An article in the October 4 issue of the New York Times speaks of Canadian TV journalist Irshad Manji as a voice of reform on Islam. An improbable spokesperson for change, Manji hardly fits the expected M.O. of a reformer in a religion generally presumed in the West to be conservative, male-dominated, and homophobic. Though the notion of a lesbian, feminist promoter of Islam by traditional standards would seem to be an oxymoron, Manji has, nevertheless, shown the kind of intellectual honesty that is indispensable to any genuine spiritual growth, religious vitality, or social improvement.

She presents to the Muslim world the same challenge that recent biblical scholarship has presented to the fundamentalist Christian world: discerning the presence of God in the midst of the very human history of religion, the human role in the authorship of scripture, and the possibility of equally human biases therein. By questioning whether the Qur'an as a text may have human flaws, from the standpoint of fundamentalist and literalist doctrine of scriptural inerrancy, Manji seems to be committing blasphemy.

The chare is one with which the Chrstian Right can easily resonate. Conservative Christianity, like some of the loudest voices puporting tospeak for Islam, shares the insistence that their scriptures are the literal workd of God- taken down, as it were, by divine dictation- and therefore are not subject to challenge. The problem with this position, in this or any other religion, is that such literalism renders scripture one-dimensional, limited to a single, monolithic interpretation which often fails to speak to the experiential reality of people's changing circumstances. It does not represent the full spectrum of belief or experience even within its own tradition.

Of course, mainstream biblical scholarship has marginalized that position among Christians by the ever-increasing body of archaological evidence proving that both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures evolved over many years, and felt the editorial touches of many authors. Muslims have resorted to the convenient rejoinder that Mohammed was the sole recipient of the Muslim revelation and therefore the Qur'an is not subject to the same flaws as its sibliing antecedents, among the children of Abraham. Even if it were proven that Mohammed was the sole origin of the Qur'anic text (which many Islamists will concede is not the case, given that Mohammed was illiterate and did not himself write the text) it does not mean that there is no room for human limitation in that scripture.

What is usually glossed over is the fact that Mohammed received his revelations over a period of roughly forty years. It is clear from the history early Islam that the Prophet's own understanding evolved in response not only to those revelations, but to the rapidly changing conditions he and his followers faced. This is only natural and appropriate.

However, it does raise an interesting issue regarding both Mohammed himself, and the tendency of devotees to lionize their spiritual leaders to the point of unquestioning acceptance of their authority. Muslims revere Mohammed as the crown and seal of prophecy: the recipient of the final revelation. Yet, unlike the Christian reverence for Jesus, they do not divinize him, insisting upon his mortality and humanity. If he was not born in a state of divine consciousness but somehow grew into it- as is implied by the gradual and successive revelations he purportedly received- then it is tantalizing to ponder to what extent his own understanding may have been incomplete at any point during that long progression.

If not fully enlightened, then, by definition, Mohammed's understanding may have been at least partially flawed, and hence the account of it must express such limitation, even while conveying a true sense of God working through it. Determining the percentage of truth versus imperfection is of course an impossibility for any other than the fully enlightened themselves- a category to which only a handful in history may be admitted. It is also off the point.

The issue here is not to demonstrate the rightness or wrongness of a particular interpretation, but rather to grasp how our apparent imperfections and limitations also fit into the larger picture of divine guidance. It is, after all, essential to Judeo-Christian understanding that God acts in and through human history; that even human flaws and ego can function in the larger service of the divine plan.

The historical context of each of the world's scriptures, the social and geopolitical realities in which they were written, and the cultural audience to which they were originally directed have changed for all religions. But the need for wisdom and the struggle to reconcile ultimate truths with the relativity of human interaction has not. The questions that should be most encouraged and whose answers should be listened to most deeply is not "Who's right or who's wrong?" Nor is it "Is this religion or that one true or false?" It is, rather, "If this is true, in what way is it true for me?"

A balanced exploration of both liberal and conservative views must embrace the possibility that both are right from a certain perspective, and each can enrich the other, leading us toward the wholeness and fulfillment religion promises to deliver. Any attempt to limit revelation to a particular tradition, or insist upon an faith's claims to truth as exclusive would seem to ignore the widely shared doctrine of divine omnipresence. To dismiss either extreme, to refuse to allow any challenges or information that does not fit our current paradigm, can only result in the perpetration of our pain and alienation. That is an indulgence we cannot afford.

This is not just a matter of personal comfort but of international necessity. The current geopolitical volatility inflamed by religious rhetoric makes clear that ignoring, dismissing, or failing to understand the beliefs of those with whom we differ has potentially catastrophic consequences. The challenges from voices like Irshad Manji, Bishop John Shelby Spong, and others labeled as "extreme liberals" are a necessary counterbalance to those of an Osama Bin Laden or a Jerry Falwell, whose incendiary tactics generally receive far more press and paint such distored pictures of their respective traditions in the popular imagination.

Faith, if it is alive, like any organism, must be constantly changing and adapting. Fear of change and the need for control in order to feel secure is the fuel that drives much of the world's conflicts. The force capable of banishing our fears and guaranteeing our security is not found in controlling others, or forcing our beliefs upon them, but in bringing our unruly wills under the control the higher consciousness espoused by all the world's spiritual traditions. We cannot learn to do so if we refuse to explore them beyond the stereotypes and political agendas to which they are so easily reduced.

Robert H. Stucky is the Executive Director of Faith In Diversity Institute.

Copyright © 2003 by Faith In Diversity Institute