And With Muslims?
Free eBook:
|
| Free eBook: Practical Theology |
The king of Saudi Arabia, Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, came to the Vatican on November 6. This visit was soon defined a historic event. In your opinion, what will the meeting between the Pope and the Guardian of the two Sacred Mosques (this is the title of the Saudi sovereign) lead to?
Father Samir Khalil, S.J.: We must bear in mind that when King Abdullah was still prince apparent, he met John Paul II on May 25th, 1999. He is a very open-minded man who, during the Beirut summit of the Arab League, proposed a reasonable solution to the Middle East conflict, which involved the recognition of the State of Israel in exchange for Israel's withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967.
The meeting between the Pope and the Saudi king was meant to promote peace, justice and moral values.
Peace is of vital importance to the Middle East, an area which has experienced war (or non-peace) for almost 60 years. The war in the Middle East (the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular) is the ultimate origin of international terrorism. Saudi Arabia's plan involves the whole region. The greatest Sunnite moral authority says: "We want peace." The promotion of peace is the common ground of Christians and Muslims.
One of Islam's traditional aims is the promotion of justice between nations and between social classes. The Saudi sovereign's intention to cooperate with the Vatican in the promotion of justice is of great importance, as there is a lot to do in this field. Yet I think that it would be best to start from Saudi Arabia, a country greatly affected by social injustice, especially as far as the condition of immigrants is concerned. Christian-Muslim dialogue is also meant to point out that justice cannot be confined to the Christian and Muslim world, but must be universal.
The third point is about the promotion of Christian values.
The Muslim world sees the West as devoid of moral and ethical values. I hear this accusation whenever I talk to Muslim immigrants living in Europe; they say: "Europeans have no moral principles."
European laws and customs with regard to sexual ethics (trial marriage, sexual freedom, extramarital sex) and the family (unmarried couples, homosexual unions) are a scandal to them. In such cases I have to explain to these people that Western society is not necessarily Christian; that it was originally based on Christian values, but later abandoned its foundations. Dialogue for the promotion of moral and ethical values thus becomes very important.
Also, the relevance of moral values was one of the main points of the Pope's speech at Regensburg. Benedict XVI criticized the Western world for its concept of reason which keeps out the ethical and spiritual dimension, as opposed to the Greek and Evangelical vision, in which the word logos includes this dimension.
The Western world therefore, having such a restricted concept of reason, cannot but come into contact with the Muslim world, with Asia, Africa, in short with other civilizations.
Another point which everyone stressed was that both the king and the Holy Father said that "violence and terrorism have no religion or country." In other words, they cannot be justified by religion or love of one's country (nationalism).
This is a statement with very important implications. In these words we find an echo from the Pope's speech in Regensburg. Here Benedict XVI quoted Emperor Manuel II Paleologus, who defined violence as contrary to God's nature and religion. The problem is that both the Old Testament (the Torah) and the Koran contain lots of violence and seem to justify the violent. The condemnation of violence justified by religion implies a re-interpretation of these sacred texts and the use of hermeneutics to give them their right meaning.
The last point of the talks was raised by the Holy See; it was the important question of religious freedom. I was surprised to see that all the papers and press agencies covered this issue.
It is an important fact in Saudi Arabia, where non-Muslim symbols are banned, where owning a Bible or a cross or celebrating the Mass, even privately, is forbidden.
We do not expect Saudi Arabia to change its religious policy overnight, but the Vatican decided to voice its opinion, to raise the question without forcing the hand of Saudi political leaders. Let us hope that representatives of other countries too will remind Saudi Arabia of this question, as this is not about religion alone, but involves respect for basic human rights.
If people are not free to practice their religion, to preach it or even to embrace another religion, a basic human right is denied. The Western world, which is so concerned about human rights, remains silent when it comes to religious freedom in China or Saudi Arabia.
You have quoted several times from the masterly speech that Benedict XVI made at Regensburg University more than a year ago, which triggered off a wave of violent protests. That speech, which was an invitation to dialogue, was at first misunderstood. Anyway, things are changing now . . .
Samir Khalil, S.J.: Yes, indeed, even though 38 Muslim representatives wrote a letter to the Pope. This year the letter has been signed by 138 people.
Who was the letter addressed to in practice?
Samir Khalil, S.J.: If we read the list of the addressees, we can have a complete and accurate picture: in addition to the Pope, the letter is addressed to Eastern Churches; to the patriarchs of Chalcedonian and pre-Chalcedonian Churches; to Protestant Churches; and finally to the World Council of Churches. This proves that behind this letter there is somebody with an in-depth knowledge of Christianity and the history of the Church.
What about the authors and signers of this letter?
Samir Khalil, S.J.: They represent 43 countries, Muslim and non-Muslim (Western countries in particular). Amongst them there are mufti (i.e. fatwa leaders), religious leaders, scholars, and common people.
In addition to representatives of the two large Muslim communities (Sunnites and Shiites), there are representatives of smaller groups, sects and even opposite orientations, like the most mystical one (sufi), most of which are based in the Western world.
How could representatives of various Islamic "denominations" come to an agreement?
Samir Khalil, S.J.: It was made possible by the mediation of the king of Jordan and the Aal al-Bayt Foundation (i.e. the family of the Prophet of Islam) headed by the king's uncle, Prince Hassan. This man probably represents the best which is to be found within Islam. He has always supported dialogue with all religious, political and cultural institutions and has always worked for peace and concord. I have met him four times (in Toronto, Rome, Amman and Madaba) and I have always been amazed by his generosity and open-mindedness.
Unlike the Catholic Church, Islam has no supreme authority; the Muslim world is therefore so diversified that it is difficult to understand who represents it. What can we do about this?
Samir Khalil, S.J.: The deep division in the Muslim world is a big problem. Yet Islam is characterized by the concept of ijma (consensus). In Islamic tradition there are three foundations for each article of faith: the Koran, tradition (Mohammed's life and sayings), and agreement within the community of believers, also known as ijma.
Now, this third element had never been properly developed. On the contrary, when an imam says something, another imam will say something different, or even the opposite, the following day. The letter signed by these 138 personalities (let us note that eight new signatories have added their names) does not say that all Muslims see eye to eye, but proves that attempts are being made to achieve some agreement.
Let us now come to the letter's content.
Samir Khalil, S.J.: The first point I would like to stress is that the title is a quotation from the Koran: "A word in common between you and us" (Sura of Imran's family, 3:64).
This is what Mohammed says to Christians: when he realizes that he cannot come to an agreement with them, he says: "Come, let us agree on one thing at least, that we worship one God alone (i.e., the uniqueness of God) and that we will never recognize anyone as our lord except God." Note that this "common word" does not include Mohammed in any way. Here he is not referred to as the prophet or God's last messenger.
What this passage underlines is that there is only one God. This is positive, even though it is said in the Koran.
The letter has three sections:
The first is entitled "Love of God" and has two subsections: "Love of God in Islam" and "Love of God as the First and Greatest Commandment in the Bible." Actually the title in Arabic is more precise: it reads "in the Gospels." The use of the word "Bible," which includes the Old and New Testaments, makes it possible to include Judaism in our conversation, even though the letter is addressed to Christians alone.
The second section is entitled: "Love of One's Neighbor" (hubb al-jar). Like the first one, this section is divided into two subsections: "Love of One's Neighbor in Islam" and "Love of One's Neighbor in the Bible." Once again, the Arabic original reads: "in the Gospels."
The third section concludes the letter by taking up the quotation from the Koran: "Come for a word in common between you and us."
So, the love of God and of one's neighbor provides the basis for dialogue between Christians and Muslims.
Samir Khalil, S.J.: It's true, but there is an interesting fact to notice: the lexicon used here is Christian, not Muslim. The word "love," largely used by Christians, is rarely found in the Koran.
It is not even included among God's names. In fact, if we analyze the first part of the letter, the one about love of God in Islam, we find out that Muslims call "love" what we Christians would rather refer to as "obedience to God." Yet they use this term to conform to the Christian lexicon. Muslims usually speak of worship of God, of recognition of His uniqueness.
However, the reference to love of God contained in this letter is a novelty. This is probably a clever way to refer to Benedict XVI's first encyclical "God is love" (Deus caritas est). Anyway, the letter shows the attempt at getting close to the Christian lexicon, even though this involves the risk of calling different things by the same name.
Another instance is provided by the word "brethren." This word does not exist in the Koran; it is typical of the New Testament. The Arabic text does not have "brethren," but jar, which is to be interpreted as "neighbor" in a physical sense ("the family next door" e.g.), unlike the Christian term qarib, which means "brethren."
The authors of the letter mingle Muslim with Christian phrases. They take two different approaches depending on whether they quote from the Koran or from the Bible. Quoting from the Koran, they say "God said," like every true Muslim. Quoting from the Bible, they say "as the New Testament says" or "as the Gospels say." In other words, they approach the Bible in scientific terms, from the scholar's point of view, whilst they approach the Koran from the believer's point of view, without using a scientific terminology.
How do Muslims see the Old and New Testaments, then?
Samir Khalil, S.J.; When they quote from the Old and New Testaments, they take it for granted that the Bible is God's word. This fact too is relatively new. This concept is theoretically stated in the Koran, but rejected in practice. Muslims often regard the Bible as a text manipulated through additions to the original core (muharrafah or mubaddalah).
The 138 signers of the letter go so far as to make explicit reference to Saint Paul about the concept of "heart." Saint Paul is usually rejected by Muslims on the grounds that he betrayed Jesus' message, which they regard as Islamic.
They often say that Jesus announced the same faith as the Koran, but that Saint Paul introduced the Trinity, Redemption by the Cross and rejection of Mosaic law.
All these little signs show a sincere attempt at dialogue with regard to language and biblical testimony. There are also allusions to Judaism in the attempt to integrate it into this vision.
The phrase "people of the Scripture," for example, is a clear reference to the Jews as well, even though the letter is officially addressed to Christians. From now on we will say that Christianity, Judaism and Islam are centered on love of God and of one's neighbor. This is really something new, something never said before in the Muslim world.
You have been talking about the letter's positive aspects. Are there any elements which you don't find too convincing?
Samir Khalil, S.J.: The authors of the letter chose those passages from the Koran which are closest to the Bible, even though the former contains texts that depart from Christian doctrine.
This is important, but if we stop at this, our dialogue will be conducted on an ambiguous basis. In Christian tradition there is a search for a foundation in common with other religions, or rather, with all cultures. In Christian terms this foundation is not provided by the Koran or the Bible, as this would exclude non-believers, but by natural law, i.e. a common ethics which atheists too can accept.
In his speech addressed to the International Theological Commission on October 5, the Pope referred to moral natural law "to justify and illustrate the foundation of a universal ethics belonging to the great patrimony of human wisdom, whereby all rational creatures participate in God's eternal law."
Referring to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Benedict XVI declared: "Moral life revolves around man's desire for and submission to God, the source and judge of all good and the cause of man's perception of his neighbor as his equal."
The Holy Father goes on to say that natural law, "in itself accessible to every rational creature, provides a basis for dialogue with all men of good will and with the whole of civil society.
In other words, the Pope says that universal ethics based on natural law and not the Holy Scripture provides the basis for dialogue.
Samir Khalil, S.J.: The letter sent to Christians by the Muslim experts stops at what the Bible and the Koran have in common. This is certainly a big flaw. In my opinion the next step should be trying to bring Christians and Muslims together on a more universal basis.
This would involve a reference to some elements contained in the Holy Scripture, provided these are acceptable to everybody; anyway we should go as far as to lay the foundations for universal dialogue.
On the other hand, the attitude of the 138 Muslim representatives is easy to understand, as they aim at restoring relations with the Christian world.
This is clearly stated in the preface to the letter, where it is said that "we, Christians and Muslims, make up 55% of the world population." Hence the possibility for us to impose universal peace, if we are able to come to an agreement. It is a tactical, a near political approach.
The authors of the letter ask Christians "to regard Muslims as their allies, not their enemies." This proves that they see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as wars on Islam.
Samir Khalil, S.J.: Unfortunately Muslims tend to see the West as a Christian power without realizing how secularized it has become and how far it has moved from Christian ethics.
This vision reinforces the cultural and religious conflict theory just when attempts are being made at contrasting such a theory. The Americans are not in Iraq or Afghanistan as Christians oppressing Muslims. There are political interests at stake. Therefore, even though we know that the U.S. president is a Christian and that he is guided by his faith, we cannot in any way define the war in Iraq as a Christian war on Muslims.
Islam is usually thought of as an intolerant religion; it is therefore striking that the letter closes with an appeal to tolerance and respect for differences.
Samir Khalil, S.J.: It's true. The Koranic verse on tolerance is quoted at the end of the letter. It runs as follows: "God would have united you into one community, had he wanted to. Nevertheless, he decided to test you and see the use you will make of what you have been given.
"Therefore compete with one another in the accomplishment of good actions; all of you will return to God and he will inform you about your differences" (Sura of the laid table, n° 5:48).
This is the last but one sura in the Koran, which means that it cannot be abrogated or superseded by another one, as the theory of Koranic interpretation, called theory of the repealer and the repealed (al-nasikh wa-l-mansukh) has it.
This verse is of crucial importance, as it states that our religious differences are traceable to God.
Therefore dialogue implies competing in the accomplishment of good actions. This is an excellent conclusion, as it means that we can coexist despite our differences; not only that, it is stated that these differences are the work of God!
The signers of the letter are a small group, nor do they represent the whole of Islam; hence the question: "Will this letter, which is addressed to Christians, produce a positive impact on the Muslim world?"
Samir Khalil, S.J.: I am sure that this letter is also addressed to Muslims, even though this not explicitly stated. How will it affect the Muslim world as news of kidnappings of priests, persecution of converts and oppression of Christians keep pouring in? There has been no comment from Muslims so far.
Yet, in due course, this letter will receive greater approval and bring together a greater number of Muslim believers. It is above all desirable that the questions we are most concerned about, i.e., religious freedom, the absolute value of human rights, the relationship between religion and society, and the use of violence, may soon be taken into serious consideration.
Let us now return to current affairs. Certain Arab countries are known to support the spread of Islam in the world with huge amounts of money paid to Muslim extremists, terrorists included. The oil price has been soaring over the last months, with lots of petrodollars flooding into the coffers of Muslim countries. Isn't there a possibility for these billions of dollars to be used in support of Muslim fundamentalism or even terrorism?
Samir Khalil, S.J.: All this money will no doubt be employed to give further support to religious proselytism. Saudi Arabia, which claims to be the keeper of the Sacred Places, and considers the spread of Islam a religious and political question, is the first country responsible for this operation.
The danger stems from the fact that this proselytism is not so neutral or peaceful as Saudi authorities make it out to be. Saudi Arabia supports a particular conception of Islam known as Wahhabism, so called after the name of an 18th century jurist, characterized by a strong rigorist and fundamentalist bias.
An intolerant and extremely violent variety of Islam is thus catching on. This is the paradox of Saudi Arabia: on the one hand it opens to the Western world; on the other hand it supports the most fundamentalist version of Islam, thus encouraging violent fringes; Saudi authorities fight terrorism and support Wahhabism at the same time; they should realize that a certain kind of terrorism originates from Wahhabism.
This item 7993 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
