The
Muslim Letter: The Common Word – A
Reading…
By Eliseo “Jun” Mercado, OMI
Badaliyya - Philippines
(Editor’s Note: There is a new wave of both
extremism and Islamophobia in the world today. There are many recent tragedies
that contribute in the formation of this new wave that threatens to widen the
gap not only between Islam and Christianity but also between and among the
believers in both faith communities.
In the light of this, I took my original
presentation on the Common Word delivered at Georgetown University in
Washington DC to commemorate the 3rd year of the “The Common Word”
Letter in 2010)
A surprise to the “Christian World”
At the end of the month of Ramadan 2007, the leaders
of various Christian churches received, to their great surprise, a letter
entitled, The Common Word, with 138 signatories that speak of weight, influence
and scholarship. I personally consider
the letter something historical with long enduring impact not only on account
of the letter’s signatories, but also of the letter’s addressee’s. The letter is a
highly representative Letter coming from diverse schools and persuasions in the
“Islamic World”.
The
Signatories…
There are 138 signatories and they
represent over 43 nations. Among them are great muftis, religious leaders,
academics and scholars. The signatories
are beyond the representatives of the two great Sunni and Shiite groups. There are also representatives from smaller
groups, sects and even diverging trends, for example the most mystic of those
trends (Sufi), who are largely represented in the West. There are also
for example Ismailites, derived from the Shiites; Jafaarites, also a derivative
of Shia Islam;
Ribadites, which is an ancient group of Islam, rarely spoken of but which has a
representation in Yemen. This indicates
a broadening of consensus within a certain Islamic ummah, a step towards what
Islam calls ijmaa (consensus). The first positive point of the letter is the
fact that it is highly representative, coming from a converging group.
This letter does not say that there is
agreement between all Muslims, but it shows a concerted move towards a certain
consensus. This convergence came about under the auspices of the King of
Jordan, and the Aal al-Bayt (family of the Prophet of Islam) foundation, lead
by the king’s uncle Prince Hassan. This man represents the best of
Islam today, from the point of view of reflection, openness and devotion.
Being a devote and faithful Muslim, he married a Hindu who – quite unusual in
modern Islam – did not have to convert to Islam, as is being demanded of the
Christian women today in the West, but which is in no way foreseen in the Koran.
The
Addressee’s…
The letter is also representative because
it has been sent throughout the Christian world. If you take a look at
those to whom it has been addressed, you can see a carefully drawn up and
complete list: besides the Pope we have all of the eastern Christian
traditions, the Patriarchs of the Chalcedonian and pre-Chalcedonian Churches;
then the Protestant Churches and finally the World Council of Churches.
It amply shows that behind this letter is someone who knows and understands Christianity
and the history of the Church.
The structure
On coming to the content of the letter what
is immediately striking is the fact that the title has been taken from the
Koran: “A Common Word
between Us and You” (Sura of the family of Imran, 3:64). This is what the
prophet says to the Christians in the Koran: when he sees that he cannot reach
agreement with them, then he says: “Come let us agree on at least one common
ground: that we shall worship none but God (the oneness of God) and that
we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for
lords beside God.” What must be noted is that this common word in the Koran does
not speak of Mohammad as a prophet, or the last messenger of God. What is
underlined is the common word and the oneness of God. This in itself is a
positive step, exactly starting from the Koran.
The structure of the letter is composed of
three parts: the first is entitled “love of God”, subdivided into two, “love of
God in Islam ”and“ love of God as the first and greatest commandment in the
bible”. In reality, the title in the original Arabic is more precise, it says
“in the Gospel”. By using the word “Bible” (which includes the New and
Old Testament) Judaism can be included in the discourse (even if the letter is
only addressed to Christians). The second part is entitled “love of the
neighbour” (hubb al-jâr). It is also subdivided in two: «love of the neighbour
in Islam» and « love of the neighbour in the Bible» - where once again the
original Arabic says “in the Gospel”. The
third part concludes by taking up the Koran citation: “come to a common word
between us and you”, and offers an interesting analysis in three parts: “common
word”, “come to a common word” and “between us and you”.
Reflections on the content
It is most interesting to note that the
vocabulary used is a Christian vocabulary and not a Muslim one. The word
“neighbour” (in the Christian sense of brethren) does not exist in the Koran;
it is typical of the New Testament. In fact, the Arabic text does
not use the word “neighbour/brethren” but “neighbour” (jâr), which only
has a geographical meaning (like a neighbour who lives next door), compared to
the Christian term qarîb, which also means “brethren”.
The word “love” is rarely used in the
Koran. It is not even part of the names of God. It is never said that God is a
lover, even if there are less striking synonyms. Instead the word is
widely used in Christianity. Moreover if the first part, love of God in
Islam, is analysed, we Christians would refer to it as “obedience to God”, not
“love”. But here they have termed it so, to align themselves to the
Christian vocabulary. Which is a lovely thought but also a little
dangerous as it risks falling into the trap of “settling”. Usually Muslims
speak of the adoration of God; but the theme of Love for God is another
discourse, which is not excluded from Islam, but found abundantly in the world
of Sufism. Either way in this letter,
speaking of “love of God” is a novelty. Perhaps it is even an able way of
referring to Pope Benedict’s
first encyclical (Deus caritas est). It certainly shows a desire to draw near
to the Christian way of speaking, even if at the same time there is the risk of
taking two meanings from the same word.
Other
questions of Vocabulary
In this context, the Arab version of the
letter uses different terminologies compared to the French, Italian, or English
versions. We have already noted that where the Arabic speaks of the
Gospel the western languages speak of the Bible. I will give other
examples.
For example: speaking of Christ, in the
western versions “Jesus Christ” is always cited while in the
Arab version it is "Issa- al-Massih”. This expression cannot be found in
the Koran, but is the combined result of how the Muslims call Jesus (Issa) –
Arab Christians call him “Jasua” – and the Christian definition of “al-Massih”,
Christ, which is found in the Koran. The expression in the Koran is “Al-Massih
Issa Ibn Mariam” (the Messiah Issa son of Mary), while the usual
Christian expression “Jasua’ al-Massih” (Jesus Christ). The text of the letter
is littered with expressions from the Koran intermingled with Christian
expressions.
When they quote from the Koran and the
Bible, they use two different measures. Quoting from the Koran they say
“God said”, as does every good Muslim. When the quote versus from the
bible, they only say “as it is found in the New Testament”, “as it is read in
the Gospel”, etc… This means that they use, in terms of the Bible, a more
scholarly studious approach, while for the Koran they use the terminology of a
believer in Islam.
But in the end the structure is truly
beautiful: from here on in we may say that Christianity, Judaism and Islam have
love of God and of ones neighbour as the heart of their faith. This is
the real novelty which has never before been said by the Islamic world.
Use of the
Bible
In quotations from the New and Old
Testament, they take for granted that the Bible is the word of God. This,
too, is a relative novelty. In the Koran this idea is theoretically
affirmed, but it is rejected in practice. Very often Muslims consider the
Bible as a product (muharrafah or mubaddalah) manipulated by later additions to
the original nucleus.
The Letter even goes as far as to quote St.
Paul regarding the idea of the “heart”. St. Paul is, in general, totally
rejected by the vast majority of Muslims.
He is even considered as a traitor of Jesus Christ’s message, which according
to them was originally an “Islamic message”. Often Muslims claim that
Christ’s message was like that of the Koran, but that Paul introduced the
Trinity, Redemption through the Cross, and the rejection of Moses’ law. A
famous anti-Christian book, published in 2000 and banned in Lebanon, is
entitled “Unmasking Paul”!
All of these little signs show a real
desire for dialogue at the level of language and biblical testimonies.
There are even some allusions to Hebraism, in order to integrate it in this
vision. Using for example the term “people of the scriptures”, it is
clear that this refers to the Jews, even if the discourse is officially
addressed to Christians.
Positive
appreciation…
The Letter is looking for a common basis…
The method being used is to choose excerpts from sacred texts that can be
paralleled. In the Koran there are texts that are a contradiction
of Christianity, but they chose those which are closer and more similar.
This is an important step and as a first step it is useful to highlight our
common foundations.
The signatories of the Letter are trying to
find a common basis for dialogue with everyone on the basis of our Scriptures. The letter presents what is common in the
Bible and the Koran as the basis for universal dialogue. It only attempts to re-establish relations
between Christians and Muslims. This is clearly stated in the
introduction, recalling that together “we represent over 55% of the world’s
population”. Thus by reaching an agreement we could almost impose peace
in the world.
A beautiful
conclusion: coexistence in diversity
In the letter the Koran verse on tolerance
is quoted: “Had God willed He could have made you one community. But that He
may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are). So
vie one with another in good works. Unto God ye will all return, and He will then
inform you of that wherein ye differ” (Al-Ma’idah, n. 5:48).
This sura is the penultimate in
chronological order in the Koran. This means that this can not have been
cancelled or overtaken by another, according to the Islamic theory of Koran
interpretation, the so-called “from the abrogate to the abrogated” (nâsikh
wa-l-mansûkh). This verse is fundamental because it states that our religious
diversities are destined by God. The result is: “So vie one with another
in good works” as a method of dialogue. This is truly a beautiful choice
for concluding the Letter, because it means that we can live together despite
our difference, moreover that God wants these difference!
Towards the
future
This Letter is a very important step in
dialogue between Christians and Muslims. Often Christians have taken the
initiative regarding dialogue, and they have so done well. It is important that
this first step continues in this direction with increased clarity, even
showing differences and the need for correction. As the Letter is addressed to
various leaders of the Christian world, we can hope that there will be a reply
to this letter, which is the result of an immense effort by the Muslim part.
This Letter is, certainly, also addressed
to Muslims, even if not explicitly. What weight will it bring to bear in
the Muslim world, considering that “extremists” continue to kill, persecute and
kidnap in the name of religion? Up until now there has been no comment from the
Islamic side. I believe that with time this Letter can create an opening
and a greater convergence on the more delicate issues of religious freedom, the
absolute value of human rights, the relationship between religion and society,
the use of violence, etc.., in short current issues that worry all believers in
our world today.
The
Vatican response…
The Vatican through Cardinal Tauran,
President of the Pontifical Council on Interreligious Dialogue has observed
that the Letter is
"a non-polemical document with numerous quotes from both the Old Testament
and the New Testament." Drawing
upon the letter’s recommendations, he invites Christians and Muslims to prevent
the fusion of violence and religion by sharing the three convictions contained
in the letter: that God is One; that God loves us and we must love Him; that
God calls us to love our neighbor.” The
prelate also noted that the letter is “a very encouraging sign because it shows
that good will and dialogue are capable of overcoming prejudices.
Pontifical Institute of Arabic
& Islamic Studies (PISAI)
Firstly, we were impressed by the broad
scope of this text. Its breadth at the level of the signatories, one hundred
and thirty-eight Muslim personalities from numerous countries of every
continent of various religious affiliations, demonstrates a great variety.
There was breadth also at the level of the addressees, all leaders of different
Christian Churches, including twenty-eight named explicitly.
In the same line of observation, we highlight the extent of the area under consideration: Muslims, Christians, Jews and people worldwide. The authors of the letter do not seek refuge in a convenient one-sided protest on behalf of the "ummah," but on the contrary, place themselves as partners within humanity. For it, they offer their way of perceiving its foundations and principles, accepted also by other communities, in view of its survival in an effectual and general peace.
The broad sweep of its perspectives is also a noteworthy feature of this text. Admittedly, its authors are interested in the fate of the present world, at stake here and now, but also in that of the 'eternal souls', a destiny determined elsewhere and in the future. This dual aim, at once immanent and transcendent, runs a strong and liberating current throughout this discourse.
Naturally, we are equally struck by the fundamental character of the issue in question: God and humankind. It is much easier to confine oneself to ideas that are all the more generous for being vague and general, than to call attention in this way to the urgency of God's rights and those of humanity that demand continual awareness and an active and concrete love from each individual.
We are also keenly aware of the special treatment that the signatories of this letter give to the supreme point of reference that undergirds "the other" as Jew or Christian, namely, the dual commandment of love of God and neighbour in Deuteronomy and in Matthew's Gospel. This willingness to acknowledge another person in the deepest desire of what he or she wants to be seems to us one of the key points of this document. Only this can guarantee success in a genuine relationship between culturally and religiously diverse communities.
At the same time, we appreciate the way the authors of this text, as Muslims, see the proper definition of their own identity in these two commandments. They do so not by compliance or by politicking, but truly, solely on the basis of their proclamation of divine uniqueness, (al-tawhîd), the pivot of Muslim belief. Indeed, we acknowledge that the radical acceptance of divine uniqueness is one of the most authentic expressions of love owed to God alone. In addition, as faith always goes together with good works, as the Koran never fails to repeat, (al-ladîna âmanû wa 'amilû al-sâlihât : al-Baqara 2, 25), love of God is inseparable from love of neighbour.
In the same line of observation, we highlight the extent of the area under consideration: Muslims, Christians, Jews and people worldwide. The authors of the letter do not seek refuge in a convenient one-sided protest on behalf of the "ummah," but on the contrary, place themselves as partners within humanity. For it, they offer their way of perceiving its foundations and principles, accepted also by other communities, in view of its survival in an effectual and general peace.
The broad sweep of its perspectives is also a noteworthy feature of this text. Admittedly, its authors are interested in the fate of the present world, at stake here and now, but also in that of the 'eternal souls', a destiny determined elsewhere and in the future. This dual aim, at once immanent and transcendent, runs a strong and liberating current throughout this discourse.
Naturally, we are equally struck by the fundamental character of the issue in question: God and humankind. It is much easier to confine oneself to ideas that are all the more generous for being vague and general, than to call attention in this way to the urgency of God's rights and those of humanity that demand continual awareness and an active and concrete love from each individual.
We are also keenly aware of the special treatment that the signatories of this letter give to the supreme point of reference that undergirds "the other" as Jew or Christian, namely, the dual commandment of love of God and neighbour in Deuteronomy and in Matthew's Gospel. This willingness to acknowledge another person in the deepest desire of what he or she wants to be seems to us one of the key points of this document. Only this can guarantee success in a genuine relationship between culturally and religiously diverse communities.
At the same time, we appreciate the way the authors of this text, as Muslims, see the proper definition of their own identity in these two commandments. They do so not by compliance or by politicking, but truly, solely on the basis of their proclamation of divine uniqueness, (al-tawhîd), the pivot of Muslim belief. Indeed, we acknowledge that the radical acceptance of divine uniqueness is one of the most authentic expressions of love owed to God alone. In addition, as faith always goes together with good works, as the Koran never fails to repeat, (al-ladîna âmanû wa 'amilû al-sâlihât : al-Baqara 2, 25), love of God is inseparable from love of neighbour.
Yale Center for Faith & Culture (Yale
Divinity School)
“Let this common
ground”–the dual common ground of love of God and of neighbor — “be the basis of all future interfaith dialogue between
us,” your courageous letter urges. Indeed, in the generosity with which
the letter is written you embody what you call for. We most heartily agree.
Abandoning all “hatred and strife,” we must engage in interfaith dialogue as
those who seek each other’s good, for the one God unceasingly seeks our good.
Indeed, together with you we believe that we need to move beyond “a polite
ecumenical dialogue between selected religious leaders” and work diligently
together to reshape relations between our communities and our nations
so that they genuinely reflect our common love for God and for one
another.
Given the deep
fissures in the relations between Christians and Muslims today, the task before
us is daunting. And the stakes are great. The future of the world depends
on our ability as Christians and Muslims to live together in peace.
If we fail to make every effort to make peace and come together in harmony
you correctly remind us that “our eternal souls” are at stake as
well.
We are persuaded that
our next step should be for our leaders at every level to meet together
and begin the earnest work of determining how God would have us fulfill the
requirement that we love God and one another. It is with humility and
hope that we receive your generous letter, and we commit ourselves to labor
together in heart, soul, mind and strength for the objectives you so
appropriately propose.
Cambridge
School of Divinity
There
are three main reasons why this is so important.
First,
it is unprecedented in bringing together so many of the leading religious
authorities and scholars of Islam and uniting them in a positive, substantial
affirmation. This is an astonishing achievement of solidarity, one that can be
built on in the future.
Second,
it is addressed to Christians in the form of a friendly word, it engages
respectfully and carefully with the Christian scriptures, and it finds common
ground in what Jesus himself said is central: love of God and love of
neighbour. I like its modesty – it does not claim to be the final word but to
be ‘a common word’, one that Muslims and Christians (and, I would also add,
Jews and many others) can share with integrity. This is shared ground, mutual
ground, where there is the possibility of working further on issues that unite
and divide us. This common word does not pretend that there are no differences
between Muslims and Christians (for example, on the Christian teaching about
Jesus rather than the teaching of
Jesus). It takes a vital step forward, and
wisely does this by concentrating mainly on each tradition’s scriptures, those
core texts that are so often misused but which, in my experience, also have the
resources for enabling deeper mutual understanding and trust.
Third,
it opens a way forward that is more hopeful for the world than most others at
present in the public sphere. Its combination of Islamic solidarity around core
teaching together with friendly address to Christians should be seen as setting
a direction for the twenty-first century. It challenges Muslims and Christians
to live up to their own teachings and seek political and educational as well as
personal ways to do this for the sake of the common good. It invites them to go
deeper into their own faith at the same time as going deeper into each other’s.
It cries out to be followed through by many initiatives in the same spirit.
These should be among Muslims, among Christians, between Muslims and
Christians, and between them and those of other faiths and no faith. They
should be in many spheres of life and at all levels - local, regional and
global. It is deeply encouraging that the Royal Academy of Jordan has had the
courage, imagination and practical capacity to achieve this. Now the Royal
Academy needs to be joined by many others in following this through.
An
obvious question is: Will this Letter have
any impact on the violent extremism that afflicts the world? I do not think
that problem has a simple one-off solution. But any long-term solution will
have to include four elements:
·
Muslim solidarity around an understanding of
their faith that clearly excludes violent, uncompassionate acts, programmes and
language;
·
Better Christian understanding of Islam;
·
Deeper engagement between Muslims and
Christians that makes use of the resources at the heart of their faith, such as
their scriptures;
·
A concern for the flourishing of the whole
human family and the whole planet.
I
find all four in ‘A Common Word’. If sufficient people and groups heed this
statement and act on it then the atmosphere will be changed into one in which
violent extremists cannot flourish.
#Badaliyya-Philippines
