Return to: Home | Life & Society | Religion

A common heritage for global peace

Published 06 December 2007

It is just not good enough to say that love of God will conquer all differences and usher in peace and harmony all around

It's the season of peace and goodwill. So let us, Christians and Muslims, who constitute more than half of the world's population, put aside our mutual hatred and suspicion. Christianity and Islam are quite distinct religions, but there is considerable common ground for the followers of the two faiths to come together to work for peace. This, in essence, is the message of an open letter by 130 Muslim religious scholars to Pope Benedict XVI, the Archbishop of Canterbury and other church leaders.

When first published on 11 September, the letter was hardly noticed. Now it has whipped up a frenzy among certain groups of Muslims who are urging the Pope to reply in his Christmas message. The letter was issued by the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought in Jordan, and follows an earlier one, published on 15 October 2006, after the Pope's controversial remarks (which he attributed to the medieval emperor Manuel II Paleologus) describing Islam as a violent religion. The new letter appears to be from a wide-ranging group of scholars around the Muslim world. But, in fact, most of the sig natories are fellows of the Aal al-Bayt Institute, who gather once a year in Amman, and represent a rather narrow, conservative view of Islam.

This should not distract us from the message of the letter, however. It identifies two "foundational principles" on which Christians and Muslims are duty-bound to work together: love of God and love of one's neighbour. Love God, the letter states, is not only the basic message of the Quran; it is also the first and greatest commandment of the Bible. Jesus preached the need to love your neighbour as yourself, just as numerous injunctions in Islam emphasise the paramount importance of showering love and mercy on one's neighbours. This common ground, say Muslim scholars, is sufficient for the two faith groups to build permanent bridges of peace. We are not asking for "polite ecumenical dialogue", say the scholars. With Muslims and Christians locked in battle everywhere, fighting with the terrible weaponry of the modern world, "our common future is at stake". Christians and Muslims need to rise above their differences and vie with each other only in righteousness and good work.

I share these sentiments, but a few things in the letter concern me. Given that the scholars quote extensively from the Torah, the Bible and the Quran, why have they excluded Jews from the message of peace and goodwill? Since the most intractable problem of our time is a dispute between Jews and Muslims over Palestine, I would have thought it important to include Judaism. Surely, all three monotheistic faiths can collaborate on the basis of love of God and neighbours.

My other concern relates to love of God. The imperative to spread and share this love often translates, both in Christianity and Islam, as a missionary zeal. Some of the most obnoxious people I know are those who insist on imposing their love of God on others. They are hardly the kinds of folk one could describe as peacemakers. Evangelicals and Christian missionaries have done untold damage to non-Christian societies for the love of Jesus. Al-Qaeda-inspired Muslim terrorists perform their nefarious acts for the love of Allah. So it is just not good enough to say that love of God will conquer all differences and usher in peace and harmony all around.

Part of the problem with the notion of love of God is its association with Truth. Once this connection is made, attempts to impose a single truth on whole humanity appear nothing more than benevolent acts of love.

Something bolder is needed if peace is to be established between the three faiths. Each must accept that it is an institution built by the limitations of human interpretation. Hence, none can lay claim to possessing the whole Truth, whose only possessor and adjudicator is God, let alone to being the sole route to salvation. That would be a true expression of the love of God. And a positive demonstration of humility, courtesy and love of one's neighbour.

Post this article to

6 comments from readers

gnuneo
06 December 2007 at 13:51

and indeed, what of us secularists, pagans, hindus and 'other'?

you have hit the nail smack on the head when you highlight the problems when you mention the false connection made between "love of God and the Truth", THIS is exactly what has caused so many of the problems, bloodshed, murder and holocausts throughout global history since the exiles in Babalonia came up with the wheeze of Mozaic Law.

unfortunately however i cannot see an easy end to this disturbing meme - but articles like yours are hopefully one of the first steps in curbing its influence and destructive power.

great article, i hope it doesn't get you into trouble with your more fundie co-religionists.

Pablo
07 December 2007 at 20:36

Ziauddun, you laughably compare Christian evangelicals to Al Qaeda. Let's leave them out of the equation. The Christian evangelicals have their equivalent in the missionary Muslims who think it is their duty to preach the superiority of Islam and carry out 'dawah' to spread it everywhere they can. These posturing, self righteous zealots are in every city in Britain, and their rhetoric is one of the things that makes normal people consider Islam to be so coercive, intolerant and menacing.

Sharif
09 December 2007 at 17:07

The thought as such of a common heritage is good, but, Muslims do not want to change from oppression, dictatorships and free thooghts. Wheras Christians do not follow Bible and have done their 'Cherry picking', Muslims are still there in in middle ages. No word of change is tolerated and löaws which are brutal and inhuman being followed in Muslim countries. I was born a Muslim and because there is no room for a liberal Muslim, have decided to not to call myself a Muslim as such. If I had said this in a Muslim country openly, i would be hanged, as Quran says. Common heritage? I have a different opinion.

malaysian sister
12 December 2007 at 07:49

sharlone,

I don't think you have read the Quran, if you did you might have forgotten, not that I 'm for fanatic Muslims. Anyway, my point is, the Quran is replete with commands about using reason, but the Muslims for a long time ignored it. And about apostasy, this is my favourite verse 4:137, "Those who believe then reject faith, then believe again and again reject faith and go on increasing in unbelief, God will not forgive them nor guide them". I have not found even one verse that says anything about punishment and I am quite an avid reader of the Quran. But I can understand your position perfectly if you come from a society which is very intolerant

Sharif
12 December 2007 at 14:00

Malaysian sister:

Good verse you have quoted. Yes I have read Quran. I can quote many verses which are intolerant. One such is that those who turn away from Islam, should be punished by death. I was watching a Muslim channel from GB the other day where two 'Experts on Islam were discussing this verse. One Mulla said that such punishment should be performed by a court, while the other guy said any body can kill such people. I am nit sure if you know that more tolerant verses from Quran were revealed when Mohammed was a minority in Mecca and the verses became more and more intolerant when he came back as a powerful leader. Just like the dictators in today's world.

malaysian sister
13 December 2007 at 05:44

Sharlone,

The 20th century methodology of studying the Quran is holistically. What you mentioned is probably based on the "abrogating and the abrogated" which is no longer acceptable by modernist muslim scholars. Anyway, it is only one of the opinions available. That's the great thing about having access to lots of opinions. And what you mentioned, about those turning away from Islam is to be punished by death is a hadith, not a Quranic verse. I've checked. It has to be understood within context which is military treason which nobody tells you unless you take courses in fiqh. I don't know if you realize, the husband of Umm Habiba committed apostasy but the prophet did not hunt him down because he wasn't threatening. He was one person, an individual. As for the Prophet, when he captured Mecca with those 10, 000 men, he was very indulgent towards them though he could have wiped them off just as he had sworn when they killed his uncle, Hamza at Uhud. But a verse came down saying forgiving is better than vengeance although he was allowed to do what they had done to him but excesses was forbidden. But he was so indulgent, giving presents and stuffs to the opportunist Abu Suffian, that some of his followers questioned him. Anyway, that's just how much I know about Islamic history. As far as I am concerned, God and His Messenger are very forgiving, there's nothing that they would not forgive. But it's the ignorant and fanatics everybody have to watch out for. And don't mention Mullah, they suck! I think they live in jahiliyya period not in the 21st century. Who listens to them except their type?

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

About the writer

Ziauddin Sardar, writer and broadcaster, describes himself as a ‘critical polymath’. He is the author of over 40 books, including the highly acclaimed ‘Desperately Seeking Paradise’. He is Visiting Professor, School of Arts, the City University, London and editor of ‘Futures’, the monthly journal of planning, policy and futures studies.

Also by Ziauddin Sardar

See everything from the Beliefs column
See everything from this week's magazine

Vote!

Will Baroness Ashton be an effective EU foreign minister?

Tools & Services

PDF version PDA version RSS Podcasts Email updates Special Supplements Stockists Magazine Archive Subscribe