“Herald” (28 October 2007, Vol.14, No. 42)
‘The Letter of 138 Muslim scholars to the Pope’(p. 6-7)
There is a lot of good in the document sent to Pope Benedict XVI and Christian leaders: greater convergence between Muslim currents; attention to Christian vocabulary; the desire for dialogue. There is also some ambiguity and difficulty. But it is a first step: now it is necessary to open up the dialogue to the secular world. The great sura of tolerance. Prof. Samir Khalil Samir, sj gives his analysis in this two-part article.
BEIRUT: The Letter by 138 Islamic academics to the Pope ad Christian leaders ins a first positive step towards dialogue, which however needs to become more universal and more concrete.
The letter lies in the explicit context of an extension of the first letter, sent exactly one year ago to Pope Benedict XVI, as a reply ti his masterful address at Regensburg University: the same date was chosen for its publication (Oct 13, 2007), which this year coincided with the end of Ramadan.
A highly representative Letter
The fact that its signatories have increased compared to last year is noteworthy: from 38―as it was last year―they have become 138. They represent over 43 nations, both Muslim and otherwise (in particular western nations). Among them are great muftis (that is leaders of the fatwa in a country), religious leaders, academics and scholars.
Beyond 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; hafaarites, also a derivateive 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 quarter, a step towards what Islam calls ihmaa (consensus). In theIslamic tradition every point of faith is founded in three sources; the Koran, on the muhammadian tradition (Hadith or that is the sayings and life of Mohammad), community consensus, in other words ijmaa. This third step up until now has never really been evaluated.
Actually, there is deep division in the Islamic world; one day one man says one thing; the next day he says something different.
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, led 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 devoted 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 first positive point of the letter is therefore the fact that it is highly representative, coming from a converging group. 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 Calcedonian and pre Calcedonian (sic) Churches; then the protestant Churches and finally the World Council of Churches. Which amply shows that behind this letter is someone who knows and understands Christianity and the history of the Church.
Ⅰ−The structure in the letter
On coming to the content of the letter what is immediately striking is the fact that the title has bee taken from the Koran: A Common World between Us and You(Sura of the family of Imran 3:64). This is what Mohammed says to the Christians in the Koran: when he sees that he cannot reach agreement on at least one common ground: that we shall worship none but God (the ones 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 take into consideration any definition of Mohammed. This sentence does not speak of Mohammad as a prophet, or last messenger of God. What is underlined is the common word and the oneness of God. Which 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 (sic)”, subdivided into two, “love of God in Islam” and “love of God as the first and greatest commandment in the bible (sic)”. 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-jar). 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”.
Ⅱ―Reflections on the content
I desire to make some observations regarding this structure.
First and foremost, there is continuity between the first and second letter. The first letter concluded on the necessity to arrive at an agreement based on love for God and for our neighbour. With this the scholars wish to say: we are now developing on what we announced as the basis for all relations between Islam and Christianity.
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” (jar), which only has a geographical meaning (like a neighbour who lives next door), compared to the Christian term qarib, 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 of 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. In the Arab version’s: “Issa-al-Massih”. This expression cannot be found in the Koran, but is the conbined 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 (sic), they only say “as it is found in the New Testament”, “as it is read in the Gospel”, etc…. Which 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 138 (in note 4) even go 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.
(To be continued)
Note: The green colour was added by Lily for emphasis. (Lily)
