Have your say 

This is your opportunity to share your experiences, feelings, thoughts and opinions.

You have a chance to post your own stories.  Email your story to info@toleranceinternational.org.uk  

In the meantime, please read the narratives below for different points of view.  

A Trinity of Faith. By Martin Corner

My Dress Code as a Muslim Woman. By Muna Ahmed

Two women from two 'peoples': English and Gazan pensioners

About being a member of a minority. By Howard Anderson

Tolerance and Peace. By Pete Knight

A Trinity of Faith 
Dr. Marin Corner

How should a Christian ‘think’ about the relationship between Christianity and Islam? The familiar approaches are historical or comparative: in school we learn something of the origins and development of Islam and in inter-faith encounters something of the ways in which Islamic belief is like our own and different from our own. All that is important. Ignorance is a great barrier to understanding and a real danger. But the historical-comparative does not amount to a theological understanding of the relationship. Despite the efforts of Christian theologians such as Karl Rahner and Hans Küng, and the attention given to the meaning of Islam in the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, on a popular level little has changed. Most Christians have little idea of where, for them, Islam stands in the history of faith. Muslims have gone further in this respect than Christians. Later revelations are generally forced to theologise their antecedents, and so Muslims have a theological understanding of Christianity. For them it is a faith grounded in the true teaching of the Messiah, Jesus, a prophet of God, but requiring the revelation of Islam to correct its later corruption. Most Christians are now ready to agree (with John Paul II, among others) that Islam offers a path to God. But how it does that, and how that path can be consistent with the centrality of Christ, is rarely worked out. At this stage the great irreconcilables begin to loom: the divinity of Christ on the one hand, and the God-spoken authority of the Quran on the other. Christian approaches to Islam often start from the recognition that Judaism, Christianity and Islam all trace their origin to the faith of Abraham; but again, this needs to be taken in more than a historical sense. We need to understand that this common origin carries a theological significance that can help Christians to locate Islam within the history of revelation. To deal with all this is the work of a generation, not a short essay. But I recently came across something that seemed to be a clue. At a multi-faith gathering, I asked our host, an Anglican theologian, about the weakness of Christian theology of Islam. He made a good point about the difficulty of reconciling faiths that work through narratives of God’s activity; how narratives, because they are linear constructions of particulars, tend to be closed to each other. It occurred to me, listening to him, that it is easier in some ways to relate a non-narrative faith like Buddhism to Christianity than one like Islam, which also tells a story, but a different one.At that point a Muslim came up to thank the theologian for his hospitality, and he mentioned Abraham’s hospitality to his three angelic visitors. Here was part of the narrative that we all, Jews, Christians and Muslims, know and share, and there was a sense of standing on common ground. The Anglican asked the Muslim if he knew Rublev’s icon of the filoxenia, of the hospitality of Abraham. At that point, though the conversation had taken an apparently unrelated turn, I felt a strong relevance to my question about a Christian theology of Islam. Somewhere here there was the hint of an answer. Rublev’s painting shows three figures, similar in dress and appearance, seated on three sides of a table, their faces turned toward us but also inclined to each other. On the table there is a chalice-like cup, containing what appears to be wine. One figure is at the centre of the painting and the other two are to the sides, but there is no sense of hierarchy or priority among them. Though the icon has often been taken as an image of the Trinity, it is impossible to distinguish between the three figures, or to see a pre-eminence in any one of them as representing God the Father. Nothing could better illustrate the equivalence of the three persons of God, their shared being. But what emerges most powerfully from this icon is a quality of attention and tenderness. We feel the attention, the deference, the gentleness that flows between these figures; they are deeply and tenderly aware of each other. We are looking, not at three individuals, still less at three ‘personalities’, but at three persons whose personhood is precisely this mutuality that flows, unbroken, between them.But their attention is also directed to what is before them. Seated as they are on three sides of the table, they enclose something very precious, the object of their tender attention, which is Abraham’s cup of hospitality. Rublev, a Christian, has made this cup a Eucharistic chalice.  In that perspective, what lies before them is the blood of Christ, though we can’t distinguish him among the three (none of the hands bears the stigmata). The whole Trinity contemplates his sacrifice.As I recalled this image, it seemed to contain a way of approaching the three Abrahamic faiths. Perhaps the way to ‘think’ their relationship was not through trying to integrate their stories or reconcile their dogma, but through an image. Might we not see Judaism, Christianity and Islam as the three figures around the table, attentive to each other and attentive to what lay before them? A nice thought; but the problem, of course, is what lies on the table. Rublev makes it a Eucharistic cup, which at once excludes Judaism and Islam. If asked, Judaism might lay the Torah on the table, and Islam the Quran; but both would object to my Christian inclination to see in these three figures an image of the being of God. Once again, the great irreconcilables. But Rublev’s icon is, after all, taken from the life of Abraham, and he is the primal figure because he entered into a covenant in which he offered God his trust in the assurance that God would show him some good thing. This is what is happening in this icon: the angelic visitors have come to bring him the news that his aged wife will bear him a son. Sarah, behind the tent-flap, can be heard laughing. But Abraham will trust, and God will show his hand. At the heart of the three Abrahamic religions lies this defining Abrahamic act, this kernel of a common narrative. Before anything else, we are called to faith that exceeds all calculation and probability, and God, as the true host, the fountain of hospitality, will lay something on the table. For some it has been the Torah, for others the Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ’s death, for yet others the Quran. But against all the odds of history and rational expectation, the gift will come. And when it comes, it commands our tender attention.The three angels of the three faiths enclose and protect—but also make available to us, because it is we who stand at the fourth side of the table—God’s showing of himself in history, a showing that we recount in different ways. The three are defined by the attention that they give to God’s action. But in this attention they are brought into a mutual relationship, because there is only one God to whom that attention can be given, and his action in history is, therefore, a single action and cannot be otherwise. When we understand that, we shall stop talking about error and difference, and our relationship will be illuminated by the tenderness that unites Rublev’s angels.

Go to top

My Dress Code as a Muslim Woman
By Muna Ahmed

“To hide the purported seductiveness of women’s bodies, the hejab, or dress code, must be followed for all women in public places.  Women must cover their hair and body except their face and hands and cosmetics are prohibited.”

Donna M. Hughes*

Every Muslim woman has a dress code. Muslim women should not wear clothes that are tight on their bodies; they should wear baggy clothes. Muslims women are also not allowed to wear short skirts, tops with short sleeves, see-through clothes, revealing clothes and trousers; because trousers are for men.I agree with the fact that Muslim women should cover their hair and body, but one thing I disagree with is that in some Muslim countries in the world, Muslim women are banned from fashion. This is because fashion can a Hajeb or Abaya as well. That’s one of the reasons why there are different colours, model and types. You can be covered, yet at the same time be fashionable.  There’s nothing wrong with it.  I am a young Muslim girl and I know a lot about my religion and I respect it but I am against us as Muslim women being banned from fashion. We as Muslim women have the right to speak up for ourselves and say how we feel about the way we are being treated by someone telling us about our own religion and what our opinions are.In her essay on ‘Women & Reform in Iran’ Donna Hughes writes that “women continue to be arrested for improper veiling. Women who fail to conform to the strict dress code are arrested, boarded on minibuses and taken to a centre for fighting “social corruption”.There is something called ‘human rights’.  Even though wearing a Hajeb and covering our bodies is compulsory in Islam, forcing women to wear a headscarf  is not compulsory.  So in other words, no one has got the right to force or abuse someone to do something that is said in our Qu’ran.  You should advise your sisters and brothers in Islam 3 times, no more or less than that if you see them say or do something that is inappropriate or if they are not aware of what they are meant to be doing as a muslim person.  But it does not say that anyone has got a right to force anyone because if someone wants to follow their religion it should be coming from their hearts and doing it for their god (Allah) not for their friends, family or governments. Because it’s no ones job to punish anyone but god (Allah).  It is god’s job to punish people that were unfaithful to him and his messenger Mohammed (sww) and to the religion. Because everyone should know that there is only one life.   Once you die you are gone for good.  Unless you are one of them people that (Allah) saved a space in heaven for.  So other than that, no one is coming back to life to replace their sins, so this world is the only place where we should take a chance to appreciate god (Allah).

* D. M. Hughes (2000) Women & Reform in Iran in NCRI Committee on Women (2000)Misogyny in power (France: Committee on Women of the National Council of Resistance of Iran):82

Go to top

THURSDAY 07.02.07, ALDWYCH- LONDON
Two women from two 'peoples': English and Gazan pensioners

You work all your life and you end up with nothing.  Pensions scandal.  People revolting. Governments not listening.  Judicial reviews.  Some Muslims feels isolated.  Other Muslims feeling like they don’t belong.  Others feeling they need to belong.  Some being made to feel defensive.  Others feeling frustrated.  Media onslaught. Media dissolves itself of responsibility and says it’s just reporting.  Each person reports things according to their own perceptions.  Muslim reporters in the media disenfranchised.  Feel they need to join organisations outside the mainstream media.  Arabs alarmed at the spread of violence in the Middle East.  English alarmed because of the challenges presented by ‘Islam’.  Muslims seen as a problem, a threat to the culture of Europe .  Everyone’s alarmed.  No one wants to take responsibility.  Only those being confronted by the problem are having to think about their own position and their attitudes towards it.  Muslims are in a tight spot in this country.  They feel like they need to do a lot of soul – searching in order to make their point across.  They feel that they cannot tow the line whilst keeping their dignity.  It is very hard.  What does co-existing mean? Why are people’s ears and eyes closed?  Why don’t they want to ask questions?  Do they just want to rely on other’s peoples interpretations or are they just too busy to take part in the debate.  It affects everybody, young and old…. People were shocked last summer.  One minute images of injured, dead and maimed Lebanese and Israelis were all over our TV screens.  The next minute, people were focussing on terror plots that terrified them.  They couldn’t take liquids onto planes at Heathrow airport.  Were their minds being poisoned against Muslims?   Who’s the victim here? And who’s the aggressor?  Is there a G8-type conspiracy ruling the world?  Why can’t people just co-exist.  We all need to re-examine our stance.
Why do old women have to sit in their living rooms, or worse still in the living rooms of their care homes and feel that their toes are slowly turning an icy shade of blue.  Desperately trying to wrap their woollen blankets around their torsos.  They did their bit for the country.  They lived through wars, wars that divided people on both sides.  Wars that lost people their fathers, brothers, daughters, sisters, mothers, uncles and boys.  At the High Court in London today pensioners are pressing for a judicial review into their pensions.  Why have they lost them?  Why are they in so much pain?  Why won’t their government listen?  Haven’t they done enough for their country?.....brought up their children.  Run to the shelters as the bombs rained down on them.  Sent their children to relatives in Ireland , coped with rationing, lost loved ones, worried about absent husbands and fiancés, brothers and cousins, uncles and fathers.  Craved an end to the massacres, worried about the chaos, worked hard in the offices and factories; kept sane through the madness that surrounded them.  

In Gaza, an old lady lost her father when he tried to resist the changes that were happening around him; nursed her mother through cancer, loved a man and tried to make a home, wanted a job, moved to Kuwait and had 3 children.  For the next twenty years she raised them and worked at the office.  Got through the hiccups, fevers, vaccinations, schooling, teaching, family strifes, buildings, marriages and then moved back to Gaza because of the 1990 Gulf War.  She witnessed the growth of her grandchildren from afar.  When she could she tried to visit. 6 months here; a couple of months there.  And now she’s stuck.  Stuck in a city of extreme opinions.  Dispossessed by the world.  Desperately missed by her girls.  She missed their children’s first tooth, first smile, first laugh, first steps.  She couldn’t give them a rose on their first prom night seventeen years later.  She didn’t take them to the school play or to their nativity play.  Now she sits at home, waiting for the electricity to get turned on, and storing some of her summer foods in the icy basement in summer because there’s no power for her fridge.  The generator she rented costs more than it should.  Now the icy North wind is seeping under her front door.  Blowing up the stairs, and into her candlelit living room.  She sits and prays.  Reads her holy books.  Waits for her daughters to call.  Not an ounce of self-pity is conveyed.  A real lady holds it in;  has a public face and a private face.  The private face is solemnly hers and hers alone.  The public face is full of smiles.  Smiles through the pain and holds her memories alone.

Her children could stay ‘there’.  They work but cannot own property.  They thrive but cannot own businesses.  They had children too.  They couldn’t go back to her home.  But they can’t stay in Kuwait forever.  Their work permits expire on retirement.  Where is their home?

My home is in my heart.  Is that where your home is too?

Go to top

About being a member of a minority
Howard Anderson

It seems to be common practice for members of large or majority beliefs to ridicule or disadvantage those who hold a minority belief. This is the reason Tolerance International was set up, to help put an end to it, but who are the real guilty parties? There are the big issues such as the war in Iraq or the inter-racial wars in Africa. With these, we can feel comfortable sitting back and blaming governments and extremists for the trouble, nothing to do with us. We can say we didn't ask for it, would have voted against it had we been given the chance, but it has been done out by "them". Remote, we can feel justified by our indignation. Whilst it is true that as an individual we can do very little, sometimes even a large number of people can do very little. For example,  Blair ignored the huge anti-war march past Parliament and the perceived anti-war feeling in the country. So what can we do? Are we to blame? Is intolerance only a practice of governments or large organisations? Is it only concerned with issues in the news such as intolerance of Muslims in a western society or anti-Semitism? Not at all. Intolerance exists at all levels, person to person. As a member of a minority, I keenly feel the hand of intolerance even within a peaceful society. Every day I live the results of that intolerance, fear of ridicule, fear of misunderstanding or even prosecution. Those who belong to large belief systems feel quite safe, even justified in belittling my beliefs. After all, what will happen to them should to do so? They have only to turn to other members of their belief system for support, and with no surprise, get it. Intolerance is an every day issue that affects individuals and their relationship with others. It is not just the brutal treatment handed out by the Interahamwe Militias or religious extremists, is encompasses every day living, how you treat other people. This is not a comfortable thought. Imagine you are a Christian living in a Christian or at least western suburb. A family of devout Muslims move in next door. How do you feel? You know intellectually you should welcome them and respect their beliefs, perhaps you will. Now instead, suppose the family that moved in next door belong to a small minority, one whose belief system hurts no-one? Will you feel the same way? Will you still feel you have to respect their beliefs, welcome them to the neighbourhood. If my experience is anything to go by, it is likely you will react badly towards them, after all, being part of a small minority, they can hardly fight back. So what could this minority be? In practice is does not matter, all small minorities suffer the same treatment at the hands of individuals like you and me. So test yourself, suppose I moved next door to you, would you welcome me, respect my beliefs? I wonder, I am a naturist.

Go to top

Tolerance and Peace
Pete Knight

Hi I was directed to your web site which I find very interesting, it has long been a source of amazement to me religious groups should be so intolerant, not only between faith's but very often between factions of the very same faith, this is clearly illustrated in the Protestant/Catholic partition that is most obvious in Northern Ireland, but also exists in Glasgow and Liverpool, the latter using football teams as their battle fronts. There are many religions throughout the world, some have a focal point, a god to direct their inner feelings towards, others direct their divinity to the sun or some other visible "god" but there are a group of people who really feel closer to something other than a god prescribed by books are open to misinterpretation, we are the nudists, or sometimes known as naturists. As a naturist I feel something that a church cannot offer me, I feel free and closer to my origins, what or wherever they may be, when naked and alone in a forest I feel spiritual, and overcome all the frustrations of modern life, yet there is little acceptance and tolerance from society for my chosen lifestyle, indeed there is condemnation from the uptight religious groups that try to push their beliefs on me without giving any consideration to my spiritual beliefs. I don't condemn those that chose to enslave their women, those that chose to condemn heretics to a life of everlasting damnation for stepping away from the religion they were forced into by virtue of their birth, thereby removing choice and tolerance. If only we could be left to enjoy the spiritual feeling and not persecuted the world would be a better place, but I fear that this will never happen as long as religion is used as an excuse to wage war, kill and maim those that don't follow a specific sect. My naturism gives me inner peace, why would anyone want to deny me the right to attainment of inner peace, just because they can't attain a similar inner peace. Getting close to nature, to gods creations, the removal of trappings of wealth and positions of office are the best leveler that can be found, and naturism does that for me. Why should a man elected by man to high religious office be better than anyone else, why therefore should they be allowed to condemn something they don't understand. Intolerance within religions is something I fail to understand, why should men and women be segregated in worship, why should any one section of society be considered lower than another, in naturism there is only the person, and each person finds an affinity with nature, there is no discrimination in naturism. It has to be said that people do enter the world of naturism for reasons other than spiritual enlightenment, but these people are easy to spot, the same can be said of all the major religions in the world. There is no high priest of naturism, there is no temple other than that which nature provides, there is inner peace for those that know where to find it, given the opportunity of course!  I'm sorry if these jotting appear to be an incoherent set of ramblings, but that precisely what they are, words from the heart in no particular order. 

Go to top