Last Monday, The Muslim communities around the world celebrated Eid al-Adha. This is one of the two most important feasts in the Muslim calendar and marks the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac as an act of submission to God.
The ‘festival of sacrifice’, which also marks the end of the annual Hajj (pilgrimage) to Mecca, refers to an episode that is also narrated in the Old Testament, highlighting the fact that the three main monotheistic religions claim to be descendents of Abraham, and, therefore, share a common ancestry.
It is very positive that we are becoming more familiar with Islam and with other religions, especially in view of the fact that the proportion of Muslims in our society is increasing and ‘the fear of the unknown’ is best conquered by learning more about the teachings of Islam and its practices. Moreover, it helps overcome the stereotyping of Muslims as terrorists or persons who constitute a threat to our society and our way of life.
On Monday, British Prime Minister Theresa May delivered a special message to Muslims in the UK and around the world to wish them ‘a happy and peaceful Eid’. Indeed, two months ago, then Prime Minister David Cameron had also issued a message for Eid al-Fitr. Such messages appear to have become a standard practice in the UK and, I assume in other countries in the western hemisphere.
May used her message as an occasion to praise the role of Muslims in British society where “they are making a real difference” in politics, in enterprise and business, the police and armed forces. Recent figures by the Office for National Statistics in the UK places the number of Muslims in the UK at over three million, more than half of whom were born outside the country.
In just over a decade, the number has doubled due to immigration and high birth rates. Indeed, it is calculated that in some parts of London, almost half the population is Muslim. Last May, Sadiq Khan became the first Muslim to be elected as mayor of London. He obtained 57 per cent of the votes.
This says a lot about our society and its transformation from one that was ‘Christian’ to one that is composed of individuals upholding different religious beliefs, philosophical convictions or none at all.
I recall the whole debate that took place just over a decade ago on Europe’s Christian heritage when the constitutional treaty was being drafted. Many member states, led by Italy, were arguing that including a reference to the Christian roots of Europe was a mere reflection of historical truth.
However, this met with great opposition particularly from the French and the Belgians. Jack Straw, who was then British Foreign Secretary, had stated that if there was a reference to one religious tradition, “we would have to make reference to others”.
When the text of the treaty was finalised, it contained a reference to “the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, from which have developed the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law”.
I do see the Church, particularly the values it has to offer individuals and society, as some sort of ‘conscience of the nation’
The treaty never came into force because it was rejected by the French and the Dutch in separate referenda. However, when the Treaty of Lisbon started being discussed, the same issue re-emerged. The result was that an identical reference to the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe was inserted into the preamble of the Treaty on European Union.
Some stated then that this represented a rejection of Christianity by Europe. In 2004, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had described Europe as “a cultural continent, not a geographical one” having Christian roots. According to American Jewish theologian and writer Richard L. Rubenstein, “the roots of Europe’s identity may be Christian; its future identity may not be”.
When David Cameron delivered his Christmas message last year, he was criticised for being ‘religious’ because he referred to the birth of Jesus Christ, “God’s only son” and what, as “a Christian country” this represents to Britain: peace, mercy, goodwill and, above all, hope.
“I believe that we should also reflect on the fact that it is because of these important religious roots and Christian values that Britain has been such a successful home to people of all faiths and none,” he said.
It is interesting to note that the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, did not issue a Christmas message but merely made some remarks ahead of New Year’s Day. His predecessor, Ed Miliband, gave a Christmas message in both preceding years.
In the UK, one must recall that Christianity is the official religion with the Church of England being the established church, headed by the sovereign in person.
Just as in Malta the Roman Catholic religion is established as the ‘religion of Malta’ by our Constitution, which will celebrate its 52nd anniversary in a few days’ time. I find it rather paradoxical that despite all claims that we are a secular state, on Independence Day, the only significant ‘speech’ to be delivered during the official celebrations will be the homily by the Archbishop during the Mass of Thanksgiving at St John’s Co-cathedral.
The role of religion in Malta still gives rise to much debate. Even of the Catholic religion itself. It is obvious, for instance, that statements by the Archbishop that are not purely referring to ‘religious’ matters (understood in the narrow sense of the word) are not always welcome in some quarters.
It is a great pity that his words are used to ascribe some ulterior motive, sometimes even a politically partisan one. People who say this about Charles Scicluna do not know the man. Yet, to quote Ranier Fsadni, writing in this newspaper few days ago: “Every time the Archbishop speaks, many will think he is speaking with the power of a head of state or a general: someone who exercises power over people. And so his words will be misconstrued or twisted into an attempt at imposition.”
However, when his predecessors appeared reluctant to engage on wider issues than what one could possibly consider as ‘religious’, the Church in Malta seemed to be losing its relevance.
The opening sentences of the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, better known as Gaudium et Spes, promulgated during the Second Vatican Council, are indeed prophetic words, particularly their emphasis on the fact that “nothing genuinely human fails to raise an echo” in the followers of Christ.
I do see the Church, particularly the values it has to offer individuals and society, indeed any organised religion, as some sort of ‘conscience of the nation’ as long as it does not seek to impose but to engage in mutual dialogue that can enrich our society and make it more authentically human.