By Sheldon Greaves
Sheikh Zayed Mosque, Abu Dhabi, UAE
Recently a conference of Islamic scholars meeting in Istanbul released a declaration on the subject of global warming and climate change. This landmark declaration comes in the wake of the Papal encyclical Laudato Si, and endorsements of the encyclical by The Dalai Lama and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I. Between these statements, we now have the religious leadership of some 3.5 billion people–roughly half the world’s population–elevating the problem of global warming as a priority for their adherents. This is significant.
The Muslim declaration is all the more remarkable since a number of Muslim countries, notably Saudi Arabia, are dependent on the sale of fossil fuels that have created this problem. In fact, the declaration was released over the objections of the Saudis but, frankly, screw ’em. Other centers of Muslim scholarship and governance have released statements of support, including the Grand Muftis (the highest Muslim authority for a given country) of Lebanon, Morocco, Uganda, and Turkey. Since the Muslim world no longer has a Caliph as a central authority, the effects of this declaration will depend on how much credibility Muslims worldwide choose to give to this statement.
The declaration is much shorter than Laudato Si, which reflects differences in how Muslim theology works. Christianity early on developed the concept that reasoning through ideas in pursuit of new ideas was a laudable exercise. In this view, God revealed himself in accord with the degree of intellect and reasoning of the seeker. Muslim faith, by contrast, was traditionally more wary of innovations in theology that might impose human ideals and laws upon God. This is not to say that theological debate and innovation doesn’t happen in Islam–far from it. But it does not have the same depth of theological imperative as it does in Christianity.
The justifications for the points in the Declaration are largely backed up by quotations from the Qur’an and the Hadith, where the Papal statement develops its case at much greater length. This declaration also cites approvingly and draws heavily on the study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released in 2014. Like the Papal encyclical, this statement bolsters its position with the consensus of climate science.
One item I found of interest is that the word used for global stewardship in the Muslim Declaration is khalifah, which is related to the word Caliph. It is a good word choice that denotes responsible rulership, bound by moral and ethical obligation. The core of the Declaration exclaims:
Our species, though selected to be a caretaker or steward (khalifah) on the earth, has been the cause of such corruption and devastation on it that we are in danger ending life as we know it on our planet. This current rate of climate change cannot be sustained, and the earth’s fine equilibrium (mīzān) may soon be lost. As we humans are woven into the fabric of the natural world, its gifts are for us to savour. But the same fossil fuels that helped us achieve most of the prosperity we see today are the main cause of climate change. Excessive pollution from fossil fuels threatens to destroy the gifts bestowed on us by God, whom we know as Allah – gifts such as a functioning climate, healthy air to breathe, regular seasons, and living oceans. But our attitude to these gifts has been short-sighted, and we have abused them. What will future generations say of us, who leave them a degraded planet as our legacy? How will we face our Lord and Creator?
How this shakes out globally will prove interesting, particularly given the role religion stands to play in the ongoing discussion. The scientific community is constrained by a methodology that allows them to draw conclusions, but not make recommendations. If this sounds strange (and it should), take a look at this article in which climate scientist Jason Box dared to sound an alarm on the urgency of action and faced a backlash not only from the usual denier clique, but from his fellow scientists. He commented, “I’m still amazed how few climatologists have taken an advocacy message to the streets, demonstrating for some policy action.”
The scientific insistence on unemotional non-advocacy is, in my view, an astonishing display of naivete. I cannot process how some scientific methodology can be more important than the survival of our species, but there it is. Fortunately, religion’s mandate to offer value judgements and advocate for the vulnerable (which, in the case of climate change is all of us) has the potential to take up that slack. By focusing our collective moral energy and outrage against global warming and its enabling factors, these religious leaders stand to offer us literal salvation.