Barnabas Fund Response to the Yale Center for Faith and Culture Statement: ("Loving God and Neighbor Together"…)

January 24, 2008

Foreword

"A Common Word Between Us and You": A Path to Progress?

Much ink has been spilled in recent years on the subject of interfaith dialogue, and particularly that between Christians, who nearly always are Western Protestant or Roman Catholic, and Muslims. The discussion peaked in recent months with the public letter ("A Common Word Between Us and You") organized by the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, Jordan and signed by 138 Muslim clerics. The October 13, 2007 open letter was sent to Christian leaders throughout the world.

Little more than a month later, on November 18, 2007, Christian scholars and church leaders, largely from the United States, responded en masse via a full-page advertisement in the New York Times. The letter, titled "Loving God and Neighbor Together: A Christian Response to `A Common Word Between Us and You,`" was drafted by Evangelical Christians at the Yale Center for Faith and Culture, and signed by more than 300 Christians leaders, a great majority of whom were Western Evangelicals.

Little of the discussion has focused on the history of such dialogues, and the discernable results of interfaith efforts between Christians and Muslims - especially with regard to how these various efforts have positively or negatively affected Christian minorities living in Islamic-majority contexts.

Within the Western Church, and particularly among Evangelicals, there is increasing debate over how to "dialogue" with Muslims. Western Christians have a growing awareness of the need to understand Islam and Muslims, and to foster relations that finds effective common ground for working towards increasing peace, while faithful to the Gospel.

Much of the contemporary debate in the Western Church focuses on practical issues of "how" to relate to Islam and to Muslims, which seem the most pressing and thus important. At the same time, the more profound and difficult questions of understanding Islam and its contemporary expressions seem often to be lost or left unexamined.

It goes without saying that the latter concern is more important, as it shapes the former. Both of these are however secondary to the Church`s understanding of truth, meaning the Truth that forms its own identity and which wholly defines its purpose. Truth is what God revealed through the Law, the Prophets and in the fullness of His incarnate Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Christians answer any of the questions regarding interfaith in light of this Truth, but also recognizing the Islamic point of view that truth is defined in the Quran and hadith, institutionalized in Islam`s laws and expressed throughout its formative and later history. In the following report, we focus on these areas in depth, and address some of the more complicated issues relating to interfaith dialogue, with particular reference to the Yale Statement.

Western Protestant Christian and Muslim interfaith relations: one seminary`s story

Before moving on, it is instructive and sobering to consider a case study of a well-known American seminary, to see how sharply different ideas about Christian outreach and dialogue with Islam have played out over time.

Hartford Seminary in Connecticut, one of America`s oldest theological schools, was founded in 1834 by Calvinists who left Yale College to found a new institution of Christian learning. In the early decades of the twentieth century Hartford was a leading institution in the evangelization of Muslims. Samuel M. Zwemer (1867-1952), the famous missionary to Muslims, wrote:

"We hope to point out . . . the true solution to the Moslem problem, namely the evangelization of Moslems and to awaken sympathy, love and prayer on behalf of the Moslem world until its bonds are burst, its wounds are healed, its sorrows removed and its desires satisfied in Jesus Christ."

In 1911, Zwemer founded an academic quarterly titled "The Moslem World," which offered information on Islam and was a forum for mission strategy among Muslims. He served as its editor for thirty-six years, and then handed the responsibilities of running it over to others at Hartford Seminary on the condition that they remain in the same spirit of evangelism and commitment to evangelical truth.

One of the lecturers at Hartford at the turn of the twentieth century was the Scotsman, Duncan Black Macdonald (1863-1943), who taught Arabic and Islam. A highly respected scholar of Islam, Macdonald held that the seminary students must learn the language and theological heritage of Islam if they were to be successful in evangelizing Muslims. Macdonald`s principles, controversial in his own time, later became an important part of Hartford`s missionary training. However, the results may not have been what he anticipated, because, in the words of the current Hartford president, Heidi Hadsell, "The missionaries that we sent were coming home saying [Muslims] already believe in God. What we need is dialogue between Muslims and Christians."

Thirty years after Macdonald`s death, in 1973, Hartford created the Duncan Black Macdonald Center for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations. Its mission is to nurture Christian-Muslim understanding. In 1998, the center hired Ingrid Mattson, a Canadian-born convert to Islam with a doctorate in Islamic studies from the University of Chicago, to direct the chaplaincy program. Mattson is also the first female president of the Islamic Society of North America. In 2000 an Islamic chaplaincy program was launched at Hartford to train Muslims for chaplaincy roles in the American military. The number of students taking the Islamic chaplaincy training has steadily increased since then.

Today, Muslims make up 35 percent of the student body at Hartford Seminary, an institution which a few generations ago was training Christians to evangelize Muslims.

The case of Hartford Seminary shows how the laudable desire to understand Islam and Muslims has brought a Calvinist foundation with a strong missionary emphasis to the point of using its resources to train and equip Muslims to strengthen other Muslims in their faith.

Where does all of this lead? In the following pages we consider this and other important questions, and we do so from the basis of the need to speak the truth, to speak the truth always, and to speak the truth in love.

Rev. Canon Patrick Sookhdeo, Ph.D., D.D.

History

The Pope`s Regensburg lecture. On September 12, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI gave a lecture on faith and reason at Regensburg University, Germany.[1] Muslims around the world were offended by one passage, taken out of its context, in which he quoted a Byzantine Emperor on Islam and violence. Angry and violent demonstrations by Muslims erupted around the world. Christians in Muslim lands bore the brunt of the violence: churches were damaged and several Christians killed. Many Muslim leaders, including the influential International Union for Muslim Scholars (IUMS) demanded an apology from the Pope.

Letter to Pope from 38 Muslim scholars. In October 2006, 38 Muslim scholars wrote a letter to Pope Benedict XVI, correcting what they perceived as several errors in his presentation of Islam in the Regensburg address. One interesting statement they made was that the Qur`anic verse "There is no compulsion in religion . . ." (Q2:256) was revealed during Muhammad`s Medinan period when he was in a position of strength. They thus implied, but did not categorically state, that it was not abrogated by other later verses (the traditional majority opinion). The Vatican did not write an answer to the letter, but stated that the Pope had been misunderstood by Muslims, and that the intent of his speech had been a call for cooperation and dialogue with Muslims.[2]

Tim Winter, a British convert to Islam (also known as Abdul Hakim Murad) who is Sheikh Zayed lecturer in Islamic studies at the Divinity School, University of Cambridge, explained that the letter was an attempt by Muslim leaders to address misunderstandings of Islam current in the West caused by the rise of a violent fringe in Islam. It appears that Muslim leaders feel that they are failing to communicate effectively with Christians in the West, partly because Islam lacks a centralised point of authority to speak on their behalf in the way that they consider the Vatican and the Pope speak on behalf of Christians. It would seem that these scholars, representing over 20 countries and 8 different streams of Islam, and brought together by the Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought in Amman, Jordan, were trying to establish themselves as such a cross-denominational Islamic authority - certainly an innovation in Islam.

"A Common Word", letter to Christian leaders from 138 Muslim scholars. On 13 October 2007, 138 Muslim scholars wrote an open letter, "A Common Word Between Us and You", addressed to world Christian leaders. It was organised by the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, Jordan, which is supported by the Jordanian Royal House and the Royal Academy in Jordan. This organisation seeks to solidify an international, interdenominational body of Muslim religious scholars to represent the interests of Islam to governments, other religions and international bodies. Its Chairman of the Board of Trustees is Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad bin Talal of the Jordanian royal family. Its aim is to be seen as speaking on behalf of all Muslims and setting policies and doctrines for all of Islam. At the same time it might be significant that Muslim-Brotherhood-affiliated scholars such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the most influential Sunni cleric in the Muslim world, and Tariq Ramadan (a very popular European-based Muslim scholar) were missing from the list of signatories in both letters. This might indicate some internal Muslim competition for the status of international representation of worldwide Islam.

Two obvious problems of the document are:

1. It totally ignores non-monotheistic religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism and others. This might imply that Islam`s relationship to them is still the same as to the ancient polytheists who were given the choice of converting to Islam or being killed.

2. It almost completely ignores the Jewish people and Islam`s attitude to them. This seems to fit with contemporary Muslim efforts to drive a wedge between Christians and Jews and form an alliance of Muslims and Christians against Jews who are increasingly bearing the brunt of a widespread Muslim anti-Semitic discourse.

The Yale Statement. On 18 November 2007, as a response to the October 2007 Muslim letter, some Evangelical Christian theologians at the Yale Center for Faith and Culture, Yale Divinity School, New Haven, Connecticut (USA), published a letter which was then signed by over 100 Evangelical and other Christian theologians, pastors and ministry leaders. Formally entitled "Loving God and Neighbor Together: A Christian Response to `A Common Word Between Us and You`", this letter is referred to as "The Yale Statement".[3] Dr Miroslav Volf, Henry B. Wright Professor of Theology at Yale Divinity School and Director of the Center for Faith and Culture, received the thanks of Muslim scholars for his positive embrace of the Muslim initiative at a press conference held on 26 November 2007 at the Cultural Foundation of Abu Dhabi, UAE. The number of signatories rose to over 300 by mid-January 2008.

The signatories represent a wide spread of Christian leaders, including representatives of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) like Leith Anderson, its current president; representatives of the World Evangelical Alliance such as Geoff Tunnicliffe, International Director, and Bertil Ekstrom, Executive Director of its mission commission; lecturers in religion, theology and Biblical studies at prestigious American universities such as Princeton, Yale, Hartford and Harvard, as well as at Evangelical seminaries such as Fuller Theological Seminary (including J. Dudley Woodberry, doyen of Evangelical Islamic studies and Dean Emeritus of Fuller).

The list also includes leaders of Evangelical mission societies and of Evangelical mission centres, including George Verwer and Peter Maiden of Operation Mobilisation (OM); Lynn Green of Youth With a Mission (YWAM); the founder of Frontiers, Greg Livingstone (Frontiers are involved in contextualisation of mission to Muslims); and Dwight P. Baker, Associate Director of Overseas Ministries Study Center (OMSC).

There are pastors of some of the largest Evangelical churches in the US, including Bill Hybels of Willowcreek and Rick Warren of Saddleback. There is a good sprinkling of Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Church of Christ, Assemblies of God, Mennonite and Baptist leaders. Several leading British Evangelicals have also signed the letter, including Christopher J H Wright, International Director of Langham Partnership International.

The list also includes Episcopal leaders in the US such as Bishop Barry Beisner of the Episcopal Diocese of Northern California and Peter J. Lee of Virginia; and a number of American Roman Catholic leaders and academics as well as a few Orthodox leaders.

Why did so many Christian leaders sign the Yale Statement? They surely all did it in good faith and with the best of intentions, but it is interesting to note the variety of motives which some have given when afterwards asked the reason that they signed:

1. Some believed it the right way to respond with Christian love and charity.

2. Some were motivated by fear of the potential for a global conflict with Islam, or specifically a conflict with Islam affecting the region in which they themselves live.

3. Some were hopeful that this response would open the way for a process of reconciliation between Islam and Christianity.

4. Some took a naively trusting approach, accepting the Muslim letter at face value without any suspicion of hidden agendas.

5. Some were particularly impressed by the wide spectrum of Muslim signatories and by the irenic tone of the letter, and saw it as a unique historical opportunity to mend fences with Islam.

6. Some took a pragmatic view that the developing dialogue could open the way for Christian missions and evangelism in Muslim lands and for freedom for Muslims to accept Christ and convert to Christianity.

7. Some did not study the document in detail but trusted the advice of others who encouraged them to sign.

Barnabas Fund analysis of "A Common Word". The Barnabas Fund published a response on 28 November 2007 in which the Muslim letter was closely analysed. A further Barnabas Fund elucidation of the response, including insights from Christians living in the Muslim world, was published on 7 January 2008.[4] The Barnabas analysis saw the Muslim letter as falling into the tradition of Muslim da`wa (call to convert and submit to Islam) which in history was often linked to the threat of violent war and conquest (jihad) should the call be rejected. The Muslim letter clearly indicated the centrality of the concept of tawhid (the monolithic unity of God) and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad as against the central Christian doctrines of the deity of Christ and the Trinity. Jesus is reduced and Islamised to a mere human prophet subservient to Muhammad. Most of the Qur`an and hadith passages quoted included attacks on those who associate others with God - in traditional orthodox Islamic exegesis always interpreted as attacks on Christian "corruptions". Thus, what would superficially appear to be an offer of common ground in the love of God and one`s neighbour, in reality turns out to be a missionary pamphlet extolling Islam and denigrating the very heart of Christianity. It seems likely that the Muslim authors assumed that Muslim readers would understand the veiled intentions while Christian readers not conversant with Muslim traditions would fail to understand.

138 Muslim scholars Christmas and New Year message: As a sign of gratitude for the generally positive Christian response, the Muslim scholars published "A Muslim Message of Thanks and of Christmas and New Year Greetings, December 2007", which among others appeared as a full-page advertisement in The Daily Telegraph, 29 December 2007. In this message the original da`wa themes of the letter were repeated i.e. the centrality of the tawhid concept to Islam and the rebuke to Christians in the quotes mentioning "no associates".

The Vatican was rather slow to respond officially to the Muslim initiative. It seemed not so much interested in pure theological dialogue as in a more practical exchange that discussed the realities on the ground of Christians living in Muslim countries. Following a correspondence between the Vatican Secretary of State, Tarcisio Bertone, on behalf of the Pope, and the Jordanian Prince, Ghazi bin Muhammad bin Talal, clarifying the issues between the two sides, the way was opened for a summit meeting. The Pope stressed that he wanted to discuss respect for the dignity of all human beings, awareness of the other`s religion, and a common commitment to promoting mutual tolerance among the younger generation. In other words, the Pope would not accept the limits set by the Muslim leaders of only discussing the theological implications of their statements on love of God and the neighbour, but wanted it expanded to include practical implementations in the Muslim world, including discussion of human rights and equality for non-Muslims. The Pope also stressed that the common ground between Muslims and Christians is their belief in One God who is creator and judge, rather than accept the Muslim letter`s spurious definition of common ground between the two faiths as love for God and neighbour. The Jordanian prince insisted that the dialogue be limited to theological and spiritual themes. On 2 January 2008, Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, announced that a "historic" meeting will take place in spring 2008 between Pope Benedict XVI and a representative delegation of the 138 Muslim scholars, authors of the letter. The Muslim representatives will also meet with other Vatican institutions.[5]

The Rev. Christian W. Troll, a Jesuit scholar engaged in dialogue with Muslims, Honorary Professor at St. Georgen Graduate School of Theology and Philosophy, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, declared that there had never been an initiative like this letter in the 1,400 years of Muslim-Christian history. He welcomes the "warm, inviting tone" of the letter which is "enormously encouraging". He sees the Muslim call as a response to the Pope`s Regensburg lecture which had the intent of provoking a deeper dialogue between Christianity and Islam. He notes the quotations from the Bible and wonders whether this signals a break with traditional Islamic doctrine and a new approach by Muslims to the Jewish and Christian scriptures. In other words, have the Muslim scholars repudiated the doctrine of the corruption of the Bible which is still the common Muslim view? Or, Troll asks, are they merely using selected Bible quotations to accentuate the Muslim views on God and love? Troll also notes that several of the Qur`anic quotations have been used in traditional Muslim commentary as expressing criticism of the Christian doctrines on the divinity of Jesus. He warns that Muslims wanting to engage in dialogue with Christians must understand that the deity of Jesus and Trinitarian monotheism are basic doctrines that "cannot be negotiated away". Finally, Troll argues that in spite of any agreement on the "double-love commandment" there are still enormous problems in Muslim Christian relations including the imposition of shari`a, the relationship between state and religion, and the deteriorating situation of many Christians living in Muslim majority countries.[6]

Samir Khalil Samir, a Jesuit Islamic scholar and lecturer at St Joseph University, Beirut. Samir approves of the greater convergence developing between various Islamic currents evident in the signatories of the letter, which implies a concerted move towards a greater consensus (ijma`). He also welcomes their desire for dialogue with Christians, and sees this as a direct result of the Pope`s "masterful" tactics. Samir notes that the Arabic text uses "Gospel" rather than Bible as in the English version. He further notes that the letter uses the Arabic word jar for neighbour (which has merely the meaning of a geographical proximity) rather than the Christian Arabic term qarib which includes the meaning of brother and is not dependent on geographical proximity. Samir explains that the word "love" is rarely used in the Qur`an, and what the Muslim scholars stress as love in the first part of the letter is actually obedience to God rather than love to Him. He says that while this talk of love for God and neighbour is a novelty in Islam, "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." He points out that the declaration that Jews, Christians and Muslims have love of God and of one`s neighbour at the heart of their respective faiths has never before been stated by Muslims. He also notes that when the Muslim scholars quote from the Qur`an they say "God said", while when quoting from the Bible they merely state "as is found in the New Testament" or "as is read in the Gospels". Samir presents the Catholic view that natural law is the real common ground between Christianity and other religions. He refutes the accusations against Christians as warring against Muslims, explaining that the issues concerning the war on terror are political issues: "Even if we know that the president of the United States is a Christian and that he is led by his faith, it can in no way be claimed that this is a war of Christians against Muslims." The Muslim stand is coloured by their tendency to see the West as a Christian power, not accepting the reality of its secularisation and estrangement from Christian ethics. Such Muslim presuppositions only reinforce the theory of a clash of cultures and civilisations. Samir closes with the question of what difference this letter will make in the Muslim world where Christians continue to be oppressed, Christian priests are kidnapped and apostates are persecuted. It is important, he says, that the next stages in dialogue will focus on the issues of religious freedom, the absolute value of human rights, and the religious use of violence.[7]

From the various Orthodox churches there has been hardly any official response to the Muslim initiative. A Middle Eastern prelate complained that he had received no reply to his approaches from the 138 scholars, and concluded that they only wanted dialogue with Western Christians.

Metropolitan of All America Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church and Archbishop of New York, Mykhayil Javchak Champion. This Orthodox prelate noted the lack of Orthodox responses to the Muslim initiative, which he blames on indifference and insecurity. He would like to see Orthodoxy becoming more inclusive, both towards other Christians and towards other religions, including Islam. He welcomes the letter and its call for common ground on the theme of love for God and neighbour. He is encouraged by Muslim acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah (apparently he does not realise the term is used in the Qur`an). He agrees with the 138 Muslim scholars that the major truths of both religions are "made of the same stuff", so are actually not so different. He closes with reflections on the peaceful relations between Muslims and Christians in contemporary Ukraine.[8]

Archbishop Rowan Williams, Primate of all England and senior bishop of the worldwide Anglican Communion. While welcoming the Muslim letter as the basis for further development of dialogue and common action between Christians and Muslims, Williams tactfully indicated his concern for Christian minorities in the Muslim world:

The theological basis of the letter and its call to `vie with each other only in righteousness and good works; to respect each other, be fair, just and kind to another and live in sincere peace, harmony and mutual good will,` are indicative of the kind of relationship for which we yearn in all parts of the world, and especially where Christians and Muslims live together. It is particularly important in underlining the need for respect towards minorities in contexts where either Islam or Christianity is the majority presence.[9]

Bishop Mark Hanson, President of the Lutheran World Federation. Hanson gratefully welcomed the sincerity expressed by the Muslim authors, and their stress on a shared heritage in the "sacred texts of the Abrahamic faiths". He expresses a vaguely worded hope that Jews, Muslims and Christians will receive God`s living revelation in the world without fear from their neighbours.

Evangelical Alliance, UK: General Director Joel Edwards welcomed the Muslim call to peaceful engagement between faiths. However, the EA statement acknowledges the abiding differences between the two faiths. "Neither Christianity, nor Islam, is built on an abstract notion of love or faith. Rather, Christianity is built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ, the God who became flesh and lived among us."[11]

Professor David Ford, Director of Cambridge University`s Inter-Faith Programme, warmly welcomed the letter as an unprecedented positive statement of friendship to Christians, a "historic template for the future . . . an astonishing achievement of solidarity, one that can be built on in the future".[12]

David Coffey, President of the Baptist World Alliance. Coffey welcomed the Muslim letter as a

groundbreaking initiative which could make a major contribution to a better understanding in Christian-Muslim relations, the cause of religious liberty and global peace.[13]

However, he also expresses his concern for Christians, and those of other faiths, who are denied full religious liberty.

Zein al-Abdeen Al Rekabi, a Muslim scholar, published an article "An Opportunity to Discuss Our Knowledge of Mohammed and Jesus", in Asharq Alawsat, 9 January 2008. Responding to a call by the Archbishop of Canterbury to Muslims to learn about Christian culture, Al-Rekabi presents the traditional Muslim view that all that is worth knowing about Jesus is already found in Islam and is part of the Muslim faith. He supplies a list of quotations from the Qur`an and hadith concerning Jesus and his mother, Mary, and concludes that Muslims have an "extensive knowledge in their sources about Jesus, the Virgin Mary, the Bible and the venerated Apostles". So Muslims are not ignorant of Christianity. Rather, the need is for Christians to learn more about Islam and its tolerance. Rekabi`s view represents the common Muslim attitude, which claims that Islam has superseded Christianity and that Islamic source texts contain all that is worth knowing of the previous original but superseded revelations in the Jewish and Christian scriptures. These scriptures were later corrupted by Jews and Christians and are no more reliable. There is thus no need for Muslims to further gain any knowledge about contemporary Christianity.

Brief summary of responses

There seems to be a clear difference between Western Evangelical, and Catholic, Orthodox and non-Western Christian responses to the Muslim letter. Non-Western Christians are clearly worried for its implications on their precarious survival in Muslim-majority countries; mainline Catholics and Orthodox are more conservative in their theology, and realise the dangers and temptations of the Muslim approach. Ironically, the Evangelical response seems more in tune with a liberal ecumenical and inclusive interfaith approach, which comes close to accepting Islam as a legitimate way to God, Muhammad as a prophet of God and the Qur`an as a revelation from God.

Analysis of the Yale Statement

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" (16th century proverb).

"Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves" (Mathew 10:16, NASB).

Introduction

In the field of interreligious relations, symbols are very important. So is the recognition and respect for the basic differences in doctrine, theology and practice. While the search for common ground is important for forging a mutual drive towards peaceful relations, it must not come at the expense of the mutual respect for the other`s specificity and the essential requirement of reciprocity and equality. An eagerness to grasp at the common ground presented by the Muslim letter is clearly evident in the Yale Statement, and it has seemingly blinded its authors to the negative implications of the Muslim letter. The Muslim leaders know of this desperate Christian longing for common ground, and manipulate it to their advantage.

The tone of the Muslim letter is condescending, given from a position of superiority and strength. It seems to imply that in spite of Christian guilt in fomenting war and aggression against Muslims, the Muslims scholars are offering Christians peace and harmony, if only they will accept the conditions laid down explicitly and implicitly in the document. The tone of the Yale response document, on the other hand, is one of abject humility, guilt and subjugation.

It is well known that for Islam honour and power are of central importance. Islam, which sees itself as the last and final revelation of God to humanity, can brook no rivals. The traditional view is that God has exalted Islam and Muslims above all other religions and made them superior to all others. According to the Qur`an, Muslims are "The best of peoples, evolved for mankind" (Q 3:110). According to a well-known hadith, "Islam increases and does not diminish".[14] Other versions of this hadith state that "Islam is exalted and nothing is exalted above it". All relationships with non-Muslims have to serve the principle of the exaltation and strengthening of Islam and of Muslims as compared to non-Muslim communities. The term that best describes this relationship is dominant-subordinate: Muslims are dominant, all others are subordinate.

The Muslim scholars well understand the importance of symbols and terms, using every opportunity to elevate Islam and its founder, scripture and basic doctrines while denigrating those of Christianity. The Christian scholars seem to have fallen into this trap, responding in what they seem to think is appropriate Islamic terminology, rather than Biblical and Christian theological terms, in an effort to please and appease Muslim sensibilities. This further denigrates Christianity and elevates Islam - one of the apparent aims of the Muslim endeavour.

This would seem to be the end result of the long road towards relativism in theology and theological contextualisation undertaken by some of the authors in an effort to seem relevant to secular and multicultural interests in society and in mission. This stand would suggest to Muslims a weaker Christian position, which accepts Muslim superiority in religion. This is reminiscent of the traditional submissive role required of dhimmi minorities (Christians and Jews) within an Islamic state.

There is much confusion these days amongst Evangelicals. Some seem to be carrying the lapsed liberal agenda of the 1960s-1980s. They are watering down their adherence to basic Biblical doctrines and accepting post-modernist and Islamic perspectives on many issues. Some have acceded to the notion that Christian missions are, in the main, programmes of aggressive proselytisation linked to the colonial era which should be forbidden. Aggressive proselytisation is seen as an act of violence against Muslims from a position of power. In the Muslim view, Christian aid and development efforts are also part of the aggressive missionary programme of Christianity and should be prohibited. This fits in well with the postmodern secularist agenda of eliminating truth and value content from all religions equally. In interfaith dialogue, Muslims have always attacked Christian evangelism as aggressive and hurtful to Muslims, without in the least critiquing Muslim da`wa. Muslims always demand an end to Christian evangelism in Muslim states and in Muslim societies and minorities. They never promise to stop Islamic da`wa in return. This is but one example of the way in which some Evangelicals in the West are yielding more and more to such demands, resulting in a weakening of Christianity and an empowerment of Islam.

Did all the Evangelicals sign freely and willingly?

It would seem that the authors of the Yale Statement managed to persuade some Evangelical leaders to sign the document without the signatories necessarily having a comprehensive knowledge of Islam and its attitudes and approaches to other religions.

Leith Anderson, President of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) admitted that he had signed the Yale Statement because of pressure put on him by other leaders, although he was not happy with some of its contents, and although his request for some changes had not been met. Evangelical leaders knowledgeable in Islam had encouraged him to sign it nevertheless. He did so because "there was simply no easy way to process the complexities of this inter-faith communiqué on short notice".

Is it possible that other Evangelical leaders may have been persuaded to sign against their better judgement? Anderson, in an attempt to limit the damage, added that his signature was given as an individual, not as the President of the NAE. He explained that he hopes the dialogue with Muslims will lead to mutual respect, freedom to state his specific faith without pretending to a comprehensive mutual agreement that does not exist, and religious liberty including that of conversion. He concluded that:

As an evangelical Christian I believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord. I take the Bible seriously as my rule of faith and practice. That is who evangelicals are and what evangelicals believe. Just as Muslims want us to know about Islam I want Muslims to know about the Gospel of Jesus Christ.[15]

It is a pity he was not able to insist on including his reservations, hopes and beliefs in the document.

The understandable desire to respond positively and in love to the perceived olive branch presented by the Muslim scholars seems to have overridden any sense of suspicion or of a deeper examination of the implications of the letter. It has been claimed by one of the authors that the Yale Statement would start a process which will culminate in reconciliation between Christianity and Islam. While we may pray for peace and harmony between Muslims and Christians in areas of physical conflict, there is no Biblical warrant for seeking reconciliation between Christianity and non-Christian religions such as Islam. Non-Christians are called to be reconciled to God by faith in Jesus Christ, outside of whom there is no salvation - this is the Biblical message. Watering down Christian fundamental doctrines and accepting Muslim claims to effect a hoped for reconciliation with Muslims can only lead to syncretism.

The marginalisation of Christ and the Bible

The Muslim scholars in their open letter respectfully call Muhammad "the Prophet Muhammad", adding the compulsory PBUH (Peace Be Upon Him) after every mention of his name, placing him immediately after God in the opening invocation: "In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful, And may peace and blessings be upon the Prophet Muhammad", as well as quoting the shahada: "There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God" in which Muhammad is again mentioned immediately after God. The Christian scholars on the other hand, have denigrated and marginalised the person of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, merely referring to Him as "Jesus Christ" as the Muslim scholars have done, as though he were just a mere human being with no special status for Christians. There is no allusion to his deity and lordship. There is no exaltation of his person and rank. It would seem he is not even a prophet with the status Muhammad has for Muslims. They have thus inadvertently confirmed the Muslim view of the superiority of Muhammad over Jesus.

There is a similar disparity in the treatment of the respective scriptures. The Muslim scholars respectfully call their scripture "the Holy Qur`an" whenever it is mentioned. The Christian scholars, on the other hand, simply refer to "the New Testament" rather than to "The Holy Bible".

It would seem that for the Christian scholars the basics of their religion are no longer to be treated as holy, precious and respected. This would seem to substantiate the idea that the Yale Statement was influenced by liberal Christianity which has long since abandoned its faith in the fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion. There seems to be a definite shift from orthodox Christian doctrine to a pluralist stand that denies the exclusivity of Christ in God`s plan of salvation and downplays orthodox Christian views on the Trinity, the person of Christ, and the authority of the Bible.

Another possibility is that some of the authors and signatories of the letter are so strongly motivated by their concern for evangelism among Muslims that they have gone beyond the acceptable contextualisation of form (adopting Muslim forms and language for Christian worship) to an unacceptable contextualisation of theology, thus accepting Muslim claims to the prophethood of Muhammad and the revelatory nature of the Qur`an.

The Yale Statement problematically uses the term "Prophet" to designate Muhammad. Do the authors of the letter and the signatories really accept Muhammad as a true prophet of God? If so, then logically they should follow Muhammad`s teachings and the revelation he claimed to have brought i.e. they should be Muslims. If they firmly believe in the finality of God`s revelation in Christ, then Muhammad is either no prophet at all or a false prophet and it would be wrong to give Muslims the impression that Christians accept his status as a true prophet of God. A better term would have been "Muhammad the founder of Islam" or something similar. If reciprocity is asked for in this dialogue, than the Muslim scholars should have used a Christian title of Jesus such as "Lord" or "Saviour" which they did not do. So why should Christians give Muhammad his Muslim designation of "Prophet"?

Agreeing to the Muslim concept of love of God and love of one`s neighbour

The authors of the Yale Statement have affirmed the Muslim statement that love of God and love of neighbour are at the heart of Islam, as they are in Christianity. However, the whole tenor of the Muslim document proves that what is really central to Islam is the monolithic unity of God that denies the deity of Christ, and the status of Muhammad as the final and only valid prophet and messenger of God, thus denying the finality of God`s revelation in Christ. They claim that these two testimonies are "the sine qua non of Islam". This is the real subtext of the Muslim letter, and anyone trained in Islamic studies should have been able to spot it immediately. It is a sad reflection on the Christian leaders who authored the Yale document that they either knowingly ignored these implications or else did not notice them. In either case they are disqualified from speaking in the name of a vast number of Christians who still believe in the orthodox Christian teachings on Christ, the Trinity and the Holy Bible. A more appropriate response would have been a reiteration of the basic Christian doctrines of the deity of Christ, of the Trinity and of the finality of God`s revelation in Christ as the central doctrines of the Christian faith, coupled to the revelation of God as love. Ignoring the Muslim subtext seems to imply that the Christians acknowledge the correctness of the Muslim claims.

The Anglican Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, in his response to the Muslim letter states:

This is a substantial letter which speaks of the unity of God from a Muslim perspective. It demands a substantial response which approaches the same theme from a Christian perspective.[16]

The Yale authors would have done well to heed his recommendation. The Muslim letter indeed calls for a response which clarifies the Christian orthodox position on these themes. Only from such a clear statement of Christian positions can progress be made in dialogue towards a reconciliation that fully accepts the right of the other to be different without suffering any disadvantage for it.

The Aal al-Bayt Institute conference on "Love in the Holy Qur`an"

In September 2007, the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought in Amman, Jordan, held a conference on the topic "Love in the Holy Qur`an" to prepare the ground for the October 2007 letter by Muslim scholars addressed to Christian leaders. One of the 32 papers offered at this conference was "Differences between the Muslim and the Christian Concept of Divine Love" by the German convert to Islam, Dr Murad Wilfried Hofmann. This paper defines the concept of love for God and neighbour in Islam in terms very similar to those used in the Barnabas Fund analysis of the Muslim letter.

Hoffman states that the Muslim concept of love for God differs from the Christian concept because Muslims do not accept that God was incarnated in a human Jesus. He repeats the traditional orthodox Muslim views on God as wholly transcendent, "The One beyond time and space Whose Being totally escapes our categorization . . . He remains unfathomable, unimaginable, unseizable, incomprehensible, indescribable". God`s attributes, as presented in the 99 Beautiful names, are "of little help, because we must not coin any similitudes for God (6:74)". God can only be defined in negative terms, listing what cannot be said of Him. For Muslims, loving God is only "naively possible". Sufi attempts at developing an Islamic mysticism of love are appreciated, but they face the difficulties of visualising God, which is forbidden. The Sufi approach, while emotionally more satisfactory than the sobriety of the philosophical approach, is described as highly speculative (carrying the nuance that it is not to be trusted or followed).[17]

Hofmann also states that the self-sufficiency of God precludes describing him as loving his creation, for a love relationship includes dependency which is inconceivable in God. Loving his creation is "incompatible with the very nature of God as sublime and totally self-sufficient". He admits that the Qur`an states that God "loves" the good and the just. He gives a list of those God loves: [18]

· the doers of good (Q 3: 31, 148; 5: 93)

· those who are patient in adversity (Q 3: 146)

· those who place their trust in Him (Q 3: 159)

· those who are conscious of Him (Q 9: 7)

· all who purify themselves (Q 9: 108)

· those who believe and do perform good deeds (Q 19: 96)

· those who act equitably (Q 60: 8)

However, the Qur`an also lists those God does not love:

· the disbelievers (Q 3: 32)

· the transgressors (Q 5: 87; 7: 55)

· the wasteful (Q 7: 31)

· the traitors (Q 8: 58)

While Hofmann does not state it, it is worth mentioning that Christians and Jews, though "people of the book", are nevertheless often described by orthodox Islam as composing one category of the totality of disbelievers (kafirun) because they reject the final prophethood of Muhammad and God`s revelation given to him in the Qur`an. They are therefore not loved by God, but rather disliked by him.

According to Hofmann, Muslims are hesitant about using the term "love" and prefer to use the term "brotherhood" in relations with other humans.[19] Hofmann also admits that the concept of loving one`s enemy is purely Christian, it is simply not found in Islam. [20]

Another paper presented at the conference is that by Arif Kamal, Pakistani Ambassador to Jordan, 2003-2007.[21] Kamal claims that those human beings who act justly, are pure and perform righteous deeds are worthy of attracting God`s love. This presupposes that all others are not. According to Kamal, God`s love is the result of human effort at establishing a just society. Human action comes first; God`s love is a response to human initiative. Muslims are commanded to love their brothers - in this context, brothers seems to indicate fellow Muslims. How different these ideas are from the Biblical concept of God`s love poured on unmeriting, unworthy and sinful human beings, of God taking the initiative in first loving us unconditionally.

It would be interesting to know whether the authors of the Yale Statement had read these papers, which are available on the Aal al-Bayt website.[22] It seems clear that the concept of love in Islam, as explained by Hofmann and Kamal, is very different from that in Christianity. The claim in the Muslim letter that the concept of love is identical in both religions is therefore strange, to say the least.

We as Christians are called to love our enemy, turn the other cheek, humble ourselves and serve. Muslims are not. In Christianity God is love and love is central and unconditional; not so in Islam.

Assuming responsibility and guilt for the Crusades and the war on terror

The authors of the Yale Statement assume responsibility both for the Crusades and for the contemporary war on Islamic terrorism in the name of all Christians. In this they again reinforce Muslim attitudes of seeing all non-Muslims as one bloc, one umma according to the well-known Muslim adage: al-kufar kullahu milatun wahida (the unbelievers are all one nation).[23] The individual is recognised only in his connection to the community he belongs to, he has no value in himself as a free individual before God, created in God`s image.

This communal view of human society still underpins Muslim responses to non-Muslims, as has been clearly evident in the angry and often violent responses to the Rushdie affair, to the Danish Muhammad cartoons and to the Pope`s lecture at Regensburg. This follows the view that if one non-Muslim transgresses, the whole non-Muslim community worldwide is responsible and must be punished until it compensates and appeases the Muslims for the offence. This has always been the attitude taken towards dhimmis in Muslim states. It is not the individual who is punished after due legal process, but the whole community to which he nominally belongs is subjected to violence, until its leaders humble themselves before the Muslims and compensate them for the perceived offence. For most Muslims, all nominal Christians worldwide still form one community, and Christians in Muslim states still suffer persecution and violence for any seeming offence against Islam committed by any nominally Christian person or institution in other lands.

The acceptance by some Christians - mainly Westerners - of communal historical guilt thus reinforces Muslim trends to punish indigenous Christians in Muslim lands - who have not been consulted about making the apology - for all the supposed sins against Islam ever perpetrated by any so-called Christian or Christians throughout history. This has been forcefully evident in recent years in places such as Iraq, Indonesia, Sudan, Nigeria and elsewhere. The acceptance of corporate Christian guilt by the Yale authors will inevitably have detrimental effects on Christians in Muslim-majority societies everywhere, who even now are suffering for their loyalty to Christ.

While some Christians hold that the involvement of Christians, and especially of the Catholic Church, in the Crusades was contrary to the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, many recognise that there was a need to defend the vulnerable Christians of the Holy Land. Thus the First Crusade was an understandable (possibly justifiable) belated response to the initial Muslim aggression in the first expansionist jihad which conquered and subjugated vast Christian regions and which posed a continuing threat to Christians in the Middle East and to Europe itself. Subsequent Crusades were, however, less easy to justify, and, with regard to behaviour, sadly both sides fought according to the norms of the time, shocking though it seems today. Apologies on behalf of all Christians ring hollow for those Middle Eastern Christians, such as the Armenians and Assyrians, who have faced genocide at the hands of Islamic armies and fanatics. Furthermore, such apologies simply harden Muslim attitudes of self-righteousness, confirming their conviction that they are guilty of no wrongdoing. This issue should have been left for further discussions with Muslim leaders where reciprocal mutual penitence and forgiveness could be shared.

Muslims have welcomed the apology in the Yale Statement and reported it widely on their websites, noting how Christians have finally admitted to their wrongdoings. There does not seem to have been any reference to any Muslim violence, either past of present, which Muslims might need to apologise for.

Claiming that Christians are responsible for the excesses in the "war on terror" again reinforces Muslim perceptions of the responses of Western states to Islamist terrorism as a Christian war against Islam. This is fuelled by Muslim conspiracy theories about an ancient and still current worldwide Christian conspiracy (allied to Jews) to destroy Islam. Unless the authors of the Yale Statement agree with these Muslim misconceptions, they should at the very least have clarified the issues. This would have included explaining that Western states are secular, not Christian entities, and that the "war on terror" is mainly a political and military response of secular states to attacks upon them and their citizens.

The Muslim scholars state in "A Common Word":

When freedom to worship God according to one`s conscience is curtailed, God is dishonoured, the neighbour oppressed, and neither God nor neighbour is loved.

This is clearly a statement we would all agree to. However, the Yale authors miss this opportunity to demand that Muslims live up to this claim and practise what they preach. Britain has over 1700 mosques for its approximately 3 million Muslims; similar numbers of mosques exist in France, Germany and the USA. Saudi Arabia does not permit even one church for almost a million Christians residing in it, yet a number of Saudi Wahhabi scholars signed the Muslim letter. In most Muslim states Christians face humiliating restrictions on building and repairing churches, and on public expressions of Christianity and its symbols. Muslims in the West do not usually face such restrictions. Similar inequalities can be multiplied. The effects of the Islamic Law of Apostasy, which has not been repealed by Muslim scholars, are felt by many Muslim converts to Christianity who are severely persecuted everywhere the Muslim world and even in Western states, while converts to Islam are given recognition and have total freedom and security in the West. Muslims are free to propagate Islam in the West, yet Christian mission is severely restricted, if not totally forbidden, in most Muslim states. Is it not the grave responsibility of Christian leaders to seize every opportunity to redress these wrongs and help their suffering brothers and sisters in Muslim countries who are usually powerless to help themselves?

The Yale authors express the desire for future meetings between Muslim and Christian leaders at every level to implement the expressed principle of love for God and neighbour. Are they ready for the first demand that will be made by Muslim leaders, namely that Christians cease all evangelistic efforts aimed at Muslims as a sign of their goodwill? It is well known that Christian mission to Muslims is viewed as aggression against Islam, while Islamic da`wa is viewed as the God-ordained command and right of Muslims everywhere. There seems to be a trend in current Evangelical missions to differentiate between permitted evangelism and forbidden proselytism. Muslims are cleverly redefining most forms of Christian outreach as proselytism and have succeeded in branding it as unacceptable in the Western media, academia and certain Christian circles. The emerging scenario around the world is of Christian missions being increasingly limited both by secular states and in Muslim lands, while Muslim da`wa activities are rapidly advancing and expanding worldwide. How can Christians face the advance of militant Islam when Christianity has become so fragmented in its approach to Islam? In spite of the peaceable rhetoric within "A Common Word", Islam is still a one-way-street in its practical relations with Christians and other non-Muslims living in its midst.

Conclusion

Currently Christian responses to Islam are many and various. Some would suggest that there are two opposing positions: one is to embrace Islamic ideals and the other is to regard Islam itself as intrinsically evil and to have nothing to do with it. But Barnabas Fund believes that there is a third way, that is, for Christians to meet with Muslims, recognising that there are two main areas for discussion. One area has to do with Muslims and Christians living in society and the other has to do with theology and spirituality. Barnabas Fund`s belief is that the latter is not the priority in our world today. We must recognise that there are vital differences in theology between Islam and Christianity which are unbridgeable, and therefore discussions on theology can never be very productive although they can result in increased understanding and respect for each other. It is the discussion of Muslims and Christians living in society which is the priority and indeed is urgent, and from which practical and positive change can be expected. Therefore, as the Pope has set out, discussion with Muslims must include full equality, human rights and religious liberty for Christian minorities, this liberty to comprise not only freedom of worship but also the freedom to share the Christian faith and to convert to it.

The Christian leaders in the Yale Statement are in effect giving everything away without receiving anything in return. The Muslim scholars have succeeded in dividing Christians among themselves, thus weakening the Church and empowering Islam. While the Muslim scholars have created an unprecedented united front and consensus among Muslims, they have managed to divide Christianity as never before. The negative effects of this letter will be felt foremost by the indigenous Christians in Muslim-majority states and societies who are already suffering from various forms of Muslim pressure, harassment and outright persecution. The Yale Statement does not deal with the serious issue of human rights and religious freedom as it affects Christian minorities and as enshrined in Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Current interfaith dialogue has inherent risks that must be clearly grasped before getting involved:

1. There is a risk that Christians will do all the giving and Muslims all the taking. This is inherent in the very nature of the two religions. Christianity stresses meekness, humility, confession, repentance, sacrifice and self-denial. Islam prizes power, domination and honour. Humility and meekness of the other side are seen as shameful and as signs of weakness to be seized upon and utilised. Muslims find it very difficult to accept blame because of the shame, humiliation and loss of face implied. Muslims will usually present their case as victims, make accusations against Christianity and demand compensatory actions. At the same time they will fiercely resist any discussion of Muslim shortcomings such as the bloody history of jihad and the persecution of Christians in Muslim states.
   
   
2. Muslims often engage in dialogue with the aim of da`wa, of converting others. Both religions believe in mission. Most Christians are happy to see it as a two-way process, with each faith having the freedom to propagate its message and try to convince others. Muslims see da`wa as a one-way street: only Islam as the God-given, final and true revelation has the right to propagate itself. Christians only have the limited right of worship within their churches. Muslims reject all Christian mission endeavours and seek to suppress them and smear them as deceitful and evil.
   
   
3. Christians present themselves as vulnerable and are open about their views, attitudes and aims. Muslims have a long tradition of using taqiyya (dissimulation, deceit) when in positions of inferiority and weakness, sanctioned by religious doctrine. Using different discourses to different audiences is fully acceptable in Muslim practice. What is said in one day in a specific context might be totally contradicted by what the same leaders might say another day in another context. Muslim rhetorical statements and joint declarations with Christians thus have limited value, as most Muslims understand the hidden agendas behind them.
   
   
4. Certain key vocabularies are understood differently by Muslims. There is a great risk of misunderstanding and of talking at cross purposes. For example, the word "peace" for Muslims carries the connotation of establishing peace and order by spreading Islamic rule and authority across the globe. In the Muslim letter the word "love" is given a Muslim twist and made to express God`s monolithic unity (tawhid) and the obligation to obey it implicitly to gain his favour, rather than the Christian view of the Triune God`s unlimited and unconditional love to sinners. Similarly, when Muslims claim that Islamic societies were historically tolerant of non-Muslims, they mean that non-Muslims were not killed or expelled but allowed to live and continue to practise their non-Muslim faith on condition they observed the restrictions of dhimmi status. This is very different from modern Western Christian understandings of tolerance as implying full equality.

Sadly, it would seem that the Catholic response to the Muslim letter is more sensitive to the real issues facing Muslim-Christian relations than is the Yale Statement. The Catholics have taken the issue of the social context of religious freedom and human rights within Muslim societies very seriously, especially as they relate to vulnerable Christian minorities. The Yale authors seem to have missed or ignored the Muslim subtext and its implicit message and also to have ignored the reality of Christian suffering in Muslim lands. Are these Christian minorities to be again sacrificed to the self-interest of Western Christians?

© Barnabas Fund 2008

Appendices

Appendix 1

Dr. Murad Wilfried Hofmann, "Differences between the Muslim and the Christian Concept of Divine Love"

The 14th General Conference
Amman, 4 - 7 September, 2007
Differences between the Muslim and the
Christian Concept of Divine Love
Dr. Murad Wilfried Hofmann

Amman- The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

Differences between the Muslim and the
Christian Concept of Divine Love
Dr. Murad Wilfried Hofmann

1. I n t r o d u c t i o n

All religions fulfill several functions. They try to establish a relationship
between man and the larger Reality of which he forms a tiny part, orienting him
within the immense universe that he inhabits.
This usually 1 leads to a metaphysical interpretation of the world and
conceptionally to the postulation of a divine Supreme Being. These efforts
sooner or later culminate in a science of God , verbally " theology " , called
al-aqida in Islam.

In everyday life religions are also called upon to provide rules
for worshipping the Deity (al-´ibadat) and for the conduct of human
affairs in all fields (al-mu´amalat). These aspects of religiosity tend
to command the greatest attention, not only because they impact
directly on the conduct of everyday life, but also because they are
more concrete and practical than the rather esoteric contributions of
theology in its original and purest sense.

Worse, the role played by religions in politics today begets
activities which totally overshadow the theological aspects of religion . This is
true of all contemporary religious or pseudo - religious phenomena known
as "-isms".

They include American Evangelical Christians promoting a frighteningly
politicized fundamentalism as well as what now is called Islamism, i.e .
a militant political ideology practiced by Muslims. 2

Therefore, as recognized by the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for
Islamic Thought, it is now of the essence to focus on the very root of
Islamic religiosity: the belief in Allah ta`ala as a Deity Wh
interacts with His creation in a loving manner and Who commands the
love and affection of all true believers.

2. L o v i n g G o d i n I s l a m a n d C h r i s t i a n i t y

1) The Christian Concept
Christians consider their faith prototypically a "religion of love".
This is meant comprehensively, i.e. as a religious appeal, and even
command, (a) to love God and (b) to love "one`s neighbour", i.e. all of
mankind - friends and enemies as well.

a) Loving God:
The Christian command to love God, announced by Jesus, is embedded
in St Mark 12, 30 and reads:
And you shall love the Lord, your God, with all your soul, and
with all your mind, and with all your strength; this is the first
commandment.

In the words of Hugo Ball ( d. 1927) the faithful are not on the
look-out for reasons justifying the love of God. Rather, they "throw
themselves into the love of God like pearl fishers diving into the
ocean". 3

In reality, this command is not a Christian innovation at all. The
same text -verbally - figured already in the Fifth Book of Moses 6,5. Indeed,
according to the Bible God is not only lovable for being gracious, just and
merciful.

Indeed, the Book of Songs - being the 5th Book of the Biblical
Psalms - is a treasure of lines professing love of God. No wonder the
Church incorporated the Psalms into Christian lore, just as the Muslims
have adopted them (calling them az-zabur) as one of the few reliably
revealed passages of the Old Testament:

I love the Lord because He has heard my voice and my supplication
(116, 1).

Gracious is the Lord, and righteous, yes, our God is merciful
(116, 5).

Your commandments which I love shall be my delight (119, 47).
Oh, how I love your law ( 119, 97). Your commands I have taken as a
heritage forever, for they are the rejoicing of my heart (119,111).

It will be noticed that the authors of the Psalms well before the
Medieval Christian mystics had already reached a level of adoration
where loving God and obeying his commands did no longer result from
fear but from devotion.

The (unknown) author of the First Epistle of John 4 enlarges on this
command by saying that God is love. He who dwells in love, dwells in God
(4, 16).

b) Loving man:
The Christian command to love God is intimately linked to the "second
command", i.e. to love one`s fellow man:

And the second command is alike, namely this: You shall love
your neighbour like yourself. There is no other command greater than these

(St Mark 12, 31).

In the Book of Mormon this command reappears: Every man should
love his neighbor as himself (Mosiah 23: 15).

Insightful the great Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner (d. 1984)
commented this rule as follows: "Love of God can only be realized
through unconditional love of one`s next-door neighbor since only that
way one can pierce the hell of one`s egotism." 5
The Gospel makes clear that charity given to one`s brother is a
way of loving God:

In as much as you have done it to the least of my brothers, you have
done it to Me (St Matthew, 25, 40).

­­This is followed up by a statement of psychological depth:

"If a man should say "I love God" but hates his brother, he is a
liar. For if he does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love

God Whom he has not seen ?" (1 John 4, 20).

c) Peculiarities:

In two ways the Christian concept of love is peculiar:
(i) The Christian notion of loving God is deeply colored by the
Christian doctrine of Incarnation which since the 1st Ecumenical Council of
Ephesus in 325 implies that Jesus inseparably was both divine and human,
figuring among the three divine persons who according to Church dogma form
Trinity.

Consequently, for Christians the love of God is identified very
much with loving Jesus, i.e. a concrete and therefore "touchable" historic
personality.

Thus an encyclopedic definition of Christendom reads: "Love,
faithfully having become visible in Jesus Christ, is the way towards
hope for mankind." Romano Guardini (d. 1968) went to an extreme when
formulating that "Jesus Christ is the essence of Christianity - not an idea, not a
programme, not an ideology, but a person". 6

­­This notion is retained in the Book of Mormon where we read you
must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect
brightness of hope and a love of God and of all men." (2 Nephi 31:20).

2) T h e M u s l i m C o n c e p t

a) L o v i n g G o d

(i) The climate of the Muslim devotion to God differs from the
Christian one because for Muslims God has not been incarnated as Baby
Jesus in the manger - cuddly and lovely - but rather remains an
awesome Divinity, so close to us that we cannot see Him.

No human vision can encompass Him, whereas He encompasses all
human vision (6: 103).

In short, He is the One beyond time and space Whose Being totally
escapes our categorization. Indeed, we cannot catch His Reality with
the perceptional network provided by our man-made (and therefore
"loaded" languages).

In fact, talking about God is a linguistic trap. Ludwig
Wittgenstein (d. 1951) was therefore right in terminating his
Tractatus logico-philosophicus (f irst printed in 1921) with the
stunning phrase: "Of what one cannot speak, about that one must remain
silent" (no. 7).

(ii) True, for Muslims, too, Allah is not only transcendent but
also immanent since Allah is closer to us than our jugular vein (50:
16). And He has full knowledge of what is in the hearts (or bosoms) of
people (11: 5; 42: 24; 57: 6; 64: 4; 67: 13).
Muslims are therefore expected to love Allah more than anything else
(2: 165).

Nevertheless He remains unfathomable, unimaginable, unseizable,
incomprehensible, indescribable. We are told that His are the most
beautiful names / attributes (7: 180; 17: 110; 20: 8). But this is of
little help because we must not coin any similitudes for God (6: 74).
It is of course true as well that in the Qur`an, for instance in
the Light Verse (24: 35) and in the Throne Verse (59: 22-24) Allah has
given us a self-description. Yet, do we really come closer to the secret when
Allah identifies with the Light of the heavens and the earth ? Can we understand
any of the divine attributes other than nominalistically, like Ibn Hazm before ?
Indeed, for he to whom Allah gives no light, no light whatever has he (24:40).
Therefore, we can legitimately go about defining God in negative
terms only, listing what can not be said of Him: That He cannot not
exist; cannot die; cannot multiply Himself since God is a single God
(2: 163; 16: 22, 51) .

(iii) All this is true and full of complexity. Nevertheless,
loving God naively is possible not only for Christians but for Muslims
as well since they are aware that Allah in his goodness is limitless
(57:21) and that His grace overspreads everything (7: 156).

All Muslims have to be grateful that Muslim mystics - the Sufi
movement - have been able on this basis to develop an Islamic mysticism
of love in spite of all the difficulties of visualizing Allah. The
Sufi approach is of course highly speculative. But emotionally it is
more satisfactory than the cool soberness of the philosophical
(al-mu-takalim) approach described above.

b) L o v i n g M a n

As much as the Christian faith Islam teaches that the love of God must translate into compassion for man. However, Muslims are a bit more hesitant when it goes to use the word "love". In general they prefer to designate the same attitude as brother- and sisterhood.

Statements on brotherhood in the Qur`an most explicitly refer to relations between Muslims ( 3: 103; 9: 11; 48: 29;49: 10 ). Even so, the Qur`an amply makes clear that its basic message is addressed to all of mankind ( 20: 55; 40: 64; 103; 114), not only by addressing its audience "Oh mankind !"or "Oh Children of Adam!" ( 2: 169; 4: 170, 174; 7: 26, 31, 35; 10:23, 57, 104, 108; 22: 5; 31:33; 35: 5, 15; 49: 13; 53: 3 ). Indeed the Qur`an is a clear lesson for all men and a guidance and an admonition for all the God-conscious (3: 138).

As far as Christians are concerned the Qur`an does not pronounce an abstract concept like to "love your neighbour". However, in more concrete terms its verses establish that what is meant is the Christian way. Thus Muslims are urged to do good to their neighbours (4: 36), show kindness even to (non-aggressive) disbelievers (60: 8), spend on others in charity out of what one cherishes most (3: 92; 4: 114), and to be just in all dealings, no matter with whom (4: 58; 5: 8, 42; 7: 29; 16: 90; 68: 34).

If not in wording, in substance these rules add up to a Muslim "love thy neighbour"- command. By ruling out injustice, globally, Islam is commanding justice, globally.

3. G o d l o v i n g H i s c r e a t i o n i n I s l a m a n d C h r i s t i a n i t y

1. T h e C h r i s t i a n C o n c e p t

a) The idea that God might "love" what He created is not self evident On the contrary, one might argue that love establishes a longing and dependency between the lover and the loved one that is irreconcilable with God.

It seems feasible for the gods of Greek and Roman antiquity to pose as goddesses of love and beauty, like Aphrodite and Venus, because in antique mythology human love was a quality of gods.