Our community is deliberately built upon the intersection of diverse cultures, social practices, and worldviews. Each of us is a minority of one, bringing a unique set of legacies, customs, traditions, and beliefs. Our environment affords us the opportunity to gain knowledge and to experience the proverbial ocean beyond the pond through meaningful interactions with each other. It is these interactions that serve to give nuance to our understanding of the world and allow us to appreciate the points of view of others, albeit not necessarily agree with them.

To glean the most from this invaluable opportunity, we must be willing to understand, to enter into discourse without preconceived judgments, and provide each other the space to express the importance and significance of our respective worldviews without accusations of indoctrination. Discourse—open, free, and civil—is crucial to the formation and development of a pluralistic society.

A pluralistic society presupposes the existence of differing worldviews and religious convictions. Dialogue about religion should take place, but in order for it to thrive, limits must be established to ensure that those with whom we would like to enter into discussion do not feel antagonized. Islamophobic posters hung up recently by the “365 Awareness Group” around Mather House are exactly the types of things that stoke tensions. One such poster reads: “Islam is the combination of the most unbelievable of the myths of Christianity and Judaism.” It is one thing for an individual’s faith to be bashed by outsiders, but for it to be attacked by neighbors is something else entirely. Not only are such offenses inherently disrespectful towards an entire religious community but they also discourage this same group from initiating dialogue in the future.

Furthermore, to facilitate inter-religious dialogue in society, we must grant permission for religious views to be expressed openly and shared in public. As an essential part of the human experience for so many, faith cannot be confined to private settings. This becomes significant when considering the adhan, the Muslim call to prayer, which some consider proselytizing. During its annual Islam Awareness Week last month, the Harvard Islamic Society offered students a taste of the Islamic tradition by having a member proclaim the adhan on Widener steps every day at 1 p.m., a time when the Yard is bustling with students.

From the time of its earliest recitation, the adhan has asked Muslims to leave behind everything and hasten to prayer, so that they may join their companions in worship. The adhan then symbolizes an integral element of the Islamic lifestyle, and to study Islamic theology and practice without recourse to this recitation is to do injustice to the faith.

It is unfair to view this expression of religious belief as an act of proselytization. The aim of the Harvard Islamic Society in pursuing this tradition on campus is to share with the Harvard community an aspect of Islam that embodies its beliefs in brotherhood and primacy of God. Its goal is to make the campus aware of Islamic values by means of a custom that has been observed in Muslim societies across the globe since the earliest days of the religion. And to even consider it a form of proselytization is far-fetched. It is recited in Arabic; to whom could it conceivably have been proselytizing?

Declaring something to be proselytizing reflects an attempt to ensure that it is censured. However, those who consider the adhan thusly disregard the power and religious potency embodied in symbols, behavior, and non-verbal actions. For example, one who takes issue with the adhan should most assuredly also have a problem with dollar bills and the inscription thereon proclaiming “In God we trust,” which could be read as an attempt by Americans to preach to atheists. To denounce the adhan but to simultaneously accept these currency inscriptions exhibits an inconsistency. By virtue of being a call beckoning Muslims to pause in their worldly lives and offer a prescribed prayer to God, the adhan has been deflated and constricted into a chant of religious superiority.

The establishment of a tolerant, respectful, and open attitude that extends to religious beliefs and expression is vital for our community. A pluralistic society is able to entertain a number of different worldviews and opinions, and engage in discussions with them—not silence them. Indeed, stifling the expressions of a particular community is nothing short of imposing a dangerous ignorance on society at large.









Jessamin H. Birdsall ’10 is an executive team member of the Harvard-Radcliffe Christian Fellowship and a board member of the Harvard College Interfaith Council (HCIC). Rebecca Gillette ’10 is Vice President for Community Relations at Harvard Hillel. Zeba A. Syed ’09 is Chair of the HCIC and member of the Harvard Islamic Society.