Alterity and Religious Violence in Nigeria: Toward an Interfaith Theology of Recognition
Depending upon the diametrically opposed views of interpreting the sacred text, religion, which is an increasingly vital and shaping force in both personal and public life, can promote either global peace or pervasive conflict. Therefore, peace among nations cannot be achieved without peace among re...
| Published in: | Journal of ecumenical studies |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
University of Pennsylvania Press
2022
|
| In: |
Journal of ecumenical studies
|
| IxTheo Classification: | AD Sociology of religion; religious policy AX Inter-religious relations CC Christianity and Non-Christian religion; Inter-religious relations CH Christianity and Society KBN Sub-Saharan Africa |
| Further subjects: | B
Nigerian Christians
B Islam B interfaith theology of recognition B Nigeria’s religious conflicts B Yoruba B Igbo B Christianity B Alterity B Post-colonial Nigeria B Hausa |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | Depending upon the diametrically opposed views of interpreting the sacred text, religion, which is an increasingly vital and shaping force in both personal and public life, can promote either global peace or pervasive conflict. Therefore, peace among nations cannot be achieved without peace among religions. The Sword Verse in the Qur’ān (9:5) is assumed to have abrogated numerous verses that advocate peaceful coexistence and religious freedom. Accordingly, Muslim extremists take this verse as the foundation on which to interact with people of other faiths. Adopting the contextual approach, this essay explores how the verse is understood by analyzing its historical circumstance and linguistic settings and compares its correct meaning with other verses of religious freedom and dialogue. It concludes that the above verse, when appropriately read within its circumstantial boundaries, never condones coercive conversion or militancy. Turning a blind eye to the context as a guiding methodological tool is an error that at times has serious implications for intrahuman relations, such as the case in point. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2162-3937 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of ecumenical studies
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1353/ecu.2022.0038 |