Contemporary Uses of the Golden Rule of Reciprocity in Abrahamic Interfaith Discourses (original) (raw)
Related papers
Right from the beginnings of its association with the name «Golden Rule», the moral principle of reciprocity was significantly used in moral arguments dealing with political decisions. Thomas Hobbes, one of the earliest authors using the Golden Rule as a political argument, argued that Christians of his time did not make enough effort to place themselves in the position of a non-Christian person. Early modern theologians remained preoccupied by the confessional rivalries at the core of the theologico-political projects of the theocratic-like states. Philosophers like Locke, Leibniz, Clarke, Kant, were fully aware of the unwanted consequences of the application of the Golden Rule principle in regulating social behavior. Kierkegaard represents an early example of the willingness to eliminate the social or political predominance in the application of the Golden Rule. Globalization and multiculturalism, in the 20th and 21st century marked the beginning of a return to a Golden Rule of compassion, as originally stated by the sacred texts of each great monotheism.
The Golden Rule in Islam: Ethics of Reciprocity in Islamic Traditions
The ethics of reciprocity, known as the “golden rule,” is any moral dictum that encourages people to treat others the way they would like to be treated. The principle exists in the sacred texts of the world’s religions as well as the writings of secular philosophers. Due to its ubiquity in many contexts, it has become an important focal point for interfaith dialogue and the development of international human rights norms. Islam, as a world religion with over one billion followers, has an important role to play in facilitating dialogue and cooperation with other groups in the modern world. The golden rule in Islamic traditions has been explicitly invoked by numerous Muslim leaders and organizations towards this end. This study examines the phenomenological appearance of the golden rule in Islamic texts and modern interfaith dialogue with Muslims. Sources include the Qur’ān, Ḥadīth traditions, exegetical commentaries, extracanonical or apocryphal literature, and contemporary works. Sections are organised by genre of literature and are loosely chronological. Key interpretive points from the classical period are related to modern interfaith initiatives and universal human rights, with a view of demonstrating the ways in which the classical heritage informs the experiences of Muslims today.
Toward the Construction of a Post-Shoah Interfaith Dialogical Universal Ethic
Zygon?, 2003
The essay is an attempt to construct a new interfaith dialogical universal ethic after the Holocaust/Shoah, after first examining several biblical passages of both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, namely Leviticus 19:13-18; Matthew 22:34-40; Matthew 5:43-48; and Luke 10:25-37. The author contends that the foundational Jewish and Christian scriptural texts can no longer be read, understood, and either interpreted or reinterpreted the way they were prior to the events of 1933-1945. Thus, following an examination of the scriptural passages in question, a new direction in the construction of such an ethic is suggested: that the only kind of holiness that merits our support is one grounded in ethical relations between all human beings, regardless of particularistic identities, and scriptural support for positions that exclude and distance rather than include and embrace must, ultimately, be rejected.
PEACEMAKING_AMONG_THE_ABRAHAMIC_FAITHS.pdf
In his book, Between Eden and Armageddon: The Future of World Religions, Violence, and Peacemaking, Marc Gopin suggests that: "There have always been exclusive religious visions of a peaceful world. Never before in history, however, have so many leaders and adherents been inspired to work for a truly inclusive vision that is multicultural and multireligious." i Do you think something historically new is happening in the area of interreligious dialogue today? I can't speak about what is going on outside of intraAbrahamic dialogue, but as far as interrelations among Muslims, Jews, and/or Christians, I don't think we've had an effort like this before. As far as inter-religious dialogue, it is a new epoch. Call it the third one.
Reviews in religion and theology, 2019
The aim of this rich and complex interdisciplinary handbook is 'to contribute to the emergence and development of the comparative study of the Abrahamic religions' (p. xiii). The editors of the volume, Adam Silverstein from Bar Ilan University and Guy Stroumsa and Moshe Blidstein (general editor), both from Hebrew University in Jerusalem, have collected authoritative studies both critical and supportive on the very concept of the Abrahamic religions focusing on a variety of topics dealing comparatively with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: 'Underpinning is the assumption that there is something to be gained from studying these religious traditions together' (p. xiii). The assumptions are that there is a common set of questions about God and his world what brings both, on the hand, the Abrahamic religions together and, on the other hand, distinguishes them from each other as to their answers to these questions. For the editors, the point of comparative study of the Abrahamic religions is 'to illuminate our understanding of each individual religion by situating it appropriately in its spiritual, social, and historic context(s)' (p. xv). It is not too early to say that this eager goal is achieved: thirty-two contributions engage in the subject from different angles, focusing, firstly, on the histories, examinations, and criticisms of the very concept of the Abrahamic religions, and moving, secondly, to the historic perspective on the interactions between Jewish, Christian, and Islamic communities. The third part explores issues central to the practice and thought of all three religions, such as the value of scripture and its interpretations throughout history, while the fourth turns to issues of religious thought and philosophy, particularly discussing the great thinkers of the Abrahamic religions in the Middle Ages. Part Five focuses on comparisons and interactions in the realm of praxis and ethics, and the concluding Part Six comprises three epilogues compiled by authoritative theologians from the viewpoint of each of the religions, namely, Peter Ochs, David Ford, and Tariq Ramadan. There are a number of underlying themes discussed and a variety of problems tackled throughout the book. Many contributions in the first chapters of the handbook discuss, though from different angles, the key problems of the authenticity of Abraham, the Abrahamic religion(s) or
Comparing the Golden Rule in Hindu and Christian Religious Texts
Studies in Religion / Sciences Religieuses, 2013
This article compares the oldest Hindu versions of the Golden Rule found in the Mahabharata with those in the gospels. What may the Hindu texts, which usually receive little attention, contribute to the understanding of the New Testament rendi-tions? Methodologically the article draws from Clooney's Comparative Theology and Moyaert's approach of hermeneutical hospitality. In the Hindu texts the rule is understood in terms of ahimsa (non-violence). This seems to be close to Luke's version, in which the maxim is closely connected with the appeal to love one's enemies. The Mahabharata, however, reveals also the maxim's potency to use reciprocity as a strategy for making peace. So, the reciprocity stressed in Matthew is also important.
The ethical traditions of Judaism and Islam-as of Christianity-are the adornments of these faiths, or rather part of their essential natures, for these are religions characterized as representatives of ethical monotheism. God's concern for the welfare of His creatures is reflected in the commandments urging them toward ethical behavior. This behavior is "ethical" in that it conforms, mostly, to standards which we deem to be such, standards which are implicit in the Bible and the Qur'an. There is, after all, no formal or explicit investigation of the nature of the good in these sacred writings. When Cain asks God, "Am I my brother's keeper?"^ the Lord does not deign to answer the question directly. It is understood that man has certain obligations toward his fellowman, even as God is regarded as Creator, sustainer, and judge of all living beings. The underprivileged in society are of particular concern to the God of the Bible, and it is toward them-toward the poor, the orphaned, the widowed, and the outsider-that divine compassion is often explicitly addressed.^ Scripture legislates various ways for society to provide for the disadvantaged and dispossessed, both allocating to them certain rights in the fields of others more fortunate,*^ and envisioning the restoration of their entire patrimony in the Jubilee year.^ The concept of the Jubilee perhaps best expresses the biblical ideal ethic, a view of society in which the wrongs of the past-the failures, the inequities, the enslavements-are redressed, and all people in the House of Israel are allowed to begin over again, on a sound and equal economic footing: "And you shall proclaim liberty throughout the land, to all its inhabitants."T he Pentateuch does not, however, wait for the Jubilee year to implement its ethical vision, even it if must compromise, as it were, with its ideal in legislating for a normative reality. Thus slavery, injustices, and inequalities of various sorts are accepted as a fact of life, harsh realities which Mosaic legislation attempts merely to mitigate.' The prophets are not prepared to tolerate what others would have seen simply as an imperfect society, and they inveigh against the evils they perceive as momentous and ubiquitous, on both social, economic, and political levels. Their uncompromising attitude led them inexorably toward apocalyptic and messianic visions, fearsomely militant constructions of an ultimate reckoning in which the ethical as well as ideational components of the faith emerge triumphant. As the Qur'an indicates, the Prophet of Islam was initially drawn to the apocalyptic motif, the imminence of yawm al-din, the Day of Judgment.® Proper behavior as well as confession of belief in the One God were the conditions stipulated for inclusion among those to be saved and rewarded in Paradise. As Muhammad's mission succeeded, the social ethic received more detailed attention, and normative relations for the community were spelled out in
STUDIES IN INTERRELIGioUS DIALGGUE 12 2 ؛2002( should all feel comfortable. The second, and related, reason seems to be the desire to address other factors that unite these three religions, beyond their common belief in one God. Reference to the three religions as 'Abrahamic' provides a sense of common history, or at least common story, and a common spiritual paternity. Based on this common paternity, the three religions should be classified together not only on accoimt of their interrelated history of dialogue, dispute. Nor support and competition, primarily in the West, for nearly a millennium and a half. It is not only theologically that they are similar, as 'monotheistic' might suggest. Rather, by classifying them as 'Abrahamic' the suggestion is made that the three religions form a family within the wider body of humanity's religions. Consequently, the three religions can be spoken of as 'Children of Abraham'.' The establishment of this family relationship does not stem so much from a history-of-religions type enquiry but from the implied understanding that both past behavior and the call for better future behavior in their mutaal relations should be appreciated in light of the recognition of a family relationship. In an atmosphere of interfaith cooperation, the designation 'Abrahamic' emerges carrying within it the suggestion not only of a shared story, but also of an ideal harmonious relationship that should characterize adherents of the three faiths, emanating, as it were, from a common branch.