohammed to revealto him the Koran (Koran 2, 97). The in-comparable poetic beauty of the Koranis one of the arguments used byMuslims to support this concept of re-velation.

No-one removed from God can haveinvented this Koran. Not only that, butit comes to confirm the preceding mes-sages and to explain in detail theScripture, free of doubts, that proceedsfrom the Lord of the universe. Or as theysay: “he has devised it”. Say: If whatyou say is true, bring a similar sura andcall on whoever you may, instead of ca-lling on God!” (Koran 10, 37-38)

No man would have been able towrite such suras (chapters). Understan-ding revelation in this way creates anenormous hindrance to the separation ofthe text's background and forms. More,it ensures that classical Arabic, the lan-guage in which the revelation was ma-de, is left exalted. This is why Muslimsare often resistant to the idea of a non-Muslim being able to obtain a Koranwritten in Arabic (Koran 56, 79) andwhy they permit translations of it onlybecause these can bring non-believers tothe faith. I remember a Moroccan askedme to cross out some phrases written inArabic before throwing them into thewastepaper basket, out of respect for thelanguage of God. Attitudes like this areabsolutely not general, but they showthe dangers of believing in a dictated re-velation.

The Muslim considers the Koran tobe self-sufficient. There is everything,and all that is to be believed. But this hasbeen radicalised to the point where so-me Muslims believe that they can see inthe Koran the prediction of the scienti-fic discoveries in the most recent centu-ries. Every great advance of mankindmay be seen recorded in the Koran, theysay. Curiously, this is not the mentality

17

that the ancient classical authors ofIslamic culture seem to reveal.

But if God has spoken, how shall wedare to change His words to adapt themto other people or later times? In theKoran there seems to be no room for in-terpretative research based on a study ofthe context, the genesis of the text, themeaning of the words in their time... Butit is not impossible. It would be enoughto think that God has communicated ina moment of history, in words determi-ned with the purpose that those peopleshould understand Him, and that today,notwithstanding, He would communi-cate the same message in a differentway. Yet it is not a question of changingthe original text, which in itself has va-lue, for a more modern one, but of in-terpreting it in the light of the new ti-mes.

4. The task of spreading the message

When someone loves a thing, he orshe feels desire to communicate it. Joystimulates the human being to share itout. Whoever experiences the profoundlove of God will also be moved to en-sure that others can enjoy the same hap-piness. The life that God generates inman is so expansive that it has to bepreached.

This is why Christianity and Islamare ardent preachers of their message.They are proposals of a way of life, ofplenitude. Christians proclaim the GoodNews. Both religions find in their sacredtexts clear orders to preach. Judaism, onthe other hand, is not capable of emer-ging from its blood ties: the Jews are the

only Chosen People. Christianity andIslam surmount this sectarianism by in-viting all races and cultures to follow theway of salvation. The concept ofChosen People is extended to that of acommunity of Christians or Muslims.But precisely because of this universa-lity of its messages, they may fall intothe rejection of any other way.

The dictum that “there is no salva-tion outside the Church20” (BonifaceVIII in 1.302, taking the sentence fromCiprianus) is famous. When religion it-self is understood in this way, preachingbecomes an anguished imperative: theone who is not converted will not be sa-ved. Therefore, we have the foundationsset to justify the crusades and any me-thod of evangelism including force. Andit is worth all this and more –the funda-mentalist would say– as the eternal lifeof many men and women is at stake.

Islam has also fallen into these sameerrors when it has legitimised somewars under the plea of holy war. It feelsespecially called to fight polytheism andatheism. However, it is tolerant withChristianity and Judaism, as it has nohesitation in affirming that the God ofthe Jews and Christians is the same astheir own and that in these religions Godhas also spoken to humanity.

The solution to the problems causedby Islam and Christianity's desires toexpand is not found in an abandonmentof preaching but in a respect for theother, the different. The Church, fromVatican II onwards, has known how tosee very positive aspects in non-confes-sional organisations: God speaks to theworld and not only within the heart ofthe same Church. It is a step towards le-

18

aving behind the dichotomising of theworld into good and evil, Christians andnon-Christians.

5. Church and StateThe Church has often enough been

led into the temptation to identify itselfwith the governing regime. The Churchreceived some benefits for this, but for-got about the need to bear in mind thatthe Kingdom is not yet fully presentamongst us, that there is still a lot to bechanged and improved. From this view-point, the Church should always be in acertain opposition. Besides, Christianitydoes not concern itself so much with theconcrete norms by which a State choo-ses to govern, as with a series of princi-ples of solidarity, justice and equalitywhich all States should endeavour tomake possible.

Islam, on the other hand, cannot beunderstood without an identificationwith power, as this must guide the peo-ple as much in material terms as spiri-tually. The Caliph assumes political andreligious power. Islam establishes veryclearly that religion is not something li-ved individually but a social entity.Therefore it does not only have laws re-lating to worship, but to the organisationof society. The Koran is also a code ofcivil law which regulates the govern-ment of the Muslim community. Islamiclaw is not obligatory to non-Muslims.This is why, when this law has to be thelaw of the State, it is presupposed that

the people of this State are principallyMuslims. The non-Muslim minority canlive in its territory after accepting a se-ries of compromises21.

When there is a great uniformity ina State (the great majority are Muslims)this system is sustainable. But when aplurality of beliefs co-exist within, itcollapses. So Islam lives in a permanentlonging for independence, in order to beable to govern itself with its own norms.

The identification with power car-ries a great danger: that of making useof the force of the State to impose reli-gion. Violence can be used as a meansof persuasion.

In theory, Christianity has a greaterfacility for freeing itself from this temp-tation thanks to the fact that Jesus didnot dictate a list of norms but a mode ofbehaviour.

Besides, Jesus places Himself abovethe law. He feels free to interpret it andto make whatever exceptions may benecessary to ensure that it does not be-come unjust: we see how Jesus also he-als on the Sabbath day. Mohammed,however, is a subject of the law. He hascome to proclaim and keep it.Mohammed receives a word and Jesusis the Word. To follow Jesus implies,then, to be on constant alert to discern ifin any moment it is necessary to makean exception to one norm for the sake ofa greater good. The person who belie-ves in Jesus follows a living man, andnot a book of laws with which tocomply.

19

It is a question of sensitivity: it is es-sential to learn to value what foreign tous is. But the work to make this possi-ble does not need to touch on knowled-ge as heavily as upon experience. It isdifficult, not to say impossible, to main-tain a rational discussion with any fun-damentalist. There is no possible agree-ment because he or she does not look forthe most logical, most rational solution,but that which provides the highest se-curity. So only the experience of whatforeign is enriches me, only the know-ledge gained from the other as some-thing which strengthens and does not in-timidate me, will allow maturity to bereached.

1. EducationThe action begins within the family.

Parents are the first ones to accompanythe child in his discovery of his socialenvironment. When he walks hand inhand with those who give him security,he dares to go in search of what is new22.Little by little he perceives a source ofwonder in what is different. A marve-llous world opens for discovery beforehis eyes. Maintaining a child’s curiosityis fundamental. Traumatic experiencesteach him to take precautions. And ifthese are of a greater intensity than hecan assimilate, he may close himself offto all experimentation. It is essential that

20

4. WAYS OF HOPE

The ways towards a solution to the problem of fundamentalist radica-lism are complex. If the principal cause is the fear of uncertainty, of whatis different, our educational actions must principally address this point.

4.1. NOTES FOR ACTION

he reacts with wonder and interest ra-ther than apprehension or fear in the fa-ce of what is new.

Parents are the first “others” he en-counters. This is why this first rela-tionship is of the greatest importance. Ifit were traumatic, there would be thedanger of his considering every un-known person a potential enemy.

Education continues at school.There he will meet other equals whowill often compete with him. However,experiences of friendship will help himto rely on others. Successful (amicable)encounters with individuals of othercultures, of different skin colours, willteach him to value and respect diversity.In this aspect, schools have a very im-portant role to play. We should foster in-tercultural schools, in which differentcultures could come into contact. If thisis not possible, why not organise mixedsummer camps? I believe that weshould aim at a very concrete objective:to create conditions that make intercul-tural friendships possible. If we achievethis, we will have taken a great step to-wards ending racism.

When these vital experiences havebeen well absorbed, the moment will befavourable to underpin respect for otherways of thinking. Philosophy and his-tory are very useful tools for this. At thisstage, we deal with knowledge.

2. If we were all philosophers andhistorians to a degree...

Philosophy, in general, predisposesthe subject to be critical in the face ofany affirmation: before accepting it asvalid, he will pause to study it. The phi-

losopher seeks the truth, and that is whyhe will always keep a door open tochange his opinion if he discovers thathe was mistaken, or if he discovers truthin another way of thinking. The philo-sopher's attitude is, therefore, the onemost contrary to the fundamentalist'snarrow-mindedness: he will inquireabout opinions different from his own inorder to analyse their value.

we should fosterintercultural schools,

in which different culturescould come into contact

History is another fundamental criti-cal tool. History teaches us that cultureschange in time. It compels us to recogni-se that the customs we now experienceas sacrosanct are not eternal but have adetermined origin in history. The argu-ment that something “has always beendone like this” is no longer valid. Yet his-tory does not only bring to light his-torical changes but also the roots thattie us to the past. Beneath transforma-tions there are certain things that go onwithout change. This is how history gi-ves identity to people. It also brings tous in the present time the errors of hu-manity in other times. It shows us theexperience that human beings have ac-quired over time in order not to repeatthose mistakes and to bring certainachievements up to date. When we for-get the horrors of Nazism, we will facethe danger of living through it oncemore.

21

It is harmful to limit the teaching ofhistory to that of our own small country.We should also teach our students thehistory of neighbouring peoples, ma-king special mention of the culture ofthe Arabs, and recalling that these, in theMiddle Ages, were more “civilised”than ourselves23. In natural science clas-ses we should emphasise that the co-loured man is not a primitive conditionof evolution but a different derivation ofthe first hominids, which were neitherwhite nor black. We should, finally, pro-mote stays in the Third World. There wewill be able to appraise its culture fromits own point of view and we will neveragain see it as inferior. More, when wesee that they prefer their customs to ourswe will inevitably ask ourselves: whenwill we banish Eurocentrism? Will wenot, the developed countries, prove to bemore degraded in human and culturalterms?

3. ImmigrationThe fact of having been born within

fixed borders makes an individual a ci-tizen of that country. From that momenthe has rights and responsibilities esta-blished by the law. But why can natio-nality be denied to a foreigner who un-dertakes to fulfil his share of its duties?

It is symptomatic of this that weshould fight for equality of opportuni-ties within our borders, but not outsidethem. We often lack a more universal vi-sion. The aid that wealthy countrieshand out to underdeveloped countriesstill appears like gestures of charity ra-ther than justice.

A great number of people have pas-sed through our country, and have lefttheir imprint. They form part of ouridentity. Immigrations always enrich,not only because they permit an intensemutual influence between two culturesbut because those who emigrate are nor-mally the best qualified24. Nonetheless,it is true that excessive immigrationcould provoke the rejection of a sectorof the population. This is why immigra-tion should be permitted at an appro-priate rate, and it should be possible tospread it throughout the country in a ho-mogenous way. It is not positive foroutstanding locations of immigration tobe created, because these turn into'closed shops'.

A country behaves in a way similarto any liquid: it cannot simply meltdown any quantity of immigrants.However, the rate of dissolution variesenormously according to the temperatu-re. This, in a country, is the degree ofconscience-raising and openness. Byworking on respect for other cultures–and for a certain generosity– we canmake a greater immigration possible.

We must always seek the maximumintegration of those who come to ourcountry. But where are they to be inte-grated? If all immigrants are settled inthe most impoverished districts, we maybe sure that they will live through theproblems of violence, drug addiction,etc., of these areas. Let us not be sur-prised, then, if the proportion ofMaghribians in the prison populationbecomes very high. It is not due to theircoming from where they do, but to ha-ving to live where they are living.

22

1. No-one has an absolute viewpointNo-one can embrace all reality in

just one glance. If we look at a cube, forexample, we can see only three of its si-des at once. When we turn it around tosee the other three, we realise that thefirst disappear from our sight. This sa-me thing happens when we discuss cur-rent affairs: two people are looking atthe same object but they do not agreebecause each one sees it from his pointof view (which depends on one's ownpersonality, one's personal history, eco-nomic level, place of residence, etc). Inboth discourses there is a part of truth.

Dialogue is the instrument that weuse to communicate our point of view.But it is not easy to engage in dialogue.In order to see the truth that is in otherpeople's discourse, it is essential that weabandon our point of view for an instantto put ourselves in the other person'splace. We have to move ourselves to beable to see the cube from the other an-gle. It is a sacrifice, an effort. Panic ta-kes possession of us because for a fewmoments, while we move over to theother side, we lose our viewpoint, ourconvictions, our securities, and we havenot yet arrived at other new ones.

Our democracy is founded upon dia-logue. If we want to preserve it, we musteducate about the importance of dialo-gue. But dialogue requires the equalityof its participants25. When we are notseeking the truth, communication pur-sues only the domination of the other,

the act of convincing him of my view-point. The media can play a great role inthe promotion of dialogue and respect.However, often, debates only presentthe most confrontational positions in or-der to look more showy. In practice,they encourage the dichotomising ofproblems.

The first reason to be tolerant is thatno-one has the absolute viewpoint. Wehave need of other people. They enrichus because their personal history, theirexperiences, etc., put them in an uniqueposition.

this concept of toleranceas a mere weakness of thought

is still dangerous:When I believe something

with certainty,why must I be tolerant?

2. But, how to be wise and tolerant?The recognition of our limitations

compels us to tolerance, to not rejectingothers' opinions too rapidly. In the pre-sent times, the fall of the great ideolo-gies, and the relativism of many fieldsof thought, have favoured the conside-ration of tolerance as a fundamentaldemocratic value.

23

4.2. HOPE OF DIALOGUE

But this concept of tolerance as amere weakness of thought is still dan-gerous: When I believe something withcertainty, why must I be tolerant?

The challenge presented to us is asfollows: how to be both wise and tole-rant? Responding to this question, wegive reasons to be tolerant not only tothe wise but to those who believe them-selves to be so:

1) Some issues are not worthy of aconfrontation. The wise man is not onlythe one who knows but the one who isable to put things in their right place. Hewill give each thing the importance itdeserves, without going too far. The wi-se man will be at variance with many is-sues, but will recognise that only somevery essential ones deserve the dedica-tion of the whole man. He will tolerateminor errors, because a combative atti-tude would bring greater evils. The fun-damentalist, on the other hand, is capa-ble of giving his life, or demanding thesame from others, for causes withoutimportance. He does not know how toput each problem in its right place.

2) Tolerance and respect for the dig-nity of people are superior benefits tothe “certainties” which each groupmight wish to impose by force on its fe-llow citizens. The wise man will try todefend his ideas against what he consi-ders to be the errors of his fellow citi-zens but he will have to do so using themeans permitted to him by democraticlaw. The radical, instead of making useof the democratic channels, uses violentmethods to achieve his objectives. Thedictator believes that the end justifiesthe means.

3) It is essential to “separate the sinfrom the sinner”. The Christian com-mand to “love one's enemy” can only belived out when we distinguish the sub-ject from his actions. In this way it ispossible to reject evil, to be intolerant ofit and, still, to be tolerant and unders-tanding with the one who commits it.The reality that all human beings arechildren of God makes them alwaysworthy of esteem. The other is my bro-ther and, for this reason, I accept himwith all his weaknesses.

24

4.3. DOES TOLERANCE HAVE LIMITS?

From the three reasons to be tolerantwe can extract some conclusions. First:we can tolerate errors of little importan-ce. Second: we must always tolerate andrespect the person. Third: we must be in-tolerant with Evil, not with “evil-doers”.

Tolerance is not equivalent to consi-dering valid, or permitting, all attitudesor all actions. It would be a mistake tothink in this way. But where does tole-rance say “enough”? How do we res-train Evil? The fundamentalist fills the

issue of Evil with undue content, that isto say, excessive things seem intolera-ble to him.

Today, we can say that the limit oftolerance is in the respect for humanrights. Human rights are those minimumrights upon which the countries haveagreed, and which are essential to safe-guard because they are the indispensablecondition of any possibility of a “hu-man” coexistence in which people maybe respected in their dignity. Basically,there exist two groups of rights.

The one, which makes reference toindividual freedoms (of association, ofpolitical participation, of ownership ofprivate property, of leaving and enteringone's own country, the right to life, etc)and others that we could call socialrights (equality of opportunities, theright to education, to social security, toa decent job and wage, to the satisfac-tion of economic, social and culturalrights indispensable to one's dignity...).

The legitimacy of these rights is ba-sed on the fact that they are not peculiar

to just one country, but have been ap-proved by the Assembly of the UnitedNations. It is true that the formulation isvery Western. But beyond the concreteformulation, there is something of theuniversal that underlies them. The rea-son for this is that we are able to thinkthat every rational person in conditionsof lucidity, freedom and the will to attainwhat is good would reach the conclusionthat these rights (beyond their concreteformulation) are to be preserved.

And so we must fight against alltransgressions of these fundamentalrights, and we must not be tolerant withthe intolerant. But this does not meanthat the struggle against intolerance canviolate the rights it seeks to defend. Toconclude: tolerance is inadmissible inthe face of the reality of the poor man,the oppressed man and the slave. If wetake this seriously we will realise thatwe will have to stop tolerating so muchhunger in the world, so much poverty inthe Fourth World and so much unem-ployment in our cities.

25

4.4. CONTRADICTIONS OF FUNDAMENTALISM

We know that fundamentalism alsomakes reference to a fixed way of in-terpreting religious texts. We are nowgoing to show, then, how this interpre-tation is a false one, and how it oftenfalls into certain contradictions.

1. Reading “to the letter” doesnot exist

The discipline that studies how sa-cred and juridical texts, etc., are to be in-terpreted, is given the name of herme-

neutics. For years, hermeneutists havecriticised the interpretation of texts “tothe letter”26. At first sight it can seemstrange. This expression is popularlyused to urge people to interpret with ob-jectivity and not according to their owninterests. When it means no more thanthis we can accept it.

However, we soon meet the firstcontradiction: the fundamentalists ofdifferent Christian denominations donot agree. The fundamentalist sets out toread the holy texts “to the letter”. Buthow is it possible that two people whoclaim to interpret a text literally shouldextract such disparate conclusions?How is it that a Jehovah's Witness anda fundamentalist Protestant or Catholiclives religion so differently? Why hasone text been interpreted differentlythroughout history? All reading is nowbeing interpretation. The son of a spe-cific culture, I am entering into a rela-tionship with a text from the past.Fundamentalists are not conscious ofthis reality.

Let us not defend here the idea thatevery interpretation should be valid.What we have to ask ourselves whenreading a sacred text is not so muchwhat it meant for ancient men –althoughthis can be of great interest– but, conti-nuing from this, what it means for us to-day. In the following point, we will fur-ther clarify this aspect.

2. We are more followers thanimitators of Jesus

Sometimes it can be very interestingto know what exactly Jesus wanted tosay to his disciples when He was prea-

ching. However, the more importantthing is what He wants to say to us to-day. To achieve this updating of themessage, it will be necessary to have anaccurate knowledge of the historicalcontext in which Jesus lived.

From Jesus' way of life we extractnot so much particular and detailednorms of conduct as inspiring principleswhich can guide our actions. Startingfrom these principles, perhaps we willelaborate some valid norms for our ti-me. The Sacrament of the Eucharist iscelebrated today in a different mannerfrom the way in which the firstChristians used to do it and also to theway it was done fifty years ago. The im-portant thing is not that it should be thesame or different but that the funda-mental message should be unchanging.What wishes to be expressed will adoptsymbols appropriate to every age,which point towards the same frame ofreference.

The fundamentalist imitates, and inimitating decontextualises. The Chris-tian takes the attitudes of Jesus and triesto put them into practice. But it is theSpirit that makes us see the message ofJesus in the light of the new times.Although it is not really a question ofmathematical problems, often the pro-blem is resolved using a kind of “rule ofthree”. If Jesus, in that time, acted in thisway, how must we ourselves act in ourtime? Thanks to the human sciences(history, sociology...) we know the his-torical context of Jesus and that of thepresent time, and we know how Jesus li-ved through the testimony of the apost-les. One example: if Jesus made pro-gress in His time in the valuation of

26

women, how must we value them today?The role of woman in society has chan-ged. Therefore, her function cannot be li-mited to what it had been in that time.

3. Symbolic language of religioustexts

We face an aspect that we cannotforget. Religion uses a symbolic lan-guage to convey some kind of transcen-dence. The symbol is used to make thatabstract concept visible. For example,the dove symbolises peace when itbrings an olive branch. The symbol al-ways has some characteristic of thatwhich it sets out to represent.

The fundamentalist believes that re-ligious language is similar to the scien-tific one. This is why he cannot unders-tand certain Biblical texts. The creationof Adam and Eve from the mud has ne-ver pretended to be a scientific fact, buta way of explaining that we are childrenof God and that man, not God, causesEvil.

Catechists sometimes use the imageof the white-bearded grandfather torepresent the goodness of God. It is asymbol. It would make no sense for achild to complain one day to his cate-chist because God does not have a be-ard. The adolescent who cannot recog-nise that people have been telling himabout God by means of symbols may re-act in two different ways: by rejectingthe faith because he does not believe ina God with a beard, or by believingblindly that God has a beard becausethis is what he has always been taught.This last is the fundamentalist. Neitherthe one nor the other has understood that

religious actions use symbolism to ex-press themselves. We see the two attitu-des present respectively in the atheismand fundamentalism of the last century.But the symbol is like a finger thatpoints to something further beyond it-self. As it has been said, “the fool is theone who stays looking at the finger”.

the fundamentalist believesthat religious language

is similar to the scientific one.This is why

he cannot understandcertain Biblical texts

The concept of God as Father is al-so analogical. We use it to spontane-ously infer what we want to say. TheChristian never considers himself to bea “son” in the physiological manner.The error of interpretation made by fun-damentalists is similar to that of thosewho would hold that God is a father ina physiological way because Jesus tea-ches the “Our Father”.

4. Contradictions withinthe same text

The Bible is made up of a great num-ber of books written by many differentauthors. It should not be surprising thatin a literal interpretation we find oppo-sing opinions here and there. The inter-pretation which seeks to base itself onthe literal meets with serious conflict.

27

For example, which is the real genea-logy of Jesus: the one presented to us byMatthew (Mt. 1. 1ss) or the vastly dis-cordant one proposed by Luke (Lc 3,23ss)? Taken literally, the Evangelistspresent a great many historical contra-dictions. But, from this viewpoint, theOld Testament and New Testament arealso irreconciliable: which should beheeded, the laws dictated to Moses orthe new guidelines of Jesus? MostChristians are aware of the pre-eminen-ce of the New Testament over the Oldone, as Jesus breaks with various tradi-tional laws. This means that we must notread the Old Testament to the letter, asit is necessary for us to interpret it in thelight of the New Testament and theResurrection. The story of the disciplesof Emmaus is exemplary: walking withthe risen Jesus they come to understandthe meaning of His life and of all theScriptures of the Old Testament. Theyleave aside interpretation in literal termsto carry it out in the light of the Spirit.

Some time ago, some friends of mi-ne who are Jehovah's Witnesses were

trying to convince me of the need tocomply fully with the Bible, and in a li-teral way besides. Finally, the only rea-soning that occurred to me for their re-buff was to ask them why they did notkeep the law of the Sabbath and manyothers present in the Bible, and urgethem to become Jews.

To conclude, we can say that the pre-sence of the Spirit in Christian theologyis of indispensable help in the struggleagainst fundamentalism. Jesus, beforeHis death, told His disciples that theywould understand all that was happe-ning later, in the light of the Resurrectionand with the help of the Spirit. And so thelife of Jesus only receives its full mea-ning after His Resurrection, and therefo-re, there is always a point “from which”to interpret things.

Besides, thanks to the Spirit, man,throughout history, has been developinghis understanding of the Revelation ma-de in Jesus. This is why the Gospels arenot dead texts, but works which theSpirit allows us to understand and applyto our particular world.

28

4.5. INTERFAITH DIALOGUE

The Christian has a fundamental rea-son to be tolerant: the example of ourGod. God tolerated evil when He mademan free. From the story of the Floodonward, God never undertakes to des-troy His people although they may turnagainst Him. But God, in Jesus, has

shown us the form in which He has cho-sen to confront intolerance: Jesus dyingon the cross27. He tolerates what seemsintolerable. His proposal, as radical as itis incomprehensible, is that of love forenemies. Jesus felt the temptation tomake use of power, fame and money

(the three temptations) to fight againstevil and restore the Kingdom. But Herejects coercive methods and choosesthe dialogue of love.

These coordinates define the idealplace from which to engage in dialoguewith other religions. Unfortunately, in-terfaith dialogue between Christianity,Islam and Judaism is, often, non-exis-tent. Fundamentalists will say that dia-logue is for the religion that thinks itselfweak, for those who are not convincedof their beliefs, and not for them. Theviewpoints are so remote from eachother that it is very difficult to make theeffort to put oneself in the place of theother person.

But the great hope is not to be foundin the dialogue of words. The great ho-pe is in dedication to the poor and inmysticism.

1. Work with the poorDedication to the most marginalised

people of society is a language that wecan all understand. It is something thatevery human being of any culture whodoes not seek to satisfy his own interestswill consider praiseworthy. The reli-gions find a point here at which they canunite. Most religious men and women inthe Maghrib attend to the neediest peo-ple. This is why they are profoundly lo-ved and esteemed by the people. Theyare testimonies to a real experience offaith.

Judaism constantly recalls attentionto the poorest people, especially or-phans and widows. Islam exacts from itsfaithful the “zakat” or obligatory dona-tion for the poor. This donation corres-

ponds with so much per cent of perso-nal income. Christianity has the exam-ple of Jesus who gives life to the con-cept of charity (agape). Charity is thelove borne to such an extent for thosewho have less than ourselves that we gi-ve them all that we have: we give upanything that the other does not have. Itis sharing in its entirety. Finally, thenon-believer will also always apprecia-te all this commitment and generosity.The paradigm of the French Revolutionhas supplied him with the ideals ofequality and fraternity.

And so in the work for justice, forthe poor and marginalised, Jews, Mus-lims, Christians and non-believers cannot only understand each other, but willalso even be able to collaborate toge-ther.

2. MysticismMysticism is the other great hope.

But, who is the mystic? It is not the per-son who stays in the Tabor or who livesaway and separate from the world in or-der to concentrate only on God. It is theone who sees reality with “the eyes ofGod”. Mystics of all religions, howevermuch they sometimes emphasise as-pects peculiar to their own religion, un-derstand each other, speak the same lan-guage: that of the love of God. As allmystics rise towards God, and God isOne, they all look at the world in a si-milar way. God, the Alpha and theOmega, the beginning and the end, uni-tes in Himself all creation and all thosewho come close to Him. One mystic un-derstands another mystic because theyplace themselves in the same viewpoint:

29

that of God. This is why prayer mee-tings between members of different re-ligions are not difficult and, indeed, arevery beneficial. At the same time theydo not descend into fundamentalism be-cause they acknowledge bitterly the dis-tance that still separates them from God.

True mystics are enormously gene-rous people, because they have un-derstood from God what is important.Their desire is placed solely in God28.For this reason they live poorly anddistribute all they have amongst thosewho most need it.

The mystics of all religions unders-tand each other because they all seek todiminish the importance of the institu-tions by which their religion is conve-yed. They often pay for this attitude bybeing considered heretics. They see inthe Institution not an end but a means toreach God. They do not despise it butvalue it, and greatly. But they value it asa medium, and only as such.

We can conclude, therefore, thatwhen we are capable of living our livesmystically we will no longer need totalk of tolerance.

30

31

NOTES

1. I follow Rogeli Armengol, “El fundamentalis-mo de las personas y de los grupos humanos”,in: Enrique de la Lama, En defensa de la tole-rancia: crítica de los Fundamentalismos, ed.Llar del Llibre, Barcelona, 1994.

2. Rogeli Armengol, p. 13.3. On the history of Protestant fundamentalism,

see: Jean Paul Willaime, “El fonamentalismeProtestant” in: El fonamentalisme, ed. Cruïlla,Barcelona 1994, p. 31-45.

4. See “Silabus o corrección de los erroresmodernos” in: E. Denzinger, El magisterio dela Iglesia, trans. D. Ruíz Bueno, ed. Herder,Barcelona 1963, n. 1700ss.

5. See “Juramento contra los errores del moder-nismo” in: E. Denzinger nº 2145ss.

6. T. Kuhn, The structure of scientific revolu-tions, trans. A. Contín, F.C.E. Madrid 1982,pp. 224-246.

7. The term is from Eriksson, Infancia y socie-dad, Hormé, Buenos Aires 1973, quoted inHortal, A. Ética, 1. Los autores y sus circuns-tanciasi, Pontifical University of Comillas,Madrid 1994 p. 61.

8. M. Corbí, La religió que ve, Claret 1991, p. 169. Cfr. M. Corbí, p. 28.10. Cfr. Hegel, Fenomenología del Espíritu, vol.

I, ch. IV. SS 10, 11, 12.11. El Corán, trans. J. Cortés, ed. Herder,

Barcelona 1992.12. María Teresa de Borbón Parma, Magreb:

Nuestro Poniente Próximo, ed. Libertarias,Madrid 1994, p. 33 ss.

13. Regarding the tolerance of Islam, the bestthing is to turn towards Sufi mysticism. Agood introduction is Emilio Galindo's article,

“El sufismo, corazón del Islam”, p. 41-60, ed.Popular, Madrid 1992.

14. For a comprehensive analysis of Islamicthought throughout history as well as an abun-dant bibliography, see: M. Cruz-Hernández,Historia del pensamiento islámico, vol. I, II,III, ed. Alianza, Madrid 1996.

15. For an understanding of the relationship bet-ween the concepts of Ijtihad (effort at inter-pretation) and jihad (poorly translated as“holy war”) see: Emilio Galindo, El Islam alfinal del siglo XX, ed. SM, Madrid 1996, pp.34-37.

16. See M. Corbí, La religió que ve, ed. Claret,Barcelona 1991, p. 190ss.

17. To know what these ninety-nine names are,see: Jacques Jomier, Para conocer el Islam,trans. Alfonso Ortiz García, ed. Verbo divino,Estella 1989, p. 41. We recommend this workfor all who desire a good, clear and pedagogi-cal introduction to Islam.

18. Cristóbal Cuevas, El pensamiento del Islam,ed. Istmo, Madrid 1972, p. 105. On the num-ber one hundred: Robert Caspar, Para unavisión cristiana del Islam, Sal Terrae,Santander 1995. Trans. R. Sanchis Cueto p.103: “En cuanto al número cien de esa lista,sería el secreto nombre de Dios”.

19. On the vision of Jesus and Mary in Islam:Robert Caspar, Para una visión cristiana delIslam, Sal Terrae, Santander 1995. Trans.Ricardo Sanchis Cueto. If you prefer the sametheme addressed through Muslim apologeticswith a complete collection of Koranic texts,see: Dr Maneh Hammad Al Johani, Jesús en elIslam, ed. Centro Islámico en España, Madrid1991. Trans. A. Maher Safi.

20. “Bula Unam Sanctam” in E. Denzinger, Elmagisterio de la Iglesia, ed. Herder,Barcelona 1963, n° 468.

21. See: P. Chalmeta, Invasión e islamización, ed.Mafre, Madrid 1994, p. 215-216.

22. On the psychological causes of fundamenta-lism, see: Víctor Hernández, Fundamentalis-mo, narcisismo y psicosis, in E. de Lama “Endefensa de la tolerancia”.

23. For a thought-provoking and pleasant-to-readcomparative study of Judaism, Christianityand Islam, from the viewpoint of the evalua-tion of the thought of each one, see: KarenArmstrong, Una historia de Dios, ed. Paidós,Barcelona 1995, trans. R. Alfonso DíezAragón.

24. With regard to this, a surprising study wascarried out which showed that the death rate ofMoroccan immigrants to France is lower thanthat of the French themselves. See: YoussefCourbage, “La mortalité et les causes de décès

des Marocains en France 1979-1991” in:Population, Revue bimetrielle de l'Institutnational d'Études démographiques, 50eannée, Janvier-Février 1995, numéro 1.

25. A theory very much present in Habermas. Forexample, in Teoría de la acción comunicativa,ed. Cátedra, Madrid 1994, p. 154ss, trans.Manuel Jiménez Redondo.

26. In my concept of interpretation I follow H. G.Gadamer, Verdad y método, ed. Sígueme,Salamanca 1991, trans. A. Agud Aparicio.

27. On Jesus and tolerance, see: Máxim Muñoz,“Tolerancia y experiencia cristiana de Dios,”in La tolerancia, Revista Sal Terrae, June1995, vol. 83/6 (no. 980), Santander.

28. Very rich in ideas is C. Vega's article on Sufimysticism, “La cara oculta del Islam: los mís-ticos sufíes” in: Conocer el Islam, Revista SalTerrae, May 1996, vol. 84/5 (n. 990)Santander.

32