MINDFULNESS & WISDOM 5: THE PLACE OF WISDOM IN THE ISLAMIC TRADITION

At Christchurch, Clarendon Park, for the fifth session in the course, "Mindfulness & Wisdom", offered by Christians Aware as part of their Faith Awareness programme. The eight-week course has been devised by Ian Grayling and Kevin Commons from the Leicester Serene Reflection Meditation Group.

Our topic this evening: "The Place of Wisdom in the Islamic Tradition", presented by Freda Hussain MBE. Freda is retired Head Teacher at Moat Community College and former Lord Lieutenant of Leicestershire. Her presentation is peppered with illuminating quotations about the significance of wisdom in the Islamic tradition and the importance of knowledge and learning:

"Acquire knowledge, it enables its possessor to distinguish right from wrong. It is our friend in the desert, our company in solitude and companion when friendless. It guides us to happiness, it sustains us in misery, it is an ornament amongst friends and our armour against enemies." (from Hadith - a compilation of sayings ascribed to the Prophet Muhammad)

"A Muslim who plants a tree or sows a field, from which man, birds and animals can eat is committing an act of charity." (Hadith)

"Who are the learned? Those who practise what they know." (Hadith)

"No man is a true believer unless the desires for his brethren, that which he desires for himself." (Hadith)

"There is no greater wealth than wisdom; no greater poverty than ignorance" (from sayings of Imam Ali)

"The teacher who is wise indeed does not bid you into the house of wisdom, but rather leads you to the threshold of your own mind." (Kahlil Gibran)

Our speaker briefly but helpfully discusses the Sufi thread in Islamic thought and culture and how Sufi poetry expresses the wisdom born from that tradition, which is inseparably linked with spiritual yearning and religious ecstasy.

When we do small group work for 20 minutes or so, we're tasked with thinking of a question to put to our speaker. I don't think that even this group is familiar enough with the kind of Islam which has been described this evening to do that. Many of those attending find it hard to reconcile the contemporary image of Islam with the one which Freda has described this evening. She understands this all too well and acknowledges it as the tragedy of modern Islam.

One interesting question is whether there is an movement or stream of thought within the Islamic world comparable to the Sea of Faith Network. Our speaker says that she doubts it.

Freda differentiates between modern Islamist thinking, which appears to revolve around the fear of God, with Sufi thinking, which revolves around the love of God. In this connection, she quotes another saying from the Hadith: "The ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr."

The authoritative, canonical nature of Hadith seem always to be in dispute. As fashions and passions change, so certain sayings can be ruled in or out, giving backing to different worldviews.

We discuss the apparent equivalence of knowledge and wisdom in the quotations used this evening. These are two distinct terms in Arabic ('ilm and hikmat) which are occasionally conflated when translated into English. But over and above these, Freda emphasises the inseparable relation between faith (iman) and action (aman).

KNOWING AND RESPECTING THE BELIEFS OF OTHERS

Allan Hayes's First Person column appears in today's  Leiceester Mercury:

Knowing and respecting the beliefs of others

Allan Hayes, of Leicester Secular Society, looks forward positively to 2012

The New Year looks hopeful for the improvement of relations between religions and beliefs. In the past year much more effort has been put into trying to understand one another, into working together and creating an idea of humanity that we can all share and contribute to – what Giles Fraser in this week's Sunday programme called a "big story". This does not mean that serious differences will not be discussed robustly and frankly – they must be – what it does mean is that they will be discussed more in a spirit of co-operation, contribution and accommodation rather than combat and confrontation.

At bottom it means that we will meet one another as people to be respected and listened to. I find that some of the people I now most look forward to meeting again are ones with beliefs different from mine – there is a deep pleasure in sharing humanity.

Here are some recent personal highlights:

A "Challenging RE!" day, with 200 secondary school pupils at Holy Trinity Church was a revelation – young people from a all backgrounds sharing views about what mattered to them; a visit to Gateway school organised by St Philip's Centre during which I was vigorously challenged about my beliefs by pupils; exchanges of views at the Leicestershire Interfaith Forum at County Hall; several events organised by Muslim groups; talking to St Philip's Christian-Muslim discussion group and their subsequent visit to the Secular Hall; the continuing and rewarding involvement with Christians Aware; a very pleasant visit to the Gujarat centre in Preston. Probably the most demanding work, but in many ways the most useful and rewarding, was the preparation of a display on humanism at the invitation of a local primary school.

Two books should be mentioned as looking for understanding and mutual benefit: the first one, out in a few weeks, Religion for Atheists, by Alain de Botton (himself an atheist), tells us that religions are good at some things to do with life and, rather cheekily, that atheists should steal from them. It goes some way to meeting my criticism that humanism needs to be more human – a view that came home to me very much in designing the humanist display referred to above.

The second one by the Vicar of the University Church, Oxford, Canon Brian Mountford is entitled Christian Atheist: it is very sympathetically dealt with in a Westminster Abbey sermon by the Rev Robert Reiss, Canon in Residence; it is of great interest to me as a trustee of the Sea of Faith Network, many members of which might accept the description "Christian Atheist".

Some people may find these developments disturbing. I suggest that they need not: for the more we know and respect one another as people the more we can respect one another's choices of belief. So, things are looking up – but do please think about the effect of faith schools.

This emphasis on religion can prove divisive

Here's the latest First Person column written by Allan Hayes, published in today's Leicester Mercury:

This emphasis on religion can prove divisive

Allan Hayes, of Leicester Secular Society, makes a plea to the Church of England

On numerous occasions recently I have been heartened by the humanity of people from many faiths and backgrounds (I'll come to my serious worries later): I gave an invited talk to the Christian/Muslim discussion group at St Philips; took part in a presentation by a fellow humanist to Loughborough Council of Faiths; attended a farewell party for a clergyman whom I have known and respected for many years; had the privilege of saying a few words at the launch of a book compiled by a leading Leicester Muslim; I was grateful for generous provision of free space in St Martin's Centre [sic] for the use of Leicester City of Sanctuary (which is not a faith organisation). I have just been invited to speak to a local Muslim community.

All these point to a wish to understand, to get on with, and to value one another as people. The same drive has been evident in other ways: Leicester Secular Society meetings have had speakers from a variety of religious backgrounds; the recent British Humanist Association conference was on the meaning of life and one talk was entitled "What has religion got that we haven't?"; I have been closely involved in the preparation of the Sea of Faith conference taking place at Leicester University this weekend (SoF is a national organisation with members ranging over all the religion/belief spectrum); a week ago I was at a conference in London with humanist, Muslim, and Christian speakers on religion in public life.

For the last eight years I have been the humanist representative on the Leicester Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education, Sacre (this body is responsible for religious education in Leicester state schools, apart from a few faith schools). This has led to many interesting conversations including ones at local and national meetings of RE teachers.

Plenty of evidence then that things are going well: so, what worries me?

I am worried by the prospect of division arising from Government policy: the handing over of significant parts of our school system and public services, to religious bodies; the lack of recognition that at least half of the population chooses not to belong to a religion and does not believe in God, over-emphasis on religious identity, and the privileged consultation accorded some religious organisations.

The Church of England's historical presence and privilege has provided a basis for this state of affairs, and its present institutional policies aimed at maintaining its position, particularly by using schools, have encouraged and legitimised the claims of others. A new accommodation is needed.

I know that some will interpret the preceding remarks as an attack on religion; I hope that the earlier part of this article will go some way to dispelling this impression, and I ask them to join in constructing a human ethos and political vision that will include all our contributions and enable us to go forward together.

BELIEVERS AND ATHEISTS ARE HAVING DIALOGUE

Here's Allan Hayes's First Person column from today's Leicester Mercury:

 

Believers and atheists are having dialogue

In his column last week, Bishop Tim wrote: "I long for the time when people of faith and committed atheists do not feel the need to insult each other or to accuse each other of holding a particular position because of some inadequacy." That time is now, and it has been here for many years: atheist and religious people have been having amicable and constructive discussions in Leicester and nationally for a long time. I am surprised that he seems unaware of this.

I would welcome a public discussion with him. Nothing shows better the need for such discussion than his later remark:

"It was Shakespeare who wrote in Macbeth of life as 'a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'. That, I suppose, sums up the atheist position."

"Told by an idiot": Is this not a little insulting?

A wonderful opportunity is to hand: the bishop would be very welcome to attend, and even run a workshop at, the coming national Sea of Faith Conference to be held at Leicester University (July 22 to 24, www.sofn.org.uk). He would meet some very agreeable and non-insulting atheists (I happen myself to be a trustee and local convener for the network); some of them would be Christians.

But what does being an atheist tell us about a person? Does it imply that he or she is not a good person? Of course not – I am sure that the Bishop will agree with this.

As for meaning – Bishop Tim is concerned about this – well, I think that we make meaning for ourselves and for one another. At 78 years of age with children and grandchildren and a wonderful world, my life is full of meaning and I still have much to do and be remembered for.

And, making more use of Shakespeare, this time from Hamlet: I am free of "the dread of something after death, the undiscover'd country from whose bourn no traveller returns".

The Sea of Faith Network, now a national organisation with international connections, is in fact a local product – another example, along with the Secular Society, of Leicester radicalism. It was conceived in a pub in Barrow-on-Soar in 1987 by a group of (mainly) Anglican clergy. Most of its annual conferences have been at Leicester University. Controversial from the start, with its assertion that "religion is a human creation" it has stood for a more open attitude towards the exploration of theological issues.

I prefer to describe myself as a humanist, committed to the welfare of humanity and the view that we are solely responsible for our own well-being and future: I am a trustee of the national body, the British Humanist Association.

Think before you answer the faith question

The "First Person" column in today's Leicester Mercury is written by Allan Hayes, on the topic of the Census - more specifically, the religion question. Those of you who have read the entry about Allan's presentation on the Mindfulness and Morality course will recognise a few elements from this article as having featured in the dilemma Allan gave us that evening.

Think before you answer the faith question

Allan Hayes, of the Leicester Secular Society, says one part of the census form is not fit for purpose

Concern about the question "What is your religion?" on the census form is fully justified. Given that the answers are to be used to determine public policy and resource allocation over the next 10 years or more it is clearly unfit for purpose – but we are stuck with it and we have to do what we can. Why is it unfit for purpose?

For example, what do you say if you have a religion but have doubts, possibly severe, about faith schools? You know that if you put down your religion then your answer will be used to argue for faith schools. Since the majority of people in this country do have such doubts this will not be an unusual situation.

And education is not the only political issue that is being entangled with religion. This is serious. Another issue: what does having a religion mean? Other surveys show that most of those who say they have a religion are not practising it – they incline toward it, if asked; and the way the question is put in the census encourages this sort of quick response. In view of this, the request "If you're not religious for God's sake say so" is a quite reasonable one. There is no way on this census form in which you can specify how you wish your answer to this question to be used – we must each deal with the problem in our own way.

On past evidence the figure for those who say they have a religion, however tenuously, will be used by religious organisations to make quite exaggerated claims to support for their policies and interests. This is not the way to make lasting decisions that affect our society.

There is a bright side to this – we are talking to one another more – about how to live together and about wider topics. In the last week or so I have had the great pleasure of talking to Christians Aware about humanist approaches to morality, and to the Leicester Sea of Faith Network about a non-religious approach to Jesus. I shall be talking to the Turkish Society about secularism in few weeks' time and have offered to talk to St Philip's Centre. In the other direction, the Secular Society has had talks from a canon of the Cathedral about Northern Ireland, from a leading Muslim academic on British Secularism and Religion, and from a Catholic husband and wife couple on the work they were doing in Africa – and, yes, there have been talks from a Hindu, a Sikh and a Creationist.

Of course I am biased, but it does look as if the Leicester Secular Society is emerging as a major organiser of meetings about issues of importance – please see: http://www.lsec.org.uk/

Read this article on the Mercury website, along with reader comments:
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/Think-answer-faith-question/article-3324873-detail/article.html

MINDFULNESS & MORALITY 5: CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE

At Christchurch, Clarendon Park, for the fifth session in the course on Mindfulness & Morality, offered by Christians Aware as part of their Faith Awareness programme. This 12-week course has been devised by Ian Grayling and Kevin Commons from the Leicester Serene Reflection Meditation Group.

It's a Christian presentation this evening, led by Janet Perry, an Elder at the Friends Meeting House, Queens Road and a Spiritual Director of Leicester Diocese (that's Janet on the right in the photo above, laughing it up with Carol Sourbutts).

Janet expresses surprise that a Quaker has been asked to handle the Christian presentation, as Quakers are not exactly mainstream.  She spends some time near the start of the session highlighting the points where Quaker belief and practice converge and diverge from a more generic understanding of Christianity. The openness of Quakers attracts all sorts. Currently in Leicester there are Buddhist Quakers, Hindu Quakers, Jewish Quakers; Janet identifies herself as a Christian Quaker. She opens the meeting proper by reading from John's Gospel:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

This is the theology of the incarnation: describing that which is of God in all of us. Janet calls this the Quaker gospel. Everyone has direct access to God through that which is of God in all of us. There's no need of church, of clergy, of "leaders".

For Quakers, the only authority is the Spirit - not the Bible, not any spiritual leader or teacher. They follow a step-by-step process of discernment that enables Quakers to identify and test out promptings of the Spirit. She illustrates this by describing a 22-year long process by which the Quaker community in this country arrived at a collective commitment to the celebration and recording of same-sex marriages. This process requires considerable discipline, recognising where the Spirit is leading - which may not be where the individual hopes or wants it to go (this caused us to reflect on some of the things we'd discussed in session 2, regarding being able to comprehend a higher level of moral judgement).

Quakers enjoy a paradoxical blend of living as primitive Christians did, in continuous consciousness of the presence of the Spirit and of living eschatologically, aware of this as the "end time". The Kingdom of God is here and now. There's not much emphasis on heaven, a world beyond or some kind of afterlife. Quakers make their commitment to God, to social action, to integrity and now, to the Earth. This is in keeping with what Janet considers distinctive about Christianity: an emphasis on social justice; bias to the poor and marginalised; emphasis on self-sacrifice; availability of redemption to all people - indeed, to all creation. Janet referred to the friends' Peace Testimony to Charles II on the restoration of the monarchy in 1660.

"We utterly deny all outward wars and strife and fightings with outward weapons, for any end, or under any pretence whatsoever; and this is our testimony to the whole world. The spirit of Christ, by which we are guided, is not changeable, so as once to command us from a thing as evil and again to move unto it; and we do certainly know, and so testify to the world, that the spirit of Christ, which leads us into all Truth, will never move us to fight and war against any man with outward weapons, neither for the kingdom of Christ, nor for the kingdoms of this world."

Not until World War I did this bring Quakers into conflict with the State, when conscription was introduced. Quakers had to make individual decisions about their response to conscription. Some would have chosen to fight. Others would have chosen to serve in a non-combatant capacity. Others still would have had an absolutist objection to conscription.

Having set the context, Janet gives us our moral dilemma.

Jennifer's dilemma

Jennifer's best friend Ann has a chronic life-limiting illness, which she has suffered from some time. She no longer wants to live and plans to end her life in the Dignitas Clinic, Switzerland, some time in the near future. Ann is reluctant to ask family members to accompany her. Jennifer wonders if Ann will ask her.

We break into small groups to discuss this, before coming back as the whole room to share what we've thought and said about it. Contributions are plentiful enough to ensure that we run well over our normal finishing time. This week's dilemma is deceptively complex. One person in our group complains that there's not enough information for us to be able to respond properly. Of course, the more gaps there are, the more we feel we need to bring by ourselves and of ourselves, in order to fill in those gaps. We may not realise we're doing this, but we'll do it all the same. Most people don't like gaps.

Are we thinking about the dilemma from the viewpoint of the "faith of the week", from that of our own faith - or from none?

We don't know what Jennifer thinks of Ann's plan. Is she pro or anti? Does she actually want Ann to ask her? Or is she afraid that she will?

Should Jennifer inform Ann's family? Can we assume that Ann's family actually know what she intends to do?

We have to ask why Ann is reluctant to ask any members of her family to accompany her. If it's to spare them the emotional burden, why would she want to put this on her best friend? Similarly, what if it's to spare her family any legal repercussions? Or maybe she just doesn't want anyone to accompany her. If Ann is concerned that family members will try and talk her out of her plan, does she know that Ann won't try and do the same?

A Quaker would be advised never to condemn someone's hard decision bravely taken. The emphasis is on compassion and love.

If Jennifer is a Quaker, she could ask for a "Clearness Meeting" as an individual, spending some time trying to clarify make her path ahead. A meeting is not a discussion or debate. It depends on silence just as much as on speech, on listening as much as talking.

We discuss the difference between Quakers following their four-step process of discernment and Buddhists sitting with the problem and Christians praying for guidance and/or intervention. "Discernment" as it's being discussed this evening can be read as "mindfulness".

Some Quakers are members of the Sea of Faith Network, which adopts a non-realist position on the existence of God - what would they say it is then that they're "discerning"?

UNITED EFFORT TO SOLVE PROBLEMS IN OUR SOCIETY

Alan Hayes has written the First Person column in today's Leicester Mercury:

 

United efforts to solve problems in our society

In the fourth article to mark Inter Faith Week, humanist Allan Hayes makes the case for secularism

It is very welcome that this first National Inter Faith Week aims "to increase understanding between people of religious and non-religious belief". Both sides have much to contribute. There have been encouraging developments in Leicestershire this year: the city's new religious education syllabus includes humanism, and both city and county Standing Advisory Councils on Religious Education (SACREs) now have humanist representatives. The Secondary Student's RE conference, aimed at forming a Student RE Council, was a stimulating experience with students from all backgrounds getting to know one another, and humanists and the non-religious generally were urged to join the council. But we need to go beyond understanding, to working together on the problems that we see in our society.

Leicester Secular Society, founded in 1851, is the oldest secular society in the world; it arose in the 19th century from the struggles, shared with non-conformists, Jews and Catholics, for freedom of belief, education and expression, and for democracy and equal respect – often, it must be said, against the Established Church. The notable tolerance of our country is due in large part to such struggles, as are the Human Rights Declarations and our recent equality legislation.

The society's vision combines secularism, emphasising equality and separation of state and religion, and humanism, emphasising a view of life based solely on humanity, with a fierce defence of free thought; it has a long tradition of dialogue and engagement with others; its talks, discussions and social events, are open to all.

Many of our concerns and interests are shared with people in the religions: the Sea of Faith Network studies and promotes religious faith "as a human construct"; the Accord Coalition, including Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews and Humanists, is concerned about division and discrimination in our educational system; the think-tank Ekklesia wishes to see separation of state and religion.

We must guard against being blindly divided by religious/non-religious classifications.

Secularism protects the right to belong to a religion, the right not to belong to one, and the right to get on with our life without such a classification. It encourages co-operation by removing the possibility that the state will take sides. The American and Indian constitutions are both secular.

Humanism, by viewing humanity as our own responsibility, and religions and beliefs as our own creations, allows us to be proud of what we have achieved and draw on all our experience; and by seeing ourselves as one humanity and part of the natural world it urges us to care for one another and join in protecting our planet. We will have different, sometimes conflicting, views, but we must offer friendship and goodwill in making a better life for all.

Allan Hayes is president of Leicester Secular Society