The Three Sons of Abraham: Interfaith Encounters Between Judaism, Christianity and Islam 9780755624065, 9781780767437

Citation preview

Abbreviations and acronyms ADL BT NAB NIV NRSV PT

231137 CH00 i-xx.indd 7

Anti-Defamation League Babylonian Talmud New American Bible New International Version New Revised Standard Version Palestinian Talmud

07/01/2014 08:50

231137 CH00 i-xx.indd 8

07/01/2014 08:50

Introduction Jacques B. Doukhan

Esau said, “I already have plenty, my brother. Keep what you have for yourself.” “To see your face is like seeing the face of God” (Gen. 33:9-10)

Jews, Christians, and Muslims all trace their history and their spiritual raison d’être to their common “tribal ancestor”1 Abraham. It is significant that the name of Abraham appears 72 times in the New Testament, immediately after Moses. Likewise, in the Qur’an the name of Abraham (Ibrahim) is the most frequently mentioned name from the Bible after Moses. Around 245 verses in 25 Surahs refer to him. Abraham plays then an important role in the “genetic” relationship between those believers. Jews trace their origin ethnically to Abraham through their ancestor Jacob/Israel, son of Isaac, son of Abraham. Likewise Christians trace their origin to Abraham, but in a more spiritual way, by faith, and therefore allegedly in a more legitimate way; for, as Paul explains, “Only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7). Muslims trace their origin to Abraham through his other son, Ishmael, both ethnically as Arabs, the ethnic descendants of Ishmael who will help his father build the Ka‘bah of the Mecca, and in a more spiritual way as the adherents of Islam, a religion which was born from the proclamation of the Arab Muhammad. The history and the religious identity of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are indeed interrelated and are even to a certain extent dependent on each other. Jesus, the Christian Messiah, lived as a Jew, and Christianity was born in the heart of Judaism. Early Christianity was inherently Jewish, referring to the same Scriptures, the Tanach, which was later called the “Old Testament,” and holding to the same messianic promises. Even the New Testament, the Christian

231137 CH00 i-xx.indd 9

07/01/2014 08:50

x

The Three Sons of Abraham

Scriptures, was written almost entirely by Jews and developed in the historical context of Judaism. Muhammad the Prophet of Islam knew both Christianity and Judaism. The Qur’an contains stories and teachings indebted to the Old Testament and even to Jewish tradition, as well as stories and teachings from the New Testament and Christian tradition. Muhammad met both Jews and Christians during his lifetime. Thus, in addition to their common reference to the same ancestor, Jews, Christians, and Muslims share with each other many of the same fundamental stories and beliefs. They all believe in the same One God who created the world and revealed Himself to humankind through Moses and the prophets. Indeed the three “Abrahamic religions,”2 the three sons of Abraham, testify to the same memory of Abraham and proclaim the same hope of the salvation of humankind and the peace of the world. They all value the same divine Law and urge for the same ideal of righteousness. They all wait for a new world and a new life without evil and death, and all wait for the coming of the Messiah. And yet, the history of the three faiths, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, is more about violence, wars, and hatred than about love and peace; more about destruction than about salvation. Jewish persecutions against the early Christians, Christian crusades against the Muslims and the Jews, and Muslim jihads against the Jews and the Christians, all these events witness to the profound enmity that has traditionally confronted and harmed the three sons of Abraham. And still today, it is not finished. Despite the claim to secularism and the advent of modernity, the hatred has survived and even reached its climax in our times. The Holocaust, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and the September 11 attacks still testify to the same exacerbated tension and hatred between the three sons of Abraham. Why do these three communities of faith keep fighting and hating each other? The question is as old as the communities themselves. In the beginning of the Middle Ages, the famous Hebrew poet Yehuda Halevi (c.1076–1141) reports the same perplexity in his book Al Khazari: “Why then... do they fight with one another, each of them serving with pure intention?” (section I, 2); this question was asked by the king of the Khazars who was searching for the Truth from the three Abrahamic religions. Yehuda Halevi tells us that the king had turned to the three sons of Abraham, the Muslim doctor, the Jewish rabbi, and the Christian scholastic, to enquire from them about their

231137 CH00 i-xx.indd 10

07/01/2014 08:50

Introductionxi

testimony of the Truth. To be sure, as the case of Yehuda Halevi testifies, the so-called dark age which characterized the Middle Ages under the Muslim rule, was the golden age of the Jewish–Christian–Muslim encounter, allowing Jews, Christians, and Muslims to exchange freely their views.3 Yet, as it is clearly exemplified in Yehuda Halevi’s story, these discussions were essentially apologetic, each representative arguing for the Truth of their own faith over against the other. In this medieval apologetic conversation, perhaps the first interfaith discussion, involving Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, we may already perceive the fundamental paradigm of the Jewish–Christian–Muslim testimony of the Abrahamic Truth: Paradoxically, although the three sons of Abraham referred to the same roots, their common father Abraham and the same God, each one affirmed themselves against the other, suggesting a special accent for each Abrahamic religion. The Christian scholastic insisted on the Truth of the divine incarnation: “God takes care of the created beings and keeps touch with man. He dwells among those who please Him.” “The divine essence became embodied [...] the Favor was confined to a few who followed this Messiah” (I, 4). Indeed, in Christian tradition, the accent is put on grace, love, and incarnation. Christians emphasize the immanence of God; they believe that God loved us so much that He surrendered His place in heaven and His divine prerogative to dwell among us (Immanuel) and take upon Himself our penalty (John 3:16). Foreshadowed in the ancient sacrifices of the Mosaic covenant, this “incarnation” of God is a message of God’s grace and love on behalf of humankind. For it teaches that humans will not be saved on the basis of their obedience or of their righteousness but thanks to the divine sacrifice on behalf of humans. This incarnation also contains, then, an appeal for love toward our neighbors, including our enemies. It sets an example of a move outside of us toward the other person. As a result, Christians promote the value of love toward God and toward our neighbors. Karen Armstrong, who reflects on the relationship between the three religions, notes that “love” is what characterizes Christianity, which she qualifies as “the most personalized of the three.”4 The Muslim doctor reacted to the Christian Truth and focused on the absolute transcendence of God: “We acknowledge the Unity and the eternity of God [...] We absolutely reject embodiment” (I, 5). Indeed Islam has traditionally carried the accent on the idea of

231137 CH00 i-xx.indd 11

07/01/2014 08:50

xii

The Three Sons of Abraham

the Absolute. According to comparative philosophy professor Mike Fedel, “the focus on the Absolute in Islam is one of its most essential features.”5 This particular accent is due to the fact that Islam is essentially a “theocentric” religion.6 As professor Muhammad Nuwayhī insists: The emphasis in Islam is on the greatness of God. “Allahu Akbar” (“God is greatest”) is the most frequent call from the minarets, the formula repeated several times in each of the five daily prayers, and the thrilling cry which rallies the Muslim communities in times of stress or danger. God’s power and glory, might and majesty, incomparable perfection, absolute transcendence, as well as the worship and praise, the adoration and obedience that are due from His creatures.7

For Muslims there is definitely an absolute side of the Truth. Furthermore, this emphasis on the Absoluteness of God encourages human virtues of Humility, Faith, and Submission (hence the Arabic word Muslim, “submitted”). Discussing the “consciousness of the Absolute” in Islam, Muslim scholar Frithjof Schuon observes that “the sense of the Absolute has produced in Muslim theology a curious overemphasis on the confrontation ‘Lord–servant’ or ‘Master–slave’.”8 The Jewish rabbi expressed his faith “in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel who led the children out of Egypt, who sent Moses with His Law” (I, 11). Indeed Judaism is characterized by its strong accent on the Torah, the Law by which the God of history revealed Himself in this world. In Jewish thinking, the Truth is reached through the faithful observance of God’s commandments, according to the Hebrew principle na‘aseh wanishma‘, “we shall do, and then we shall understand” (Exod. 24:7). It is through the Law that the Jew fulfills his identity, and it is in the Law that he finds God. “‘If Israel does not accept the Torah,’ says God to his angels, ‘you and I can no longer subsist’” (Pesiqta Rabbati 20). This attention on the Law not only implies the valorization of learning the Torah, the sacred Scriptures; it also calls for justice through the practice of the commandments (mitzvoth). Judaism focuses on this world, this Creation, as the gift of God to be preserved or improved (the tiqqun Olam, “the repair of the world”) and the duty to enjoy life. Hence the importance of Shabbat, the essence of Torah, that celebrates God’s gift of creation. Each Abrahamic religion has thus projected itself with its own particular accent. Schuon makes that observation, while comparing

231137 CH00 i-xx.indd 12

07/01/2014 08:50

Introductionxiii

Islam and Christianity: “Islam is the religion of certitude and equilibrium, as Christianity is the religion of love and sacrifice. By this we mean not that religions have monopolies, but that each lays stress on one or other aspect of truth”9 [emphasis added]. Of course, these three truths, the Law, the Absolute, and the Incarnation, are present in various degrees in the three faiths. The above portrayal of the three faiths is therefore intentionally oversimplified and should not be taken to the letter. But it is remarkable that, in spite of the much more nuanced reality, each Abrahamic faith has traditionally and historically projected itself to the outside world with its own particular accent. Writing on the relationship between the three Abrahamic religions, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, a major scholar of Islam, describes the contrast between them in these terms: “Judaism, [which represents the law], is essentially based on the fear of God, Christianity on the love of Him, and Islam on the knowledge of Him although this is only a matter of emphasis.”10 Catholic theologian Hans Küng observes the same contrasting picture from the perspective of the symbols that characterize the three Abrahamic religions: “If the typical symbol for Jews must still be the pious Jew with the Torah scroll and for Christians the Eucharist, for Islam it is the shared prayer of Muslims as they prostrate themselves before God.”11 It is also noteworthy that the three Abrahamic religions have shaped much of their specific identity and accent in reaction to each other. In reaction to the Christian emphasis on grace and love, Judaism underlined the reference to the Torah and the requirements of justice; and vice versa, in reaction to the Jewish emphasis on Torah and justice, Christians identified themselves as the apostles of love and grace.12 In reaction to the foci of Christianity on the immanence of God through Jesus, the Messiah, the incarnation of God, and in Judaism through the Torah, the incarnated word of God, Islam pointed to the absolute transcendence of God. The main reason for this systematic polarization between the three Abrahamic religions was the acute consciousness each faith entertained of its special vocation. Each son of Abraham claimed to be the only son, the only legitimate heir of the Father either through the genealogical evidence or through the supersessionist argument. According to professor Moshe Sharon, an expert of Islamic history, it is in this attitude that should be found the ferments of the fratricide wars between the three Abrahamic religions. “Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have not lived in peace and harmony with each other because

231137 CH00 i-xx.indd 13

07/01/2014 08:50

xiv

The Three Sons of Abraham

each one of them insists on possessing the ultimate and final Truth.”13 The three Abrahamic religions killed each other because each one affirmed itself as the only owner of the Truth with its special accent, over against the other two accents judged irrelevant or obsolete. I would like to suggest, however, that all the three accents are necessary. In fact, the emphasis on one accent at the expense of the others is theologically and ethically problematic. The Law by itself without the need for God’s grace may lead to a legalistic mentality and to the illusion that religion limits itself to the human performance. Also the Law in itself without the awareness of the “absolute” God as a transcendent God may lead to a religion without the need for God where the mitswah (the obedience to the commandments) prevails over faith in God and where our religion, that is, a relationship with God, is no longer religion but has become an agnostic religion since God has been replaced by what we are doing, our mitswoth. Such an approach to religion may also degenerate into idolatry and intolerance. Idolatry, because instead of adoring the God of above, the absolute God, we focus on ourselves, and our worship is limited to the work of our hands. Intolerance, because religion has thus become a nationalistic enterprise where the traditions of our fathers, of our ethnic culture, is more valued than the Truth from above. It is a religion where the human has replaced the divine. It may therefore lead to an elitist presupposition and the idea of our cultural and ethnic superiority over the other cultures and other human beings. The Absolute by itself without the need for God’s grace may lead to a fatalistic mentality (mektub) and the superstitious fear that God will punish us if we are not submissive. Without the principle of love and the ethical need for justice and righteousness, and the affirmation of the sacredness of life, the only reference to the Absolute may lead to the spirit of the Crusades and of the jihad. History has shown that it is conducive to “killing for God.” It is a religion of conquest which denies the existence of the other faiths. In this religion where God is only the absolute Judge from above, there is little room for mercy and respect for the Other. The infidel does not deserve to live; and those who kill for God are not afraid to die for Him for they are His martyrs, and they therefore deserve the best extraterrestrial rewards. The emphasis on love and grace without the control of justice and the requirements of ethics may degenerate into a sentimentalist

231137 CH00 i-xx.indd 14

07/01/2014 08:50

Introductionxv

religion; as Jewish philosopher Leo Baeck puts it, “a romantic religion”14 that is no longer in touch with reality. For love without justice is bound to produce an unjust and dangerous society dependent upon the whims of human feelings. Also the emphasis on the immanence of God, a God who is even celebrated as a little baby, without the awareness of His transcendence, may encourage inappropriate familiarity and promote a cheap religion where reverence and the sense of sacredness are disappearing and ultimately will lead to idolatry. The exaggerated accent on the immanence of a God who became human may also degenerate into idolatry, entertaining the confusing idea of a god we made in our image; it may even lead to a fascist religion which recognizes values in what only reflects our face. The three accents are therefore needed, for each testifies to an important side of the same Truth. The other son may have preserved something valuable, something of the face of the father that may not have been preserved in “my” tradition. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity should therefore learn to listen to each other. Not that syncretism or pluralism is the answer, thus suggesting that the Truth is everywhere and therefore nowhere, that the Truth is relative and therefore inexistent. On the contrary, the accent that is heard from the other tradition should awaken in us the consciousness of the same lesson as a part of our own tradition and thus prevent us from this confusion. The accent on “the absolute” should remind us that there is only one Truth. In spite of the abuses of the past and the suggestions of post-modernism, this accent should still inspire our quest for the Truth as a unique way: a truth that implies faith and trust in something that is not in us, a truth that no one owns totally, a truth that transcends everyone and every Abrahamic tradition. The accent on “justice” should encourage the exercise of our judgment to discern what is right from what is wrong. Our passion for the Absolute that is beyond us, our faith, should not operate at the expense of intelligence and the respect for the dignity and the life of the Other. The accent on “love” and “grace” should incite our move toward the Other even though they disagree with us, even though we have all reasons to think that they are wrong, even though they do not share with us the same ideal of love, justice, and faith. Thus the conjugation of three accents will associate our faith in the Invisible with the humble attention to the visible face of the other

231137 CH00 i-xx.indd 15

07/01/2014 08:50

xvi

The Three Sons of Abraham

brother. This is the price to pay to be the sons of Abraham: we have to learn to be brothers. Only our visible brotherhood, the quality of our relationship with each other, will be the proof of our real identity as the sons of the same invisible father Abraham. Thus, instead of defining themselves against each other, in reaction to each other, and fighting each other, the three sons of Abraham should learn to receive each other. We should then go even beyond the lessons the king of the Khazars had learned successively from the Jew, the Muslim, and the Christian in the story of Yehuda Halevi. The Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims should go further than just debating with each other and even enjoying each other’s presence. They should also run the risk of looking at each other’s face and then define themselves along with each other and not against each other, while listening to each other and learning from each other. In this collective, we aspire to this bold orientation. Whereas many dialogue or trialogue works have received ample academic attention, we bring to the public an interfaith discussion, which emphasizes the duty of learning from each other. Some of the essays originated in an academic discussion, which took place on the occasion of a Symposium on Jewish–Christian–Muslim relations organized at Andrews University (Michigan, USA, May 2006) and co-sponsored by the International Office of Religious Liberty. Other essays and interviews have been produced separately and some more recently, at the request of the editors, insofar as they contributed to the same discussion. The participants of this project represented various disciplines (theology, philosophy, sociology, history, philology, political science) from the three Abrahamic horizons. Jewish, Christian, and Muslim scholars, rabbis, imams, philosophers, and Catholic and Protestant theologians have been called to meditate on the lessons of history and suggest new directions in the Jewish–Christian–Muslim encounter. The structural organization of this material, made of selected interviews and essays, as eclectic as it may appear, is intentional. Our discussion will revolve around the three axes of Truth, Love, and Peace, underlying a specific message and following the progression of the Jewish–Christian–Muslim journey. Our journey will move in three steps. Part I will present essays and interviews from the perspective of the three faiths dealing with the issue of “thinking of each other.” Within

231137 CH00 i-xx.indd 16

07/01/2014 08:50

Introductionxvii

each faith we have struggled with the idea of the Other in tension. While each faith contained traditions of respect and relative tolerance toward the Other, it developed a strong sense of its own Truth, over against the other one, generally deemed as distorted, incomplete, or rejected. The passion for truth has thus erased the face of the other. It is our passion for our own truth shaped and cherished in the abstract and over against the other that forced us to hate each other and separate from each other. Part II will bring interviews and reflections on the need to see the face of the other and engage in dialogue. Today, after the Holocaust and September 11, we have been painfully confronted with the natural fruit of this holy war for truth. More than ever we have understood the need to talk to each other. Paradoxically our generation, which has seen the worst Jewish–Christian–Muslim crimes, is the very generation which has called for meeting each other. Talking with each other will force us to see the face of flesh and recognize the familiar traits of our brother; it will force us to love each other. Not just to convince him or her of our own truth, but also to meet with the concrete Other and run the risk to love and to be loved. Part III will move to the next stage with essays and interviews focusing on peace and forgiveness. We will understand that forgiveness is not just good for the one who is forgiven—for he will no longer feel threatened; it is also beneficial for the one who forgives— for it brings health to the soul and helps in recovering serenity. Yet, forgiveness is not just rewarding for the peace it will bring between the three sons. Forgiveness is not just good for the prospect of happiness and prosperity it brings. Forgiveness is important because of who they are: Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Indeed forgiveness is an essential ingredient of their faith. When Jews, Christians, and Muslims can forgive each other, they will then fulfill their destiny as apostles of forgiveness; they will become real Jews, real Christians, and real Muslims. On the horizon of this encounter with each other, we may well discover or recover the Truth which we have lost and which could make us better Jews, better Christians, and better Muslims. For it is not enough to think of each other and learn about the Other. It is not enough to talk to each other and understand each other better. It is not enough to forgive each other and live in peace with each other. Indeed all these steps are extremely important, but they remain

231137 CH00 i-xx.indd 17

07/01/2014 08:50

xviii

The Three Sons of Abraham

insufficient in the honest experience of the Jewish–Christian– Muslim encounter. The true encounter should take us beyond the academic, serene, and respectful conversation, which never engages and never runs the risk to change. Thinking of each other, talking to each other, and forgiving each other should lead us to really see the face of each other and learn from each other. Only on that condition of love and peace and openness with each other shall we discover the complete face of Abraham, and hence the complete revealed Truth of God with all its accents. Only on that condition shall God speak to us. Indeed this lesson of interdependence between our relationship with our brother and our relationship with God is deeply rooted in the three Abrahamic traditions. This connection is clearly seen in the Jewish teachings about the proper preparation for Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. Reconciliation with God will not be achieved unless reconciliation with the brother has been accomplished. Expounding upon the forgiveness of sin that is promised at Kippur (Lev. 16:30), Eleazar ben Azariah makes this point: “For sins that are between a person and God, the Day of Atonement atones, but for sins that are between a person and another individual, the Day of Atonement atones only if the person has sought reconciliation with the other individual” (m. Yoma 8:9). Jesus also emphasizes this idea when He urges for peace with one’s brother as the necessary condition before the religious offering: “First, be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift” (Matt. 5:24). Likewise, in the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus instructs his disciples to pray: “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors” (Matt. 5:12). Interestingly, the same principle is applied in one passage of the Qur’an to the interfaith discussion. Referring to the differences between the three Abrahamic faiths, the Surah recommends to focus on good deeds to each other: “If God had willed, He would have made you (Jews, Christians, Muslims) one community, but He wanted to test you in what has been given to you, therefore, strive with each other in good deeds; to God is your return, together; and He will tell you about the things you were disagreeing about” (Surah 5:53). This lesson has been retained and repeatedly taught in popular literature. The best example is the parable of the three rings;15 whether we read it in the old version Decamerone (1353) by Giovanni Boccaccio or in the revised and more expanded version told by Gotthold Ephraim Lessing in Nathan der Weise (1778), the

231137 CH00 i-xx.indd 18

07/01/2014 08:50

Introductionxix

same message is sounded, namely that ethical behavior, the way the son of Abraham relates with his brother, constitutes the clue for the ultimate Truth. The lesson that the sons of Abraham—Jews, Christians, and Muslims—need to meditate on is that their religious quest for the true face of God depends also on their quest for the human face of the brother. For the Truth that has passed the test of love and produced peace is closer to the Truth of the God of Abraham than the Truth that has produced the pogroms, the Holocaust, and September 11. Indeed to see the face of the brother may lead us to see the face of God Himself. This is the very lesson Jacob had learned as he met with his brother Esau, after years of hatred and suspicions: “to see your face is like seeing the face of God” (Gen. 33:10).

Notes Hans Küng, Judaism: Between Yesterday and Tomorrow (New York: Crossroads, 1992), p. 3. 2 The phrase “Abrahamic religions” has been coined by Louis Massignon; see C. W. Troll SJ, “Changing Catholic views of Islam,” in Islam and Christianity: Mutual Perceptions Since the Mid-20th Century (ed.) J. Waardenburg (Leuven: Peeters, 1998), pp. 19–77. For the positive use of this phrase to promote on a Christian side some kind of ecumenism, see Leonard Swidler (ed.), Theoria [to] Praxis: How Jews, Christians, and Muslims Can Together Move from Theory to Practice (Leuven: Peeters, 1998). For a critical discussion of the application of this term from a Jewish point of view, see Alon Goshen-Gottstein, “Abraham and ‘Abrahamic religions’ in contemporary interreligious discourse: Reflections of an implicated Jewish bystander,” Studies in Interreligious Dialogue 12 (2012): pp. 165–83. 3 See Roger Arnaldez, À la Croisée des Trois Monothéismes: Une Communauté de Pensée au Moyen Age (Paris: Albin Michel, 1993). 4 Karen Armstrong, A History of God: The 4000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam (New York: Ballantine Books, 1994), p. 211. 5 Mike Fedel, “Islam: The religion of submission to God.” Available at www.fedel.com/rsx10/islamcg.htm. 6 See Hans Küng, Islam: Past, Present and Future (Oxford: Oneworld, 2007), pp. 77–8. 7 Muhammad Nuwayhī, “Religion of Islam: A presentation to Christians,” International Review of Mission 65/258 (1976): p. 219. 8 Frithjof Schuon, “Islam and consciousness of the Absolute,” Studies in Comparative Religion 15/1–2 (1983): p. 4. 9 Frithjof Schuon, Understanding Islam (London: George Allen & Unwin Limited, 1963), p. 16. 1

231137 CH00 i-xx.indd 19

07/01/2014 08:50

xx

The Three Sons of Abraham

10 Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Ideals and Realities of Islam (New York: Praeger, 1967), p. 35. 11 Küng, Islam, p. 78. 12 On the process of polarization between Judaism and Christianity, see Jacques B. Doukhan, Israel and the Church: Two Voices for the Same God (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), pp. 70–2. 13 Moshe Sharon, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: Interaction and Conflict (Johannesburg: Sacks Publishing House, 1989), p. 157. 14 See Leo Baeck, “Romantische Religion, Ein erster Abschnitt aus einem Werke über klassische und romantische Religion,” in Festschrift zum 50jährigen Bestehen der Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums (Berlin: Philo Verlag, 1922), pp. 1–48. 15 For a discussion of the parable of the three rings and its derivatives, see Marcel Poorthuis, “The three rings: Between exclusivity and tolerance,” in B. Roggema, M. Poorthuis, P. Valkenberg (eds) The Three Rings: Textual Studies in the Historical Trialogue of Judaism, Christianity and Islam (Leuven: Peeters Leuven, 2005), pp. 257–85.

231137 CH00 i-xx.indd 20

07/01/2014 08:50

Part I

Thinking of each other: The quest for truth No religion owns God. The real goal is not that we should be right and the other religionists wrong, but that together we should do God’s will and work together for a better world. (Irving Greenberg) Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, these three Abrahamic religions together form a monotheistic world movement of Near Eastern/Semitic origin and prophetic character with an ethical focus, which is fundamentally different in origin and structure from the religions of India and China. (Hans Küng) The litmus test of a good religion is the extent to which our faith motivates us to embrace the Other as an extension of ourselves. The challenge for Muslims is to work hard to reestablish this ancient core ethic of ta’aruf as an integral part of contemporary Muslim culture and endeavor. (A. Rashied Omar) At the root of the Jewish–Christian–Muslim problem is the way we, Jews, Christians, and Muslims, think of each other. Here in Part I, searching deep in their respective traditions, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian scholars will find there not only the germs of the hatred but also the solution to the problem, reasons to exclude the Other as well as reasons to embrace him (A. Rashied Omar). Both the spontaneous reflections generated in direct interviews and the more elaborated compositions of the essays note and deplore the heavy prejudices and “great misconceptions” (Khaleel Mohammed), which have distorted the image of the Other. Although they all recognize their organic connection between each other—they are all “sons of Abraham”— each tradition has produced a “dehumanization” (A. Rashied Omar), a “demonization” of the other one (Irving Greenberg); and the scars and wounds are still very real (David Rosen). The main reason for

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 1

07/01/2014 08:51

2

The Three Sons of Abraham

this historical tragedy is that each Abrahamic faith has proceeded alone and against the Other. Each tradition has defined itself many, many times against the Other (Jon Paulien). Each religion has claimed to own God (Irving Greenberg), promoted the supersessionist paradigm (Hans Küng) and considered the other three traditions as separate and impure categories, thus losing the sense of brotherhood (Mordechai Arad). The search for Truth was thus conducted in vitro and prevailed over the risky and dangerous confrontation with the Other (Mordechai Arad). Paradoxically, however, the painful history of hatred and crimes, which reached its most dramatic moments in our times, has compelled us to rethink our views of each other (Jon Paulien, and Khaleel Mohammed). In fact, this experience is already attested in these testimonies, who not only attest a change of views of the Other, recognizing in the Other “wonderful qualities” (Irving Greenberg), but they also go so far as to suggest new paradigms of a theological relationship of complementarity (Jon Paulien and David Rosen). Each Abrahamic tradition has a different focus (Irving Greenberg) or a different take on theological truth (Khaleel Mohammed) from which the other can learn and be enriched (Irving Greenberg). For the first time we are shifting from the principle of exclusion to the principle of recognition and tolerance (A. Rashied Omar). We are now realizing that the three Abrahamic religions “should exist side by side” and hope in a prophetic vision that one day it will be possible to all address the same God through a common prayer (Hans Küng). The search for Truth has begun to be conjugated with the search for the face of the Other.

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 2

07/01/2014 08:51

“For the sake of peace (mipnei darchei shalom)”: Rabbinic attitudes toward Gentiles, Christians, and Muslims Mordechai Arad

In this essay about the theology of the “Other,” I intend to represent the Jewish perspective about the place “other” than Jewish people had in Rabbinic literature in theological terms. By examining the theme from a Rabbinic perspective, I am intentionally excluding other Jewish perspectives from the discussion; not because I do not recognize the existence of Samaritan, Sadducee, or the beginnings of Jewish–Christian theological perspectives in Second Temple times. In fact, one of my points will be that all of the above were considered “of the fold of Israel” and not “others.” Rather, it is because, historically speaking, it was the legacy of the Pharisees and their spiritual heirs the Chachamim of the Talmudic era (first to seventh centuries) that was canonized by medieval Jewish communities and became known as Torah she be‘al pe (the Oral Law) and was considered as “Judaism” not only by Jews, but also by the Abbasid Caliphs in Baghdad and by the Catholic Church in Rome and Byzantium. That description would generally be accepted in world Jewry until the nineteenth century and the formation of the Reform, Orthodox and Conservative movements. I am neither a rabbi nor am I an Orthodox Jew, but I study Talmud, and I consider the rabbis of the Mishnah and Talmud as my spiritual ancestors. This brings me to the second opening remark: Rabbinic literature itself is not dogmatic, certainly not monolithic, rather it is characterized by debate and by change over time and in different academies. Moreover, not only is Rabbinic literature not dogmatic, it is not particularly interested in theology, especially in its early, authoritative Tannaitic layers. These early rabbis were primarily

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 3

07/01/2014 08:51

4

The Three Sons of Abraham

interested in creating, preserving, and transmitting a detailed code of behavior, known as halacha, based on the Torah and upon their own teaching. You can learn a great deal about their theology by examining that halacha, but in an indirect way. In my opinion, this is a better way than to examine sources which preach theology in a direct way, and we have plenty of these too, especially in later layers: the Babylonian Talmud and the Midrashim of the Haggadah. The following example illustrates the problem of relying on direct “theological” texts as a reliable source for learning about the theology of the rabbis. A famous Mishnah in Tractate Sanhedrin (37a) is telling us what a judge would say to the witnesses in a case of capital punishment. He would try to speak to their conscience and remind them that if their mistake will cost a man’s life, the blood of that person and of all his potential descendants that will never be born will cry out the same way that the killing of Abel was killing half of humanity: This is why Adam was created alone, to teach you that whoever destroys one soul in the world, is as if he destroyed the entire world, and whoever sustains one soul in the world, is as if he sustained the entire world, and for peace among people, so that no one will say my father is greater than your father, and so that the Gnostics will not say there are many gods in heaven, and to tell the greatness of God, that when a man makes coins in his image, they look alike, while the King of Kings The Holy Blessed Be He created Man in His image, and none of them looks the same. Therefore each one of us must say “the world was created just for me.” And if you will say if so, why should I be responsible for the killing of this one? It is said in Proverb (11:10) there must be singing when the wicked ones are exterminated.

This text carries the deepest human aspirations for compassion, equality, responsibility, and above all the celebration of the uniqueness of each individual as being created in the image of God. However, in the Babylonian Talmud this text has one tiny change; it reads: “This is why Adam was created alone, to teach you that whoever destroys one soul in Israel, is as if he destroyed the entire world, and whoever sustains one soul in Israel, is as if he sustained the entire world.” Perhaps one can argue that the first reading is the correct one, and the second is a distortion, but we should bear in mind that we are talking about a trial in a Jewish court; plus, let us not forget the ending: the same judge who brings tears and compassion into our

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 4

07/01/2014 08:51



“For the sake of peace (mipnei darchei shalom)”5

hearts is also hardening it the next second by saying that if someone is wicked you should sing when you kill him. So, not only is the Babylonian Talmud understanding of the Mishnah centered on Jews only, but, even within the fold, compassion is saved for the Faithful only. What then is the theology of the rabbis in regard to the Other? This is why I prefer to retrieve theology in a more subtle way, by examining the legal system. The title of this chapter betrays the outline of my theory: I suggest that the rabbis inherited a long-established tradition about Gentiles, in Hebrew goyim, who were considered idol worshipers, or ‘akhum, a Hebrew abbreviation for the expression ‘oved kokhavim umazalot, “worshipers of planets and constellations,” the biblical rivals of the God of Israel, and who in theory were not to be allowed to inhabit ’Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel). The rabbis struggled with the theological meaning and legal implications of the pagan historical continuous presence there, finally offering a non-biblical term mipnei darchei shalom, which literally means “because of peaceful ways,” enabling coexistence and even good relations between Jew and Gentile, and then had the courage to claim that this concept overrides the explicit numerous biblical commandments to eradicate such people, because peace overrides truth. We should not take this issue lightly. Anybody who takes the Torah seriously cannot avoid wondering about the daring position rabbis took in regard to the theological dilemma involved. We will be talking about our common father Abraham, but let us not forget that his very first conversation with God concerns the idea of building a model nation in the Land of Israel (Gen. 12:1, 7) that will become a blessing to all nations, and the promise is reiterated on numerous occasions to Isaac (Gen. 26:1–6), Jacob (Gen. 35:11–12), and Moses (Exodus 6:2–8). The basis for the dilemma is the notion, which all three religions share, that the Land of Israel, the Promised Land, is inherently holy. Christians call it “the Holy Land,” Muslims call Jerusalem “El Kuds,” and it was the first Kiblah for the Prophet Muhammad before Mecca turned into the center, and it was from the top of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem that Muhammad went up to heaven to get the Qur’an. Now, according to the Torah, Israel’s predecessors were expelled from the land because they defiled the holiness of the land (Lev. 18:24–8 and Gen. 15:16), and B’nei Israel themselves were going to be forever conditional inhabitants of the

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 5

07/01/2014 08:51

6

The Three Sons of Abraham

land. The first problem, then, concerns the separate categories for Christians and Muslims, which indicates that these were not considered ‘akhum or goyim or both. What then was the status of each of these monotheistic religions in Rabbinic eyes? The first thing the rabbis had to deal with was the direct dictum to eradicate specific nations or not to ever allow an Ammonite or Moabite to enter the fold (Deut. 23:4). Here is a famous case from the first generation of the Tannaim at Yabneh after the destruction of the Second Temple, originally from M. Yaddaim 4/4 (see Text 1 in the Primary sources section, below). In this debate, exegesis overrides explicit Scripture, by rendering it outdated and irrelevant. This case has far-reaching consequences, because any attempt to target people on the basis of belonging to a biblical group (for example, the Amalekites) must be considered anachronistic for the same reason. More problematic was the issue of allowing pagans to live and practice their cults in ’Eretz Yisrael. The nature of the problem is unclear, although it has been known as “Gentile ritual impurity” (tum’at nekharim). There were scholars (like A. Büchler) who understood the impurity as stemming from the bodies of the Gentile male and female and their secretions, and the lack of purification processes available like baptism; and others (like Gedalya Alon) who argued that the source of impurity was spiritual, namely the idol-worshiping defiled the person himself, as well as the ground on which one practiced, and the food and vessels touched by him. To that there could be no remedy by baptism; as the saying goes, tovel wesherets beyado, “immersing while holding a rodent in one’s hand” (meaning unrepentant sinner). I side with Alon, since the usual sources of impurity (menstrual blood, giving birth, semen, leprosy, and death) do not relate to a Gentile, and yet it can be considered as if an impurity has been contracted (ziva, “gonorrhea;” see Text 2, Primary sources). The source of impurity is clearly the idol. I know that to modern eyes this looks terribly offensive, and the issue of Gentile impurity was a point of departure from Judaism of early Christianity; but I suggest that purity was accepted by pagans everywhere as critical to the functioning of temple-centered life, and they accepted the peculiarities of each cult. The texts themselves do not use derogatory terms when they describe the status of pagans; Josephus and Mishnah Midot tell us that on the Temple Mount there was a low fence outside the walled courts and temple, indicating the

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 6

07/01/2014 08:51



“For the sake of peace (mipnei darchei shalom)”7

closest a pagan could get to the holy, and we know that Gentiles did come to bring their offerings to the God of Israel, who was considered omnipotent in the ancient world (see the prayer of Solomon in 1 Kings 8, the Cyrus declaration, the Ptolemaic request in the letter of Aristeas, and Josephus, as well as the Talmud, which all tell us that the Romans enacted an offering at the temple in Jerusalem in honor of the Emperor). In fact, it was the decision not to accept pagan offerings that marked a declaration of the Jewish war that brought upon the destruction of the temple. Thus, pagans were used to respecting the specific requirements of each cult they encountered, and that was also true of the temple in Jerusalem. However, the real problems related to everyday life in a country where Jew and Gentile lived as neighbors, worked together, were partners in business, and met in the marketplace, on the streets, and on social occasions. This was typical of most urban cases. The issue of Gentile impurity had implications on matters of produce, especially liquids like wine and oil; and some of these restrictions are still practiced today, long after all pagan practice is gone (see Babylonian Talmud, BT, Sanhedrin 63b). Having said that, let me add that in my opinion the issues that would create animosity were of a different kind altogether, and they had to do with the lack of a sense of brotherhood and shared values, and as a result a double standard in the handling of daily relationships. The late professor Yeshayahu Leibovitz used to describe the relationship between secular and ultra-orthodox Israelis by pointing to the three M’s that cannot be shared—“mishar, mitbah, mitah” (business, kitchen, and bed). The same was true with Jews and Gentiles in late antiquity, from a Rabbinic point of view. I doubt that most Jews were strict about these more than they are these days. However, lacking a sense of brotherhood, like some rabbis emphasized, could lead to some very problematic rules as can be noticed in Texts 3 and 4 (in Primary sources). As is evident by the texts themselves, the rabbis felt uneasy about the situation but seemed to have been unable to cut loose from their own rhetoric and exegesis of the Torah, as is evident in the summary of Talmudic Law by the famous Maimonides (see Text 5, Primary sources). What is interesting in this text is that, out of the seeming dead end of the legal system logically deduced from the Torah, using the words “brother,” “fellow Israelite,” etc., a new set of values appear and gradually take over, mipnei chillul hashem (“for the sake of the profanation of the Name”) and mipnei

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 7

07/01/2014 08:51

8

The Three Sons of Abraham

darchei shalom (“for the sake of peace”), sometimes called mipnei eyva (“for the sake of enmity”). These terms seem to be of a lesser value, because they are not expressed in the Torah, but the rabbis recognized their supreme importance in the prophets, created Midrashim to prove that peace overrides truth, and soon started using them as tools to modify problematic biblical data. I wish to show you how this concept played out in the case of the attitude toward Gentiles. This is what the Talmud has to say about “for the sake of peace” (see Texts 6 and 7, Primary sources). We can see the tension between the various values, on one hand trying to keep decent relationships with your Gentile neighbor, and on the other hand not getting too close. Finally, on this issue, this is the majority opinion only, that of the school of Rabbi Akiva. The rival school of Rabbi Ishmael was far more inclusive to start with. While Rabbi Akiva would exclude Gentiles from an act of loving kindness, based on the biblical use of terms like ’achykhu (“your brother”), ’amitkhu (“your companion”) and bney ’amkha (“your compatriot”), Rabbi Ishmael would go down a different path and recognize the possibility of righteous Gentiles. One cannot but reflect on the probable connection between this legal dispute and the deep political/religious dispute between the two schools in regard to the stance the rabbis were to take in the wake of the Bar Kochba rebellion. Rabbi Akiva advocated a hard line, promoting martyrdom, while Rabbi Ishmael favored a policy of less national zeal. In my opinion, the terrible results of the revolt were a major factor in promoting the type of conciliatory concepts toward Gentiles like mipnei darchei shalom (“for the sake of peace”). This was not the case with Christianity. The major difference was that while rabbis were born into a world inhabited mostly by pagan foreigners, the first Christians they knew came from within the Jewish community itself; and while their attitude toward pagans reflected a mix of contempt to pagan idols with an admiration for Roman power and progress (see Texts 8 and 9, Primary sources) and a growing pragmatism led by the dynasty of the Patriarchs and reflected in the Mishnah of Yehuda the Prince, the attitude toward Christians was that of disapproval, ridicule, boycott, and hate. It is interesting to note that the Mishnah does not mention one word about Christianity, while it does mention other rival ideologies like Sadducees and Samaritans. The silence of the Mishnah

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 8

07/01/2014 08:51



“For the sake of peace (mipnei darchei shalom)”9

cannot reflect lack of interest because, as we will soon see from the Tosefta, which represents an earlier layer of the Mishnah, the new Jewish messianic sect was both attractive to the rabbis of the first two centuries and, for the same reason, increasingly dangerous to them. The Mishnah treated Christianity as a heresy, or as a “sect” that had no place in the code. Also interesting is the huge difference between the two Talmud compilations. While the Palestinian Talmud (PT) repeats the information from the Tosefta but does not provide any new updated information of its own time, the BT is most elaborate in bringing both old and new traditions about Christianity in Palestine and in Sassanian Babylon. This difference is due to the fact that the PT was edited under Byzantine rule, where “The Kingdom turned into Heresy” (PT Sota ch. 9: 23b), and it was not politically correct (to say the least) to voice anti-Christian statements of a contemporary nature; while the Babylonian Talmud was edited in Persia, which was itself persecuting Christians, and it was safe to repeat and elaborate anti-Christian traditions. It is from the BT that later Jewish scholars as well as Catholic priests of Jewish background drew their knowledge about Jewish attitudes toward Christianity. But we cannot treat that as genuine, historical fact, but rather as late and distorted traditions. The best example for such a distortion is the account of the part Jews played in the Passion of Jesus, but it will take me too long to show it here in a proper critical methodology. Let me instead give two less volatile examples, comparing the Tosefta, PT, and BT, one dealing with the attitude toward the Christian scriptures and churches (see Text 10, Primary sources), and the other dealing with healing and teaching in the name of Jesus Christ (see Text 11, Primary sources). One can notice the animosity in the two Palestinian texts, while in the BT the animosity is replaced by ridicule and suspicion. It is not a Jewish inner problem anymore, and it does not hurt. Notice that the BT does not hesitate to bring up recent stories from the first two centuries but says nothing about the fourth century. Now let us turn to the second example (Read Hullin 2:20–21; 22:23 text in the Tosefta; and the Avoda Zara 27b text in the PT; and 11 and 12 from BT). What can be seen from all texts is that the rabbis believed in the power of healing in the name of Jesus but attributed it to magic and would rather die than allow it. Also, we see the attraction to Christian exegesis of the biblical text by famous rabbis, and, basically, the two movements were using quite similar tools in

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 9

07/01/2014 08:51

10

The Three Sons of Abraham

their teachings. However, because of the similarity, and the use of the same scriptures, the competition and animosity were immense. You all know this phenomenon within Christianity and Islam. The minute you form an Orthodox reading of text, you almost by definition disapprove of other readings, calling it heresy, burning books, and finally burning people. The issue of Jewish Christianity or Christian Jews needs a broad discussion of its own. Let me just say that the actual separation of the two religions was not nearly as fast and smooth as the bishops of Nicea or the rabbis of Tiberia wished to suggest. History does not live well with dogma, and people find their own path of faith. Everyone can testify to the fact we are still struggling today with borderlines in our faith. However, in retrospect, knowing the violent nature of theologians who are certain of the one truth (that is always theirs, and I am afraid it is true in all monotheistic religions), it may have been a blessing that the Parting of the Ways happened. Sometimes divorce is the only solution. The minute Christianity stopped being an inner Jewish issue, it was termed “‘akhum,” based on the theology of the Trinity, and the concepts governing Jewish life with Gentiles were adopted by Christians as well. When Rabbi Moshe of Kutzi discusses the way we Jews should act in the markets of Barcelona and Paris of the thirteenth century, he does not think about pagans, but about Christians. However, he thinks of them not as Jewish heretics, but as complete Gentiles (see Text 12, Primary sources). One exceptional rabbi, Menachim Hameiri (see Text 13, Primary sources) made a very promising distinction between organized religions and just pagans, but he stayed a lonely voice. Such was also the voice of an earlier anonymous Babylonian writer of Seder Eliyahu Raba, who was claiming for equal treatment of all people (see Text 14, Primary sources). But, to this day, Christianity is considered as a heresy from Judaism, and I am not allowed to enter a church, the same way that Rabbi Tarfon swore on the life of his children that he would never do. Finally, I should say that Islam was never treated this way. On the one hand, it was never perceived as coming out of Judaism as Christianity did, but rather was considered a Gentile religion; on the other hand, it was always thought of as monotheistic, not pagan. The fact is that a practicing Jew would enter a mosque, but not a church. I chose two texts that point out the two points that are important theologically in regard to Islam: first, the initial great expectations as

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 10

07/01/2014 08:51



“For the sake of peace (mipnei darchei shalom)”11

Umar el Katib conquered Jerusalem in 638; and it is worthwhile to notice the positive description even of the building of a small mosque on top of the Temple Mount, where the Holy of Holies used to be (see Text 15, Primary sources). This act is not considered pollution of the Holy, quite the opposite. The second text, by Maimonides, talks directly on the purely monotheistic nature of Islam (see Text 16, Primary sources).

Primary sources Text 1—BT Berachot 28a A Tanna taught: Eduyyoth was formulated on that day—and wherever the expression on that day is used, it refers to that day—and there was no halachah about which any doubt existed in the Beth ha-Midrash which was not fully elucidated. Rabban Gamaliel also did not absent himself from the Beth ha-Midrash a single hour, as we have learned: On that day Judah, an Ammonite proselyte, came before them in the Beth ha-Midrash. He said to them: Am I permitted to enter the assembly? R. Joshua said to him: You are permitted to enter the congregation. Said Rabban Gamaliel to him: Is it not already laid down, An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord? R. Joshua replied to him: Do Ammon and Moab still reside in their original homes? Sennacherib king of Assyria long ago went up and mixed up all the nations, as it says, I have removed the bounds of the peoples and have robbed their treasures and have brought down as one mighty their inhabitants; and whatever strays [from a group] is assumed to belong to the larger section of the group. Said Rabban Gamaliel to him: But has it not been said: But afterward I will bring back the captivity of the children of Ammon, saith the Lord, so that they have already returned? To which R. Joshua replied: And has it not been said, and I will turn the captivity of My people Israel, and they have not yet returned? Forthwith they permitted him to enter the congregation.

Text 2—Shabbat 17b They decreed against their daughters an account of something else (there is idolatry) [...] What is this something else?—Said R. Nahman B. Isaac: They decreed that a heathen child shall defile by gonorrhea (even if he is not suffering therewith).

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 11

07/01/2014 08:51

12

The Three Sons of Abraham

Text 3—Mishnah Bava Kama 4/3 In the case of a private owner’s cattle goring an ox consecrated to the temple, or consecrated cattle goring a private ox, there is no liability, for it is stated: the ox of his neighbor (Exod. 21:35), not [that is to say] an ox consecrated to the temple. Where an ox belonging to an Israelite has gored an ox belonging to a Canaanite, there is no liability, whereas where an ox belonging to a Canaanite gores an ox belonging to an Israelite, whether while tam or mu’ad, the compensation is to be made full.

Text 4—BT Bava Kama 38a Where an ox belonging to an Israelite has gored an ox belonging to a Canaanite there is liability, etc. But I might here assert that you are on the horns of a dilemma. If the implication of his neighbor has to be insisted upon, then in the case of an ox of a Canaanite goring an ox of an Israelite, should there also not be exemption? If [on the other hand] the implication of his neighbor has not to be insisted upon, why then even in the case of an ox of an Israelite goring an ox of a Canaanite, should there not be liability?—R. Abbahu thereupon said: The Writ says, He stood and measured the earth; he beheld and drove asunder the nations, (Hab. 3:6) [which may be taken to imply that] God beheld the seven commandments, which were accepted by all the descendants of Noah, but since they did not observe them, He rose up and declared them to be outside the protection of the civil law of Israel [with reference to damage done to cattle by cattle]. What was the statement made by R. Joseph [referred to above]?— It was this: R. Joseph said: He stood and measured the earth; he beheld, etc. What did He behold? He beheld the seven commandments which had been accepted by all the descendants of Noah, and since [there were clans that] rejected them He rose up and granted them exemption. Does this mean that they benefited [by breaking the law]? And if so, will it not be a case of a sinner profiting [by the transgression he committed]?—Mar the son of Rabana thereupon said: It only means that even were they to keep the seven commandments [which had first been accepted but subsequently rejected by them] they would receive no reward. Would they not? But it has been taught: R. Meir used to say, Whence can we learn that even when a Gentile occupies himself with the study of the Torah he equals [in status] the High Priest? We find it stated: which if a man do he shall live in them

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 12

07/01/2014 08:51



“For the sake of peace (mipnei darchei shalom)”13

(Lev. 18:5); it does not say priests, Levites and Israelites, but a man, which shows that even if a Gentile occupies himself with the study of the Torah he equals [in status] the High Priest.—I mean [in saying that they would receive no reward] that they will receive reward not like those who having been enjoined perform commandments, but like those who not having been enjoined perform good deeds: for R. Hanina has stated: Greater is the reward of those who having been enjoined do good deeds than of those who not having been enjoined [but merely out of free will] do good deeds. Our rabbis taught: The Government of Rome had long ago sent two commissioners to the Sages of Israel with a request to teach them the Torah. It was accordingly read to them once, twice and thrice. Before taking leave they made the following remark: We have gone carefully through your Torah and found it correct with the exception of this point, viz. your saying that if an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability, whereas if the ox of a Canaanite gores the ox of an Israelite, whether Tam or Mu‘ad, compensation has to be paid in full. In no case can this be right. For if the implication of his neighbor has to be insisted upon, why then in the case of an ox of a Canaanite goring an ox of an Israelite should there also not be exemption? If [on the other hand] the implication of his neighbor has not to be insisted upon, why then even in the case of an ox of an Israelite goring an ox of a Canaanite, should there not be liability? We will, however, not report this matter to our Government.

Text 5—Maimonides (d. 1205), The Code, Robbery and Lost and Found, Chapter 11 Article 3: The Lost and Found of a Gentile is permitted as it is written, the Lost and Found of your brother (Deut. 22:3), and giving it back is sinful because he is helping evil in the world. However, if he returns it to sanctify the name of God, so that they will praise Israel and know that they are trustworthy, that is fine. And in a place where there is a fear of the desecration of the name of God, it is forbidden to keep the object, and he must return it. But in all cases, we must protect the property of the Gentile from thieves, the same way we protect Jewish property for the sake of peace. Article 4: A mistake done by a Gentile (in the market place) is like his Lost and Found; but that applies only if he made the mistake by himself—one should not lead him to make a mistake.

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 13

07/01/2014 08:51

14

The Three Sons of Abraham

Article 5: How so? Suppose the Gentile counts and makes a mistake [...] and the Israelite must say to him: Look, I count on you, and I give you whatever you say, then it is permitted. But if he did not say that it is forbidden—it may be that the Gentile is trying him, and the name of God will end up desecrated.

Text 6—PT Demai Ch. 4, 24a (Palestine, fourth century) It was taught: In a city that has a population of Gentiles and Israelites, the collectors collect from both Israelites and Gentiles, and provide for the poor of Israelites and Gentiles, and visit the sick of Israelites and Gentiles, and console the mourners of Israelites and Gentiles, and protect the property of Israelites and Gentiles [all of these because of the concept of the Mishnah] Mipnei Darchei Shalom (for the sake of peace). The people of Gadara asked Rabbi Aimi: How about [visiting] on a festive day? He was about to permit it because of the concept Mipnei Darchei Shalom; however, Rabbi Ba mentioned a saying by Rabbi Chiya [The Great], The Gentile festivals are prohibited. To this Rabbi Aimi responded: If it was not for Rabbi Ba, we would have permitted their idol worshipping. Blessed [be Him] that kept us away from them.

Text 7—Gittin 61a–62a The poor of the heathen are not prevented from gathering gleanings, forgotten sheaves and the corner of the field, to avoid ill feeling. Our rabbis have taught: We support the poor of the heathen along with the poor of Israel, and visit the sick of the heathen along with the sick of Israel, and bury the poor of the heathen along with the dead of Israel, in the interests of peace. Assistance may be given to heathens in the sabbatical year. Assistance may be given to them? Has not R. Dimi b. Shishna said in the name of Rab; It is not right to hoe with heathens in the Sabbatical year nor to give a double greeting to heathens?—It is quite correct; what is meant is, just to say to them, Ahzuku! Thus R. Judah used to say to them, Ahzuku! R. Shesheth used to say to them, Asharta! Nor to give double greeting to heathens. R. Hisda used to give them greeting first. R. Kahana used to say; Peace [to you,] sir. Greeting may be given to them, in the interest of peace. Seeing that we may encourage them at their work, do we need to be told that we may give them greeting?—R. Yeba said. The rule had to be stated

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 14

07/01/2014 08:51



“For the sake of peace (mipnei darchei shalom)”15

only for their feast days. For it has been taught; A man should not enter the house of a heathen on his feast day, nor give him greeting. Should he meet him in the street, he should greet him in a mumbling tone and with downcast head.

Text 8—BT Shabbat 35a Now, why is he [R. Judah son of R. Ila’i] called the first speaker on all occasions?—For R. Judah, R. Jose, and R. Simeon were sitting, and Judah, a son of proselytes, was sitting near them. R. Judah commenced [the discussion] by observing, How fine are the works of this people! They have made streets, they have built bridges, they have erected baths. R. Jose was silent. R. Simeon b. Yohai answered and said, All that they made they made for themselves; they built market-places, to set harlots in them; baths, to rejuvenate themselves; bridges, to levy tolls for them. Now, Judah the son of proselytes went and related their talk, which reached the government. They decreed: Judah, who exalted [us], shall be exalted, Jose, who was silent, shall be exiled to Sepphoris; Simeon, who censured, let him be executed.

Text 9—BT Avoda Zara 2, a–b In times to come, the Holy One, blessed be He, will take a scroll of the Law in His embrace and proclaim: Let him who has occupied himself herewith, come and take his reward. Thereupon all the nations will crowd together in confusion, as it is said: All the nations are gathered together, etc. The Holy One, blessed be He, will then say to them: Come not before Me in confusion, but let each nation come in with its scribes; [...] Thereupon the Kingdom of Edom will enter first before Him. (Why first? Because they are the most important. Whence do we know they are so important?—Because it is written: And he shall devour the whole earth and shall tread it down and break it in pieces; and R. Johanan says that this refers to Rome, whose power is known to the whole world [...]) The Holy One, blessed be He, will then say to them: Wherewith have you occupied yourselves? They will reply: O Lord of the Universe, we have established many market-places, we have erected many baths, we have accumulated much gold and silver, and all this we did only for the sake of Israel, that they might [have leisure] for occupying themselves with the study of the Torah. The Holy One, blessed be He, will say in reply: You foolish ones among peoples, all that which you have done,

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 15

07/01/2014 08:51

16

The Three Sons of Abraham

you have only done to satisfy your own desires. You have established marketplaces to place courtesans therein; baths, to revel in them; [...] are there any among you who have been declaring this? And this is nought else than the Torah, as it is said: And this is the Law which Moses set before the children of Israel. They will then depart crushed in spirit. On the departure of the Kingdom of Rome, Persia will step forth. (Why Persia next?—Because they are next in importance. And how do we know this?—Because it is written: And behold another beast, a second like to a bear; and R. Joseph learned that this refers to the Persians, who eat and drink greedily like the bear, are fleshly like the bear, have shaggy hair like the bear, and are restless like the bear.) The Holy One, blessed be He, will ask of them: Wherewith have ye occupied yourselves?; and they will reply, Sovereign of the Universe, we have built many bridges, we have captured many cities, we have waged many wars, and all this for the sake of Israel, that they might engage in the study of the Torah. Then the Holy One, blessed be He, will say to them: You foolish ones among peoples, you have built bridges in order to extract toll, you have subdued cities, so as to impose forced labor; [...] are there any amongst you who have been declaring this? and this means nought else than the Torah, as it is said: And this is the Law which Moses set before the Children of Israel. They, too will then depart crushed in spirit. (But why should the Persians, having seen that the Romans achieved nought, step forward at all?— They will say to themselves: The Romans have destroyed the Temple, whereas we have built it.) And so will every nation fare in turn.

Text 10—Tosefta Shabbat, 13:5, BT Shabbat 116b (Palestine, second century) The Gilyonim and the Books of the Minim, we may not save them from a fire. R. Jose said: On weekdays one must cut out the Divine Names which they contain, hide them and burn the rest. R. Tarfon said: May I bury my son if I would not burn them together with their Divine Names if they came to my hand. For even if one pursued me to slay me, or a snake pursued me to bite me, I would enter a heathen Temple [for refuge], but not the houses of these [people], for the latter know (of God) yet deny [Him], whereas the former are ignorant and deny [Him], and of them the Writ saith, and behind the doors and the posts hast thou set up thy memorial (Isa. 58:7). R. Ishmael said: [One can reason] a minori: If in order to make peace between

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 16

07/01/2014 08:51



“For the sake of peace (mipnei darchei shalom)”17

man and wife the Torah decreed, Let my Name, written in sanctity, be blotted out in water, these, who stir up jealousy, enmity, and wrath between Israel and their Father in Heaven, how much more so; and of them David said, Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate Thee? And am I not grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies (Ps. 139:21–2). And just as we may not rescue them from a fire, so may we not rescue them from a collapse [of debris] or from water or from anything that may destroy them. (See http://snunit.k12.il/kodesh/bible/misai066.html)

Text 11—Y. Shabbat, XIV, 14d The grandson [of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi] had a choking fit. There came a man and whispered [something] to him in the name of Yeshu ben Pandira, and he recovered. When he [the man] came out, he [Rabbi Joshua] said to him, What did you whisper to him? He said to him, A certain word. He [Rabbi Joshua?] said then: It had been better for him to have died than this should have happened.

Text 12—R. Moshe of Kutzi (France, 1240). The Great Book of Commandments; The Do’s, 74. I have already preached to the Diaspora of Jerusalem in Spain and to the rest of the Edomite (Christian) Diaspora communities, that now that our exile has lasted so long, Israel must distance itself from all nonsense of this world, and hold to the stamp of The Holy Blessed Be He which is Truth, and should not lie to an Israelite or a Gentile, and not mislead them in any way, and to sanctify themselves even in what is permitted, as it is written The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth (Zeph. 3:13). And when The Holy Blessed Be He will come for their salvation the Gentiles will say they deserve being saved, because they are people of truth, and their Torah is true. But if they will treat the Gentiles falsely, they will say, look what God did— he chose as His Portion thieves and cheats.

Text 13—Rabbi Menachem Hameiri, Bet Habchira, Bava Kama 113b Even idol worshippers and those who are not part of an organized religion—we are not allowed to rob them [...] However, one is

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 17

07/01/2014 08:51

18

The Three Sons of Abraham

not expected to take great pains at returning their Lost and Found; because finding something is somewhat like owning it, and giving it back is an act of loving kindness “hasidah”, and we are not required to express “hasidah” toward someone who has no religion at all [...] However, anyone belonging to a nation that has an organized religion, and worship God in any tradition, even if their Faith is far from ours, should be treated exactly like a proper Israelite in all these matters, even in regard to Lost and Found and mistakes in commerce.

Text 14—Seder Eliyahu Raba 26 (Sassanian Babylonia, end of the fifth century) Another meaning of the verse, You shall love your Lord God (Deut. 6:5)—that you should make the name of Heaven beloved by people, by knowing how to handle your business with people in the market place. Thus, a person that knows how to handle his business with people in the market place and has learnt Torah and Mishnah, people who see him say: good for him who has studied Torah, woe to me that my father did not teach me Torah. This man has studied, look how nice are his ways. By God, we will study Torah and we will teach our children Torah. As a result the name of God becomes sanctified by this man. However, a person that does not know how to handle his business with people in the market place and has learnt Torah and Mishnah, people who see him say: Woe for him who has studied Torah, good to me that my father did not teach me Torah, This man has studied, look how bad are his deeds, how crooked are his ways. By God, we will not study Torah and we will not teach our children Torah. As a result the name of God becomes desecrated by this man. The only reason for the giving of the Torah was to sanctify His Great Name as He says, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified (Isa. 49:3). From this our rabbis taught: Let a man distance himself from robbing an Israelite or a Gentile, even in the market place; because he who steals from a Gentile will end up stealing from an Israelite, and he who robs a Gentile will end up robbing an Israelite. If he [falsely] swears to a Gentile (that he does not owe money) he will end up swearing to an Israelite, and if he kills a Gentile he will end up killing an Israelite.

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 18

07/01/2014 08:51



“For the sake of peace (mipnei darchei shalom)”19

Text 15—The Secrets of Rabbi Shimon Ben Yochai (the Eizenstein collection folio 551) These are the Secrets which were revealed to Rabbi Shimon Ben Yochai when he was hiding in a cave from the Emperor of Edom (Rome) [...] When he saw the Kingdom of Ishmael coming, he started saying: Is it not enough for us what was done to us by the wicked Kingdom of Edom, that now also the Kingdom of Ishmael? At that moment Mettatron answered him and said: Do not fear, Son of Man, The Holy Blessed be He is not bringing the Kingdom of Ishmael except for saving you from this wicked Kingdom, and he will establish on them a Prophet of His liking, and He will conquer the Land for them, and they will come and will fold it in greatness, and a great animosity will be between them and the children of Esau [...] The second king that will rise on Ishmael will be loving Israel, and he will fence their walls, and the walls of the Temple, and he will carve out Mount Moriah and flatten it, and he will be there “a place of bowing down” on the “foundation stone, as it says “and he looked on the Kenites, and took up this parable, and said, Strong is the dwelling place, and thou puttest thy nest in a rock” (Num 24:21). And he will wage war against the children of Esau, and kill his troops and take many captives, and will die in peace and in great honor.

Text 16—The Response of Maimonides, 448 Ovadya the learnt, the wise, a true proselyte, God will pay him back for his deeds, and let his payment be full from the God of Israel for that he came to dwell under His wings, that was a Ishmaelite and converted. [Repeating the question]: That you said that they [Ishmaelite] are not idol worshippers, and your Rabbi told you that they are, and that the stones they were throwing at their idol are for ‫[ סילוקרמ‬Mercury] and he insulted you and you were hurt, and he called on you, Answer a fool according to his folly [the actual verse is “Answer not a fool according to his folly.” Prov. 26:5]. Answer: These Ishmaelites are not idol worshippers at all, and it is already long

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 19

07/01/2014 08:51

20

The Three Sons of Abraham

cut out from their mouth and from their heart, and they are worshipping Him as One God, a oneness that has no flaw. And just because they lie about us and say that we say that the God The Exalted has a son, we are not going to lie back and say that they are idol worshippers. The Torah testified about them Whose mouth speaketh vanity, and their right hand is a right hand of falsehood (Ps. 144:8), and it testified about us, The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth (Zeph. 3:13). And if a man would argue that the House in which they worship Him is a house of an idol, and an idol is residing there, because their ancestors used to worship that idol there—so what about it! These people who prostate themselves to Him today, their heart is directed to Heaven only, And our rabbis ruled already in Sanhedrin (61b), that if a person prostates himself in a house of an idol and thinks that it is a synagogue, then his heart is devoted to heaven, and it is fine.

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 20

07/01/2014 08:51

The family of Abraham Interview with Irving Greenberg

Question: Please describe your personal journey, existentially and intellectually/spiritually, in regard to your confrontation with Christians and with Muslims. Irving Greenberg: I was born and raised in a family steeped in Jewish tradition. I was in love and very happy with that life, and in that world I had little contact with Christians or Muslims. I studied and received Rabbinic ordination, but was not planning to serve or practice in the rabbinate. Professionally, I was serving as a professor of American History when in 1961 I went to Israel to teach for one year as a visiting Fulbright Professor. There I stumbled into the issue of the Holocaust—that is to say, into an emotional encounter with this horrifying catastrophe of mass murder and genocide. Devastated personally, emotionally, and religiously because of the cruelty with which the Jews were isolated and abandoned by the powers of the world, I asked how God could let it happen. I struggled with great torment. As I studied more I came to realize to what extent Christianity had demonized and ostracized the Jews. Classic Christian theological teaching from the Gospels to the Church fathers taught that the Jews had killed Christ, had failed to recognize the time of their visitation, were spiritually blind in not accepting Christianity, and were following a legalistic and dead religion which had been replaced by a Christianity of love and spirit. Over the course of history, these teachings turned more and more ugly, culminating in ideas such as that the Jews were well-poisoners, killers of Christian children and eaters of their blood, baked into matzah. I believe that these evil myths set up the Jews as objects of hatred. The Nazis exploited this culture to make the Jews objects of murderous hatred. This history means that although Christianity as a religion never called for or

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 21

07/01/2014 08:51

22

The Three Sons of Abraham

wanted to murder all the Jews, Christianity was responsible for the environment which facilitated the Holocaust. Shocked by this realization and worried about the future, I decided to come back to America to join the Jewish–Christian dialogue. Frankly, my purpose was to influence Christians to stop spreading prejudice and hostility to Judaism and the Jewish people. I had a message for Christians: “This is a gospel of love and you have twisted it into a gospel justifying persecution and hatred. What makes this even worse: you have turned your religion into a gospel of hostility towards the children of the family of Jesus, the founder and the focus of the Christian religion.” Many Christians were still systematically defaming and degrading the Jews. For example: take the Hebrew prophets whom Christians over the centuries misrepresented. Christians cited the prophets’ criticism of the Jewish people as proof of the Jews’ spiritual unfitness. However, reading the prophets is like reading the free press. The newspapers seem to describe a country that is full of flaws and injustice. By contrast, the press in dictatorships reads as if the country is wonderful and the government is great. But the opposite is true. Similarly, Christians had distorted the prophetic criticism—a mark of Jewish high religious standards—into an indictment of the people who generated and sustained the prophets. When I joined the dialogue and met serious Christians, I discovered to my amazement that many of them felt responsible and disturbed about what Christianity had done. They were determined to clean up the religion and restore the gospel of love that was meant to be. I discovered when I spent time with them that they were truly religious people. They lived inspiring religious lives, and they had deeply spiritual, liturgical, and religious experiences. As I saw their actions, I came to admire and appreciate their religion. I began to change my opinion of the Christian faith. I gradually came to see that Christian religion had many wonderful qualities. As I came to appreciate the faith more and more, I had to rethink my own understanding. I concluded that, even though Christianity and Judaism have important disagreements, they each have a legitimate, important, and constructive role to play in preparing the world for the kingdom of God. As a Jew, I recognized that Christianity had reached billions of people and taught

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 22

07/01/2014 08:51



The family of Abraham23

them about God, God’s will, and God’s power of love and caring for people. Gradually I came to a different attitude—not just criticizing and correcting Christianity but appreciating it. This led me to rethink traditional Jewish attitudes and to develop a positive theology of Christianity. I envisioned a partnership between the two religions (with each in different roles), and I came to believe that God had intended such a partnership in the first place. The two religions should exist side by side. Christianity came not to supersede Judaism but to enable God to reach out to Gentiles. Christians misread their own election as signaling the end of Jewish faith. But actually, as Paul said in Romans, Jewry received the promises and the covenants. God is faithful to the divine word and does not retract promises. It is an irrevocable calling that God has given to Jews. Christianity came to add on to the divine outreach and it carried a message to be given to the Gentiles. In that way, Christianity and Judaism work side by side. This is how I came to see it. Question: What about the Muslims? Irving Greenberg: I have had much less contact with Muslims. During the last decade, I have come to believe that all three religions are Abrahamic cousins and were intended by God to work together for a better world. The problem right now is that in the case of Christianity there are important churches—the Catholic Church and many Protestant churches—which acknowledge that it was not God’s intention to replace Judaism. This creates a very powerful basis for dialogue and for partnership. In the case of Islam, the regnant viewpoint is that Islam came to replace both Christianity and Judaism. Therefore the Jewish–Islam dialogue is not yet at the level of the Jewish–Christian dialogue. There is a lot of work ahead of us in all three faith communities in order to finally establish the divinely intended partnership and family connection between us. I must stress that Jews too have to work on improving their attitudes to other faiths—and to refrain from thinking that they own God. No religion owns God. The real goal is not that we should be right and the other religionists wrong, but that together we should do God’s will and work together for a better world.

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 23

07/01/2014 08:51

24

The Three Sons of Abraham

Question: You have written an important book on the Jewish– Christian encounter, For the Sake of Heaven and Earth, in which you make bold statements regarding the place of Christians in the “house of Israel.” You even go so far as to call the Christians “a branch of Israel.” Could you comment on this, and clarify for our readers, who are Christians and Jews, what you mean in this reflection? Irving Greenberg: The thesis of the book is that it was God’s intention that Christianity be born inside of Judaism, but then separate. The goal was to bring the good news of God and the promises of redemption and salvation to the whole world and particularly to the Gentiles. It was God’s intention that the two religions work side by side as partners and in parallel outreach to humanity. For 2,000 years the divine pluralism was thwarted, but this is one of those rare opportunities in history for a second chance. Therefore, Christians should be seen by Jews as joining the family of Abraham and Israel. As Paul and others have suggested, Christians should be validated as becoming an associate branch, i.e., joining in the Abrahamic family relationship. All human beings are the children of Adam and Eve—but Christians are close cousins to the Jews. This is the thesis of the book. Thus I speak of Christians as members (or a branch) of Israel. Jews and Christians belong to the same family and are working in parallel to repair the world. Historically Christians thought that although they represented a root grafted onto the original tree, they took over the entire tree. The original Jews were expelled and lost their place in the family of God because they did not accept Jesus. That tradition led to these 2,000 years of enmity, hatred and fighting. My own views are in response to a new attitude on the part of Christians which enables Jews to rethink their categories vis-à-vis Christians. Question: In your perspective, is there a place for Islam in the house of Israel? Irving Greenberg: In principle, yes. All three faiths have a shared monotheistic message of God’s care. All three teach a message of improving the world and perfecting it with righteousness and justice. However—I say this to Muslims and Christians alike—you cannot be a part of the family while at the same time saying, “I am going to kill or throw out or expel my brother.” My conclusion is that

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 24

07/01/2014 08:51



The family of Abraham25

we are one family basically, but this recognition requires a theological renewal. Each faith community must acknowledge that the other faith community is a member of the family. Each one’s claim to be a part of the family does not require a rejection of another’s place in the family. I think the same model applies with Islam. In principle, Islam originates with Abraham and his children; it also accepts the basic messages that are shared by Christianity and Judaism. However, Islam also claims not only to be part of the family but that Muslims are the only legitimate faith and the Qur’an is the final legitimate understanding that replaces the others. These views remain a problem to negotiate. Muslim thinkers must work at articulating the pluralism of God’s love and God’s justice and the divine relationship with the nations. By pluralism I mean that God is able to enter into different religious traditions and covenants of commitment. God can call differing faiths to a partnership of love and justice with God. Such an Islam, I think, should be and is in fact a member of the family of Israel. Question: Is there a Jewish theology, or at least Jewish theological perspectives about Christianity and its relationship to Israel? Irving Greenberg: There already have been important attempts at Jewish theological understandings of Christianity. However, I think we are just at the beginning in developing a Jewish theology of Christianity. Amazingly, after 2,000 years of a relationship of anger, rejection, and degradation, the Christians have developed a positive theology of Jewish faith. This is one of the great moral/spiritual achievements of our time. This is a role model for the world; ultimately, I believe that all religions will have to learn about the other religions—to learn about their humanity, their decency, and their dignity, and come to recognize those religions that nurture human beings in the image of God. As the recognition of other religions grows, the Jews also have to work on developing their theology of affirmative pluralism. This theology would allow that Christianity exists not just because of its shared values with Jewish religion but as a religion that brings hundreds of millions of people to God. Thus, Jewish thinking needs to affirm that Christianity is not an accident, not a mistake or

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 25

07/01/2014 08:51

26

The Three Sons of Abraham

distortion of Jewish traditions, but the will of God. This does not mean that there are no disagreements between us or that there are no false religions. Pluralism is not a matter of thinking that all religions are the same and differences do not matter. Rather we must recognize that God loves in more than one way and cares for more than one people—simultaneously. I think that Jewish theology in regard to Christianity is just beginning to blossom. Other Jews have worked on this topic. Most notably, in the early twentieth century, Franz Rosenzweig developed a theology of Christianity, declaring it to be a religion that goes out to the world, whereas Judaism stays in the sanctuary with God. Personally, I do not agree with that division. I believe that both religions should go out to the world and both religions should be in the sanctuary. Still, Rosenzweig was a great pioneer. Now the Jewish community and various Jewish thinkers are beginning to develop new and fresh thinking about Christianity. This is to be welcomed in the same way as we welcome Christians and others who are developing fresh thinking about Judaism. Question: Generally the encounter involves a dual experience—Jews/ Christians, Jews/Muslims, or even Muslims/Christians. We have rarely engaged in an encounter that would involve the three monotheistic faiths. Do you think such a confrontation could be possible and even fruitful? Irving Greenberg: I very much welcome the idea of the three religions communicating simultaneously with each other. First of all each religion has a different focus and can enrich (and learn from) the others. The most valuable thing about dialogue in my personal experience has been discovering not only the humanity or dignity, but also the vitality of other religions. As a result, my own understanding and practice of my own religion has been enriched. In some cases the enrichment is that there is a theme in my tradition which I overlooked, but in the Other’s tradition it is so much emphasized that I rediscover it in my tradition. In some cases I differ from the Other, but in that difference I come to appreciate my own religious emphasis. Potentially, a trialogue is even richer than a dialogue. The difficulty with a trialogue, however, involves the different stages at which

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 26

07/01/2014 08:51



The family of Abraham27

the religions are found right now. Christianity, at least some of the main branches, has been much more self-critical. The dominant drive in Christianity is to correct and re-articulate the relationship with Judaism after the Holocaust in a respectful way. At this moment, Muslims are not at the same level of readiness to acknowledge the full need for self-criticism. In the dominant view, Islam (and the Qur’an) is perfect. This view makes dialogue more difficult. Of course, people think and speak on different levels even within one religion or in different areas. For example, there is more trust built up in the dialogue between Jews and Christians in America than between Jews and Christians in Africa or Asia. Still, a higher level of trust has been achieved between Jews and Christians than between Jews and Muslims. The Jewish–Muslim tensions in the relationship are aggravated also by the conflict over Israel. Conflict is always an extra burden in dialogue. On the other hand, sometimes in an argument between two religions, the third can step in and offer a different context or insight or word of reconciliation. So I believe trialogue would definitely be a richer experience. Besides, Islam is too important a religion to be left out of the dialogue.

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 27

07/01/2014 08:51

The fight against prejudice Interview with Rabbi David Rosen

Question: Rabbi Rosen, you are the Director of Interfaith Relations of the Anti-Defamation League, Israel office, and we thank you very much for allowing us to interview you. We would appreciate it if you would explain to our readers exactly what the Anti-Defamation League is. David Rosen: The Anti-Defamation League was founded by the Jewish philanthropic social organization known as B’nai B’rith. B’nai B’rith itself was an organization which started in Europe to bring Jews together, to unite them around common concerns despite different ideological or denominational affiliations. The Anti-Defamation League, known by its initials, ADL, started in the United States mainly to fight anti-Semitism; but if you want to fight anti-Semitism effectively, you have to fight all prejudice and bigotry. And if you really want to fight against prejudice and bigotry, then you should have prevention as well as just trying to cure. So it’s not only a question of litigation, of lobbying, of exposing, but also of education, of producing materials, of alliances, that is of coalitions between different communities and particularly in the field of interreligious relations because religion can unfortunately be a source of prejudice. It also can be the greatest source of healing. And thus there is a link for interreligious cooperation as well. What happened, then, with the ADL is that something that originally started for a specific purpose eventually covers the whole gamut of interests that affect the contemporary Jew, and not only with regards to Judaism and the Jewish community, but it becomes a human relations agency for all different minority groups. For example, some of the best materials on minority groups in the United States have been produced by the ADL. During the Gulf War, much of the legal activity of the ADL was on behalf of Arab Americans who were the victims of prejudice in America. So

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 28

07/01/2014 08:51



The fight against prejudice29

this is a very wide-ranging organization today, and this organization, especially in America, has, like other American international Jewish organizations, offices here in Jerusalem. The main purpose of this office is to be a conduit of information between Israel and diaspora Jewry. So there you have more or less an overview. Question: As we all know, here the history between the Christian Church and Israel is a very painful one. Would you, from your perspective, give some of the reasons for the failure? David Rosen: Well, the simplest answer I can give you is that we are human beings and human beings fail. Of course, the relationship between Christianity and Judaism is a particularly complex one because we come out of the same source, and each has claimed to be the heir of that one original source. And when in the early days of Christianity there was, as it were, the competition between the [Nazarene] Church and the Jewish community, the competition was perceived in terms of who had the authentic claim to be the continuum of that original revelation. I don’t think that the debates, however, in the early Christian Church and the Jewish community are really the source of the later tragedies. It seems to me that the tragedy started when Christianity became an international political power. The real source of the problem came when the Jewish people were viewed from the perspective of a powerful Church, that believed that it was its responsibility to save the whole world through its own particular message. Now within that context you then have a development of perception of the Jewish people which already emerges in John Chrysostom, I think, and definitely within Augustine. And that is a very interesting question. The basic question is: the destruction of the temple and the exile of the Jews, especially after the Bar Kokhba Revolt, all these were viewed as punishments that were visited upon the children of Israel for their greatest failure of all - which is not so much portrayed as the Deicide as much as the failure to recognize the identity of Jesus. And therefore, for that reason, they were cast out of their land never to return. This begged a big question: If that was the case and if, then, Christianity has superseded Judaism and is the new Israel in place of the old Israel, and this displacement theology now comes in (supersessionism and displacement theology), then why are the Jews around at all? They shouldn’t be here at all. There’s no need

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 29

07/01/2014 08:51

30

The Three Sons of Abraham

for them to be here anymore. The answer given is that the reason the Jews survive is to prove the truth of Christianity. They are to be around always to be persecuted, to be vulnerable, to be homeless, to be wanderers, as proof of God’s wrath and repudiation of them, that they failed to recognize the true Christian message, and thus as proof of the validity of Christianity. This is what has been known as, or what Jules Isaac called at his famous meeting with Pope John XXIII, the teaching of contempt towards the Jews. It’s a teaching that says Judaism fulfilled its role in bringing about Jesus; it’s basically useless, dead, and purposeless once it fails to recognize the message of Jesus. The only purpose of Jews to remain is purely as a negative witness in that regard. And that provides not only a totally negative image of the Jew and of Judaism, but it also provides the kind of grounds, the turf, in which all kinds of terrible things can be done; and you could say, “Well, they deserved it.” So that, I think, is, in summation, the source of the tragedy of our relationship. It’s the tragedy of what we might say of a mother and daughter who, instead of being able to appreciate each other, have seen each other’s existence as somehow a repudiation of their own. Question: So, Jewish–Christian relationships were very difficult before the Second World War. They improved after World War II, especially after the birth of the state of Israel. Is there hope for better relationships in the future? David Rosen: Well, we can’t take ourselves seriously as religious people regardless of what denomination we are, if there is no hope. So obviously there is hope. But I think we could be more optimistic than even hopeful. There are more serious grounds to believe that things have changed and are changing and are going to change. I think as we moved into the twentieth century, or already as we moved into the nineteenth century, there was a growing recognition in Europe that maybe these kinds of attitudes were neither healthy for society nor were necessarily true to the real Christian message. I think this process of self-criticism, which a world of enlightenment facilitates more, has led to some very significant changes in the Christian world amongst different denominations in terms of the way they view Jews and Judaism, so that, in the overall Christian world, we can say that there are wholesale sections of the Christian world today which are

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 30

07/01/2014 08:51



The fight against prejudice31

not, as far as Jewish people are concerned, to be considered to be a problem but are, in fact, part of the solution. There are many Christian communities in many places, and sometimes even within hierarchical structures, where an enormous amount of work is being done to help fight prejudice and to help deepen a greater understanding of the special relationship between Jews and Christians. There is still a great deal to be done, and there are still parts of the world that have not been touched by that spirit where attitudes remain almost medieval. Nevertheless, if you take an overall spectrum, the transformation in terms of the attitude within the Christian world today, from even 50 years ago let alone 200 years ago, is quite remarkable. So obviously it’s not just a question of hope. There are clear grounds to recognize the changed reality and what, nevertheless, I think we should hope for is for a deepening appreciation of each other’s value and worth. Now that is not easy. Not easy more from the Jewish side than from the Christian side. Here I’m probably touching on some of your other questions, and maybe we can come back and concentrate on them. But, if I may continue, there are two major issues that confront us in terms of looking at Jewish–Christian relations. One is one that we have already alluded to because when we’ve spoken about the tragic past, we have been recognizing that there is something here that is inescapable. And the inescapability is primarily from the Christian side. A Christian cannot seriously define himself or herself without reference to Judaism because Judaism is at the very roots of his or her identity, of the central figure of Christian faith. Therefore, you can either define it negatively, as was done historically in the past, all too often tragically, and I believe in violence to true Christian affirmation; or you look at it positively as I believe it should be done, in which case the Christian cannot escape this compelling relationship with Jews and Judaism. It’s very much part of his or her own identity and sense of destiny, of purpose; whereas the Jew can escape the Christian because the Jew does not have to relate to the Christian to understand his/her own identity. Therefore he or she can live in isolation from it—I don’t think he/she should, but we may. And, in fact, for the vast majority of the Jewish people, probably 95 percent, we do live in isolation from it in that regard. So there is an asymmetry in our relationship; and therefore, as a result, we can’t talk in quite symmetrical terms or parallelisms when we’re talking about the nature of our relationships.

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 31

07/01/2014 08:51

32

The Three Sons of Abraham

Then comes the other aspect which makes things even more complicated. I don’t say that, if we had had power during the Middle Ages, I know that we would have behaved better. I hope we would have behaved better. I can’t know that we would have behaved better. But the reality was that Christianity had the power; Christianity had the supersessionist ideology in relation to Judaism, the displacement theology, and as a result we suffered at the hands of so-called Christians and in the so-called name of Christianity. The result is that, for Jewish history, for Jewish collective experience, Christianity is not the religion of love. We experienced it as a religion of violence. We did not experience the name of Jesus as a name of love; we did not experience the cross as a symbol of love—these we experienced as weapons used to beat us over the head. There is, therefore, an enormous historical trauma, wounds of the past, that are there within the Jewish people at the moment. And as a result, if I could be a little bit flippant here about it, if you were to go up to an Israeli in the street and say to him, “Hey, I’m a Christian. How do you feel about that?” He would say, “Well, to tell you the truth, I feel uncomfortable, because a Christian, to me, means somebody who, if he doesn’t want to do me physical harm, wants to steal my soul.” Now that is the image produced by the terrible historical past. But for Jews who live within enlightened Western Christian society (of course, not all Western societies are enlightened, and not all enlightened societies are Western, but if we could talk in that kind of generalization) you have today, thank God, millions of Jews who encounter modern Christianity, modern Christians, genuine loving Christians, open Christians, Christians who wish to discover their Jewish roots and understand their Jewish identity and wish to live with a relation of mutual respect with Jews. In Israel, however, no less than 95 percent of Israelis have not encountered a modern Christian. And even when they travel abroad, they don’t meet Christians as Christians; they meet them as non-Jews. And the people that make up this society have either come directly traumatized by their experience of what Christianity has meant, from Eastern Europe for example, or they’ve come from worlds in which Christianity has had a negative image from other medieval aspects— from the Islamic world, seeing Christianity as the Crusades, or even today’s Western consumerism as being just another manifestation of the Christian imperialist desire to take over the world! So whatever these ideas and images, reasonable or irrational, they make up the

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 32

07/01/2014 08:51



The fight against prejudice33

reality of the way Christianity is perceived. This means that, while it’s relatively easy now for Christians to discover their Jewish roots and to develop a positive relationship with Judaism, it is still very difficult for the majority of Jews to relate openly and without the prejudice of historical experience towards Christianity, let alone to rediscover the historical Jesus of Nazareth. The problems here are not really theological. They might be sometimes couched as theological, but the problems are what I would call “psychohistorical.” So there are psychohistorical problems that confront the Jewish people and therefore, in my work, I have difficulty often in dealing with prejudice in some of my Christian interlocutors or certainly within the Muslim world which has to do less with theology and more with politics. Nevertheless I am fighting at the same time almost as intense a battle in my own courtyard, with my own colleagues who are opposed to my own desire for rapprochement and development of cooperation with Christians because they see it almost as if I am endangering the Jewish community by being so open and so cooperative with what they see as a hostile entity. Now this, for Western Christians, must be terribly difficult to understand and must be terribly shocking, but this is the reality; this is a product of our tragic history. And therefore, there is a process that has to be gone through. The Jewish people is a terribly wounded people. The scars and the wounds of our experience are still very real; they are very much with us. The state of Israel, to a great degree, is part of our healing process. But we not only have to heal ourselves, which is a lengthy process; but in terms of the Jewish–Christian relationship, if Christians really care about their relationship with Jews and Judaism, then they have to play a major role in this healing process. Although healthy relationships are relationships of mutuality, nevertheless, in this context our historic relationship has not been healthy, and the situation at the moment is not as healthy as it needs to be. Accordingly there is a historic imbalance, and thus I am even so bold as to suggest that the responsibility is an imbalanced one and devolves disproportionately on the Christian side. Therefore I say—out of a great desire for there to be a real rapprochement, real reconciliation, a partnership between Judaism and Christianity—Christianity has to work very hard at winning our confidence. I hope and pray that this will be done; and in order to win our confidence, we have to be convinced that really the desire of our Christian counterparts is not to do us physical

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 33

07/01/2014 08:51

34

The Three Sons of Abraham

harm and not to steal our souls, but genuinely to wish us well. Now that requires Christians to be extremely sensitive to our own Jewish hypersensitivities. Accordingly, if Christians really care about reconciliation, there has to be a moratorium; at least a moratorium, even if it’s a temporary one, on proselytizing. Question: Actually you’ve covered most of the problems, really, to what extent can Jews and Christians entertain this quality of dialogue and relation; you’ve been very positive there. And also, maybe some more steps as far as practical things that Christians could do to enable dialogue and understanding. David Rosen: Well, I divided things into two areas. One is, if you like, cerebral and the other is more action-orientated. Now the cerebral is very important because it has to do with our understanding of who we are, what we are, and why we are. And therefore the first and foremost important thing I think for Christians to do is to study and understand the world of Jesus of Nazareth, to understand the way of life he lived, the tenets he espoused, to understand how these were expressed within Jewish life, and how they continue to be expressed in Jewish life. To recognize that Judaism did not, as the medieval Christian stereotype had it, come to an end either in the year 70 or in the year 135, but is a living, on-going religious way of life. To discover how this life is led and how it is expressed; and perhaps also even to look and see what areas could be or still are, or should be, relevant to the life of the Christian in order to enrich his or her own Christian life and expression. Then I think the next stage requires looking at the difference within the commonality, especially with regards to the terminology that we often use which we don’t understand in the same way. Because we come from a common root, we have common terms; but, nevertheless, because we have not taken exactly the same direction, we therefore understand some of these terms very differently. So looking at terms like “sin,” “redemption,” “salvation,” “Messiah,” words and terms which are not the same within Christian thought as they are within Jewish thought, a common origin can help us understand both the commonality and the difference at the same time. So there is a lot of study that needs to be done, a lot of study to discover what things are relevant to the life of the Christian in terms of his and her Jewish roots. Beyond that, in terms of winning

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 34

07/01/2014 08:51



The fight against prejudice35

the confidence of Jews, there are areas of dialogue and cooperation that can take place in terms of conferences and colloquia. I’m very much involved in this, but these are not the main things that I’m talking about. I’m talking about areas where one may get involved with helping in an Israeli development town with a population, for example, that came in from Yemen in the 1950s and are disadvantaged, caught up in the poverty trap, and unable to get out of it. Now such important welfare projects take place throughout our world and are important for every good person, every good Christian. But when such activity and a project for welfare takes place within Israel, within a Jewish State, directed at Jews, for nothing other than purely the genuine selfless love of the persons who are the object of that enterprise, that has an enormously profound effect. And there is not enough of that. There are one or two groups involved in various areas of that endeavor. There’s a group, Bridges for Peace, that does things like helping the aged and looking after the needy—these are activities that I think really help shatter stereotypes and perceptions. And that’s terribly important in that regard. Question: What could Jews learn from the Christian Church? David Rosen: Now first of all because of the psychohistorical problems, as I mentioned already, it has been virtually impossible during the last one-and-a-half millennia for Jews to see the beauty within the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, who, I would say, as an Orthodox rabbi, is deeply rooted in the Pharisaic world. There are a number of different areas where Jesus is clearly emerging from within a tradition, that is my tradition, where maybe amongst the different rabbis of the time there would be different emphases. Within this trend he was making a very clear call on certain ethical points that perhaps set him on high with regard to those particular perceptions. Now when Jews are able to look at those texts, to look at those ideas and see them within a context of their own tradition, they can get a great deal out of the encounter with these ideas and insight within the tradition. But beyond that I think there is something much more mysterious that is involved in our relationship. I think that Christians and Jews someday should ask themselves, What is God trying to tell us in all this? And what are its implications in terms of our universe, in terms of God’s plan for humankind? And I would make so bold

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 35

07/01/2014 08:51

36

The Three Sons of Abraham

as to say that we are called into and for a unique partnership and there are aspects of our own affirmations which are exclusive of one another, which are of complementary necessity for humankind and for our cosmos. I think it’s something that needs to be studied and developed very profoundly, but in the simplest way let me just point to the obvious distinction and obvious complementary nature. The covenant of Sinai is a covenant given to a people in which a people is called to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. In other words, a national paradigm. That is why it takes the character of nationhood within the land, within a context of nationhood, to be a national paradigm. The paradigm, as Isaiah puts it, has two different dimensions based upon the Pentateuch. One is to testify to God’s presence in history, which the very existence of the Jewish people does, for better and for worse—and this defies the normal or conventional or even innovative materialistic theories of historians. That’s why Arnold Toynbee called us “a fossil of history,” because we irritatingly didn’t fit into his neat categories! The eternity of Israel—the very existence of Israel in the world against all odds—testifies to God’s presence in the world. Then, of course, there is the paradigm of being a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, the way of life, the (mitzvot) commandments, the covenantal way of life that Jews are called upon to live. And this expresses itself within contemporary Jewish life in a great deal of diversity as well and a great deal of Sturm und Drang, and various tensions and checks and balances. But it’s part of the paradigm of people; it’s part of the spiritual way of life; a spirituality that emerges within the context of peoplehood. That’s one paradigm. But the paradigm of peoplehood, by its very nature, is not an unlimited paradigm. So there are paradigms that have to be relevant to the human personality when one is not part of that particular peoplehood or one is not of a peoplehood that itself is seeking to be able to follow that paradigm. And that is, of course, the enormous power of the message of Christianity that goes beyond the national context, which in no way downgrades or limits that national paradigm, but is a complementary paradigm by its very nature in terms of bringing the message of redemption to humankind. And it’s that, I think, that we need to explore and one day we will eventually discover. Question: At the beginning of our interview, we agreed that the Jewish–Christian relationship became much easier after World War

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 36

07/01/2014 08:51



The fight against prejudice37

II and after the rebirth of the state of Israel. Now your answer to our previous question seems to lead naturally to another question which may be the last. What is the impact and the role, from your point of view, of the state of Israel on Israel and on the Christian Church? David Rosen: First of all, let us look at it pragmatically. Pragmatically, the reality is that the Jewish people are paying a very heavy price for the realization of one of its great dreams. The great dream that it will be able to live within a free world where nobody will persecute them; where they will be able to go about their business without anyone giving them any hassles. And the epitome and embodiment of that realization, that dream, is the United States of America. There is nowhere within the history of Jewish existence where Jews have had it so good in terms of the context of the society in which they live as they do in the United States. I’m not saying, by any means, that everything in the United States is hunky-dory. I’m not saying that there is no anti-Semitism or that there are no problems in the United States; but as a society, as an open society, there has not been a more open society than that society. And that’s what Jews have craved for a long time. But this embrace is the kiss of Esau. It is not a kiss without danger, because this embrace means that when you are not continually reminded by society who you are; only those who really make the effort to substantiate their identity are those who remain. The vast majority of people don’t really bother about what you are or what you are not, and many of our own people accordingly don’t bother very much about what they are or what they aren’t themselves; and thus they disappear. This process of assimilation into the general society has hit American Jewry probably to a current degree of more than 50 percent. So throughout our diaspora, we are a rapidly diminishing people. This is an inevitability of the modern pluralistic, multicultural society of which we are a part. And thus in simply pragmatic terms, the reality is that there is only one place in the world where Jews are increasing in number—that is in Israel. Simply in pragmatic terms, it is only Israel that can guarantee the continuity of the Jewish people. And thus the historic events which, of course, I, as a religious Zionist, see as having been the fulfillment of divine promise that were manifested through the Zionist movement and through the ingathering of the exiles and the establishment of the state of Israel are, however, the only way of really guaranteeing the divine covenant

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 37

07/01/2014 08:51

38

The Three Sons of Abraham

of promise of the eternity of Israel. The state of Israel is crucial in terms of the divine plan. Unless, of course, you are willing to take the view of the tiny minority of ultra-Orthodox perception, which is that we alone are the “God squad” and the rest are going to go to blazes anyway; and all we have to do is remain as a small community loyal to the word of God and eventually God will somehow supernaturally achieve things. This, of course, was a big argument between the Orthodox anti-Zionists and what came to be known as religious Zionism. So this is an ideological debate. From my particular perspective, believing that God is to be found within the world and God wants us to live in the world and not to live despite history but to live within history—Israel itself is a manifestation of part of the divine plan, divine will, in keeping with divine promise. Now, I don’t think I need to say anything more in terms of Judaism, but in relation to Christianity, that means that if Christians (a) care about Jewish survival, and (b) care about respecting Jews and understanding them as they understand themselves, then Israel is central to that. It is central to Jewish continuity, and it is central to contemporary Jewish identity. It’s at the very heart of it. And therefore, to relate to Jews unrelated to Israel is simply at best disingenuous, because we cannot simply relate to Jews without the totality of their contemporary identity and character. So it’s very central. Now this, of course, hasn’t always been good in terms of Jewish–Christian relations. There are many Christians who still find the idea of peoplehood and return to the land an indigestible idea. They find Jewish nationalism in contrast with universalist grace, instead of being able to recognize, I think, what I would describe as their complementary nature. Naturally there are Christians here in the land who are Palestinians; who are caught between the hammer and the anvil in terms of the national conflict between Palestinian nationalism and Israel. They can see their interests within Palestinian society and therefore wish to deny any religious significance or value to Israel. The result is that one of the few places where supersessionist theology, displacement theology, is still very much alive is precisely in the land of Israel itself amongst certain Palestinian theologians in order to be able to find political justification for their own particular political position. And very often within certain international church bodies in order to be considered, as it were, politically correct, especially in relation to developing countries and Christian communities within the Arab

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 38

07/01/2014 08:51



The fight against prejudice39

world, there’s very often been an almost unconscious as well as conscious prejudice towards Israel that often continues to express itself in anti-Zionism. And if anti-Zionism means the denial of Israel to be able to have what you consider to be acceptable for everybody else, then, of course, it’s classic anti-Semitism. So very often Israel has served as a lightning conductor for traditional Christian anti-Judaism or anti-Semitism, and, very often, it is simply a more convenient and genteel guise for what are the same old prejudices. So Israel hasn’t necessarily been exclusively a vehicle for positive Christian–Jewish relations. It has often been something of a stumbling block. That’s all the more reason that we can see how central it is for better and for worse, and I hope it will be increasingly for better.

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 39

07/01/2014 08:51

The Qur’anic concept of ta’aruf: Recognizing the Other A. Rashied Omar

At this difficult time in Jewish–Christian–Muslim relations, many of us share a cry of anguish. Are Jews, Christians, and Muslims condemned to perpetual conflict and hostility? Or are there possibilities within their sacred traditions for developing a theology of mutual recognition (ta’aruf ) and coexistence (ta’ayush)? My response is that hostility and enmity are constructed by human beings and thus can be unmade by them as well. If we are to transform our relationship—for which there is dire need—the followers of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions must retrieve each other’s humanity and end the mutual dehumanization that is currently taking place. One small but important step is to recognize that all of our sacred texts and stories provide opportunities for justifying exclusion as well as embracing the Other; all of our sacred texts and stories display ambivalence. A pertinent Islamic example of this ambivalence, that is, intolerance and violence against Jews and Christians, is the intermittent audio messages released by Osama bin Laden in which he invoked several passages from the Muslim sacred scripture, the Qur’an, in support of his call for Muslims to engage in a global jihad, including acts of terror (irhab) in order to drive the Crusaders and Zionists out of the Holy Lands. Notwithstanding the fact that bin Laden was placing his own spin on things, he was citing from the same Qur’an that I hold to be sacred.1 Lest we mistakenly assume that this tendency to employ sacred texts in support of acts of barbarism is unique to Muslim extremists, I would like to refer to yet another example from my own experience and location. Just more than a decade ago there was a

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 40

07/01/2014 08:51



The Qur’anic concept of ta’aruf41

vociferous theological debate in South Africa concerning the biblical perspective on apartheid. The white supremacist policy of apartheid was formed in the name of Christianity. Many of the key leaders of the oppressive apartheid regime were also devout adherents of the Calvinist Dutch Reformed Church. The discriminatory apartheid educational policy was justified in reference to certain highly controversial interpretations of the Bible and labeled “Christian National Education.” This episode led to an important theological document called the Kairos Document (1985), produced by black South African Christians to lament the policy by posing a challenging question: “Can the Bible be used for any purpose at all?”2 The answer, of course, is yes. This is, however, not unique to the Bible. All sacred religious texts display the same “ambivalence.” Arguing within the context of the Muslim sacred scripture, the Qur’an, California-based Professor of Islamic Law Khalid Abou El Fadl has provided a cogent response to this question: “The meaning of the text,” he contends, “is often as moral as its reader. If the reader is intolerant, hateful or oppressive, so will be the interpretation of the text.”3 The point is that all sacred texts provide possibilities of intolerant, as well as tolerant interpretations. “Proof-texting,” or the selection of particular passages to the exclusion of contradictory passages in order to justify one’s views, is an affliction of all scriptural traditions. What is needed is a reinterpretation of the narrative, so that healing and a transformed relationship with the Other become integral parts of a renewed spiritual vision. Yet this reinterpretation must be vital and transparently authentic. Our first task is to acknowledge the fact of interpretive ambivalence, no matter how distressing that may be. Second, we must marshal faithful and coherent ways of dealing constrictively with the texts, symbols, and rituals that display ambivalence. Third, and most importantly, we must base our arguments upon sacred stories that are unambiguously healing, lifting them up so that they stand out as beacons of hope and transformation. I firmly believe that such an alternative vision does indeed exist within all of our religious traditions. From the Islamic perspective, I would like to offer two such alternative visions from sacred texts that deal with the Other.

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 41

07/01/2014 08:51

42

The Three Sons of Abraham

The first comes from the Qur’an and the second from the prophetic traditions (hadith). The two of them form the most authentic sources of Islamic guidance. In Surah al-hujurat, God the Sublime exhorts the following words: O Humankind! We have created you of a male and a female, and fashioned you into tribes and families that you may know each other/ recognize each other [ta’aruf]/not despise each other: Surely, the most honorable of you with God is the best in conduct. Lo! God is Knower, Aware.4

The above verse enjoins Muslims to celebrate cultural diversity through recognition (ta’aruf) of each other through intimate knowledge, not mere toleration. Through this verse the Qur’an teaches us that differences among humankind are not incidental and negative, but rather that human diversity represents a God-willed, basic factor of human existence. The Qur’anic concept of ta’aruf is an alternate vision to that of the exclusivist paradigm and represents for me the litmus test of good religion: not how much I can tolerate the Other, but rather the extent to which I am able to embrace the Other as an extension of myself. This is how I define the Qur’anic ethic of ta’aruf. I would like to share this paradigm of ta’aruf, the intimately getting to know one another, as a pathway to embracing the Other, whether they may be Jew, Christian, or of no faith. I firmly believe that such an alternative vision can make a major contribution to a more peaceful and just world. The challenge is to amplify this Qur’anic teaching on ta’aruf and to work hard to make it an integral part of the fabric of contemporary culture. The second source comes from the most sacred source of Islamic guidance secondary to the Qur’an, the hadith literature, commonly called the Prophetic traditions of Imam Bukhari (d. 870 ce) and lmam Muslim (d. 865 ce), who compiled two of the most widely respected and authoritative compendia of these traditions. These two works, named after their compilers, are sometimes referred to as the sahihayn, the two most authentic canons of hadith. They contain many overlapping accounts. In one shared account, a companion of Muhammad, Jabir bin ‘Abdullah, recalls the following incident:

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 42

07/01/2014 08:51



The Qur’anic concept of ta’aruf43

Once a funeral procession passed in front of us. The Prophet (peace be upon him) stood up; we stood up too. We said, “O Prophet of God! This is the funeral procession of a Jew!” He answered, “Whenever you sees funeral procession, you should stand up.”5

In a reinforcing report that immediately follows, two companions of Muhammad, Sahl bin Hunayf and Qays bin Sa’ad, recall that they were sitting in the city of Madinah when a funeral procession passed in front of them, and they stood up. They were told that the funeral procession was of “one of the inhabitants of the land”—meaning of a non-Muslim under the protection of Muslims. They relate: A funeral procession, passed in front of the Prophet and he stood up. When he was told that it was the coffin of a Jew, he said, “Is it not a living being [soul]?”6

Interestingly some Muslims prefer to translate the latter part of this Prophetic tradition as “Was he not a human being?”7 While this may not accurately convey the literal words of the Prophetic statement, it does represent the spirit behind it. However, there is a profound implication in the literal words of the tradition. They remind Muslims that Jews too have souls that were breathed into them at birth by God. This interpretation resonates well with the primary source of Islamic guidance, the glorious Qur’an. The Qur’an declares that: [God] fashioned [the human being] in due proportion, and breathed into him something of His spirit. And He gave you [the faculties of] hearing and sight and feeling (and understanding): little thanks do you give!8

This well-known Qur’anic injunction illuminates the egalitarian ethic contained in the Prophetic tradition we have identified. This powerful ethic obliges Muslims to honor the dignity of all human beings and to look upon each and every human being—whether they are a Jew, an atheist, or an adherent of an extra-scriptural religion— as carrying within them a part of God. This message is central to the Muslim view of humanity: every human life, Muslim or nonMuslim, has exactly the same intrinsic worth, because the Qur’an teaches that each one of us has the breath our God breathed into our being.

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 43

07/01/2014 08:51

44

The Three Sons of Abraham

The challenge facing contemporary Muslims is to liberate themselves from narrow conceptions through which they define themselves as a community of privilege and exclusion. When we try to demonize each other, we find that God stands among those we have just excluded. If we do not try to know the Other, how can we ever know our Lord? The litmus test of a good religion is the extent to which our faith motivates us to embrace the Other as an extension of ourselves. The challenge for Muslims is to work hard to reestablish this ancient core ethic of ta’aruf as an integral part of contemporary Muslim culture and endeavor. Meeting this challenge demands that we transport the spiritual wealth of our sacred texts out of the realm of experts and into the public square.

Notes 1

For a comprehensive compilation of Osama bin Laden’s speeches translated into English, see Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden, trans. and intro. Brice Lawrence, trans. James Howarth (London: Verso, 2005). 2 The Kairos Document: Challenge to the Church: A Theological Comment on the Political Crisis in South Africa, rev., 2nd edn (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986). 3 Khalid Abou El Fadl, “The place of tolerance in Islam: On reading the Qur’an and misreading it,” Boston Review, 25 February 2002. 4 Surah al-hujurat, Chapter 46, v. 10. 5 Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 2, Book 23, Hadith no. 398. 6 Ibid., no. 399. 7 See, for example, the Indian Muslim scholar Mawlana Wahiduddin Khan, “The spiritual goal of Islam.” Available at www.alrisala.org/articles/papers/ goal.htm. 8 v. 9 of Surah At-Sajdah (Chapter 32), my translation.

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 44

07/01/2014 08:51

The remnant of Abraham Jon Paulien

Introduction The topic of this chapter is significantly impacted by three recent books in the fields of New Testament, early Christian history, and contemporary Christianity. They are: The Parting of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity, by James D. G. Dunn (London: SCM Press, 1991); Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, by Bart D. Ehrman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003); and The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity, by Philip Jenkins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).

The parting of the ways The main message of Dunn’s book The Parting of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity is that Christianity emerged out of Judaism at a very early period. The earliest Christians considered themselves to be a subset of Judaism and were not perceived by others to be independent of it. Followers of Yeshua ha-Mashiach (Jesus the Messiah/Christ to Christians today, Isa al Masih to Muslims) thought of themselves as Messianic Jews. Jews and Christians served the same God, read and obeyed the same Scriptures, and worshiped in the same temple. They thought of themselves as one people, not two.1 But Dunn makes it clear that the parting of the ways between Jews and Christians was strongly advanced already in the first century of our era. As more and more Gentiles became followers of Yeshua, ties to the temple and the synagogue loosened. Although they continued to read the same Bible and follow the same God, Jews and Christians largely parted ways during the period between 70 ce and 135 ce.2

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 45

07/01/2014 08:51

46

The Three Sons of Abraham

In Lost Christianities, Bart Ehrman adds another dimension to this parting of the ways. He asserts that there were five or six different versions of Christianity in the second century.3 Most of these saw themselves as rooted in the traditions that became our New Testament.4 Only one of these versions became what we call “orthodox.” All the others were suppressed by the fourth century, although elements of each have lived on in one form or another within orthodox Christianity.5 Oddly enough, the family of Jesus itself sided not with the emerging orthodox branch of Christianity, but with the Jewish Christian branch that became known as the Ebionites.6 Jewish Christianity maintained strong ties with Early Judaism.7 In the words of Ehrman, Jewish Christians believed that “Jesus was the Jewish Messiah sent from the Jewish God to the Jewish people in fulfillment of the Jewish Scriptures. They also believed that to belong to the people of God, one needed to be Jewish.”8 Jewish Christians continued to keep the Sabbath, eat kosher food, and circumcise all males. There was a strong emphasis on obedience as a necessary and natural part of being a follower of Jesus, and there was strong adherence to the law as expressed in the Scriptures (Old Testament) inherited from the Jews. Jewish Christianity could truly lay claim to be the earliest form of Christianity. In spite of that reality, however, and in spite of its strong continuity with the Scriptures (Old Testament) of early Christianity and the ongoing support from the family of Jesus, Jewish Christianity ultimately did not survive as a viable option for the emerging Church. In many ways the demise of the Ebionites as a candidate to shape the emerging orthodoxy is no surprise. Although the Ebionites could make good use of New Testament books like Matthew and James, their full adherence to Judaism required that the writings of Paul be rejected to a large degree.9 And without Paul, Christianity probably would not have become the major player it has been in the world for more than a millennium.10 There were, however, significant consequences resulting from Christianity’s ultimate rejection of its Jewish beginnings. According to Ehrman, the orthodoxy that emerged from the early Christian centuries became free to shape the form that Christianity would take for all of its posterity. There is a sense in which all branches of Christianity, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, or Charismatic,

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 46

07/01/2014 08:51



The remnant of Abraham47

have been definitively shaped by what took place in the early centuries. Orthodoxy was able to determine the structure of Christendom, to write its creeds, and to compile its revered texts into a sacred canon. Had things turned out otherwise, not only Christianity but all of history would have turned out quite differently.11 One cannot argue that the course of history has taken the only possible road, or even the best of all possible roads. The consequences of Christian orthodoxy’s victory included a number of “losses” by the fourth century. As noted by Dunn, there was increasing and mutual hostility between Judaism and Christianity which resulted in both sides pulling back from positions that each had held in common at the beginning.12 As both religions developed respective “orthodoxies,” positions hardened against each other. As the two faiths each sought to define themselves, they did so in polemical terms toward the Other. The core of each faith’s identity is defined in distinction from the positions of the Other. Christianity, for example, had no serious reason to give up the Sabbath, except to demonstrate that it was distinct from Judaism.13 And Jews would not have muted their interest in the Messiah had not messianic discussion inevitably led people to consider the claims of Jesus. Identity creation, in a sense, deliberately fences off the “Other.” In defining what a faith is not, a community discovers itself. But in defining itself over against the Other, the community walls off elements of its own tradition that were a healthy component at an earlier period. One fascinating outcome of this hardening against each other by Jews and Christians was the rise of Islam. A reading of the Qur’an, particularly the Meccan Surahs, suggests that the original impetus for the Islamic faith was the desire to restore the unity that had been lost between the two earlier faiths of Abraham (Ibrahim).14 According to the Qur’an, the prophets of both Judaism and Christianity were to be respected and treated as equals.15 The Scriptures of both Judaism (Torah) and Christianity (Injil) were considered valid revelations that were normative for the Muslim.16 The peoples of the Book (Christian Bible) were to be treated with respect and were not to be forced to convert.17 But, well before the death of Muhammad, hostilities broke out between the new monotheistic faith and its two predecessors.18 Positions hardened on all three sides. Ideas with which each faith tended to identify were marginalized or even demonized by the other

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 47

07/01/2014 08:51

48

The Three Sons of Abraham

two. The end result of this hardening was a sharp division among the three monotheistic faiths and increasing violence over the centuries, climaxing in the brutality of the Crusades and the Inquisition on the Christian side, with corresponding atrocities on the Islamic side. For Christianity, the losses in these separations were considerable.19 Christian orthodoxy pursued narrow and selective readings of the Greek Bible (the New Testament or Injil) in defense of its faith. There was general ignorance of the Hebrew Bible (the Torah or Old Testament). The Sabbath was lost sight of. The Bible’s picture of the End became allegorized and largely faded from view. In the absence of knowledge about the Old Testament character of the Christian gospel, the practice of the Christian faith was increasingly secularized (even paganized). So the triumph of orthodoxy was not an unmitigated blessing in the course of Christian history. A brief look at the core values of the three monotheistic faiths will illustrate how the separation and hardening against each other diminished all three to some extent. Christianity increasingly focused on the core values of Jesus, grace and the gospel, at the expense of such biblical teachings as obedience, the Sabbath, and eschatology. Judaism focused on its distinctive values of law, obedience, and the Sabbath at the expense of eschatology, grace, and the concept of Messiah. Islam increasingly focused on its distinctive values of submission, judgment, and eschatology at the expense of grace, Isa (Jesus, Yeshua), Torah, and Sabbath. And so the three faiths no longer offered a common witness to the one true God but rather a truncated and one-sided witness to each faith’s unique picture of that God. This polarization is summarized in Figure 1:

Christianity

Judaism

Gospel, Grace, Jesus

Law, Obedience, Sabbath

Islam Submission, Judgment, Eschatology

Figure 1  Polarization of the three faiths

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 48

07/01/2014 08:51



The remnant of Abraham49

Is there a way back? After reading the works by Dunn and Ehrman, I read the book by Philip Jenkins entitled The New Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity. A major point of Jenkins’ book is the way the heart of the Christian faith has shifted geographically through the centuries.20 Christianity began as a Middle Eastern faith nurtured under the umbrella of first-century Palestinian Judaism. But within the lifetimes of the apostles, the center of gravity of the Christian faith shifted to Asia Minor and, within a century, to Rome.21 And while the ancient churches of the East (the Middle East, Northern Africa, and parts of Asia) continue in some form to this day,22 Europe became the dominant center of Christianity for more than a millennium. The Roman Catholic Church has always been dominant in Southern Europe, the Orthodox Church in Eastern Europe, and, since the Protestant Reformation, Protestant Christianity has dominated Northern and Western Europe. It was from Europe, primarily, that missionaries went all over the world during the great mission movement of the nineteenth century.23 With the “discovery” of the “New World” and the rise of the USA as a major world power, the center of gravity of Christianity has gradually shifted from Europe to North America within the last century. As the churches of Europe declined in the face of secularism and modernism, the churches of North America retained vitality and provided a strong financial base for emerging churches in the Southern and Eastern hemispheres during the twentieth century. But by the turn of the millennium, these emerging “Third World” churches were taking on a life and character of their own. North America and Europe are no longer the missionary and theologically shaping force that they once were. The churches in the Southern Hemisphere are growing, spreading, and changing theologically on their own.24 Within a few decades, Jenkins suspects, the overwhelming majority of Christians will be outside Europe, and Christianity will once again be dominated by an Eastern mentality, rather than the Western one that has dominated the religion since the second Christian century.25 The significance of Jenkins’ observations for our thesis is that Christianity is, in a real and vibrant sense, returning to its roots in the East. Along with that shift, the impact of European orthodoxy on the way the faith functions is decreasing. More and more, people express

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 49

07/01/2014 08:51

50

The Three Sons of Abraham

their Christian faith in ways that are shaped by Eastern modes of thought and action. In a sense, the emerging Church in the developing world offers Christians a fresh opportunity to assess the direction the faith has gone over the centuries and make whatever course corrections might be needed. In a sense, the Church is coming home.26 This golden moment offers the opportunity for Christians to reexamine what was lost in the partings of the ways with both Jews and Muslims. In many ways the orthodoxy of the Christian West has made Christianity a faith that is increasingly distant from its Eastern roots. Along with this distance comes increasing distance from its monotheistic cousins. Dialogue among Jews, Christians, and Muslims would be enhanced by an easternization of Christian faith. Such easternization may seem strange and threatening to Christians raised in the West, but it will provide them with an opportunity to read their own sacred texts afresh and to rediscover their essentially Eastern character. When this is done, the gulf between Christians, on the one hand, and Jews and Muslims, on the other, will not be nearly as great. It seems to me that at this significant juncture in the histories of the three great monotheistic faiths the theme of the remnant will become especially helpful in restoring what was lost in the partings of the ways. And this topic may also prove to be particularly attractive to those in the Western world that have abandoned Christianity in search of a more modern or post-modern expression of spirituality. Why should this theme become particularly important at this point in history? Because in Scripture the concept of a remnant is tied to the survival of the human race. The first mention of “remnant” is in reference to Noah and his family at the time of the Flood. The whole human race would have been destroyed had it not been for the remnant. Today, the survival of the human race is once again at stake. The events of September 11, the War on Terror, and the new threats of weapons of mass destruction have caused many to question whether the human race will long survive. But, as a result, rather than increasing hostility toward each other, the events of September 11 have provoked thinking Jews, Christians, and Muslims to want to know more about each other. There is the recognition that the gulf of separation can no longer be ignored, that dangers lurk in our ignorance about each other. There is the wistful longing to discover that there is more in monotheism that binds us together than tears us apart.

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 50

07/01/2014 08:51



The remnant of Abraham51

Abraham the remnant I believe the concept of a remnant can be found in all three of the sacred texts that are at the heart of the monotheistic faiths. And all three faiths share a common appreciation for the role of Abraham as “founding father” of the faith. Since it is the text that is least known and understood in the West, I would like to begin our exploration of the remnant of Abraham with the Qur’an. In the Qur’an, Abraham is “the Hanif ” (Al Baqarah 2:135). By the term hanif the Muslim expresses the idea of someone who is pure in devotion to the one God, whether or not they have received the full revelation available in the “Books” (the sacred texts of scripture). Since Abraham lived before there was a Jew, a Christian, or a Muslim, his faith was remarkable. “Ibrahim was not a Jew nor yet a Christian; but he was Hanif in faith” (Al ‘Imran 3:67).27 As such, Abraham becomes a model for all those who come after, a model of the kind of faith that the one God seeks from all of His followers. “Ibrahim was indeed a model. Devoutly obedient to Allah and Hanif in faith [...] Follow the ways of Ibrahim the Hanif in faith.” (Al Nahl 16:120–3). The path of “Ibrahim the Hanif ” is the “Straight Way” (Al An’am 6:161). In fact, according to the Qur’an, the best religion of all is the religion of Ibrahim the Hanif: “Who can be better in religion than one who submits his whole self to Allah, does good, and follows the way of Ibrahim the Hanif in faith?” Al Nisa’ 4:125. While the term hanif is not identical to the concept of remnant, the call of Abraham to separate himself from his cultural roots and follow God to a new land indicates that his foundational role is grounded in him being a faithful “remnant” of the nations in the book of Genesis. The Qur’an and the Torah take a common course when they speak of Abraham’s role in relation to the nations. Genesis 17:4–5 speaks of Abraham as the father of many nations. The Qur’an appears to be alluding to this text in Al Baqarah. “Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the Imam [spiritual father] of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the Imam of a multitude of nations” (2:124). Abraham’s role in the history of religion is foundational. He is the father of all three monotheistic faiths, not only through Isaac and Ishmael, but also in a spiritual sense he exhibits the faith that all who follow him are to exhibit.

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 51

07/01/2014 08:51

52

The Three Sons of Abraham

What is striking in the Genesis account of the call of Abraham, is how he is seen in relation to the other “nations” on earth. He is chosen out from the 70 nations of Genesis 10 and he is chosen in behalf of those nations. So while the term “remnant” is not used in the Abraham story of Genesis, it is clearly implied by the context. In other words, what is explicitly stated in the Qur’an (that Abraham is the spiritual father of all the nations) is not explicitly stated, but it is implicit in Genesis. He is the model of the blessing that God intends for all peoples. To see how one draws such a conclusion from the Torah, it is necessary to see the full context of the Abraham story in Genesis. Genesis begins the story with creation (Gen. 1–2). God takes a world that is “without form and void,” shapes it, and fills it with creatures of His own making (Gen. 1:1–25). The climax of this creation is the first human pair (Gen. 1:26–8). They are created by God with three basic relationships, a relationship to God (a mentoring relationship in which God is the superior and they are the inferior), a relationship with each other (a relationship of equality), and a relationship with the earth (a mentoring relationship in which they are the superior who guides and shapes the environment). These three relationships provide the basic structure within which they live (see Figure 2). The relationship with each other and with the earth is further defined in Genesis 2:4–24. These relationships were all damaged and distorted by the Fall, an event triggered by the eating of forbidden fruit (Gen. 3:1–9). As a result of the Fall, the three basic relationships of the human pair God

Others

X

Others

Earth Figure 2  Adam’s three relationships

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 52

07/01/2014 08:51



The remnant of Abraham53

were “cursed”; in other words, they received the consequences of the covenant implied in God’s original warning regarding the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen. 2:17). They were exiled from the garden, within which they had enjoyed direct fellowship with God. There was a curse on childbirth, the result of relationship between the first man and the first woman. There was a curse on the earth, which now brought forth thorns and resisted the efforts of the human race to subdue the environment as God had originally commanded. In other words, the curses of the Fall undid the three relationships that God had established for the human race in the beginning. The significance of this is that the call of Abraham to leave Ur and travel to a new land is given in the context of the original relationships in the Garden of Eden and of their distortion as a result of human sin. This means that Abraham was not called for the Jews only, but as the one who would redeem the entire human race from the consequences of the original sin. Let us look at the language in which the call of Abraham came (Gen. 12:1–3): The Lord had said to Abraham, “Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”

There are three main promises that Yahweh gives to Abraham in this text. First, He promises him a land that He will show him. Second, He promises to make Abraham into a great nation. Third, He promises to bless Abraham and through him to bless all the peoples on the earth. These three promises are reiterated to Abraham in Genesis 17:1–8 with some modification. The land that Abraham will receive is defined as the land of Canaan. The promise of nationhood is further clarified as the promise of a large posterity. Abraham would have many descendants. And the promise of blessing is clarified in terms of covenantal relationship with God. The point I want to underline here is that the three promises of God to Abraham relate to the three basic relationships articulated back in Genesis 1:26–8. The promise of land corresponds to Adam’s dominion of the earth. The promise of nationhood and posterity corresponds to the relationship between Adam and Eve (which

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 53

07/01/2014 08:51

54

The Three Sons of Abraham

relationship produces children!). And the promise of blessing and relationship with God corresponds to the image, to the mentoring relationship God was to have with Adam. The three promises of God to Abraham also undo the curses that came as a result of the Fall in Genesis 3. The promise of land corresponds to the thorns that would frustrate humanity’s relationship to the ground. The promise of posterity helps to compensate for the pain of childbirth. And the promise of blessing and relationship overcomes the curse of exile from the garden with its loss of face-to-face relationship with God. So in a real sense, Genesis portrays Abraham as the one through whom God will undo the curse of sin and the Promised Land, Canaan, becomes the down payment on a return to the Garden of Eden. Through Abraham, blessing would come to all the nations in Genesis 10 that were living under the curse. Abraham is portrayed as a redeemer figure who would one day restore Eden and bring humanity back into relationship with God (see Table 1). Table 1  Threefold relationship between the promises of Abraham and the events in the Garden of Eden Creation

Curse

Gen. 12:1–3

Gen. 17:1–8

God

Separation

Blessing

Relationship

Others

Pain

Nation

Posterity

Earth

Thorns

Land

Canaan

In summary then, as mentioned earlier, while the term “remnant” is not explicitly used in relation to Abraham in the Torah, the concept of remnant is clearly implied. Abraham is called to undo the curse that has befallen the whole world. He is the positive counterpart of the 70 nations that were cursed and scattered at the Tower of Babel (Gen. 10–11). So he is the remnant of the 70 nations and becomes, as the Qur’an repeatedly states, the “Imam” or spiritual leader to all the nations. Through him God purposes to do a spiritual work in behalf of the whole world. The centrality of Abraham in the ongoing work of God, as stated in the Qur’an, is implied in the Torah. So according to the Torah, the call of Abraham was a universal call that was intended to redeem all the nations in behalf of the one

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 54

07/01/2014 08:51



The remnant of Abraham55

God. This universal call was reiterated to Abraham’s descendants, the children of Israel, at Mount Sinai. “‘Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites” (Exod. 19:5–6, NIV). Note particularly the promise that Israel was intended to be a “kingdom of priests.” A priest is someone who stands between God and other human beings. A kingdom of priests would be a nation that stands between God and all the other nations. In other words, Israel was the means through which God intended the blessing of Abraham to come to the world. The call of Abraham was never for Israel alone, it was for the whole world. Its purpose was to undo the curse and restore the conditions of Eden for the entire world. So the Torah never envisioned that God’s selection of Israel was over and against the other nations, God’s purpose was inclusive rather than exclusive.

The remnant theme in the Bible But as the history of the nation of Israel in the Old Testament (the Torah and the Prophets) continued, it became clear that the nation as a whole never functioned as the fullness of blessing to the world that was predicted in Genesis 12:3 and Exodus 19:6. The national promise was never fully fulfilled. At times portions of Israel even took the lead in promoting idolatry and frustrating the plans of the one true God. The promise of blessing to the nations was rarely achieved even in part, most notably in the stories of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba (1 Kings 10:1–9), the healing of Namaan the Syrian and the apparent conversion to the one God of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon (Dan. 4:34–7). On the whole, the history of Israel in the Torah and the Prophets was a history of failure to achieve the expansive vision that God had communicated to Abraham and to Israel at Mount Sinai. But the vision did not die. Instead it was directed toward the remnant of Israel, a group that was, on the one hand, a faithful subgroup of Israel proper, yet would become, on the other hand, a massive, international, end-time fulfillment of the original promise to Abraham. This renewal of the promise is stated in Isaiah 11:11: “In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 55

07/01/2014 08:51

56

The Three Sons of Abraham

remnant that is left of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, from Cush, from Elam, from Babylonia, from Hamath and from the islands of the sea.” This end-time remnant would not only be made up of the scattered remnants of the Israelite Diaspora, it would include large numbers of people from beyond Israel (Zech. 8:23, NIV). “In those days ten men from all languages and nations will take firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his robe and say, ‘Let us go with you, because we have heard that God is with you.’” This remnant theology speaks of a great, end-time spiritual revival that would transcend the borders of the traditional people of God. This concept of an end-time spiritual remnant is taken up in the New Testament (Greek Bible, Injil) book of Romans. Paul argues that the rise of a movement that followed Jesus of Nazareth (Yeshua ha-Mashiach, Isa al Masih) is a faithful remnant carrying out the original purpose of God for Israel. It is a Jewish movement in response to the Jewish Messiah, but would expand to include Gentiles, a designation for everyone on earth who is not a Jew. Note the language of Romans 11:1–5 (NIV): I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace [emphasis added].

So the New Testament did not set out to break the bonds with Israel, it saw the fledgling Christian movement as a fulfillment of the Old Testament remnant concept that would eventually fulfill the original promises to Abraham in behalf of the nations (Gal. 3:8–16). There is no desire on Paul’s part for a parting of the ways. The division of monotheism into warring camps was never the intention of the sacred texts upon which those camps are based. As Ehrman has pointed out, the partings of the ways came at considerable cost, with losses on all sides.

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 56

07/01/2014 08:51



The remnant of Abraham57

The end-time remnant Is there a way out of this dilemma? In a recent lecture, reflecting on what he had learned in writing the book The Next Christendom, Jenkins offered an interesting proposal. He suggested that the easternization of Christianity would set the table for a restoration of the things that Christian orthodoxy had lost in its march toward the West. The churches of the East (and South!) are thinking holistically, as the ancient Hebrews did.28 They are much more at home in the Old Testament than are the churches of the West. And the book of the Bible that is most critical in this new Christendom is the Book of Revelation!29 When we follow up on Jenkins’ suggestion, we discover that the concept of an end-time remnant is a central piece of Revelation’s story (see particularly Rev. 12:17).30 That remnant is named by many names in the Book of Revelation: 144,000; the great multitude; the saints; and the called, chosen, and faithful followers of Jesus.31 This remnant will be the central player in the work of God at the end of time (Rev. 12:17). It will be obedient to all of God’s commandments and would possess a prophetic, visionary gift (Rev. 12:17, cf. 1:2). It would be a spiritual movement that would give a message that would rally the faithful of all nations to the worship of the one true God (Rev. 10:11; 14:6–7). Articulating the message of this end-time remnant in Revelation might require a book-length manuscript. But let me just summarize what I have learned from about 30 years of research into the Book of Revelation. According to Revelation 10, there will be a great spiritual movement at a specific period just before the end.32 The remnant of Revelation will proclaim the “mystery of God” (Rev. 10:7), which is “announced,” utilizing the Greek verbal equivalent of the noun “gospel.” This term “mystery of God” is used frequently in the New Testament for the proclamation of the gospel (see Rom. 16:25–7 and Eph. 3:2–7, for example). So the final message of Revelation will be a message proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ (Yeshua ha-Mashiach, Isa al Masih). I suspect that this final proclamation of the gospel will be based on a fresh approach, one not bound up in traditional formulations that insult or irritate Jews and Muslims. It will point to the Messiah as the one who is not the exclusive domain of any particular Christian

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 57

07/01/2014 08:51

58

The Three Sons of Abraham

group, but the one who will save all peoples at the end of time. The message will have power in its fresh application of Scripture and its respect for the footprints that God has left in the other monotheistic faiths. Revelation 10 also suggests that the final proclamation of good news to the world will include careful attention to the apocalyptic messages of Daniel and Revelation. The angel of Revelation 10:5–6 explicitly recalls the wording of Daniel 12 and John himself is told that he must “prophesy again to many peoples, nations, languages, and kings” (Rev. 10:11, author’s translation). So the end-time gospel revival will be in the context of the eschatological teachings of Daniel and Revelation. The first two verses of Revelation 11 add a further element. The final message of spiritual power will include a focus on the heavenly sanctuary and the final judgment that is to take place there. I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, “Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there. But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months” (Rev. 11:1–2).

Further aspects of the end-time spiritual message are found in Revelation 12–14. There will be a focus on obedience, the keeping of all God’s commandments, not just those which are traditional or convenient (Rev. 12:17; 14:7). The powerful allusion to the fourth commandment in Rev. 14:7 suggests that there will be a revival of emphasis on the Sabbath as part of that focus on obedience. But this call to obedience will not be some new type of legalism, it will be in the context of intimate relationship with the Messiah (Christ, Masih) of the end-time (Rev. 14:1–5, 12). Revelation 13 outlines that there will be a great deal of confusion or deception regarding the identity of God and just where He can be found in the final period of earth’s history. The end-time remnant will be warning the world about that end-time deception and providing the keys to staying on the track outlined by the one true God. The world will be called into judgment regarding its idolatry and its refusal to repent (Rev. 14:7; 13:15–17; 16:8–9). So the message of the end-time remnant as expressed in Revelation can be summarized in the following list:

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 58

07/01/2014 08:51



The remnant of Abraham59

• • • • • • • •

Gospel (Rev. 10:7; 14:6, 12) Daniel and Revelation (Rev. 10:5–11) Heavenly sanctuary (Rev. 11:1–2) Keeping all God’s commandments (Rev. 12:17; 14:12) Warning of End-time deception (Rev. 13) Relationship with Jesus (Rev. 14:1–5, 12) Hour of judgment (Rev. 14:7) Sabbath (Rev. 14:7).

What fascinates me is the way this list of ideas correlates with the core values of the three monotheistic faiths as outlined earlier in this chapter. It is as if the remnant of Revelation was uniquely designed to bring all the followers of the one God into full faith fellowship with one another in the context of Earth’s final days. See Figure 3.

Conclusion In the early days of Christian faith, Jews and Christians spoke to each other a great deal. There were many things they shared in common and things about which to disagree. The same kind of thing was true in Arabia during the rise of Islam in the seventh century. But in both cases the conversation ceased and lines hardened against each other. Not only did the three faiths stop learning from each other, but there were also significant losses as each faith defined itself over against the Other. The world today seems to be reaching a critical turning point. The hostilities of the past are rising again and even intensifying in many places. Not only are Jew, Christian and Muslim fighting each other in both words and deeds, but there are increasingly deep rifts within each of the three monotheistic faiths. Catholics and Protestants kill each other in Ireland, Sunni and Shia kill each other in Iraq; and, while things have not deteriorated to that level in Israel, the divisions among Israelis are deep and seemingly irreconcilable at times. And in all of this tragic division, the reputation of the one true God Adonai, Allah is besmirched in the words and actions of those who operate in His name. How can this tragic state of affairs be turned around? Clearly, without the help of God, this cannot be done. But I believe the one true God has marked a path toward a great, spiritual reconciliation

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 59

07/01/2014 08:51

60

The Three Sons of Abraham

before the end. In the prophetic books of Daniel and Revelation there is a vision of an end-time period in which the work of God is mightily brought to completion. In that final work there will be a people, a remnant like Abraham, who will focus the world on restoration of the key core values that have been preserved in the three witnesses to the one, true God. In the message of the remnant there is hope that people of good will in all three faiths can find common cause and a common goal.

Notes 1

James D. G. Dunn makes these points in detail throughout the bulk of his book The Parting of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity (London: SCM Press, 1991), pp. 18–229. 2 Ibid, pp. 230–59. 3 Although Bart D. Ehrman in Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) does not cite him, a similar point was made by Jaroslav Pelikan in The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600) (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1971), pp.  68–120. The primary difference between Pelikan and Ehrman is Pelikan’s somewhat more negative assessment of traditions “outside the mainstream.” Pelikan also sees less significance in Jewish Christianity than does either Dunn or Ehrman. What makes Ehrman’s work especially significant is the way in which he draws implications for today’s world out of the early Christian struggle to define itself in the face of numerous options. This is precisely the point: to understand how we can learn from the three great monotheistic traditions, not only from their common elements but also from the forces that caused them to go their separate ways.   Lurking behind the work of both men is that of Walter Bauer: Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum in G. Strecker (ed.) 2nd edn (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1964); and in Robert A. Kraft and G. Krodel (eds), Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, trans. Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origins team (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1971). 4 Based on my reading of Ehrman, I would list the six versions of Christianity in the second century as Emerging Orthodoxy (Ehrman calls it Protoorthodoxy), Jewish Christianity, Marcionism, Montanism, Gnosticism, and Monasticism, with the latter being the most questionable as a distinct expression of what Christianity could and should be. While each of the alternatives to Emerging Orthodoxy has been seen as “heretical” from orthodoxy’s perspective, adherents of each of these alternatives could and did argue their case from aspects of the tradition that ultimately produced what we call the New Testament today.

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 60

07/01/2014 08:51



The remnant of Abraham61

Ehrman, Lost Christianities, pp. 252–3. Ibid., pp. 99–103. Early Judaism is a term scholars have chosen to designate the emerging Judaism of the rabbis beginning with the third century before the Common Era (bce) through the second century ce. It refers to the beginnings of synagogal or modern-day Judaism. This version of Judaism did not accept Yeshua as the looked-for Messiah and was involved in the parting of the ways with the Christian branch of Judaism as described in this chapter. See J. H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament: Prolegomena for the Study of Christian Origins in G. N. Stanton (ed.) Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series, 54 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), pp. 59–62. 8 Ehrman, Lost Christianities, p. 100. 9 Ibid., p. 101. 10 Ibid., p. 110. 11 Ibid., p. 159. 12 Dunn, Parting of the Ways, pp. 243–58. 13 Note the pioneering scholarship of Samuele Bacchiocchi on the role of antiJudaism in the abandonment of the Sabbath in From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity (Rome: The Pontifical Gregorian University Press, 1977), pp. 169–85. While a later work (D. A. Carson (ed.) From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982]) has attempted to show that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday already in New Testament times. Ehrman believes that the Sabbath remained important for at least Jewish Christianity beyond the first Christian century (p. 100). 14 Consider, for example, the following passages from the Qur’an: Al Isra’ 17:77; Al Nisa’ 4:136, 150–2; Al Baqarah 2:4, 40–1, 136, 285; Al-Ma’idah 5:46–8; Al ‘Imran 3:3–4; Yunus 10:94; Al An‘am 6:154–7. 15 Al Baqarah 2:136: The Religion of Ibrahim the Hanif (135): Say ye: “We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Ibrahim, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, and the descendants (children of Jacob) and that given to Moses and Jesus and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: and we bow to Allah” [emphasis added].   Al Nisa’ 4:150–2: “Those who deny Allah and His Messengers, and (those who) wish to separate Allah from His Messengers, saying, ‘We believe in some but reject others:’ They are in truth Unbelievers. [...] To those who believe in Allah and His Messengers and make no distinction between any of the messengers [emphasis added], we shall soon give their (due) rewards: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, most Merciful.”   All quotations from the Qur’an in this chapter are taken from ‘Abdullah Jusuf ‘Ali (trans. and ed.) The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an, 10th rev. edn (Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications, 1999). 5 6 7

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 61

07/01/2014 08:51

62

The Three Sons of Abraham

16 Al Baqarah 2:4: “(Those who fear Allah) believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time.”   Al ‘Imran 3:3–4: “It is [Allah] Who sent down to thee [step by step] in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law [of Moses] and the Gospel [of Isa] before this as a guide to mankind.”  Yunus 10:94: “If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading The Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in nowise of those in doubt.” 17 See, for example, Al ‘Imran 3:20: “Say to the People of the Book and to those who are unlearned: ‘Do ye not also submit yourselves?’ If they do, they are in right guidance, but if they turn back, thy duty is to convey the Message: and in Allah’s sight are [all] His servants.” 18 For a sympathetic Western account of this tragic development see Karen Armstrong, Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet (San Francisco, CA: Harper San Francisco, 1992), pp. 182–210. 19 Ehrman, Lost Christianities, pp. 253–7. 20 Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 1–3. 21 Ibid., pp. 16–17. 22 Ibid., pp.  18–27; Jenkins discusses these “remnants” of non-Western Christianity. 23 Ibid., pp. 39–53. 24 Ibid, pp. 141–62. 25 The last two paragraphs are based on the total flow of Jenkins’ book, it is hard to pin the ideas down to specific pages. 26 “Living through the greatest religious change in history: An interview with Philip Jenkins,” Spectrum 33/3 (Summer 2005), p. 67. 27 All quotations from the Qur’an in this chapter are taken from ‘Abdullah Jusuf ‘Ali (trans. and ed.) The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an, 10th rev. edn (Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications, 1999). 28 Jenkins, “Living through the greatest religious change in history,” Spectrum, p. 68. 29 Ibid., pp. 69–70. 30 Leslie N. Pollard, “The Function of ‘loipos’ in Contexts of Judgment and Salvation in the Book of Revelation” (Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 2007). 31 I do not have space to argue the case for a single people of God at the end of time in Revelation, but there are markers in the text that equate the 144,000 with the great multitude (Rev. 7:1–17), with the remnant (Rev. 14:1, cf. Joel. 2:32), and with the saints (Rev. 14:12). The one people of God is described in a variety of ways in Revelation, showing its universal character (Rev. 7:9; 14:6). 32 The proclamation of the angel of Revelation 10:6 is that “time will be no more.” That “time” is related to the time prophecies of Daniel 12, which

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 62

07/01/2014 08:51



The remnant of Abraham63 summarize the apocalyptic message of the last half of the book of Daniel (Dan. 7–12). Toward the end of history there would be a period in which a final message would be proclaimed to the world. Daniel calls that period “the time of the end” (Dan. 11:40; 12:9). In Revelation 10 the final period runs from the end of Daniel’s time prophecies to the close of human probation (Dan. 10:7). I believe that we are in that period and that the message of Revelation’s remnant is in the process of accomplishing its work.

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 63

07/01/2014 08:51

The monotheistic truth Interview with Hans Küng

Question: You have written an important volume, Judaism: Between Yesterday and Tomorrow. What inspired you as a Christian theologian to write a book on the origin, center, and history of Judaism? Hans Küng: The purpose of my book is to show that Judaism is not a past “Old Testament” but an independent entity with amazing continuity, vitality, and dynamism. The passion which drove me to write this book is a concern to understand the foundations, the development and the future possibilities of a growing mutual understanding between Jews, Christians, and Muslims. I believe, the question which needs to be asked here is this. What fundamentally unites Jews, Christians, and Muslims? A fundamental conclusion is that the three Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are bound together by the major characteristics which they have in common. These are already indicated by the name of Abraham who according to all three traditions was the great witness to the one true and living God. Despite all the differences which separate the religions, these common features are: the Semitic origin and language; the belief in one and the same God of Abraham; a view of history which is focused on a goal; the prophetic proclamation; the revelation; and the basic ethic grounded in God’s will: the Ten Commandments. To put it into one sentence: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, these three Abrahamic religions, together form a monotheistic world movement of Near Eastern/Semitic origin and prophetic character with an ethical focus, which is fundamentally different in origin and structure from the religions of India and China. Question: However, your book focuses foremost on Judaism, its history and future in relation to Christianity. What is today a fundamental

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 64

07/01/2014 08:51



The monotheistic truth65

understanding for a mutual relationship between Judaism and Christianity? Hans Küng: My view is that it is no longer permissible for any Christian theology to see Judaism in salvation–historical terms as “superseded.” No Christian church is any longer allowed to put itself in the place of the “old Israel,” as the “new Israel.” No Christian has the right to ignore the reality of living Judaism and the challenge not only of the ongoing existence but also the dynamic renewal of this people and its organization of itself into an independent state. Question: Do you mean by this that the Christian churches should not be concerned to engage in a mission to the Jews? What is, in your opinion, Paul’s view regarding the status of Israel? Hans Küng: No one in the whole of the New Testament wrestled so intensively and so constructively with the destiny of the people of God as Paul, the Jew who confessed Jesus as the Christ. Here is his question: Has Israel lost its special position as the people of God after the death and resurrection of Jesus? Not at all, says Paul in the letter to the Roman community: God does not abandon his faithfulness, despite Israel’s “unfaithfulness.” The election of Israel is permanent, indissoluble, irrevocable. God has not changed his promises. To the Jews belong: the sonship, the glory, the covenant, the giving of the law, the worship, the promises, the patriarchs, and the messiah. All this is preserved for the Jews, even if they have rejected Jesus as messiah, a rejection which fills Paul with “great sorrow” and “increasing anguish.” No, it was not Paul who detached Christianity from Judaism (others did that after his death and the destruction of the Second Temple). As a Christian, Paul, the Jew who gave up his Pharisaic ways, in no way gives up his Judaism. Yet, for Paul the Jew to bear witness to Christ, even to Jews, is rather different from an organized and systematized mission to the Jews. For this reason the Christian churches can never be concerned to engage in a “mission to the Jews.” Why not? Because the cause of the gospel must not be presented to the Jews from outside as something alien to them. Or have the Jews so far had a completely false faith, like the Gentiles? Did they not already believe in the one true God even before the Church? Did they not receive the message of

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 65

07/01/2014 08:51

66

The Three Sons of Abraham

the one true God even before the Church—and not just through the Church? The Church must not take the question of the “conversion” of Israel to the true faith into its own hands; it can confidently leave this to the grace of God and to the Christ, who will appear at the end of time as the “deliverer from Zion.” Question: Regarding the place of the Christians in the house of Israel, you even go so far as to speak along with the metaphor of Paul, that the Gentile Christians have been “grafted” onto the tree of Israel, “so that they now live from the same root as the people of Israel” [Judaism, p. 509]. Would you comment on this, and clarify for the readers, who are Christians and who are Jews? Hans Küng: Paul uses a metaphor. The tree, Israel, has certainly not been cut down, even if particular branches have been broken off and only a few branches remain to represent the Israel which has become faithful. The Gentile Christians have been grafted onto this tree, so that they now live from the same root as the people of Israel. This is why Paul can say to the Gentile Christians, who have quite gratuitously become members of the people of God: “But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive tree, do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you.” Question: Is there a Jewish theology or at least Jewish theological perspectives about Christianity and its relationship to Israel? Hans Küng: To address this question, we have to hear the rabbis who stress the significance of Abraham’s obedience in faith. They do not exclusively associate the heritage of the promises to Abraham with physical descent. The rabbis explain that precisely because of his very late circumcision (at the age of 99!), for the future Abraham opened up the possibility even for non-Jews going over to Judaism. So in this way he became the model not only for Jews but also for the Gentiles (proselytes) who went over to Judaism, and thus the tribal ancestor of all nations. According to present-day Jewish theology, even Christians who want to remain Christians can be regarded along with Muslims as “children of Abraham.” The Jerusalem scholar David Flusser points out: “In the Jewish religion, the existence of Christianity (and Islam)

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 66

07/01/2014 08:51



The monotheistic truth67

can be understood as the fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham to make him the father of many peoples.” Question: Many Christians, Jews, and Muslims think that, considering the painful history, this encounter should limit itself within the social arena, and are reluctant to engage in the discussion of theological subjects. Do you think that there is still a place for the discussion of theological subjects? Hans Küng: For many Jewish theologians, if they go into the question theologically at all, the Holocaust is no less and also no more than a further example of the monstrous evil of human beings. Jacob Neusner expressly argues: “What consequences, then, are to be drawn from the Holocaust? I argue that none are to be drawn which were not there before 1933. Jewish theologians do no good service to believers when they claim that Auschwitz denotes a turning point. In reality, Jewish piety has always been able to react to catastrophes.” And Neusner refers to the Orthodox Jewish theologian Michael Wyschogrod, who says of the Holocaust: “The God of Israel is a redeeming God; that is the only message which we are justified in preaching. Should the Holocaust cease to be a marginal phenomenon of the faith of Israel and penetrate the Holy of Holies, and become a dominant voice to which Israel hearkens, then the voice that it heard could only be a demonic voice. No salvation can be gained from the Holocaust, no tottering Judaism can revive through it, no new foundation for the ongoing existence of the Jewish people can be found in it. If there is hope after the Holocaust, there is hope because for believers the voice of the prophets speaks louder than Hitler, and because the divine promise extends beyond the crematoria and reduces the voice of Auschwitz to silence.” This means that the essence and identity of Judaism are not to be defined from a historical situation but from the Jewish religion. Though, the question about the uttermost suffering needs to be asked. The Jewish writer Elie Wiesel shows that one cannot deal adequately with Auschwitz either by theological speculation or by anti-theology. To the question whether we could speak about God after Auschwitz, Elie Wiesel replied pointedly: “I do not believe that we can speak about God; we can only speak to God. There cannot be any theology after Auschwitz and certainly not any theology about

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 67

07/01/2014 08:51

68

The Three Sons of Abraham

Auschwitz. For we are lost whatever we do; whatever we say is inappropriate. One can never understand the event with God, and one cannot understand the event without God. Theology, the Logos of God? Who am I to explain God? Some people attempt it. I believe that they fail. Nevertheless, it is right to make the attempt. After Auschwitz everything is an attempt.” Question: What are the theological subjects that would be worth considering for that discussion? Hans Küng: In the book Judaism: Between Yesterday and Tomorrow, I made the attempt to discuss questions which deal with the understanding of God after Auschwitz. This includes the question of theodicy; the creation of the world as self-limitation on God’s part; is God helpless in the face of suffering? God’s involvement in suffering; the crucified God; endurance in meaningless suffering. All these questions need to be discussed; and still, I believe, the concrete question why God “did not intervene,” “did not prevent it,” cannot be solved. The way out is expressed in the words on the walls of the Warsaw ghetto: I believe in the sun even when it does not shine. I believe in love, even when I cannot feel it. I believe in God, even when I do not see him.

Question: How would the dialogue between Jews, Christians, and Muslims have to begin? Hans Küng: First of all I would consider as a matter of principle the question of Jews, Christians, and Muslims praying together. As is well known, Christians and Jews have few difficulties if they want to pray psalms or other prayers from the Hebrew Bible or the Jewish tradition together. Those Christians who have already taken part in a Jewish service know that they can join in most of the prayers, even if, for example, they understand the term “Torah” differently—as also do some Jews: more in the sense of a “spiritual law.” Conversely, some Jews might find no insuperable difficulties in, for example, joining in saying the Our Father in a Christian service, since its essential elements after all go back to the Hebrew Bible. Similarly, for Christians and

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 68

07/01/2014 08:51



The monotheistic truth69

Jews there might be no theological difficulties in saying some of the fine prayers from the Qur’an with Muslims. After all, the Qur’an states that the same God spoke to Abraham, the prophets, Jesus, and Muhammad. And those Christians who have joined in the impressive prayer of Muslims know that it can make good sense for them to prostrate themselves to the one God of Abraham, even if they do not acknowledge the Prophet Muhammad in the same way. Conversely, given time, there may be an increasing readiness, particularly among Islamic communities, in some circumstances also to pray Jewish or Christian prayers to the one all-merciful god. All this means that within the three prophetic religions it might in principle be possible also to address one and the same God through common prayer. Question: What, after the Shoah, are the prospects of a Jewish– Christian–Muslim successful encounter? Hans Küng: On the basis of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, Jews and Christians should work together for the dignity of the Arab and Islamic peoples, who do not want to be the last colonies on this earth. On the basis of the Qur’an and the New Testament, Muslims and Christians should work together for the right to life of the Jewish people, who have suffered more than any other people in the last two thousand years and came close to being exterminated. On the basis of the Hebrew Bible and the Qur’an, Jews and Muslims should work together for the threatened freedom of Christian communities in some lands of the Near East and Middle East. So there is a need for the common commitment from all three religions to peace, justice, and freedom, to human dignity, to human rights, and the preservation of creation—of course also in collaboration with peoples from Indian, Chinese, or Japanese traditions. Question: What would you say today after the event of the September 11 attacks? Is there some new reflection or lesson this event would inspire you to draw in regard to Jewish–Christian–Muslim relations? Hans Küng: The event of September 11 has a double effect: on the one side, it has put a heavy burden on the relationship of Jews and Christians to Islam, and there is a certain danger that all Muslims are now under suspicion to be in favor of terrorism, which is of course

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 69

07/01/2014 08:51

70

The Three Sons of Abraham

absolutely wrong. On the other hand, there is no doubt any more that the only alternative to a clash of civilizations provoked by the extremists on all sides is the dialogue of civilizations which culminates in the dialogue of religions. As a matter of fact, since September 11, nobody has considered any longer interreligious dialogue as a purely academic exercise, but as a necessity. But in order to be efficient, this dialogue has to be really knowledgeable and has to address the roots of the questions which often lie in a very long history of colonialism and imperialism. This is the reason why, after my volumes on Judaism and Christianity, I published a third volume on Islam, which will soon be edited in English and which will help to acquire a good basis for mutual understanding and cooperation.

231137 CH01-06_001-070.indd 70

07/01/2014 08:51

Part II

Talking to each other: The quest for love My whole approach, so to speak, is to reach out toward the Other. It is not detachment from the Other, but attachment to the Other which fascinates and interests me. Therefore, it is the human bond, the bond between human beings which, for me, is an adventure. (Elie Wiesel) At the moment when Abraham is called by God, mankind is included as well. They were to receive a blessing with and through Abraham. (Rolf Rendtorff) The September 11 attacks should not be a watershed event in terms of these [Jewish–Christian–Muslim] encounters. It only underlines the need for interaction and dialogue. (Khaleel Mohammed) Thinking of each other should pave the way for the real face-to-face. It is not enough to think of the Other, in the void, within the search for the abstract truth. We have to meet the Other in person; the truth has to become flesh; it has to be incarnated, lest the thinking aborts or errs. The following interviews and essays on the Jewish– Christian–Muslim dialogue involve professionals of that particular encounter. Although they come from different backgrounds, they all acknowledge the difficulty of this dialogue. Obstacles are numerous and serious; not only because this dialogue involves religions, which tend to divide rather than to unite (John Graz), but also because it is conducted in the shadow of a painful history of suspicions and wars. The Shoah and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict stand in the way of a serene exchange (Elie Wiesel). This dialogue is so difficult that one may reach the conclusion that it has not yet taken place as “a real dialogue” (Rolf Rendtorff). Yet, and paradoxically for that reason,

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 71

07/01/2014 08:52

72

The Three Sons of Abraham

this dialogue is deemed tremendously important and vital for the future of our planet. First of all because meeting with the Other and talking with each other is vital to prevent future conflicts (John Graz). Meeting with the Other gives us an opportunity to put a human face on the Other. They are not just an abstract idea; they are a real human being with whom we could have a relationship. We may even love them. Out of their human experiences or their philosophical analysis, these authors present a number of suggestions to ensure the success of that enterprise. We should take it seriously, approach it with honesty, recognizing our own iniquity and flaws, and never engage in it out of curiosity or as a tourist (Rolf Rendtorff). We should learn from the Other and even run the risk of identifying with the Other (Rolf Rendtorff). We should confront our questions and not just enjoy the comfort of our answers; for questions will draw us nearer to each other while our answers will separate us (Elie Wiesel). Yet, we should not be afraid to recognize our differences; for dialogue necessitates distinctiveness and separations (Abigail Doukhan). True dialogue implies disturbances (Abigail Doukhan). In fact, as we stumble on the Other in their difference, about what we do not understand, we prepare ourselves to meet with the great and transcendent Other (Abigail Doukhan). Case studies are also proposed as significant illustrations of the Jewish–Christian dialogue. It is argued that an exchange and exploration on the common theme of “righteousness” may inspire and lead to a better relation with each other (Ganoune Diop). Likewise, the study of the text of the Aqedah (the so-called sacrifice of Isaac in Gen. 22:1–19), which is at the heart of the three Abrahamic religions, may provide us with an existential urge for the “I and thou” encounter, as Martin Buber puts it (Jacques Doukhan). The Jewish–Christian–Muslim encounter may lead to a surprise, the unexpected discovery of the new face of the Other, and may then become the best pedagogy for love. For the human bond is an exciting “adventure” (Elie Wiesel).

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 72

07/01/2014 08:52

Obstacles to interreligious dialogue John Graz

Introduction The subject of this chapter is obstacles to interreligious dialogue. You may think that such a topic may not be a positive contribution to a book which seeks to build good relations. As a promoter of interreligious dialogue, I would like to share some of the main obstacles we face when we want to develop interreligious relations. It is important to know the challenges we will encounter in order to succeed in building bridges.

Religion Religion in itself is an obstacle to dialogue because it creates differences between people, and differences have always created challenges in any society. The challenge is more complex with regard to religion because each religion is loaded with history, culture, tradition, language, concepts, vision of the world, truth, and salvation. Each religion believes it has the truth, and those who do not share this truth are seen as living at least to some extent in darkness and need therefore to be enlightened. Naturally, religion divides more than it unites people.

Evangelism and proselytism One of the characteristics of religion is to share belief and make disciples. If you are a Christian you cannot ignore the commandment of Jesus: “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). Christians have sent missionaries everywhere since the beginning of their history. They have had conversions and

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 73

07/01/2014 08:52

74

The Three Sons of Abraham

so have other religions. In Washington DC, where I live, there are a multitude of different Christian churches, many synagogues and more and more mosques, as well as Buddhist and Hindu temples. The non-Christian population is growing and not only because of immigration: there are conversions. It does not make any impact in the media or cause hot discussions in the US capital because religious freedom is part of the culture. This is often not the case in some other countries, especially religiously monolithic countries.1

The role of religion in the current conflicts “In the modern world,” wrote Samuel P. Huntington, “religion is a central, perhaps the central, force that motivates and mobilizes people.”2 Religion has been used or has played a significant role in most of the conflicts of the last 20 years. Yugoslavia, India, Pakistan, Sudan, Indonesia … many of the conflicts experienced in these places are not directly religious, but religion is an important factor. The attack on the Twin Towers and the war in Iraq are good examples. In Indonesia, people with whom I have talked saw the religious factor as being more important than the geopolitical or economic one. Christians attacked Muslims, and Muslims punished Christians. It is clear that many religious leaders in the USA were opposed to the war in Iraq and many Muslims were devastated by the tragedy of September 11.3 They saw this act as being done against the principles of their religion. But in every religion, groups are trying to justify their violent actions with religion. This approach does not facilitate dialogue.

The lack of reciprocity One clear obstacle in interreligious dialogues is the lack of reciprocity. That is not an issue which is often debated, but it is a very serious one: Reciprocity! It is so serious that Pope Benedict XVI urged Islamic countries to ensure religious rights for Christian migrants. He said: “More and more the importance of reciprocity in dialogue is felt.”4 When a state sponsors a specific religion and sends out missionaries or finances the building of houses of worship in other countries, it should be normal to accept reciprocity. With some countries there is no reciprocity, because there is little or no religious liberty.

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 74

07/01/2014 08:52



Obstacles to interreligious dialogue75

This state of affairs is not new. It happened in Western Europe in the past centuries. In an essay titled, “The great commission and the canon law,” James Muldoon asked the question: “Does a society have the right to protect itself from what its people and its leaders see as a threat to dearly held beliefs?” He mentioned Pope Innocent IV, who argued that the leaders of Christian societies had the right, indeed the obligation, to protect their subjects from the allure of heresy in the form of Judaism and Islam. Muldoon makes this comment: “Many contemporary political and religious officials feel the same way about Christianity. Their people must be protected from it.”5 The tensions between the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate and Rome about proselytism are a good example. Orthodoxy sees the administrative organization of the Catholic Church in Russia as a provocation.6 But one of the answers from Rome was, “You are doing the same in traditional Catholic countries and we don’t oppose you doing so.” The USA is traditionally Protestant and Latin America traditionally Catholic. Today Catholics are growing in the USA and Evangelicals are growing in Latin America. For the moment it does not create too many problems because there is religious freedom and reciprocity. Dialogues are often welcome in a climate of reciprocity and religious freedom. A lack of reciprocity puts dialogue at risk.

The political connection of religion Most religions have a direct or indirect political dimension. It may naturally lead to political alliances and influence the legislator. Professor Amor made this judicious remark: “If the state may be the religion’s instrument, religion may also be its thing. The state invests in it to put it in its service” [my translation].7 A religion following a political agenda may not be an agent of better understanding and peace. Professor Amor also said: “It is not either in the normal order of things that religion be totally excluded from the public space [...] But it is not either in the normal order of things for religion to monopolize or to dominate it, and identify itself to politics or culture” [my translation].8 The anti-conversion bill in Sri Lanka was a good example of collusion between religion and government. In May 2004 a Buddhist political party proposed a bill against conversion. The title was: “Prohibition of forcible conversion

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 75

07/01/2014 08:52

76

The Three Sons of Abraham

bill.” It did not pass, but in June 2004 the Cabinet Minister proposed another bill titled: “Act for the protection of religious freedom.” This makes any conversion almost impossible and punishes those who are involved. Christians and Muslims, who represent 8 percent of the population each, are the target of both bills. Such partnership between one religion and the state, which becomes the instrument of one religion, does not facilitate free and open interreligious dialogue.

Religious extremism and nationalism In every religion, and I should add ideology, you have different approaches. One of them is extremism (sometimes called fundamentalism), another one is nationalism. In our world we have Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, and Jewish extremists. Christians can be victims of the Muslims extremists in Indonesia, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt; while in India both Muslims and Christians can be the victims of Hindu extremists. A few years ago in Sri Lanka more than 150 Christian churches were attacked by Buddhist extremists. A few years ago, in the USA, Christian extremists attacked medical doctors who practice abortions. Muslims are also attacked on occasion. In some parts of Georgia, Orthodox extremists attacked Evangelical pastors, and several churches were burned in 2004. The city of Eisk, where about 100,000 people live, is a small Adventist community of about 80 members. There the local TV accused Adventists of sacrificing children. They went to court but the judge dismissed the case. A Muslim leader living in Moscow told me how difficult it has become for women who wear a headscarf. For religious extremists as for religious nationalists, interreligious dialogue is dangerous. They will do their best to destroy any kind of bridges we can build between religions.

Religions under attack Successful or not, most religions believe they are under attack. I hear that concern everywhere: in Russia, in Cambodia, in Brazil, in Europe, and in the USA as well. Religious leaders say their religion is attacked by new religious movements: by sects, by spiritualists, and by secularists. In North America you hear about the cultural war

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 76

07/01/2014 08:52



Obstacles to interreligious dialogue77

between conservatives and liberals, or between those who are secular and religious. The religious conservatives are counterattacking. The war is even inside churches and religions. In Russia, articles have been written against so-called new sects, comparing them to the German Nazi invasion. Most churches I visited were led by Russians and not by foreigners. When I asked “How many non-Orthodox Christians are in Russia? If you put the Baptists, the Pentecostals, and the Adventists together what is their percentage in the population?” the answer was about 1 percent! If we cannot accept that one person in one hundred is of another religion, there is a big problem. Interreligious dialogue is not easy when you believe your religion is under attack and you demonize other religions and their beliefs!

The professional dialoguers It may not appear to be an obstacle, but often religious dialogues are in the hands of what you might call “professional dialoguers.” By this I mean nice people, open and full of respect for other convictions. That is good, because without these qualities no dialogue is possible. The problem is the distance between those involved in these dialogues and the mass of believers. Traditional interreligious meetings can also give the appearance that every religion or religious group is welcomed. This is not always the case. New religious movements and Evangelicals are most of the time deliberately ignored. I would like very much to see a dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons, or a dialogue between Pentecostals and Oriental Orthodox Christians. A dialogue between Shiites and Baha’is would be very useful, especially in Iran. In Latin America, a dialogue between Pentecostals and Catholics seems to be a priority if we don’t want to have problems in a few years.

Lack of clear purpose and poor follow-up For every dialogue in which I was involved, we had to define the purpose of our dialogue. It had to be shared by each side. Why do we want to talk together, to overcome our traditional hostility or indifference? It could be to have a better understanding of each other and

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 77

07/01/2014 08:52

78

The Three Sons of Abraham

to send a peaceful sign to the population: we are different but we respect each other and we talk to each other. Dialogues may be seen by outsiders as compromising one’s own identity and faith. When it comes to a public report, the parties involved should consult each other before sending a communiqué to the media. Interreligious dialogue is a sensitive issue for many and can easily be misinterpreted. If the purpose of a dialogue is important, a bad follow-up may ruin for years steps forward. People want to know why we dialogue and what is to be the outcome?

Indifference9 We often think about dialogues when it is too late. When there is no emergency, nobody is interested in talking with others. Relations and dialogues are the best prevention to religious conflicts. Inter-religious dialogues are not easy to initiate and to maintain, but they are indispensable if we are to develop understanding, good will, and peace. The United Nations Special Rapporteur Professor Abdelfattah Amor stated in his inaugural address of the International Religious Library Association World Congress in Manila: “Interreligious dialogue constitutes a means that can help to contain conflicts and sometimes to solve them by the pedagogy that it can develop. It participates in the prevention of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief.”10 When I went to the Moluccas in eastern Indonesia, I spent a few days on the island of Ambon. After decolonization Ambon had a majority of Christians and a minority of Muslims. Most of the Muslims came from other islands to find a job. There were some tensions from time to time but both communities accepted living together and did not see any other viable possibility. Things changed in 1999. In three years, about 8,000 people were killed in religious clashes, not to say a religious war. I saw the main street of the city where Muslims on one side and Christians on the other side sang religious hymns and prayed before killing each other. I met Christians and Muslim leaders. We were welcomed by both. The Muslims leaders invited us into their houses. We learned that, during the war, moderate Muslims protected Christian churches on Christmas Eve and Christians rebuilt mosques after the events. On both sides religious leaders are working together to avoid a new tragedy. I met

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 78

07/01/2014 08:52



Obstacles to interreligious dialogue79

them and can testify about their dedication to peace and harmony. They need to be encouraged. Interreligious dialogues have to overcome many obstacles, but we don’t have any other choice. We live on the same planet. We are different, and we think differently, but must learn how to live together and respect the right to choose our religion or belief according to the dictates of our conscience. Concerning education someone said: “You believe education is too expensive, try ignorance!” I would say: You may believe that interreligious dialogue is too complicated, too time consuming, try religious war! It is because we refuse religious war that we want to promote more religious dialogues.

Notes 1

See Donna E. Arzt, “Jihad for hearts and minds: proselytizing in the Qur’an and first three centuries of Islam,” in J. Witte, Jr, and R. C. Martin (eds) Sharing the Book: Religious Perspectives on the Rights and Wrongs of Mission (Religion and Human Rights) (New York: Orbis Books, 1999), pp. 79–94. 2 Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997), p. 66. 3 After mentioning the negative effects of September 11 on the Muslim community, there are some positive effects—Americans trying to understand Islam and to learn from it. See E. J. Dionne Jr, Jean Bethke Elshtain, and Kayla M. Drogosz (eds), One Electorate Under God? A Dialogue on Religion and American Politics (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2004), p. 37. 4 According to the Washington Post, Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, president of the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue, said the next pope might more emphatically demand rights for Christian minorities in Islamic countries and the freedom of all people to choose their faith. “There may be a greater insistence on religious liberty” (Daniel Williams and Alan Cooperman, “Vatican is rethinking relations with Islam,” The Washington Post, 16 April 2005).   See “The Pope urges Muslims to respect Christians: ‘More and more the importance of reciprocity in dialogue is felt’” (Associated Press [Vatican City], 15 May 2006). 5 James Muldoon, “The great commission and the canon law: The Catholic law of mission,” in Sharing the Book: Religious Perspectives on the Rights and Wrongs of Mission (Religion and Human Rights), J. Witte, Jr, and R. C. Martin (eds) (New York: Orbis Books, 1999), p. 163. 6 See, John Graz, “Religious territorialism: The struggle over proselytism,” Liberty 100/1 (January/February 2005): pp. 20–3.

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 79

07/01/2014 08:52

80

The Three Sons of Abraham

Abdelfattah Amor, “La liberté de religion ou de conviction à l’épreuve des faits,” in J. Graz and C. Rasmussen (eds) Building Bridges of Faith and Freedom: A Festschrift Written in Honor of Bert B. Beach (Silver Spring, MD: General Department of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty, 2005), p. 21. “Mais si l’Etat peut être celui de la religion, la religion à son tour, peut être celle de l’Etat, sa chose. L’Etat investit la religion pour la mettre a son service.” 8 Ibid. “Il n’est pas dans l’ordre normal des choses qu’elles soient totalement exclues de l’espace public. Mais il n’est pas dans l’ordre normal des choses, non plus, qu’elles l’accaparent ou qu’elles s’identifient à la politique ou à la culture.” 9 We could have added two other important obstacles: (1) indifference and (2) false information and ignorance about other religions. 10 In an article based on remarks made in French by Abdelfattah Amor together with additional supplied material, “Religious freedom: A basis for peace and justice,” Fides et Libertas: The Journal of the International Religious Liberty Association (2002): pp. 18–19. 7

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 80

07/01/2014 08:52

The hospitality of Abraham: Reflections on a Lévinasian approach to interfaith dialogue Abigail Doukhan

Introduction The figure of Abraham is distinctive in all three monotheistic traditions as the father of hospitality. In Jewish tradition, he is described alongside Job as a hospitable man.1 In Christian tradition, reference is also made to Abraham as giving hospitality to God himself.2 Finally, the Muslim tradition also upholds Abraham as an example of hospitality. The Qur’an remembers Abraham as the one who wished peace to strangers.3 The children of Abraham, the three monotheistic faiths, have nevertheless still much to learn from their father Abraham, in matters of hospitality. Indeed, history up until today has shown that the three brothers have often failed to be hospitable when confronted not only with the stranger, but even to their own brother. Is not the history of the relationship between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam often a history of rejection of the Other, even of annihilation of the Other? What can we then learn from this distinctive feature of our common ancestor with regard to interfaith dialogue? What can Abraham teach us on how to respond to each other? How does hospitality relate to interfaith dialogue? What at first seems like an awkward connection is reconciled in the philosophy of Emmanuel Lévinas. Indeed, it is possible to find in the philosophy of Lévinas a use of the concept of “hospitality” to describe the encounter between the Self and the Other, otherwise referred to by Lévinas as the Same and the Other. But what can hospitality teach us in matters of dialogue, and more specifically in matters of interfaith dialogue?

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 81

07/01/2014 08:52

82

The Three Sons of Abraham

Before entering into Lévinas’ understanding of the concept of hospitality, it is necessary to first introduce Emmanuel Lévinas, to better understand his relevance to this chapter on hospitality and interfaith dialogue. Interestingly, hospitality as well as the structure of dialogue are two central themes in the philosophy of Emmanuel Lévinas. It should be noted that hospitality not only concerns Lévinas’ philosophy, but also was an issue in his personal life. Indeed, Lévinas knew from an early age what it was like to receive hospitality. Exiled from Lithuania to Russia, and later to France, he benefited from hospitality from those two countries. But Lévinas also experienced what it was like not to receive hospitality, when during the war (World War II), he was captured and sent to a prison camp. He recalls vividly in a short article entitled “Sans Nom”4 this experience of non-hospitality as a dehumanizing experience where prisoners were stripped not only of their identity, name, passport, and belongings but had to face the incomprehensible indifference of the surrounding villagers. From this experience of non-hospitality stemmed two major concerns in Lévinas’ philosophy: (1) a concern for the preservation of the Other’s alterity, of his own specific name and identity, of his distinctiveness and separation with regard to the Same, but also (2) a critique of an attitude consisting in indifference and isolationism with regard to the Other. The concept of hospitality brings together these two concerns and maps out the way to dialogue which not only preserves the Other’s distinctiveness but also puts into question the Same and makes it sensitive to the plight of the Other. It is precisely the structure of this dialogue, as it centers on the concept of hospitality, that we propose to analyze and explain in this chapter.

The separateness of the Other The Stranger […] escapes my grasp by an essential dimension even if I have him at my disposal. He is not wholly in my site.5

In those terms Lévinas describes the encounter between the Same and the Other. What does this language mean? It is necessary at this point to go back to Lévinas’ predecessor Husserl and to his understanding of the original encounter between the Same and the Other in order to understand this statement.

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 82

07/01/2014 08:52



The hospitality of Abraham83

In a series of lectures, compiled as the Cartesian Meditations,6 Husserl describes the encounter between consciousness and the Other not only as a presence of the Other within our world but also as an absence of the Other from this world: “We generally say, in the case of experiencing a man: the Other is himself there before us ‘in person.’ On the other hand, this being there in person does not keep us from admitting forthwith that, properly speaking, neither the other Ego himself, nor his subjective processes or his appearances themselves, nor anything else belonging to his own essence, becomes given in our experience.”7 In other words, if we can experience (see, feel, touch, hear) the Other’s bodily presence, the inner experience of the Other (what they see, feel, touch, and hear) can never be experienced by us. There is a part of the Other to which we have no access. There is a part of the Other which escapes us and remains ever beyond our grasp and understanding. It is in this sense that Lévinas speaks of the Other as a stranger. Yes, there is a common ground between consciousness and the Other as far as the bodily presence of the Other is concerned. But there is no common ground as far as the inner experience of the Other is concerned. The Other is therefore never “wholly in my site.”8 The encounter with the Other is, thus, structured as hospitality. In the same way that the stranger that I receive in my home is never entirely in my space, by virtue of the memories he carries of a different space and of a different history than my own; the Other that I encounter is never fully present before me. Part of him remains absent, inaccessible to my own experience of him as a bodily presence before me. He carries within himself a past, a history, that I cannot experience in a physical and bodily encounter. Lévinas uses the religious concept of “holiness” to describe the Other’s otherness and absence: “The formal structure of language thereby announces the ethical inviolability of the Other and, without any odor of the ‘numinous,’ his ‘holiness.’”9 Holiness must here be understood in its Hebrew sense of separation (qadosh). The Other is, according to Lévinas, “holy” in the sense that he remains separate and inaccessible, just as God remained holy and separate for the Hebrew people. The encounter with the Other is, therefore, an encounter not only with a presence, but also with an absence. It is not only relationship, it is also separation. Only in such an encounter is the Otherness of the Other preserved. And only when this otherness is

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 83

07/01/2014 08:52

84

The Three Sons of Abraham

preserved, can we speak of an encounter, of an act of genuine hospitality, which is not assimilation or naturalization of the Other. The Other who is received unto the Same remains a stranger, even though he now dwells within the tents of the Same. True hospitality retains the Other’s otherness and does not seek to change him into the Same. But what can we learn from this first lesson of hospitality as far as interfaith dialogue is concerned? What can genuine hospitality teach us in the way that we are to encounter the Other? The first thing we can learn from this analysis of genuine hospitality is a lesson of tolerance. Indeed, if the Other is to be encountered as other, we are to respect and celebrate their difference. They are to remain a stranger even in the closest rapport. In our dealings with each other, the temptation of proselytism must be overcome. To seek to convert, to draw into a community, to rally, to assemble, does not take into consideration the fact that the Other, to be other, must always remain an outsider. To seek to convert, that is, to gather the Other unto the Same, would then be seen, in the perspective of the philosophy of Lévinas, as a desire to conquer, to neutralize the Other. But there is no genuine hospitality where the strangeness of the Other is annihilated. Lévinas describes the Other as the one who refuses to be contained, to be assimilated: “The face is present in its refusal to be contained. In this sense, it cannot be comprehended, that is, encompassed.”10 To seek to convert the Other is, according to Lévinas, an act of violence against his otherness, and cannot be regarded as genuine hospitality or true encounter. True encounter must preserve the status of the Other’s otherness. There can be no encounter where one of the terms is assimilated by the Other. The Other’s distinctiveness, that is, holiness, must be preserved for there to be a genuine dialogue. But this description of hospitality as the acceptance of the Other’s absence from my space brings also into question the “ecumenical” project. This project builds essentially upon the recognition of what the various faiths have in common, thus neutralizing the differences. The question arises then whether such a project brings about a real encounter with the Other. Is the ecumenical project genuine hospitality? According to Lévinas, true encounter does not build on common ground, but, on the contrary, on the differences between the Same and the Other. Common ground excludes, paradoxically, the possibility of a dialogue. For Lévinas, dialogue necessitates the

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 84

07/01/2014 08:52



The hospitality of Abraham85

presence of two distinct interlocutors. In this sense, distinctiveness and separation are a necessary a priori to dialogue. Common ground, on the other hand, blurs all distinctions, and thus silences any chance of a genuine dialogue. Dialogue is, thus, reduced to the monologic discourse of the ecumenical project. Unity cannot be therefore at the foundation of a true encounter: “The metaphysician and the Other do not constitute a simple correlation [...] the intended transcendence would thus be reabsorbed into the unity of the system, destroying the radical alterity of the Other.”11 True encounter and genuine hospitality can, therefore, not take place within an ecumenical framework which aims at the neutralization of differences. The preservation of differences is a necessary basis, according to Lévinas, to true encounter and genuine hospitality. But if there can be no proselytism, nor ecumenical encounter with the Other, how is a genuine encounter to take place? Is true encounter merely tolerance of the Other? Do we then not fall into the temptation of indifference? Indeed, how can the separation of the Other ever open a genuine encounter? How are separation and distinctiveness to form a basis for hospitality and dialogue? And indeed, there is more to dialogue and hospitality than the preservation of the Other’s distinctiveness. Mutual tolerance is not yet hospitality.

The vulnerability of the Same Metaphysics, transcendence, the welcoming of the Other by the same, of the Other by me, is concretely produced as the calling into question of the same by the Other.12

Genuine hospitality also entails the vulnerability of the Same. When the Other is received unto oneself, into one’s home, we become exposed to their presence. While the Other is not entirely in my space—in the sense that a part of them always escapes me—my space, on the other hand, becomes totally infiltrated by the Other’s presence. While the Other escapes me, I cannot escape him. In the act of hospitality, the Other is no more outside of me, living in the next town or country. The Other’s strangeness is not outside of me, but inhabits me. In true encounter, therefore, the Other’s strangeness becomes part of myself. They bring into my way of living, of seeing things, another way, another perspective. True encounter brings me

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 85

07/01/2014 08:52

86

The Three Sons of Abraham

to see things through the Other’s eyes, through the Other’s perspective. Their presence within me slowly transforms me. Lévinas thus speaks in Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence13 of the “alienation” of the Same by the Other: “The one-for-the-other […] in the subject […] is precisely not an assembling, but an incessant alienation of the ego (isolated as inwardness) by the guest entrusted to it. Hospitality, the one-for-the-other in the ego, delivers it more passively than any passivity from links in a causal chain.”14 Genuine hospitality is therefore alienation by the Other. The Same cannot rest content in his home, in his beliefs, in his ways, when the Other enters it. Lévinas describes the encounter with the Other as a disturbance of the Same: “Proximity is not a state, a repose, but a restlessness, null site, outside of the place of rest. It overwhelms the calm of the non-ubiquity of a being which becomes a rest in a site.”15 True encounter has therefore the structure of alienation, and entails the putting into question of the Same by the Other: “The welcoming of the Other by the same, of the Other by me, is concretely produced as the calling into question of the same by the Other.”16 The encounter as hospitality is therefore experienced by the Same as a putting into question of their beliefs, assumptions, and ways. The infiltration of the Other within the Same brings with it the disturbing questions of: Am I right? Are they right? Why would I be right? Why would they be right? One might, however, object to this description of true encounter as disturbance of the Same by the Other. Indeed, there exist many relationships that are experienced as peaceful and stable. These encounters are lived without any serious disturbance or putting into question of the self, yet are felt to be authentic and genuine. We relate to each other not only as alienating strangers, but as colleagues and friends. These are encounters that do not necessarily put us into question. We relate to each other through what we have in common: common tastes, common activities, common tasks. Is there, then, to be no authentic encounter where there is a common ground instead of disturbance and alienation? According to Lévinas, such peaceful encounters indeed bring us to encounter the Other as a friend, or as a colleague, but never to encounter the Other as Other, in their essential otherness. How are we to understand this statement? Let us take the example of our relationship with different objects. There are many different ways that we relate to objects. But in some of those dealings, we can miss the

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 86

07/01/2014 08:52



The hospitality of Abraham87

essence of the object. For instance, we can relate to a painting as a work of art, to be contemplated and admired, or we can totally miss the point, the essence of that painting as a work of art, and use the canvas as a workbench or a table. Likewise, we can take a table, whose essence is to be used, and set it up in the middle of a lobby as a decoration. In this case, again, the essence of the table as something upon which one eats is missed. The same goes for our encounter with others. We can relate to them as friends, or as colleagues, that is, as someone who shares our values, our tastes, our tasks. But in doing so, we totally miss the aspect in them which differs from us and which constitutes their otherness. And indeed, the Other is much more than just someone who resembles me and shares in my activities, beliefs, and views. They are also the one who differs from me and does not share anything with me. Therefore, to encounter the Other only as someone who shares a common ground with me is to totally miss the point of his otherness, and to bypass their essence as the Other who is never “wholly in my site.” The only authentic encounter with the Other as Other is therefore to encounter them as different from me, as opposed to my ways and beliefs; that is, as alienation and disturbance. Where there is no putting into question of the Same, there is no true encounter and hospitality of the Other as Other. But what are we to learn from this description of the true encounter between the Same and the Other as far as interfaith relations are concerned? The question arises whether we, as different religions, have ever really encountered the Other in that way, in that completely vulnerable stance, in that act of hospitality where we are put in question. Has there ever been a genuine act of hospitality, a genuine encounter between the three monotheisms? Indeed, has Judaism ever asked itself, could Christianity be somehow right? Has the Christian ever asked, could the Muslims be right? Have the Muslims ever wondered if the Jews might not be right after all? If we have never asked those questions, chances are that we have never really encountered each other and there has never been a true act of hospitality between us. True encounter occurs as a putting into question of the Same. If we have never been disturbed by the Other, if Christianity has never been disturbed by Judaism, if Islam has never been disturbed by Judaism, and Judaism by Christianity, there has not yet been, according to Lévinas, a genuine encounter between us.

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 87

07/01/2014 08:52

88

The Three Sons of Abraham

But the question remains: Why should we encounter each other? Do we not already have access to God and to a loving community? Do we not already have the assurance of salvation, each of us, within our own paradigm? What need do we have of the Other? Why encounter each other? Why is it so important that we be hospitable to each other?

A testimony to the Infinite The glory of infinity [...] is but the other face of the passivity of the subject. Substituting itself for the Other, a responsibility ordered to the first one on the scene, a responsibility for the neighbor.17

According to Lévinas, the act of hospitality is crucial in that it testifies to the living God. In Otherwise than Being, Lévinas identifies the act of hospitality with responsibility for the Other, and sees in this responsibility the manifestation of the Infinite God: “The glory of the Infinite is glorified in this responsibility.”18 This can at first seem surprising. How does Lévinas come to this conclusion? According to Lévinas, there is no experience of transcendence other than that which takes place in the encounter with another human being. There can be, according to Lévinas, no experience of God outside of the human encounter. The encounter with God takes place at the moment of the human encounter: “The dimension of the divine opens forth from the human face.”19 It is in this thought that Lévinas is the most faithful to the phenomenological tradition of which he is part. According to the phenomenological method, the only events that the philosopher vows to describe are concrete experiences as they are lived by the ego cogito. It is to the “things themselves,” the concrete events of the human experience, that the phenomenologist attaches himself, avoiding all metaphysical speculation that is not grounded in the concrete experience the ego cogito has of the world. There can therefore be no “extra-sensorial” experience for the phenomenologist, and therefore no “experience” of a god who exceeds the concrete experience of the world. For the phenomenologist, only the concrete, the visible, the sensorial, as it is experienced by the ego cogito, can be described. The non-concrete, the invisible, and the extra-sensorial exceed the limits ascribed by the phenomenologist to

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 88

07/01/2014 08:52



The hospitality of Abraham89

description. Phenomenology therefore excludes all religious or metaphysical discourse. It is these limits that Lévinas tries to overcome throughout his work, while remaining nevertheless faithful to phenomenological methodology. Lévinas also believes that concrete experience of the world can be the only basis for description. Yet, there exists an entity in that concrete experience of the world which points to the nonconcrete, to the Invisible and to the Infinite: this concrete entity is the presence of another human being. The face of the Other is experienced by the ego cogito not only as a visible being but as an entity which exceeds the scope of visibility of the ego cogito. The face of the Other is experienced not only as being there, before this ego cogito, but also as not being there, as not being “wholly in my site,” as a sacred entity, separate and distinct from anything the ego cogito might imagine. The face of the Other is the only entity in the world which points to a dimension beyond the world. The face of the Other is therefore the only being which opens the ego to transcendence. It is in this sense that Lévinas says that the Other opens up the dimension of the divine. The Other is the only witness in the world of concrete experience to a dimension which exceeds this concrete experience, a dimension which pertains to the Invisible, to the Infinite. The human encounter therefore entails much more than recognizing a fellow human being: it points to, it signifies an encounter with transcendence, with the Infinite, and ultimately with God Himself. The human encounter is, therefore, the place where encounter with God takes place: “The work of justice—the uprightness of the face-to-face—is necessary in order that the breach that leads to God be produced [...] hence metaphysics is enacted when the social relation is enacted—our relations with men.”20 Encountering the Other in the act of hospitality thus leads to encountering God. We now understand the relevance of the act of hospitality between the three religious communities. Could it be that by being hospitable to each other, by genuinely encountering each other, we are opening up a space for God Himself to be encountered? Could it be that the greatest witness to God occurs, not when we speak of Him, but when we receive the Other unto ourselves, in the very act of hospitality? Could it be that the act of hospitality between faiths is crucial in the sense that it paves the way to a genuine

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 89

07/01/2014 08:52

90

The Three Sons of Abraham

encounter with God, an encounter which would not have occurred, were it not for that act of hospitality? Indeed, the first lesson that the encounter with the Other teaches us about encountering the Infinite is a lesson of holiness. The Infinite, just like the Other, is “sacred” and “holy,” it is not entirely in my space, it exceeds what I see and understand of it. The Other teaches me that God cannot be captured in my space, He exceeds the boundaries of my faith. He does not belong to me, He escapes me. He is much more than my faith describes Him to be, much more than my faith believes Him to be. Indeed, He may be as the Other describes Him. He is my God, but He is also the Other’s God. Thus, the Other frees God from the prison of my own conceptualizations and constructions of Him and points to yet another face of God: one that exceeds my own constructions and my own beliefs. In this sense, the Other points me to God in His transcendence and holiness. To genuinely encounter the Other amounts thus to encountering the true God: the God who exceeds my own conceptualizations and constructions. The act of hospitality also has a profound effect on the Same and takes place as a putting into question of the Same by the Other. The presence of the Other within the Same brings about a rupture of the Same: the Same is never the same again. The Other brings into it a new perspective, a new way. But how does this rupture of the Same pave the way to a genuine encounter with God? If the Other brings about a rupture in the Same, he opens it at the same time to the transcendent God. Were the Same to remain the same, they would approach God with their own presuppositions and conceptualizations, and reduce God to these. Only when the Same has been ruptured and put into question, are they truly open to who God really is. In that sense, one can say that it is our questions that pave the way to God rather than our answers. Our answers reduce and capture God into what we make Him and understand Him to be. Our answers can therefore never truly encounter God as a Holy Being, Who transcends us. Our questions, on the other hand, in admitting our ignorance, clear the way for a revelation of God which exceeds our understanding of Him. The putting into question of the Same by the Other is therefore a necessary step to a genuine encounter with God, an encounter which will not attempt to reduce God to a set of

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 90

07/01/2014 08:52



The hospitality of Abraham91

beliefs about Him, but which will allow for a revelation of His transcendence to take place.

Conclusion What can the hospitality of Abraham then teach us, his children, about dialoguing with each other? The hospitality of our Father Abraham first teaches us a way of relating which does not seek to transform the Other into the Same, which respects their sacredness and separateness. To be hospitable is not to convert, nor to naturalize. To be hospitable is to encounter the Other while acknowledging that they will always remain other, and never be “wholly in my site.”21 The hospitality of Abraham also teaches us that our encounter with the Other, to be genuine, will inevitably bring about a putting into question of the Same. Genuine encounter is, as hospitality, always disturbing. To receive the Other unto oneself, to let them dwell in the innermost parts, is always traumatic, yet at the same time enriching. The Same is never the same again, but learns to see things in a different perspective. Most of all, the Same is opened up to a vision of the Infinite that they had not, until then, seen. The Other testifies to another face of God and frees God from the reductions and constructions of the Same. In that sense, the encounter of the Other paves the way for an encounter with God as a transcendent being, with God in His holiness. If Jews, Christians, and Muslims are to really encounter God, as a transcendent being, as a holy being, they must learn to encounter each other. Only then can they receive the blessing bestowed on Abraham of God’s presence and of His promise. For in receiving the Other, in being hospitable to the Other, it is indeed God Himself that Abraham received.

Notes 1 2 3 4

Avot of Rabbi Nathan, 7, in L. J. Newman, The Talmudic Anthology (New York: Behrman House, 1966), p. 192. See Hebrews 13:2. Qur’an, Surah II:69–70. Emmanuel Lévinas, Noms Propres (Montpellier, France: Fata Morgana, 1976), pp. 141–6.

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 91

07/01/2014 08:52

92 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

The Three Sons of Abraham Emmanuel Lévinas, Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority (Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press, 1969), p. 39. Edmund Husserl, Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology (Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1960). Ibid., pp. 108–9. Lévinas, Totality and Infinity, p. 39. Ibid., p. 195. Ibid., p. 194. Ibid., p. 35. Ibid., p. 43. Emmanuel Lévinas, Otherwise than Being: Or, Beyond Essence (Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1981). Ibid., p. 79. Ibid., p. 82. Lévinas, Totality and Infinity, p. 43. Lévinas, Otherwise than Being, p. 144. Ibid., p. 144. Lévinas, Totality and Infinity, p. 78. Ibid., p. 78. Ibid., p. 39.

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 92

07/01/2014 08:52

Righteousness, a common core value among world religions: A pathway for dialogue and witness Ganoune Diop

Introduction The concept of and the quest for “righteousness” seem to be deeply rooted in human religious consciousness. In some form or another, however variously defined, it is present in most religious traditions. From scholarly treatments of the subject through elaborate reasoning to intuitive grasps of its importance, this motif, since the Apostle Paul engaged his contemporaries on its function, has been subject to considerable debates. Among Christians it has significantly shaped the issue of Christian identity. The Reformation, with its slogans (sola scriptura, sola fidei, sola gracia, and more foundationally solus christus), is inseparably connected to the concept of righteousness. Long before the Reformation, the heart of the Apostle Paul’s teachings in key letters such as Romans and Galatians focuses on the concept of righteousness. The current scene in Pauline studies has taken a major challenge and shift from the Reformers’ understanding of the doctrine of justification and righteousness.1 Every section of the Hebrew Scriptures addresses the issue of righteousness. Beyond Judeo-Christian circles, the issue of righteousness has also been central to the Islamic faith as expressed in the Qur’an, the holy book of Muslims. The objective of this chapter is to extend the scope of our reflection on the concept of “righteousness” beyond the Judeo-Christian traditions to include the Islamic faith and praxis. We will explore the Jewish Scriptures’ background to understand the specificity of the New Testament’s contribution to the issue of righteousness. We

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 93

07/01/2014 08:52

94

The Three Sons of Abraham

will delineate the particular perspective and foundation that Jesus laid. The goal of this chapter is to point to a potentially fruitful platform for dialogue: a topic that touches the core quest of each tradition among monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. To state our thesis up front, righteousness, whether envisaged from ethical, behavioral, relational, social, judicial, or economic perspectives, is fundamentally related to favoring, promoting, and sustaining life. Whether, as its Semitic root indicates, the word “righteousness” is in relation to assisting the poor, or the defenseless, it is fundamentally about helping fellow human beings not only survive but live with dignity. The reflection on righteousness opens an understanding of existential human rights based on the premise that human beings are endowed with unalienable worth based on their being created in God’s image. In this perspective, a righteous person could be defined as one who makes life possible, one who improves other people’s lives, one who saves lives. This latter connotation is the ground for calling people who contributed to saving the lives of Jews, “righteous among the goyim.”2

Philological considerations “Righteousness” is the translation of the Hebrew root tzedakah. Excluding the occurrences in proper names, it occurs 523 times in the Hebrew Bible and once in the Aramaic section of the book of Daniel. It is well attested in West Semitic sources.3 The Greek root, dikaio-, from which derives the word dikaiosune, appears over 225 times in the New Testament (NT). Two interrelated etymologies are mentioned: on the one hand the concept of righteousness is derived from an Anglo-Saxon root rightwise along with the words “right,” “righteous,” “righteousness,” “be or declare (or make) righteous”; and on the other hand, from the Latin justitia, are the words “just,” “justice,” “justification,” and “justify.” If the number of occurrences of a word determines its importance, then the concept of righteousness would be one of the most important words in religious vocabulary. However, in reference to righteousness, the issue is much more than statistics. The theological connotations of this concept in monotheist religious traditions provide more evidence for its importance on the edifice of each

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 94

07/01/2014 08:52



Righteousness, a common core value among world religions 95

religious tradition and therefore a potential promising platform for productive encounters.

Righteousness in Islam The centrality of righteousness in Islam We will begin with Islam and the foundation of Islamic faith, the Qur’an. The most important concept in the Qur’an that encapsulates what God expects from human beings is that of righteousness. Several words are used in the Qur’an as equivalent of the concept of righteousness: taqwa, birr, and salaha.4 The word “righteous” expands the semantic range to include words derived from the roots hsn, used to designate good deeds, and zkw, connected to the idea of assisting the less fortunate. The most important word, taqwa, is derived from the Arabic root waqaya, from which verbs are formed which signify “protecting,” “preserving,” “guarding,” and other related ideas. Taqwa has the sense of guarding oneself from peril, preserving one’s virtue, and guarding oneself against the displeasure of God. Taqwa is thus a kind of awareness or consciousness by means of which one protects oneself from sliding into evil. In what is possibly the first occurrence of the word in the Qur’an in surah Al-shams (91:8),5 taqwa is contrasted with wrongdoing, which is described as a kind of gushing forth. Here the impression is of taqwa functioning as a means to control one’s impulses. Hewer accurately sums up the reasons why taqwa, or righteousness, is a thread woven into the fabric of every aspect of Islam: At the end of the day, each and every human being is called to be the Regent of God; all will be answerable directly to God for the way in which they have fulfilled their duty (Qur’an 6:94). This profound sense of the presence of God is summed up in the Islamic term taqwa, which can be translated as “God-consciousness” and carries with it aspects of the biblical concept of the “fear of the Lord” and a sense of protection before the awesomeness of God (a word from the same root is used in Arabic for “vaccination”). This does not just occur naturally but must be built up by living according to the guidance of God. This is where the practices of Islam come in.

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 95

07/01/2014 08:52

96

The Three Sons of Abraham

Each of the principal practices of Islam is good for the human being and leads her or him into a deeper sense of taqwa. They lead the Muslim on to an awareness of God through the way in which every element of life is lived. Everything that one does should be done in a spirit of taqwa, and everything should lead to a deeper awareness of oneself as the creature of God, called to be Abdallah, the Loving Servant of God, in everything. These principal practices are summed up in what are generally called the “five pillars of Islam.” They contribute to this growing sense of taqwa.6

Qur’anic texts on righteousness The key texts of the Qur’an about righteousness are the following: Make provision for yourselves; the best provision is taqwa. (Qur’an 2:197)

The context of this declaration is the pilgrimage to Mecca. Taqwa or righteousness represents the highest value in one’s search for God’s approval. In the Islamic worldview, going to Mecca, which is one of the five pillars of Islam, even though important, without righteousness, the best provision would be missing. Rituals are not the heart of the fifth pillar of Islam, as will show the next quotation, where it is shown that prayer is incomplete without “taqwa.” It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces towards East or West; but it is righteousness—to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfill the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain [or suffering] and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the Allah-fearing. (Qur’an 2:177)

Ultimately what God really values is piety. It is not their meat nor their blood, that reaches Allah: it is your piety that reaches Him: He has thus made them subject to you, that ye may glorify Allah for His Guidance to you and proclaim the good news to all who do right. (Qur’an 22:37)

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 96

07/01/2014 08:52



Righteousness, a common core value among world religions 97

Righteousness can also refer to righteous acts in terms of fair dealing with people. O ye who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do. To those who believe and do deeds of righteousness hath Allah promised forgiveness and a great reward. (Qur’an 5:8–9)

One of the metaphors used both in the Bible and in the Qur’an is the connection between righteousness and raiment. O ye Children of Adam! We have bestowed raiment upon you to cover your shame, as well as to be an adornment to you. But the raiment of righteousness—that is the best. Such are among the Signs of Allah, that they may receive admonition! (Qur’an 7:26)

The comparison between a foundation laid on righteousness and a foundation laid on sand shows that righteousness is the bedrock of the Islamic faith. Which then is best?—he that layeth his foundation on piety to Allah and His good pleasure?—or he that layeth his foundation on an undermined sand-cliff ready to crumble to pieces? And it doth crumble to pieces with him, into the fire of Hell. And Allah guideth not people that do wrong. (Qur’an 9:109)

The rationale for the importance of “righteousness” in Islam The whole edifice of Islam is based on two interrelated concepts: tawhîd (“oneness of God”) and taqwa (“fear of God,” “righteousness,” “piety,” or “God-consciousness”). The concept of taqwa is informed by Qur’anic anthropology. The aim of the Islamic faith is to recover the fitrah, which is the pristine primordial nature with which God created human beings.7 All the practices and rituals are intended to cleanse the dross that prevents the recovery of the fitrah. Islam is understood as a faith centered on the quest for righteousness or piety. The pillars of Islam and Islamic ritual practices are all purposed to encourage this awareness of God’s sovereignty and the reverential awe due to Him. The spiritual disciplines especially in mystic Islam, such as Sufism are purposed to cleanse or remove the dross that prevents

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 97

07/01/2014 08:52

98

The Three Sons of Abraham

the recovery of the primordial nature fitrah. Taqwa as “fear of God,” “piety,” or “righteousness” becomes in this perspective the central value Muslims cherish above anything else. This fundamental value sought by Muslims is a God-consciousness, a mind full of God that pervades the whole of life.8 Not only is the concept of righteousness related to Qur’anic anthropology, it is also related to hamartiology, the understanding of the fundamental problem human beings face. The fundamental problem human beings face is that the primordial nature fitrah is buried under layers of negligence. Human beings have forgotten who they are. The very word used in the Qur’an for “man,” “insān,” is related etymologically to the word “nisyān,” or “forgetfulness.” In light of the identification of the problem at the foundation of human predicament, it is understandable that, in Islam’s inner logic, salvation is connected to the act of remembering. The call of Islam therefore concerns above all the remembrance of a knowledge deeply embedded in our being, the confirmation of a knowledge that saves, hence the soteriological function of knowledge in Islam.9

The above observation helps one understand the place of the Qur’an in the life of the Muslim. Reciting the Qur’an facilitates the remembrance. In fact, the very concept of salvation is shaped and understood with this background. To put it differently, with regards to salvation, what Jesus is to Christians, the Qur’an is to the Muslims. Moreover, as we followers of Jesus believe that Jesus is uncreated, Muslims believe that the Qur’an is uncreated. The emphasis of Islam is more on the praxis of the religion. The terminology used to designate adherents of the religion of Islam is significant. The following fundamental concepts describe the person who is guided in the right path. They define the content of the Islamic faith, and encompass at the same time what is expected of all creatures. They are Muslim, “those submitted to God” (Qur’an 3:84–5); Mu’min, “those who have faith” (Qur’an 8:1–3); Muttaqin, “those who have taqwa and preserve themselves from evil, which are those who fear God” (Qur’an 2:2); Muhtadin, “the rightly guided” (Qur’an 6:117); Muhsin, “God loves those who do beautiful deeds” (Qur’an 2:11–112; 3:134); Muhlis, “those who offer sincere devotion, ihlas” (Qur’an 98:5); Muslihūn, “the ones doing right” (Qur’an 11:119);

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 98

07/01/2014 08:52



Righteousness, a common core value among world religions 99

Muqsitīn, “those who act equitably, who deal justly, practice justice” (Qur’an 60:8). Of these fundamental concepts four major ones are perceived as defining the content of the Islamic faith. They encompass at the same time what is expected of all creatures. The participles Muslim, Mu’min, Muhsin, Muhlis are connected to the following words: Islām, Imān, Ihsān, Ihlas. These four poles of the Islamic faith are the basis upon which the foundation of the whole ethical system of Islam is built. The central value, however, is the concept of taqwa, “righteousness” without which the whole edifice of Islam loses its justification.

Righteousness and justice In the Qur’anic worldview, the issue of righteousness is inseparable from the key concept of justice also associated with the concept of equity.10 A key verse in the Qur’an that captures the importance of justice as a direct comment from God is the following: Allah commands justice, the doing of good, and liberality to kith and kin, and He forbids all shameful deeds, and injustice and rebellion: He instructs you, that ye may receive admonition. (Qur’an 16:90)

Justice is the goal of the Islamic faith from a social perspective. In its philosophical connotation, it is the foundation upon which the return to God is based.11 God is referred to as the one who upholds justice.12 Justice is an explicit command from God.13 Believers are enjoined to be witnesses and securers of justice.14 One of the Qur’anic verses that associates God with the notion of love is in relation to the theme of justice: “God loves the just [equitable].”15 For the reasons we have given on the nature of the edifice of the Islamic faith, engaging Muslims in dialogue about the core values of righteousness and justice may lead to a constructive relationship if only for the peace of the world. For as Judaism will emphasize: peace is inconceivable and unachievable without righteousness and justice.

Righteousness in Judeo-Christian thought Righteousness is a multifaceted and dynamic concept rich in connotations. It is a polysemic term whose meaning is associated with both

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 99

07/01/2014 08:52

100

The Three Sons of Abraham

God and human beings. It may, therefore, mean different things according to the contexts of usage. In Judeo-Christian thought, key concepts are used in the setting of the covenant between God and Israel. This covenant gives a particular connotation to a word like “righteousness” which should not be limited to a general or a vague moral principle or value. It is a concept that is inseparable from the revelation of God’s character and will. The foundation for righteousness is God Himself. Righteousness is one of God’s attributes. Moreover, there is a fundamental interconnection between righteousness and other divine attributes such as faithfulness and grace. When in relation to human beings, righteousness is predicated upon an understanding of human nature. The values that inform and delineate what is ideal or best, what is acceptable, and what is prohibited and therefore unacceptable in the way human beings relate to one another and to creation, are all components of the concept of righteousness. In the Tanakh, the concept of “righteousness” is inseparable from “the fear of the Lord” and from paying attention to the stipulations of God’s covenant, namely “God’s commandments.” The commandments were given to Israel in order that they fear the Lord: this existential attitude is called “righteousness.” It is present in the context of a revelation that has shaped the consciousness of God’s people Israel. So the Lord commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God for our good always and for our survival, as it is today. It will be righteousness for us if we are careful to observe all this commandment before the Lord our God, just as He commanded us. (Deut. 6:24)16

In the chapter, the concept of “fear of the Lord” is highlighted. The fear of the Lord is the right attitude to have in relation to God. It is at its basic dimension, an expression of reverence, deep respect, a fundamental realization of the holiness of God. It is an undergirding and overarching awareness of God’s sovereignty and a participation in God’s purposes. Honoring God becomes an overriding existential choice.

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 100

07/01/2014 08:52



Righteousness, a common core value among world religions 101

The context of the central confession of faith that has shaped the religious consciousness of God’s people, the Shema, contains the key concepts of fear of the Lord, love of God, and worship.17 Furthermore, the emphasis on the need for righteousness with its judicial component in Deuteronomy 16:18–20 shows that this virtue was foundational for the entire social infrastructure among God’s people: You shall appoint for yourself judges and officers in all your towns which the Lord your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous. Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue, that you may live and possess the land which the Lord your God is giving you.

The concept of righteousness is therefore central to understanding the whole edifice of biblical faith as it expresses relations to God or relations with fellow human beings. Righteousness as defined in Scripture was the barometer for good behavior. The focus of biblical righteousness is on behavior that fulfills the responsibilities of relationship, whether with God or with other persons. In other words, when people fulfill their relationship with God through obedience and observance of biblical ordinances and—sometimes this is overlooked in contemporary notions of righteousness—with humanity, too, then they are considered righteous. Or to put it another way, the basis of biblical justice is fulfillment of our responsibilities to and relationships with others as the ultimate fulfillment of our responsibility to God. In fact, the book of Genesis declares that the reason God chose Abraham to be “the ancestor of a multitude of nations” (Gen. 17:4) was to bless “all the nations of the earth” with God’s teachings of justice: “for I have chosen him that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness [sedaqah] and justice [mishpat]” (Gen. 18:18–19). What is significant here is that both justice and righteousness are based on social relationships. Not on individual, personal piety or on individual conformity with ritual and liturgy, but on social interactions.18 However, righteousness in the Hebrew Scriptures is best considered in the light of the One who provides its rationale and secures the viability of its implementation in society. God is a righteous God.

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 101

07/01/2014 08:52

102

The Three Sons of Abraham

“Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne; steadfast love and faithfulness go before you” (Pss. 89:14; 97:2). Twice in Jeremiah, Yahweh is called the righteousness of His people. “In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: ‘The Lord is our righteousness’” (Jer. 23:6 NRSV). The Hebrew Bible envisages the future with the hope that someday the Messiah will come and bring everlasting righteousness (Dan. 9:24). Jeremiah predicted the coming of such days: they will be marked by the fact that the Lord will raise to David a branch of righteousness in the earth. He is a king and a judge who will execute judgment and righteousness in the earth (Jer. 23:5). According to the book of Malachi, to those who fear God, the Messiah is called “the sun of righteousness who shall rise with healing in its wings” (Mal. 4:2).19 Beyond the Tanakh, the importance of the theme of righteousness in Jewish thought cannot be overestimated. The life of a Jewish person cannot be dissociated from what is termed ma’asim tovim, “good deeds.” Furthermore the concept of good deeds can be divided into three categories, key among which is the concept of tzedakah. The other two are gemilut hassadin, and tikkun olam. The word tzedakah from the same root as righteousness is generally understood as charity, the giving of resources to the poor; it is more accurately translated as “righteous giving.”20 Specific and significant developments of the theme of righteousness have occurred throughout Jewish history by Jewish scholars that will need a separate treatment that would go beyond the scope of this article. It seems that righteousness is an overarching core motif that encompasses major components of Jewish ethical life. So important is this concept that the Talmud records that “Tzedakah is as important as all the other commandments put together.”21 For Jewish wise persons, justice is a foundational principle of the Torah upon which the world is grounded.22 The Sages in Jewish tradition have particularly underlined the connection between righteousness, justice, and peace.23 Moreover, according to Jonathan Sacks, “tzedakah” is untranslatable because it joins together two concepts that in other languages are opposites, namely charity and justice.24 Reflecting on the centrality of tzedakah in Judaism, he further states that Jewish identity is closely

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 102

07/01/2014 08:52



Righteousness, a common core value among world religions 103

related to the concept of tzedakah. He wrote, “Tzedakah lies close to the core of what it is to be a Jew. So much so that the rabbis said, ‘If someone is cruel and lacks compassion, there are sufficient grounds to suspect his lineage.’ Not to give is prima facie evidence that one is not a Jew.”25 After having indicated the importance of the concept of righteousness both in Islam and in Jewish thought, we may now turn to the contributions of Jesus and his Jewish followers.

Righteousness in biblical Christian thought Jesus’ focus on righteousness In the Gospel, the concept of righteousness is key to understanding the whole edifice of the faith of the followers of Jesus Christ. Jesus’ emphasis on the need to seek first God’s kingdom and His righteousness has played a major role in the development of this consciousness. Moreover, Jesus, in his first most famous discourse, the Sermon on the Mount, sets the tone on the need to have a righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees. Most of the Sermon on the Mount is actually an illustration of what that righteousness is.26 Jesus’ discourses on righteousness are revealing and show the importance of righteousness. His approach may seem radical. He makes “righteousness” into a prerequisite for entrance into his kingdom. Furthermore, what Jesus demands seems to go way beyond not only popular wisdom but also the demands of religious leaders of the day: He means not just not murdering, but not being angry; not just not committing adultery, but not lusting; not just properly executing a divorce, but not divorcing; not just keeping oaths, but not using or needing them; not just limiting revenge to a properly measured response, but not responding in kind at all; not just loving neighbors, but loving enemies. The first item is the Pharisees’ righteousness; the second is the abounding He has in mind. It is true intent of the Law, the true requirement of God. The Standard is internal perfection not merely external conformity [Matthew 5] v. 48.27

A look at the gospel of Matthew, for example, shows a sample of the various aspects of this word. Jesus understood His baptism as part of fulfilling all righteousness (Matt. 3:15). The fourth beatitude is a

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 103

07/01/2014 08:52

104

The Three Sons of Abraham

blessing on those who thirst and hunger for righteousness (Matt. 5:6). The eighth beatitude indicates, as does the fourth, that righteousness is more than just being good; it indicates a whole orientation and commitment of life towards God and His will (Matt. 5:10). Along with the concept of the kingdom of God, righteousness is a central concept in Jesus’ teachings. It represents the qualification for entrance into the kingdom of God. “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:20). The righteousness of God is top on Jesus’ priority list for His disciples. He told his disciples to seek first God’s kingdom and His righteousness (Matt. 6:33). Jesus talks about the way of righteousness with reference to the ministry of John the Baptist (Matt. 21:32). In the setting of Matthew 5:17–18, Jesus unequivocally declares: “Do not think that I came to abolish the law and the prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly, I say to you until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished.” “To fulfill” in this setting has been understood in various ways: “to fill out,” “to expand,” “to complete”; obviously not “to bring to an end.” For the latter meaning, another verb, teleo, would be more fitting. Since the context of a passage, in particular the network of the themes that are woven together, is a determinant in interpreting a word, what does the immediate context of Matthew 5 convey regarding the word “to fulfill”? What is at stake in the declaration of Jesus is the interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures (the Law and the Prophets). The context is a debate concerning the righteousness of the Pharisees versus the righteousness of the followers of Jesus. Jesus specifies to His audience, “I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:20). He then goes on to illustrate what He means by showing the depth of what was revealed in the Law. In his first discourse, the so-called antitheses, Jesus illustrates what he means by having a righteousness that surpasses that of the scribes and the Pharisees: You have heard that the ancients were told, “You shall not commit murder” and “Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.” But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 104

07/01/2014 08:52



Righteousness, a common core value among world religions 105

guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, “Raca,” shall be guilty before the Supreme Court; and whoever shall say, “You fool,” shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. If therefore you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering. Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, in order that your opponent may not deliver you to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Truly I say to you, you shall not come out of there, until you have paid up the last cent. (Matt. 5:21–6)

Human relationships can be observed through the lenses of acceptance and rejection. Jesus demonstrates that what God always wanted is to have human beings relate to one another on the basis of a covenant of reconciliation and acceptance instead of judgment and rejection. At first glance, it seems that Jesus’ speech is a mere example of hyperbole. What he says may appear disproportionate. Would anyone consider being angry with one’s brother as deserving a court hearing? Can anyone argue a case against someone as deserving death, for the simple fact of calling one a fool? There is more to the story. What did Jesus mean, what was his point? What do killing, being angry, and insulting someone as “Raca” or “fool” have in common? These questions lead us to inquire about the meaning of killing. To kill is to reject someone into a state of noncommunication. It is the ultimate discrimination, that is, the relegation of a person to nonexistence. A dead person is someone in whom there is no more circulation, neither of body electrical currents nor heartbeat movements; a person in whom there are no more synaptic connections; a person whose brain cells do not communicate anymore; a person in whom there is no more movement. To kill is to prevent communication and relationship. In fact, when a person is angry against their brother or sister, the communication is difficult if not impossible. The person becomes excluded from my proximity. It is a refusal to communicate. Consequently, to insult someone is to dissociate from that person. It is a form of rejection, the opposite of acceptance.

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 105

07/01/2014 08:52

106

The Three Sons of Abraham

In his illustration, Jesus next moves to the scene of the altar, where a worshipper tries to be connected to God. To present an offering signifies a desire to relate to God, an attempt to be accepted by divinity. Jesus says in this text, “If at the altar you remember that your brother has something against you, leave there your offering, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.” Jesus is asking his followers to be consistent. If I would like God to show a favorable disposition toward me, I should show the same disposition to my fellow human beings. Moreover, our relationship with God is connected to our relation to one another. For example, I cannot pray the Lord’s Prayer, especially, “forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors,” if I do not genuinely forgive. If I do not forgive, I am actually asking God not to forgive me. The righteousness that Jesus inaugurates and asks of his followers is to live according to a covenant that chooses life over death, acceptance over rejection, relationship over exclusion, affirmation over debasement, reconciliation over the claiming of one’s rights. In the next scene, Jesus shows that even an adversary is not excluded from such a covenant. “Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way” (Matt. 5:25). A follower of Jesus is called to choose openness instead of “putting people into boxes,” judging them unworthy of a relationship. The altar is the place where we remember that someone has something against us. It is also from where we go, moved by the desire to be conformed to God, to reconcile with our brothers and sisters. “For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life” (Rom. 5:10). If the covenant with God becomes our point of reference, then it should affect all our dealings with our fellow human beings. Generally, our dealings with people are regulated by rules of every kind. They may not be verbalized or written, but they are present in every person’s mind. It is when these rules are transgressed that one becomes angry. Anger is usually preceded by feelings of disappointment or frustration. This frustration is born precisely from an expectation that is not met or a harmony that has been disturbed. When the anger is acted out, it turns into violence that can lead to murder. When it is

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 106

07/01/2014 08:52



Righteousness, a common core value among world religions 107

contained and stifled, it can generate feelings of rancor, melancholy, bitterness, and depression, and bring about mood swings and aggressiveness. The best solution to such a predicament starts at the altar. To reconsider our covenant relationship with God is a powerful antidote against the destructiveness of anger. A covenant relationship with God generates a deep desire to relate to people, to show the same dispositions one expects God to show. In this, dynamic forgiveness becomes the only alternative—reaching out to people, even to those who have something against us. The teachings of Jesus Christ liberate us from knots of anger and lead us to healthy relationships with God and with other people. This is what the law and the prophets are about. Jesus fulfills the law. He confirms the law by restoring its intended scope. A significant text that can shed light on the usage of the concept of fulfillment is Galatians 6:2, where the Apostle Paul wrote the following: “Bear one another’s burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ.” Fulfilling the law is indeed the implementation of its principles in one’s life. So from this text, the relationship of Jesus to the Old Testament is to be understood in terms of implementation. In fact, the idea of fulfillment opens new perspectives. It does not mean the last chapter of God’s acts among human beings, for God is still dealing with us. Matthew 5:18 is a key text for understanding the issue of the passage. Jesus emphasizes the permanence of the law. As long as the physical universe stands, the law will stand. “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished.” The two parallel temporal clauses, each introduced by the word “until,” both refer to the end of the world. To interpret the second temporal clause as referring to the cross, as do some readers, is to go beyond the evidence. The implication of Jesus’ declaration reported by Matthew is that the Old Testament is not negated by the New. This is further corroborated by the declarations of Jesus that aim to uphold the word of God over human traditions. To the question of the Pharisees and scribes, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?” Jesus declares that they neglect the commandment of God for the tradition of men (Mark 7:8). He further tells them that they set aside the commandment of God to keep their tradition (Mark 7:9). Jesus contrasts what

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 107

07/01/2014 08:52

108

The Three Sons of Abraham

Moses said to how the Pharisees and the scribes interpreted their meaning. He accused them of “invalidating the word of God” and upholding their tradition instead (Mark 7:13). The attitude of Jesus toward the law shows that while not negating it, He reveals a freedom toward it that reflects his sovereignty. Not only does he use with authority and dignity expressions such as, “You have heard that the ancients were told, but I tell you” or “Amen, I tell you,” but he also amazed his audience by his teaching, for “He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (Mark 1:22). In fact, Jesus is not just “a repeater” as a first-century scribe was called, a tannâ. Besides the Old Testament texts, he does not refer to or cite another authority.28 He has become the reference. He can refer to what Moses permitted concerning divorce as not being God’s absolute will, but rather a commandment given because of the hardness of the heart of His recipients (Mark 10:5). His interpretation, though conformed to the Old Testament practice, is nevertheless unique, mainly because of who he was, the Word of God in human flesh. Moreover, the question of fulfillment cannot be limited to the idea of analogy, not even to an in-depth consideration of the intended scope of the law, and the subsequent interpretation of the prophets to their contemporaries. There are specific promises throughout salvation history that God has committed Himself to keep.29 The promises of God to Abraham, to David, and to Aaron have not been forgotten. They constitute the foundation of the interpretation of Jesus’ identity and mission. These promises find their “yes” in Christ, to use the Apostle Paul’s terminology: “For as many as may be the promises, in Him they are yes; wherefore also by Him is our Amen to the glory of God through us” (2 Cor. 1:20). The New Testament is, therefore, built on the foundation of the Old Testament. The New Testament reveals the depth and extent of God’s will in the Old Testament. At the same time, it surpasses it and reaches the heights of God’s ultimate revelation in Jesus Christ. What comes with Jesus Christ is far greater than what was expected. Fulfilling righteousness is at the heart of Jesus’ mission and seeking God’s righteousness is a mandate Jesus gives to all his disciples. The Apostle Paul echoes the importance of righteousness. Paul emphasizes various aspects of the concept of righteousness. In his

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 108

07/01/2014 08:52



Righteousness, a common core value among world religions 109

epistles, Paul gives the righteousness of God at least three meanings: (1) God’s covenant faithfulness to Israel; (2) God’s justice, especially to the poor and powerless; and (3) God’s eschatological (end-time) saving power to make things turn out right.30

Righteousness and justification The motif of righteousness is complex, multifaceted, and rich. On the one hand in Romans Paul makes a case that no one is righ­ teous (Rom. 3:10); on the other hand the last appeal in the Bible in the setting of the prophecy of the Second Coming is an encouragement to righteous people encouraged to persevere in practicing righteousness. And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy.” (Rev. 22:10–11)

There is a rich development in the history of ideas when it comes to the relationship between righteousness and justification. In Christian thought the two concepts have shaped the religious identity of those committed to the Reformation ideals. Their understanding of salvation was incontrovertibly linked to what they thought about righteousness as it relates to justification. In the New Testament the words “righteousness” and “justification” share the same root. A key text where the two are clearly connected is Romans 2:11–13: “For there is no partiality with God. For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.” The book of Romans when viewed from the perspective of the relationship between righteousness and justification has generated considerable conversations as they inform how one understands salvation. The issue has been whether salvation is to be conceived through faith or by works. In Galatians 2:21, the Apostle Paul adds his voice to the issue: “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” His statement was part of a conversation with his contemporaries.

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 109

07/01/2014 08:52

110

The Three Sons of Abraham

This field of reflection is a potentially productive domain to explore in interfaith conversations. When it comes to delineating human responsibilities each monotheist tradition puts a particular emphasis on God’s will generally understood as defining righteousness.

Jesus Christ, the personification of righteousness Beyond the linguistic, literary, or thematic definition of the term “righteousness,” is the personification of righteousness. In other words, righteousness is a person who has lived to perfectly model its characteristics. Paul echoes this novelty, stating that Jesus Christ is the “righteousness of God” (1 Cor. 1:30). Jesus’ teachings provide a veiled portrait of who he was, as righteousness of God without which no one can enter the kingdom of God. From a Christian perspective, Christ epitomizes the mystery of righteousness, often translated as mystery of godliness (1 Tim. 3:16): God was manifested in the flesh Justified in the Spirit Seen by angels Preached among Gentiles Believed on in the world Received up in glory.

Not only is Jesus Christ called the righteousness of God but he demonstrates that he embodies righteousness in another way. When he said “I am the way, the truth and the life,” he meant he is connected to the Torah as embodiment of God’s will. Each one of the three concepts he used plays a role in defining the concept of righteousness. His connection to righteousness is further corroborated in Acts of the Apostles where he is designated as the holy and righteous one (Acts 3:14). Righteousness from a Christian perspective is not just a concept; it is a mature, visible idea that can be contemplated, encountered, and touched. Christ’s followers, as part of the new creation, reconciled to God, and in participation to his destiny, become themselves righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21).

Conclusion Authentic relationships best occur at the level of dialogue on what is most important to people. Monotheistic religions share a deep

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 110

07/01/2014 08:52



Righteousness, a common core value among world religions 111

conviction of the importance of righteousness. Each monotheistic faith seems to have placed the need for righteousness as a core value, central to the whole religious edifice. An exploration of its meaning in various faith traditions leads us to what they value most. The best in each religion seems to be connected to this fundamental virtue. This motif in world religions, in particular monotheist world religions explored in this article, may also be one of the best venues to discover the inner logic of each monotheistic faith tradition, the basic problem(s) they attempt to solve, and what they offer to quench the quest of humanity to find justice, peace, and harmony. How each religious tradition conceives righteousness is ultimately how each conceives the world and how it should be. Depending on the religious tradition, righteousness refers to one of God’s attributes. It also defines human beings’ responsibility before God. It is predicated upon the law of God. It requires the practice of justice in society. It is also connected to one’s standing before a holy God, as such it translates into the need for justification and is ultimately related to salvation. Righteousness is also inseparable from key concepts such as piety, fear of the Lord, loving-kindness (the Hebrew hesed), and peace. Given its various connotations in each religious tradition, righteousness provides an ideal platform to build bridges of shared values, and allows the sharing of respective, unique perspectives. Such sharing may further be a catalyst for the betterment of human relations for encouraging the best in others becomes a mandate for oneself to live according to the best in one’s tradition. For monotheistic faith grounded on their mother Hebrew Scriptures, God’s promises are most relevant: Surely, His salvation is near to those who fear Him, That glory may dwell in our land. Loving kindness and truth have met together; Righteousness and peace have kissed each other. Truth springs from the earth, And righteousness looks down from heaven. Indeed, the Lord will give what is good, And our land will yield its produce. Righteousness will go before Him And will make His footsteps into a way. (Ps 85:9–13)

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 111

07/01/2014 08:52

112

The Three Sons of Abraham

Notes 1

2

3

4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11

12 13

14

For a statement of the issue of the so-called New Perspective on Paul in relation to Krister Stendhal, James D. G. Dunn, and N. T. Right, see John Piper, The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Right (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007), p. 27. The expression “Righteous Gentiles” (Heb. Hasidei ’umot ha-‘olam) is used for the Gentiles who risked their lives to save Jews during the Holocaust. At Yad Vashem in the Holocaust memorial there is an avenue of the Righteous Gentiles. See K. Koch, “qdc, sdq,” in E. Jenni and C. Westermann (eds) Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, trans. M. E. Biddle (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 2, pp. 1046–8; and Daniel J. Reimer, “qdc,” in W. A. VanGemeren (ed.) New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997), 3, pp. 744–6. Hanna E. Kassis. A Concordance of the Qur’an, foreword Fazlur Rahman (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1983), p. 1425. All citations and references from the Qur’an are from Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an, electronic version (2004), S. Surah 2:177. C. T. R. Hewer, Understanding Islam: An Introduction (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006), p. 11. Kathryn Johnson, “The lessons of the garden: An examination of the scriptural legacy of Islam,” in J. E. Bowley (ed.) Living Traditions of the Bible: Scripture in Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Practice (St Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 1999), p. 105. See Hewer, Understanding Islam, p. 11. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, The Heart of Islam: Enduring Values for Humanity (San Francisco, CA: Harper, 2002). The Arabic roots ‘dl and qst are used in the Qur’an to convey such ideas. See Mortada Motahari, La Justice Divine, trans. R. Ousseiran (Beirut, Lebanon: Dar Albouraq, 2007), p. 34, who emphasizes that justice as a social concept is the goal of prophecy: “Dans sa conception sociale, la justice est le but de la prophétie, et, dans sa conception philosophique, la base sur laquelle s’appuie la doctrine du retour à Dieu.” See Qur’an 3:18. “Say: ‘My Lord hath commanded justice; and that ye set your whole selves [to Him] at every time and place of prayer, and call upon Him, making your devotion sincere as in His sight: such as He created you in the beginning, so shall ye return’” (Qur’an 7:29). “O ye who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be [against] rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts [of your hearts], lest ye swerve, and if ye distort [justice] or decline to do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do” (Qur’an 4:135).

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 112

07/01/2014 08:52



Righteousness, a common core value among world religions 113

15 Qur’an 5:42; see also 49:9 and 60:8. 16 All biblical quotations are from the New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995) unless otherwise noted. 17 Deuteronomy 6:1–6: “Now this is the commandment, the statutes and the judgments which the Lord your God has commanded me to teach you, that you might do them in the land where you are going over to possess it, so that you and your son and your grandson might fear the Lord your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you, all the days of your life, and that your days may be prolonged. O Israel, you should listen and be careful to do it, that it may be well with you and that you may multiply greatly, just as the Lord, the God of your fathers, has promised you, in a land flowing with milk and honey. Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. You shall fear only the Lord your God; and you shall worship Him and swear by His name” [emphasis added]. 18 Obery M. Hendricks, Jr, The Politics of Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 2006), p. 44. 19 See Seymour J. Cohen, Orchot Tzaddikim: The Ways of the Righteous (New York: Feldheim Publishers, 1969). 20 Anita Diamant and Howard Cooper, Living a Jewish Life: Jewish Traditions, Customs, and Values for Today’s Families, updated and revised edn (New York: HarperCollins, 2007), p. 61. 21 B. Baba Bathra 9a. 22 See the comments of Rabbenou Yona on the Pirke Avot in E. Smilévitch (ed.) Commentaires du Traité des pères, Pirqé Avot (Lagrasse: Editions Verdier, 1990), p. 49. 23 See Yaakov ben Yitzchak Ashkenazi de Janow, Le commentaire sur la Torah:Tseenah ureenah, trans., intro., and notes J. Baumgarten (Lagrasse: Editions Verdier, 1987), pp. 857–60. 24 Jonathan Sacks, To Heal a Fractured World: The Ethics of Responsibility (New York: Continuum, 2005), p. 32. 25 Ibid. 26 W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, vol. 1, I–VII (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), p. 499, suggest that the concept of righteousness expresses the essence of the Sermon on the Mount. In their view, “the meaning of righteousness in 5:20 is determined by the paragraphs that follow. Righteousness is therefore Christian character and conduct in accordance with the demands of Jesus—right intention, right word, and right deed.” 27 Michael Magill, New Testament TransLine: A Literal Translation in Outline Format (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), p. 15.

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 113

07/01/2014 08:52

114

The Three Sons of Abraham

28 Charles Perrot, Jésus et l’histoire, Collection “Jésus et Jésus Christ,” no. 11 (Paris: Desclée, 1979), pp. 150–62. 29 This is the case when the term “fulfill” is used in Jeremiah 29:10 regarding the 70-years’ captivity prophecy. 30 A. Katherine Grieb, The Story of Romans: A Narrative Defense of God’s Righteousness (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2002), p. 21.

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 114

07/01/2014 08:52

The Aqedah at the “crossroad”: Its significance in the Jewish–Christian–Muslim dialogue1 Jacques B. Doukhan

Introduction The memory of the Aqedah lies close to the heart of three religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It is reflected in the liturgy of the Jews at Rosh-Ha-Shanah, of the Christians at the mass (Catholic) or holy communion (Orthodox and Protestant), and of the Muslims at the great sacrificial feast ‘Īd al-Adhā (‘Īd-al-Kabīr). The same sacred story is remembered in these three traditions as an important element of their religious identity, yet the commemoration takes place at different times and represents variant meanings. In a sense, the Aqedah can be looked upon as standing at the crossroad of these three traditions as one significant sign of their common origin and also of their theological divergence. This chapter examines the genesis and nature of this “crossroad.” I first examine what has generated the Jewish–Christian and Jewish– Muslim controversies on the Aqedah, and what the specific character of each controversy is. Then I go back to the common source of these three traditions, namely, the Bible and also the Qur’an for the Islamic tradition. This is in order to probe and/or enrich the lessons that can be learned from the controversies. The purpose of this chapter is modest. I will not enter into all the rich nuances of texts, traditions, and debates. Rather, I will take notice of the significant trends that relate to the Jewish–Christian and Jewish–Muslim encounters, to discover as far as possible the mechanisms involved, and also to serve as a basis for suggesting lessons

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 115

07/01/2014 08:52

116

The Three Sons of Abraham

which I believe we can learn from both the historical and presentday dialogue.

Dialogue in the Jewish–Christian controversy The Jewish–Christian controversy initially revolved mainly around the theological meaning of the Aqedah. In early documents (Jubilees, Philo, Josephus, Maccabees, and the Mishnah),2 the accent lies mainly on Abraham as the example of faith. Then, as the controversy intensified, the accent shifted gradually from Abraham to Isaac.3 In addition, the expiatory element of the Aqedah, which originally was only allusive, became more obvious in focusing the entire Jewish– Christian debate on the Aqedah.4 It is significant indeed that in Jewish sources the word “Aqedah”, which technically refers to the tying of the tāmîd lamb,5 is first attested in relation to Isaac late in the second century ad, perhaps by the end of the Tannaitic period. An early reference with the emphasis on Isaac is found in the Mekilta of Rabbi Ishmael. In Exodus 12:13, this comment is made: “And when I see the blood, I will pass over you [...] I see the blood of Isaac’s Aqedah.” The offering of Isaac is thus not only identified as a tāmîd lamb, which “suggests that a cultic and sacrificial theology is implicit,”6 but is also connected with the Passover. This connection gives evidence that the expiatory sacrifice of the Passover was understood to be a memorial of the sacrifice of Isaac.7 Likewise in the Amoraic period, the expression “ashes of Isaac,” which refers to the offering of Isaac, alludes to the burnt offering of the tāmîd.8 According to the later rabbis, Abraham called Isaac “a burnt offering.”9 But it is in the Targums that the expiatory interpretation of the sacrifice of Isaac finds its fullest expression. The Palestinian Targum comments in Genesis 22:14, “And now I pray mercy before you, O Lord Elohim, when Isaac’s sons shall come to the hour of distress, remember for them the binding of Isaac their father, and loose and forgive their sins.” Interestingly enough, we find a parallel picture in the Christian sources. In the New Testament (NT), the accent also lies on Abraham as an example of faith (Heb. 11:17–19; James 2:21–3); the expiatory element of the story is only implicit (Rom. 8:32; John 3:16) and even debatable.10 Just as in Judaism, we must come to the second century to see the accent shifted from Abraham to Isaac, whose sacrifice then

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 116

07/01/2014 08:52



The Aqedah at the “crossroad”

117

began to be viewed as a type of Jesus’ sacrifice. The first typological interpretation of the Aqedah in Christianity occurs in the Epistle of Barnabas, in which it is clear that Barnabas is, in part, responding to the Jewish interpretation of the Aqedah. In this document Isaac’s atonement is replaced by Jesus’ atonement. It is with Melito of Sardis, however, that the use of the Aqedah receives its first extensive treatment in Christian literature. Undoubtedly responding to the strong Jewish community of Sardis, Melito argued that the sacrifice of Jesus was better than the sacrifice of Isaac, for Jesus actually suffered and died, while Isaac was spared. The bishop developed his argument in the context of a discussion of the Levitical sacrifices, and he looked upon Isaac as an incomplete precursor of what was to come—as only a typological reference to Jesus, who corresponds more closely to the lamb that was slaughtered.11 This typology was more fully developed by Church fathers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, who called attention to the parallel between Isaac’s bearing the wood and Christ’s bearing the cross.12 Hence, in Christian literature and art the sacrifice of Isaac was traditionally depicted in connection with the crucifixion.13 The parallel development of the Jewish and Christian traditions concerning the Aqedah suggests that these two exegetical traditions moved in close relationship to each other. Moreover, just as the Christians responded to the Jews, the Jewish texts give evidence of the Jewish reaction to the Christian apologetic. In order to show that the Aqedah of Isaac was at least as effective as the sacrifice of Jesus, the ancient rabbis arrogated to the Aqedah details borrowed from the story of the Passover. Isaac also willingly offered himself as an atonement, crying out and suffering in agony. A passage of Gen Rab. (22:6) goes so far as to describe Isaac as bearing his own cross, just as a condemned man would. “This detail,” comments E. R. Goodenough, “[so] strongly brings to mind the crucifixion of Jesus that it seems impossible that there was no relationship.”14 The typological interpretation was also adopted, with Isaac being viewed as a type of Israel. In Pirke Aboth 5, the ten trials of Abraham (the Aqedah being the tenth one) anticipate the ten miracles of the Exodus. In the Palestinian Talmud (y. Ta‘an. 2.4.65d), the salvation of Isaac is a type of the salvation of Israel, the sacrifice of Isaac is a type of the sacrifices,15 and the victim Isaac is a type of the suffering

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 117

07/01/2014 08:52

118

The Three Sons of Abraham

Servant and of the Messiah.16 In his commentary on Genesis 22:11, Ibn Ezra quotes an opinion that Abraham actually did kill Isaac, who was later resurrected from the dead.17 The basis for this interpretation is the observation that Isaac did not return home with his father. The wide circulation of this story shows the Jewish polemical attempt “to deny that the sacrifice of Isaac” was of “less value than that of Jesus.”18 The rabbis of that period were concerned about the Christian apologetic and responded with their own: R. Abin said in R. Hilkiah’s name: How foolish is the heart of the deceivers who say the Holy One, Blessed Be He, has a son. If in the case of Abraham’s son, when He saw that he was ready to slay him, He could not bear to look on as He was in anguish, but on the contrary commanded “Do not lay your hand on the lad”; had He a son, would He have abandoned him? Would He not have turned the world upside down and reduced it to tohubohu?19

The fact also that the Aqedah is at times related to the Passover and at times to Rosh-Ha-Shanah may reflect the liturgical hesitations generated by the controversy. Either the Passover setting was original (hints of the Passover connection can be found as early as Jub. 17:15, cf. 49:1) and it was then shifted to Rosh-Ha-Shanah in reaction to the Christian claims, or the Rosh-Ha-Shanah setting was original (the connection is attested in the musaf of the New Year liturgy)20 and, was changed to the Passover under Christian influence. The same observation can be made about the concept of expiation, which apparently came late in the process, but which can also be detected in earlier documents, such as Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 18.5). Indeed, the dynamics of influence and reaction are difficult to trace, and the debate still rages over whether the Jewish interpretation predates Christianity or whether it is an apologetic-polemical reaction to the Christian claims.21 One thing is clear, however: namely, that the Aqedah controversy gives witness to a mutual interaction between Christianity and Judaism during the early Christian centuries. The Aqedah theology in both Judaism and Christianity was built up under the influence of, and in reaction to, each other’s traditions. In many respects, it is a product of the Jewish–Christian dialogue.

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 118

07/01/2014 08:52



The Aqedah at the “crossroad”

119

Dialogue in the Jewish–Muslim controversy The Jewish–Muslim controversy revolves essentially around the identity of the historical victim of the Aqedah. Already in the Qur’an the accent on the son is more pronounced than it is in the Hebrew Scriptures, for more is said about the son, and he is not the passive figure that he appears to be in the Bible. The Qur’anic Aqedah, then, is closer to the Jewish tradition than it is to the biblical story. The interest has already shifted from Abraham to his son, who, in the Muslim tradition, in contrast with the biblical story and Jewish and Christian traditions, was not Isaac, but Ishmael. The Muslim tradition, however, does not appear to be totally unanimous on this point.22 In the Qur’an, the name of the son who was intended to be sacrificed is not mentioned. And in any case, Isaac is still held in high esteem, being referred to by name 17 times, while Ishmael is named only 12 times. Ishmael, on the other hand, is not the excluded son that he is in the Hebrew Scriptures. Like Isaac, he is identified as a prophet,23 but he is the only one to be associated with the prestigious act of building the Ka’bah.24 In one passage, Ishmael is situated between Abraham and Isaac in the hierarchy of the fathers; possibly he is even regarded as the father of Isaac.25 Both Isaac and Ishmael, then, were equally qualified to serve as the intended sacrifice. It seems that at an earlier stage of the Muslim tradition, Isaac was the intended sacrifice; but as Ishmael began to assume importance, during the early second Islamic century (i.e., after the Muslim exegete Tabarī [d. 923]), the view that Ishmael was the sacrifice ‘al dhabih’ prevailed, and became almost universally accepted by the end of the third Islamic century.26 The Muslim explanation for this change indicates a polemic against the Jews, and it pertains to an ethnic rather than theological concern. According to Muslim apologetics, it was only an ethnic preoccupation that had led the Jews to change the original version so as to substitute Isaac for Ishmael: “because Isaac is their father while Ishmael is the father of the Arabs.”27 It is also noteworthy that the same ethnic argument was used in the Persian–Arabic controversy (during the period of Sh‘ūbiyya). The Persians, who claimed descent from Isaac, defended the Isaac thesis, while the Arabs defended the Ishmael thesis because of their Ishmaelite origin.28

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 119

07/01/2014 08:52

120

The Three Sons of Abraham

The Muslim view was based on two main kinds of arguments. The first is interpretational. This involves two aspects: First, in regard to the value of the text, the Muslim version of the Aqedah was judged superior to the biblical one in that the Jewish Scripture implied the possibility of God’s implementing naskh (“abrogation”).29 This observation not only undermined the entire status of Judaism but was also used to show that Islam had in fact superseded Judaism. In the Qur’an, on the other hand, the naskh is not implied, inasmuch as in its account the sacrifice was intended to be only symbolic.30 Since the same Surah mentions the birth of Isaac a few verses after it describes the attempted sacrifice of the son, the sacrifice in question can only concern the elder son Ishmael. The second main kind of argument is that tradition as conveyed in stories suggests the genealogical connection; in other words, it is an ethnic argument. An example is the interesting story in which Muhammad presents himself as “the son of the two intended sacrifices.” Not only Ishmael but also Muhammad’s father Abdallah experienced the trial of being the “intended sacrificial victim.”31 Both of the above arguments received attention in the Jewish camp. I will refer here to two representative reactions. The interpretational argument is treated by Saadia Gaon in his commentary on Genesis 22. For Saadia, God’s commandment was only a trial, and God’s future plan was not to require sacrifice. “This then is not abrogation, because the ruling was not intended to be implemented in the first place.”32 It is also significant that Saadia, who was contemporary with Tabari and was often engaged in polemics,33 does not appear to have been aware of the Ishmael–Isaac controversy. This silence seems to parallel and confirm the actual situation in the Muslim tradition. The ethnic argument can be detected also in the Tg. PseudoJonathan, a document which displays a number of points of connection with Islam (identification, for example, of the names of the wives of Muhammad as the wives of Ishmael).34 The Targum of Genesis 22:l reports a discussion between Isaac and Ishmael, with each of them arguing his own right to inherit the father, Abraham: And it was after these things, when Isaac and Ishmael argued, that Ishmael said, It is right that I should inherit Father since I am his first born. But Isaac said, It is right for me to inherit Father because I am

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 120

07/01/2014 08:52



The Aqedah at the “crossroad”

121

the son of Sarah his wife and you are the son of Hagar my mother’s maid. Ishmael answered saying, I am more worthy than you because I was circumcised at age 13; if it had been my will to hold back I would not have risked my life to be circumcised. But you were circumcised when you were 8 days old; had you known what it was all about you would not have risked your life. Isaac replied, Today I am 36 years old. If the Holy One, blessed be He, were to ask for all my limbs I would not hold back. Immediately these words were heard before the Lord of the universe and immediately the word of the Lord tested Abraham and said to him, Abraham!35

The Targum goes on to emphasize the value of Isaac—so much so, in fact, that he even surpasses Abraham: “The eyes of Abraham looked at the eyes of Isaac; but the eyes of Isaac looked at the angels on high. Isaac saw them, but Abraham did not” (v. 10). Also, the blessing of the nations is no longer based on Abraham’s faith as indicated in the biblical text, but on Isaac’s merits (v. 18). It is noteworthy, as well, that the Targum suggests the same kind of ethnic concern as is indicated in the Muslim apologetic. Isaac is “taken by the angels to the school of Shem the Great” (v. 19). This last reference to the father of all Semites constitutes, indeed, a powerful argument in the genealogical/ethnic discussion.

Dialogue in the sacred texts A stylistic analysis of the two sacred texts, the Bible and the Qur’an, which have laid the foundation for the Jewish–Christian–Muslim traditions and controversies, reveals the importance of dialogue. This is true concerning both of these texts. The biblical story of the Aqedah (Gen. 22:1–19) is terse36 and dynamic. Of the 306 words, 75 are verbs. This amounts to one verb in three to four words. Such frequency of verbs, and especially of the keyword ’mr, gives the text its dynamic character and suggests a particularly nervous dialogue. Besides, the literary structure of the text reaches its apex in the center (vv. 7 and 8), i.e., in the pathos-filled dialogue between Abraham and Isaac. I have been able to establish this literary movement in a previous study37 on the basis of four observations: (1) the chiastic structure A B C B1 A1; (2) the framing of the central passage by

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 121

07/01/2014 08:52

122

The Three Sons of Abraham

the same stylistic wording, wayyëlkû šünêhem yaHDäw; (3) the symmetrical distribution of the key words ’mr and hlk in A B and A1 B1; and (4) the concentration in the center of the key word ’mr (five occurrences) This central section (C) of the chiasm consists essentially of questions and silences. It is interesting that the Qur’anic rendition of the Aqedah (Surah 37, Saffat, vv. 100–12) seems to convey a similar emphasis. Like the Hebrew text, it is noteworthy for its terse style38 and for the fact that it consists essentially of dialogues (Abraham with his friends; Abraham with God; Abraham with his son), and places a special accent on the dialogue between Abraham and his son (this is the longest verse of the section). Here also, in the Qur’anic version, the pathos-filled dialogue is set forth at the center of the text (v. 103) and is framed by the same stylistic expression fa-lamma (“and when”), the first word of both vv. 103 and 104, and by the “we” spoken by God before and after the dialogue. Thus, this text, too, is in a chiastic structure similar to the biblical one, consisting of A B C B1 A1: A “we” (of God), v. 102 B “and when,” v. 103 C dialogue: Abraham with the son, v. 103 B1 “and when,” v. 104 A1 “we” (of God), vv. 105–112

The central section (C) again consists of questions and silences, as is the case in the biblical Aqedah: A question from Abraham to his son, “What do you think?” A question from the son to God, implied by in shā’ a-Llah (“God willing”). A silence from Abraham, who does not explain his vision. A silence from the son, who submits himself and does not argue with his father. A silence of both of them in the phrase, “They both submitted” (v. 103).

Assessment and conclusion History has shown the importance of the Aqedah in the Jewish– Christian–Muslim controversy. All the ingredients and dynamics of

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 122

07/01/2014 08:52



The Aqedah at the “crossroad”

123

dialogue are found in this confrontation. The three traditions refer to the same story dealing with the common origin of the three religions (in Abraham). They describe more or less the same historical evolution. They echo each other and react to each other on specific points. To a great measure they are interrelated and even dependent on each other. The Jewish–Muslim polemics include reference to the Jewish–Christian polemics,39 and the Muslim–Christian polemics show dependence on the Jewish–Christian polemics.40 Only the Jewish–Christian polemics were independent, for obvious historical reasons. Indeed, the Jewish–Christian–Muslim discussions on the Aqedah stand at a crossroad for the three traditions. Also, the interest in the Aqedah occurs at the birth of the three Abrahamic religions, serving the purpose of justifying their respective claims to absolute and exclusive truth. Conversations among the three Abrahamic religions were vital, because at this early stage of their history their very existence and survival were at stake in the discussions. The Jewish–Christian dialogue concerning the Aqedah focused on theological meaning; the Jewish–Muslim one focused on the ethnic identity of the victim. Thus, the Jewish–Christian– Muslim dialogues concerning the Aqedah not only were necessary because of the differences among the three parties, but also were possible because of the connections existing among them. In fact, the Aqedah is in essence a dialogue; for that matter, it contains an eloquent appeal for dialogue. This is one of the lessons we may infer from a careful reading of the two sacred texts. Ironically, it appears that the basic texts themselves point in a completely different direction from that which is indicated in the controversies. In the texts, the accent is not at the end of the passage and does not concern the theological meaning or solution. Nor is it at the beginning, and it does not concern the identity of the son (the Qur’an does not even mention his name). Rather, it is in the center of the dialogue, which consists of the human questions and silences of the victims. I believe that Martin Buber had the intuition of this lesson in his critique of Kierkegaard’s treatment of the Aqedah.41 Whereas Kierkegaard saw in the Aqedah the principle of “the teleological suspension of the ethical,”42 by which man reaches the religious level alone, Buber found in the Aqedah the existential urge for the “I and thou” encounter.43 It is significant that the only trait of the Aqedah

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 123

07/01/2014 08:52

124

The Three Sons of Abraham

which has survived through the controversies, even to the present day, is the memory of the victim and his eternal questions and silences that reveal a yearning for communication. This, perhaps, is why the Aqedah still plays an important role in the interreligious dialogue. Today, under the shadow of the Holocaust, reference to the Aqedah has been refreshed in Jewish thought44 as well as in Christian theology.45 And this has not only intensely affected the Jewish–Christian dialogue,46 but has also to some extent influenced the Jewish–Muslim dialogue.47 There is no doubt that the Aqedah has become an important part of the Jewish–Christian efforts toward reconciliation.48 We can hope that the lesson of the Aqedah will at some time also find its way through the intricacy of the Jewish– Muslim dialogue, which at present is confused and disturbed by the Israeli–Arab conflicts.

Notes This article is reprinted here by permission from Andrews University Seminary Studies 32/1–2 (1994): pp. 29–40. 2 Jub., 17:15–18:19; Philo, On Abraham, 167–204; Josephus, Ant. l. 222–36; 4 Macc 16:18–20; m. Ta’anith 2:4. 3 G. F. Moore has pointed out the difference: “In Genesis it is Abraham’s faith and obedience to God’s will even to the offering of his only son, the child of promise, that constitutes the whole significance of the story: Isaac is a purely passive figure. In the Rabbinical literature, however, the voluntariness of the sacrifice on Isaac’s part is strongly emphasized,” Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, 3 vols (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927–30), 1, pp. 539; cf. M. Givati, “Binder and bound-Bible and Midrash” (in Hebrew), Beth Mikra 27 (1982): pp. 144–54. 4 See P. R. Davies and B. D. Chilton, “The Aqedah: A revised tradition history,” CBQ 40 (1978): pp. 517–29. 5 See Shalom Spiegel, The Last Trial, trans. J. Goldin (New York: Pantheon, 1967), pp. xix–xx. 6 Davies, p. 515; cf. Philo, On Abraham, p. 198. 7 See G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1973), p. 215. 8 See b. Ta’an. 16a; cf. b. Ber. 62b, “Samuel [third century] says: ‘He beheld the “ashes of Isaac,”’ as the verse says ‘God will see for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.’” 9 Gen. Rab. 56:4. 10 See R. J. Daly, “The soteriological significance of the sacrifice of Isaac,” CBQ 39 (1977): pp. 45–75; Davies, pp. 529–33. 11 Melito in a fragment from the Catena on Genesis (ANF 8:759–60). 1

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 124

07/01/2014 08:52



The Aqedah at the “crossroad”

125

12 Irenaeus, Ag. Heresies 4.5.4; Tertullian, Answer to the Jews 10; and Ag. Marcion, 3.18; and Origen, Homily on Gen. 8. 13 See Jo Milgrom, The Binding of Isaac: The Akedah, A Primary Symbol in Jewish Thought and Art (Berkeley, CA: BIBAL, 1988), pp. 208–9. 14 E. R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, 13 vols (New York: Pantheon, 1953–68), 4, p. 178. 15 J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1969), p. 232. 16 See Tg. Jonathan of Isa 52 and 53; cf. Tg. Job 3:18. 17 The tradition of Isaac’s resurrection is preserved in both ancient Jewish and Christian texts; see Pirke R. El. 31:3; Origen, Homily on Genesis 8:l; and Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 51.5. 18 Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Encyclopedia Judaica, 1971–72), s.v. “Akedah.” 19 Spiegel, The Last Trial, p. 83, n. 26. 20 Joseph H. Hertz, The Authorized Daily Prayer Book (New York: Bloch Publishing Company, 1948), pp. 880–3. 21 See, e.g., C. T. R. Hayward, “The Sacrifice of Isaac and Jewish Polemic against Christianity,” CBQ 52 (1990): pp. 292–306. 22 Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary (New York: Hafner, 1938), 2: p. 1204. 23 Qur’an 37:112 on Isaac and 19:54 on Ishmael. 24 Qur’an 2:177. 25 Qur’an 21:85. 26 R. Firestone, “Abraham’s son as the intended sacrifice (Al-Dhabih, Qur’an 37: 99–113): Issues in Qur’anic exegesis,” JSS 34 (1989): p. 117. 27 Tabari, Tafsir 4.14. 28 See Ignaz Goldziher, Muslim Studies, 2 vols, trans. C. R. Barber and S. M. Stern (London: Allen & Unwin, 1967), 1: p. 135. 29 See John E. Wansbrough, The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), pp. 110–12. 30 Ali, 2: p. 1205. 31 The full tradition is found in Tabari, Tafsir, 23, 85; cf. Zamakhshari, 3:350; and Al-Baidawi, 37:102. 32 Andrew Rippin, “Sa’adya Gaon and Genesis 22: Aspects of Jewish–Muslim interaction and polemic,” in W. M. Brinner and S. D. Ricks (eds) Studies in Islamic and Judaic Traditions (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), p. 40. 33 See A. S. Halkin, “Saadia’s exegesis and polemics,” in Rab Saadia Gaon: Studies in His Honor (New York: Arno Press, 1980), pp. 117–41. 34 See Robert Hayward, “Targum pseudo-Jonathan and anti-Islamic polemic,” JSS 34 (1989): pp. 77–93; cf. A. Shapira, “Traces of an anti-Moslem polemic in Tg. Ps. J. on the binding of Isaac” [Hebrew], Tarbiz 54 (1984/85): pp.  293–6. 35 Milgrom, p. 91.

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 125

07/01/2014 08:52

126

The Three Sons of Abraham

36 Eric Auerbach, Mimemis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1953), p. 19. 37 Jacques Doukhan, “The center of the Aqedah: A study of the literary structure of Genesis 22:l–19,” AUSS 31 (Spring 1993): pp. 17–28. 38 Firestone, p. 98. 39 See Moshe Perlmann, “The Medieval polemics between Islam and Judaism,” in D. Goitein (ed.) Religion in a Religious Age (Cambridge, MA: Assoc. for Jewish Studies, l974), p. 106. 40 There is little evidence of Muslim–Christian dialogue on the Aqedah. Perhaps one can perceive a hint of it through the Muslim–Christian controversy on the crucifixion of Jesus, which seems to imply the same typological connection between Isaac and Jesus as is found in Christian sources (see T. A. Naudb, “Isaac typology in the Koran,” in I. H. Eybers et al. (eds) De fructu oris sui: Essays in Honour of Adrianus van Selms, [Leiden: Brill, 1971]: pp. 121–9). From that standpoint, the Muslim apology was directed to both Jews and Christians. For the Jews it meant that Jesus was the Messiah since he was not killed (see Qur’an, Surah 4:152, 154–6). For the Christians, it meant the denial of his divinity and of the Trinity, as well as the denial of the expiatory value of his death (see Qur’an, Surah 4:169; cf. Mahmoud M. Ayoub, “Towards an Islamic Christology II: The death of Jesus, reality or delusion,” The Muslim World 52 [1980]: p. 94). 41 Jewish reactions to Kierkegaard are divided on the issue of to what extent Kierkegaard’s view suits Jewish tradition. For Milton Steinberg, it is not compatible with Judaism, whereas for J. B. Soloveitchitz it is; Ernst Simon holds a middle position (see “Akedah” in the Jewish Encyclopedia). 42 Soren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1941), p. 131. 43 See Martin Buber, I and Thou, trans. W. Kaufman (New York: Scribner, 1970), p. 123, and his Eclipse of God (New York: Harper, 1952), p. 149; cf. Aimee Zeltzer, “An existential investigation: Buber’s critique of Kierkegaard ‘Teleological suspension of the ethical,’” in J. H. Morgan (ed.) Church Divinity (Notre Dame, IN: 1987), pp. 138–53. 44 See especially Emil Fackenheim, God’s Presence in History: Jewish Affirmations and Philosophical Reflections (New York: New York University Press, 1970); cf. Michael Brown, “Biblical myth and contemporary experience: The Akedah in modern Jewish literature,” Judaism 31 (1982): pp. 99–111; Steven T. Katz, PostHolocaust Dialogues: Critical Studies in Modern Jewish Thought (New York: New York University Press, 1983); Andre Neher, The Exile of the Word (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1981), pp.  216–18; Harry James Cargas in Conversation with Elie Wiesel (New York: Paulist Press, 1976), pp.  55–7, 85; Alvin H. Rosenfeld, “Reflections on Isaac,” Holocaust and Genocide Studies 7 (1986): 241–8. The modern Israeli literature deserves special notice here since it witnesses to a domestic discussion concerning the relevancy of the Aqedah in regard to Israel’s reality; see Edna A. Coffin, “The binding of Isaac in modern

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 126

07/01/2014 08:52



45

46

47

48

The Aqedah at the “crossroad”

127

Israeli literature,” Michigan Quarterly Review (1983): pp.  429–44; Ilan Avisar, “Evolution of Israeli attitude toward the Holocaust,” Hebrew Annual Review 9 (1985): pp. 31–52. See F. Talmage, “Christian theology and the Holocaust,” Commentary 60 (October 1975): pp. 72–5; R. E. Willis, “Christian theology after Auschwitz,” JES 12 (1975): pp. 493–519; reply by P. Chare in JES 14 (1977): pp. 105–9; A. A. Cohen, “The Holocaust and Christian theology: An interpretation of the problem,” in Judaism and Christianity under the Impact of National-Socialism (1919–45), (ed.) Y. Mais (Jerusalem: Historical Society of Israel, 1982), pp. 415–39. J. Peck, (ed.), Jews and Christians after the Holocaust (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982); cf. I. Eraenberg, “Cloud of smoke, pillar of fire: Judaism, Christianity, and modernity after the Holocaust,” in Eva Fleischner (ed.) Auschwitz: Beginning of a New Era, (New York: KTAV), p. 77. See M. H. Ellis, Toward a Jewish Theology of Liberation (Mary Knoll, NY: Orbis, 1989), especially his afterword, “The Palestinian uprising and the future of the Jewish people,” pp. 123–4. See Harry James Cargas, A Christian Response to the Holocaust (Denver: Stonehenge Books, 1981), especially pp. 167–8.

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 127

07/01/2014 08:52

The need for dialogue Interview with Khaleel Mohammed

Question: Please describe your personal journey as a Muslim, existentially and intellectually/spiritually, in regard to your confrontation with Christians. Khaleel Mohammed: It would be difficult to find a time in my life when there was not a significant Christian presence. I grew up in South America, and my earliest memories are of my kindergarten teacher— Sister Rose—who was entrusted by my parents with my care. She would often take me to her home, and as such was an early positive influence. The elementary school that I attended was a Christian one. Although, institutionally, the populace was basically forced to go to church-sponsored schools, this particular school did not overtly try to convert me. My main problem started in high school, with books of history written by authors who were seeking to present their triumphal view of Christianity. When I came to Canada, where missionary work was more aggressive, I started to really be bothered by certain issues. Yet, in the midst of all of this, I had many Christian friends who were just good people, showing their good by example rather than through attempts at proselytization. Intellectually, I find the theological arguments of Christianity to be problematic, with the Trinity being an obvious example. In ethics, however, I find much in Christianity that should be emulated. Question: In a time of increasing distrust and enmity among Christians, Jews, and Muslims, in what ways do you build bridges between these monotheistic religions? Khaleel Mohammed: I have been involved in interfaith dialogue groups, and my own teaching of religion at the universities is my way of building bridges. I show the commonalities, note the issues that

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 128

07/01/2014 08:52



The need for dialogue129

foment discord in all the religions, and then focus on that which is good. As a Muslim, I often critique Islamic responses, because I am offended when Muslims try to whitewash certain crises and problems in contemporary Islam to let Jews and Christians feel that everything is fine and that only a few terrorists are messing things up. Question: Is it possible to communicate with each other and even speak about spiritual or theological truth? Khaleel Mohammed: I do not think we can speak to each other about theological truth; the fact that there are three separate religions tells us that each one of us probably has a different take on theological truth. From my own perspective, I’m not too concerned about it. If a Christian is a good person, and does that which is good to others, then surely God ought to deal with him or her on the level of good. It is possible that my perception of what is theological “truth” may be different; but since I feel that I am more interested in the goodness of people rather than their theology, I am not interested in their presentations except as they help me understand what motivates them. Question: What is in your view the Islamic theology of Christianity or even of Judaism? In other words, how do Muslims see their theological relationship with Christians and with Jews? Khaleel Mohammed: I think Muslims in general have a great misconception of Christian and Jewish theology. Muslims for the most part see Islam as having supplanted Christianity and Judaism—although I argue that the Qur’an does not make this argument. Independently, I see that the Qur’an tells me that each nation was sent a messenger, and that I should not differentiate amongst the prophets. For me, then, Judaism is as valid as is Christianity. Most Muslims take certain Qur’anic verses without knowing their context and seek to apply them in blanket terms—saying, for example, that Jews worship Ezra as the son of God, or that Christians all worship three gods. Question: Do you see a difference between the Islamic understanding of its relation with the Abrahamic traditions (Jews and Christians) and of its relation with other religious traditions such as Buddhism?

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 129

07/01/2014 08:52

130

The Three Sons of Abraham

Khaleel Mohammed: Yes. For most Muslims, the term “people of the book” is used to refer to Jews and Christians, and not to Buddhists and Hindus. So there is a big difference. However, since the Qur’an feels that every nation has a messenger, a minority holds the view that every religious tradition is as valid a claimant to being people of the book as are Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Question: Generally the encounter involves a dual experience—Jews– Christians, Jews–Muslims, or even Muslims–Christians. We have rarely engaged in an encounter that involves the three monotheistic faiths. Do you think that this confrontation could be possible and even fruitful? Khaleel Mohammed: Yes, I think it would be fruitful as long as there is absolute honesty. Question: Many Christians and Jews and Muslims think that, considering the painful history, this encounter should limit itself within the social arena, and they are reluctant to engage in discussion of theological subjects. Do you think that there is still a place for the discussion of theological subjects? Khaleel Mohammed: I don’t see a problem with discussing theology as long as it is simply an explanation of what is perceived by that religion as truth. If it comes to proving, then since I don’t think this is possible, I would see it as counterproductive. I go to interfaith dialogues to learn about the Other, not to convert to it, or to convert someone to my religion. Question: What are the theological subjects that would be worth considering for that discussion? Khaleel Mohammed: The qualities of God; that which separates humans and God; the role of Jesus. Question: In your opinion, what could Jews and Christians learn from Muslims, and what could Muslims learn from Christians and Jews? Khaleel Mohammed: Muslims could learn from Jews and Christians

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 130

07/01/2014 08:52



The need for dialogue131

how to harmonize modernity and religion, how to not have a hierarchy based on race and language. Christians and Jews could learn from Muslims how to put God before everything; how to not succumb to materialism at the expense of spirituality. Question: What would be your advice or recommendations to follow for the success of that kind of enterprise? Khaleel Mohammed: I would recommend nothing but that the participants be truly qualified in their field. I am not interested in listening to a lay Muslim explain Islam any more than I am interested in hearing a lay Christian present his or her religion. This leads to apologetics and the obfuscation of problematic issues. Question: What are the prospects of a Jewish–Christian–Muslim successful encounter now after the September 11 attacks? Khaleel Mohammed: It is as possible now as it has always been. The September 11 attacks should not be a watershed event in terms of these encounters. It only underlines the need for interaction and dialogue.

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 131

07/01/2014 08:52

The structure of dialogue Interview with Rolf Rendtorff

Question: For a specialist of the Old Testament, it does not seem apparent or necessary—at least not initially—to enter into a dialogue with Judaism. Judaism is more or less restricted to historical study. How is it, then, that not only your own interest in Judaism was kindled, but that you actively became involved in dialogues between Christians and Jews? Rolf Rendtorff: This is a rather curious question that is justified in our present historical setting. For it should actually be quite obvious that someone who has dedicated his life to the study of the Hebrew Bible should also interest himself in the further development of the Hebrew history and language. That, of course, is no answer to your question, since your question is of a biographical nature. By the way, if I may add, this question would no longer be posed to a younger specialist of the Old Testament. Many, including German Old Testament specialists, were in Israel at the Hebrew University during their time of study. I have personally contributed to the sending of a few hundred German students that spent a year in Jerusalem. Today, we have a much larger number of people that have reconstructed a relationship to Judaism in this manner. Question: One might say that you have been a pioneer in this area. Weren’t you the first German professor that was given permission to lecture at the Hebrew University? Rolf Rendtorff: I was handed an official invitation. At the time, my colleagues said to me, “To invite a German as a guest lecturer (after all, this was 1973) would be impossible, if you didn’t speak Hebrew.” But to invite a German and to say, “His lectures will be in Hebrew” was on the other hand a major attraction. That is the reason why

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 132

07/01/2014 08:52



The structure of dialogue133

they could invite me. For me personally, everything began from the outside looking in. In 1959, I was in the Arabic countries as a result of a course I was attending at the German Palestinian Institute. That was the time when the eastern part of Jerusalem belonged to Jordan. I had lived for several weeks in a hotel in Jerusalem that was directly at the Jaffa Gate and was thus able to look over the artificial wall that had been erected into the Jewish section of Jerusalem. One was not allowed to enter this part of town and so it remained a foreign world. I told myself then, “You must also see it from the other side.” My own interest in Judaism corresponded with the growing interest among students for Israel. German–Israeli student organizations already existed in the early sixties. And in 1963, I flew to Israel with a group of students from the denominational university in Berlin where I taught at the time. At first, my interests were of a scientific, archaeological nature and later took on a more political viewpoint. My relationship to Israel at the time was politically based. I had become involved in discussions for diplomatic relations between West Germany and Israel, which had been nonexistent for the longest time. I am also the founder and have been the vice president of the German–Israel Society for many years. My interest, therefore, in Israel and Judaism begins at two opposite poles. At one end is my very deep love for the Hebrew Bible and the Hebrew language, above all biblical Hebrew; at the other end, my interest in the political aspect. I soon discovered that I knew Hebrew, but then again I didn’t. So I sat down and started to learn modern Hebrew. Then I used a semester dedicated to research and went to Jerusalem. There I was given private instruction by the well-versed teacher and director of an Ulpan (a typical Israeli language institute for new immigrants and foreigners). Within a few months, I was able to converse, since I was very familiar with the grammar, and I knew a lot of biblical vocabulary. The same vocabulary words are used today as then, however limited. Thus within a few weeks, I was able to hold a five-minute lecture in modern Hebrew for a seminar taught by professors Talmon and Haran. That was the first step. After that, I frequently returned to Israel for three different reasons: politically, scientifically, and for students. That last one as pioneer and founder of the program Study in Israel.

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 133

07/01/2014 08:52

134

The Three Sons of Abraham

Now I was able to develop discussions with Jewish colleagues who had studied extensively and were very knowledgeable of our traditions, for example: Shemaryahu Talmon; later also Moshe Greenberg. And then I began to study Rabbinical Hebrew, which was surprisingly easy if one is versed in modern Hebrew. I noticed that Rabbinical Hebrew, to a certain degree, was more related to modern Hebrew than biblical Hebrew, especially from the standpoint of grammar and vocabulary. Thus I became quite successful in acquainting myself with the basic elements of Rabbinical exegesis. I want to state this very carefully: the door was opened in the endless and extensive field of Rabbinical exegesis. I know the steps that need to be taken, where to get more information, and how to continue. Question: Do you mean to say that a new world was opened to you? A new world in terms of methodology and hermeneutics? Rolf Rendtorff: Yes, certainly. I would like to give an example. If you ask a Jew about the exegesis of a certain text, and you ask how the text had been previously interpreted, the Jew would name Rashi. We would make references to Gerhard von Rad. Our approach is to mention the most recent interpretations, but a Jewish commentator would point to tradition, even if he knows, as a critical researcher, that the questions posed have changed over time. And that is why I turn to Rashi, Ibn Ezra, or Nachmanides, whose Hebrew I love. This often leads to a completely different approach to the text. If you come from the German perspective of exegesis you are already blocked by the historical-critical way of posing questions so that you separate things that actually belong together. I still use the Hebrew Bible I had used in my studies, intentionally […] Question: Through a variety of avenues you were drawn into the dialogue with Judaism. You have mentioned your involvement in research, your political involvement, your work for students. Is the Jewish–Christian dialogue active in all of these areas? How would you define this dialogue? Rolf Rendtorff: I must say that in a variety of ways I am an outsider. Indeed, I am someone who is in the middle of all the activities through my work with the research committee, the Church, and

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 134

07/01/2014 08:52



The structure of dialogue135

Judaism. However, my opinions by no means reflect those of others. The questions I pose myself and those that are posed by the Church, theologians, and the public in general are two different pairs of shoes. The topic of creating dialogues between Jews and Christians is gradually being realized in our Landeskirchen (provincial subdivisions of the Lutheran Church). This is to say that it is not a matter of course that such topics are discussed in our congregations. A wide spectrum exists, but only a small minority of Christians are preoccupied with this subject. Question: How do you envision such a dialogue? In what specific directions do you believe it would be essential to move forward? Rolf Rendtorff: There are two areas that should not be separated from one another and that should not be intermingled. The first involves the political and ethical aspect—the keywords being anti-Semitism, also in Christian spheres, the Holocaust and Shoah. The second topic is from a theological aspect, namely the Christian relationship to Judaism as mother religion. These two issues are of greatest importance, and I would not be able to place one above the other. Yet, Christians, in particular German Christians, have difficulty with the theological issue unless they have come to terms with the first aspect. One needs to recognize the Christian contribution to the Holocaust which means acknowledging the theological origins of anti-Semitism. There are many influences that lead to anti-Semitism, not just the theological origins. Yet, it is clear that without the theological roots, anti-Semitism would not have existed. Question: Can you define that more closely? Which theological viewpoints led to the Holocaust? Rolf Rendtorff: Now the two areas again become intermingled. The first step in the process that led to anti-Semitism with Christian origins was the idea that the Christian Church was God’s chosen people and thus God’s former chosen people no longer existed as such. The resolution made by the Rheinisch Synod states the following: “We have declared the Jewish people to be nonexistent.” For the average Christian, as well as for the well-educated theologian, Judaism is a topic from the past, a historical issue that is very far removed from

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 135

07/01/2014 08:52

136

The Three Sons of Abraham

the present. That is also why you had formulated your introductory question. In the usual treatment of church history, Judaism appears at the time of the Crusades or one could say whenever the Jews were persecuted. But from a theological perspective and from the standpoint of church history, Judaism is no longer a major topic of discussion since the Judaism in the biblical and theological sense of the Hebrew Bible no longer exists according to this widespread interpretation. It was removed by the Church. And this theory, also known as “substitution theology,” is the theological predecessor for the development of anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism. The next step, according to Robert Raphael Geis, was the unification of Church and State. This began with the Emperor Constantine. From this moment on, when Christianity became the official state religion under Constantine, one can observe the alternating role the church and state played in establishing anti-Jewish laws in the next centuries. It really does not matter who brought about these laws. Under the Roman Christian empire, Jews were at best tolerated. In this state which decorated itself with Christian insignias, the idea of the Jews being God’s chosen people was unthinkable. This was beautifully portrayed in the aesthetically pleasing pictures of church and synagogue. The figures at the Strasbourg Cathedral are a good example. Question: This was a theological excursion in understanding the development of Jews and Christians going their separate ways. Could it be possible that the unification of Church and State in the fourth century conscientiously issued ordinances against the Jewish laws and regulations? I am thinking of the day of worship that was changed from Sabbath to Sunday. Since this time it has been extremely difficult to bring together Christians and Jews on a theological level. Rolf Rendtorff: Yes, that is correct. And this is not only the case on a political level. For another theological aspect with which we must come to terms is our understanding of the law. The Christian liberation from the law has become an anti-Jewish slogan. This topic of the law is something I am confronted with on many occasions in my discussions with Christian churches. Unfortunately there are Christians, even very enlightened Christians, that become

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 136

07/01/2014 08:52



The structure of dialogue137

irritated when they hear anything about the Jewish tradition of keeping the Sabbath. Question: I would like to come back to the second point you mentioned earlier, namely the relationship between Christians and Jews. Rolf Rendtorff: Yes. That is a matter of self-defining Christianity. That is why I mentioned the importance of placing equal weight on both topics, the political–ethical aspect and the theological aspect, and not being satisfied with only the first issue. Question: What role does the Christian identity play with regard to Judaism in the Christian–Jewish dialogue? Rolf Rendtorff: The question we need to ask ourselves is the following: If the Jews are still God’s chosen people, then who are we? This is the problem we need to grapple with. From what I have observed, the majority of people are apprehensive about posing such a question because they suddenly realize they may be pulling the carpet from under their Christian beliefs. For them, it is so self-evident that the Christians are God’s chosen people that it is no longer questioned. Thus this issue needs to be addressed very carefully. I always approach it from a language perspective. We Christians claim to be the “new Israel.” I annoy my New Testament colleagues occasionally by saying that I had always learned to differentiate between Israel kata sarka [physical Israel] and Israel kata pneuma [spiritual Israel]. I took the concordance for the New Testament and discovered that the phrase “Israel kata pneuma” does not exist in the New Testament. At one point it says “Israel kata sarka” (1 Cor. 10:18), which is best translated from the context to mean “the historical Israel.” The Pauline opposites of sarx and pneuma are not found anywhere in connection with Israel or the Christian Church. In the New Testament, you also do not find the concept of new Israel. You do find at the end of Galatians (6:16) the formal greeting Israel tou Theou. However, it is unclear what is meant by this greeting. I consider it unfair and dishonest, almost a jugglery, to teach theology students the terms “Israel kata sarka” and “Israel kata pneuma,” because they

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 137

07/01/2014 08:52

138

The Three Sons of Abraham

sound Pauline, although they are not Pauline and have nothing to do with the New Testament. This means we are not the new Israel. Question: The question, therefore, that must be posed, is a matter of identity. What are we Christians? Rolf Rendtorff: I must admit that I am still searching for a means of addressing this issue. The Rheinisch Synod addressed the issue quite convincingly. They distinguished between “God’s chosen people” and “covenant” and expressed it accordingly as “the uninterrupted selection of the Jews as God’s chosen people” and the “acceptance of the church in the covenant God made with His people.” This I hold to be very important. This definition of covenant is open to dispute, but I believe one can continue to work in this direction: that the Church and Israel belong in the covenant God made with humanity and that a second step in God’s move towards humanity is the acceptance of Gentiles into this covenant. This second step does not deviate from the Bible because, before Abraham was called, God had already made a first covenant with Noah. I would also like to mention a very important text, namely Genesis 12:3. At the moment when Abraham is called by God, mankind is included as well. They were to receive a blessing with and through Abraham. That is for me the decisive point. Can we make it clear to Christians that the order of events cannot be changed as we have been doing it the last 2,000 years? We should not attempt to define Judaism on the basis of our Christian identity. Instead, we should think in biblical terms and go from the basis that Israel is ‘Am Adonai (God’s chosen people) and will remain as such. Then we must contemplate where and how we appear in God’s relationship to the world. To Christians I say, “Please do not misunderstand me. I do not want you to become insecure with regard to your identity. But I do want you to reformulate your identity from a new perspective, taking into consideration your relationship to Judaism.” This is very important. When Christians have taken the first step—for many a very difficult one, of assuming responsibility for anti-Semitism and accepting the Christian contribution to the Holocaust—then they should not believe that the cake turns into dough when it is said that the Jews are God’s chosen people. Often the question is then asked,

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 138

07/01/2014 08:52



The structure of dialogue139

“Should we all become Jews?” No, of course not. This question shows a level of insecurity, insecurity in the sense that we can no longer think of the Church as God’s chosen people as we have done in the past. Maybe we should also redefine the term “God’s chosen people” and broaden the definition. I sometimes think I am the only one who reflects on this question. There are only a few people with whom I can exchange ideas over this issue. And I also find very little material about this subject in publications. Question: Your question regarding the covenant and God’s chosen people reminds of Paul’s similitude of the olive tree in the book of Romans. This olive tree has one root from which many natural branches grow, which are clearly linked to the Jews. There are, however, also engrafted branches symbolizing the Gentiles, non-Jews, other nations. For Paul all of these branches are held together by means of the common root. Here one has both groups grafted together as God’s chosen people sharing the same basis. The question is: What is the root? What belongs to the root? Rolf Rendtorff: I can easily imagine a group of Jews and Christians that come together and join together as illustrated by the olive tree. I know of more Jews with whom I have an understanding regarding this issue than Christians [...] sometimes I believe I know more Jews than Christians. Question: That is probably symptomatic. Rolf Rendtorff: It is symptomatic. To be sure, a dialogue between Christians and Jews is concerned with developing a mutual understanding for one another and developing a relationship. But being nice to Jews is not the issue here. Instead, reflect upon who you are, considering that you are sitting across from a Jew who has a much earlier claim to belonging to God’s chosen people than you. This brings us away from our Christian arrogance and turns us towards the Jew. But again this is not the point, that we turn towards the Jews. The point is: Are we turning towards our own Jewish tradition? For me, this is an extremely important element in the Christian–Jewish dialogue, namely to cause Christians to think, to reflect upon themselves, and to educate themselves.

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 139

07/01/2014 08:52

140

The Three Sons of Abraham

I also go one step further. We must learn that Judaism and Jewishness are not in conflict with Christianity. Instead, we must reacquaint ourselves with our own Jewish roots, our own Jewish piece of identity. With regard to dialogue and education within the Christian realm, it is very important that Christians are made aware of the fact, as Krister Stendahl stated decades ago, that they are a special kind of Jew. Stendahl, by the way, also said, “But we must ask the Jews if they are in agreement with our definition.” Such statements are always open to attack. We are not Jews, and we should not be a special kind of Jew. But we must rediscover, understand, and define the Jewish element in Christianity. The more Jewish we feel the easier it will be for us to live together with other Jews. I do not want to make the assumption that Jews and Christians are identical. Not at all. That would not be good. But Christians should recognize the Jewish element as a fundamental part of their Christianity. We are dealing with the reclamation of what is Jewish in our tradition and in our own identity. This would result in the termination of the terms “Jewish” and “Judaism” as negative concepts, and we would also perceive things differently. I do believe, however, that this is an educational objective over generations. Question: You have touched on a very important point regarding what Christians could and must learn in such a dialogue. A dialogue is a two-way street. What do you believe the Jews could learn in such a dialogue? How do you believe they would profit from such a dialogue between Christians and Jews? Rolf Rendtorff: Considering that there are far more Christians in the world than Jews, it would certainly be important and useful to the Jew to become acquainted with Christian customs and practices. But also to see how the Christian tradition has developed over time. That the Jews are dependent on this type of a dialogue from a theological perspective, I cannot imagine. There is the well-quoted word from Zwi Werblowsky of the asymmetry of the Jewish–Christian dialogue. And I believe that it does exist. I am quite certain that it has something to do with the historical course of events. Christianity evolved out of Judaism.

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 140

07/01/2014 08:52



The structure of dialogue141

I know many Jews that are very involved in Jewish–Christian dialogues, but only because they were approached by Christians and they wanted to fulfill their wish. One, of course, must not generalize. I believe that of the rabbis in Germany, of whom there are a relatively small number in comparison to America [...] Question: Approximately how many rabbis are in Germany? Rolf Rendtorff: About a dozen. I believe there are about two, maybe three, that participate in Jewish–Christian dialogues. And I experience it over and over again that rabbis will attend such events but show quite openly that they are not interested or that they have an allergy to Christians that observe Jewish traditions. Of the German rabbis, there are but a few that participate. Maybe the percentages are not much greater in America but since the overall number is much larger, a few hundred rabbis do come together. Therefore, let us return to the structure of what a dialogue could be. I want to state this rather bluntly. I do not believe that we have come to the point at the end of the twentieth century of having a real dialogue. I believe there are three steps. The first step involves overcoming the unfamiliar and to admit and to confess Christian responsibility for the Holocaust. The second step involves learning about Judaism. And not just that Christians comprehend Judaism but that they realize their own Jewish roots and their own enmeshment with the Old Testament and the Hebrew Bible. Then the third step would be a real dialogue on the same level with the assumption that we are as well versed in Judaism as the Jews are in Christianity. And then maybe the Jews could meet us halfway by making inquiries about us. We, of course, cannot come from the standpoint that Jews are something exotic. If a Christian church has a Jewish guest speaker in Germany, it is usually perceived as being foreign or alien. In contrast to America, most Germans have never seen a Jew. One must admit, of course, that we in Germany are forced to see the whole problem from a more intense, theological basis. If I am the pastor of a parish in America, I have a good relationship with the synagogue next door. The rabbi and I will both be invited to special events in the community as honorary guests. There are so many discussion topics that one would not raise the question, Are we God’s chosen people or are you? Forget it! That is not our problem. But we pose completely

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 141

07/01/2014 08:52

142

The Three Sons of Abraham

different questions. We German Christian theologians must concern ourselves with this issue for other Christians. I believe that nowhere is this question so intensely studied as in Germany, even though it is only in relatively small groups. Question: Is this to say that the Jewish–Christian dialogue in Germany takes on an entirely different, more in-depth form than in the country where the greatest number of Jews in the world live? Rolf Rendtorff: In Germany, our small group of people who investigate this question have made greater progress. Progress has been made in the theological sense. The studies have been more extensive. On the other hand, in America cooperation between Christians and Jews and working together is much better. Question: Maybe this is so because in Germany the relationship between Jews and Christians, also from a theological perspective, is encumbered by previous German historical events. This was more poignant here than anywhere else in the world, therefore necessitating dialogue even more intently. Rolf Rendtorff: I do believe that in Germany we are affected on a deeper level and that we eventually come closer to the decisive points. But here we still have the exploratory nature of making new discoveries. Compared with existing Christian dogmatics in which you might come up with a new idea but in truth it has already been stated or thought through many times over, the dialogue between Jews and Christians brings new questions to light. In the Jewish– Christian dialogue, the essential ingredient is to come up with the right questions. Question: One of the important questions for you seems to be which designation one uses as a Christian for the Old Testament. Does the designation have an impact on the discussions? Rolf Rendtorff: That is an important question, especially since one is confronted with a dilemma as a partner in dialogue and as a Bible researcher. The term Old Testament is an honest term that has lost some in value. My colleague Zenger had the idea of replacing the

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 142

07/01/2014 08:52



The structure of dialogue143

term with the First Testament. I do not believe that one has improved anything thereby since it gives the impression that a First Testament is followed by a Second. And then the question remains, which of the two is more important. The first was there originally but the second followed. And if the second replaced the first is unclear by this terminology. I personally believe one should not spend too much time with this argumentation, but one should come to a decision and one should be able to support that decision. I do not believe that one should avoid one or the other terminology or insist on the one or the other either. When I speak with Jews, I always use the term the Hebrew Bible. For the other part, I use the term New Testament. Question: You mentioned that students today are more sensitive to this type of question. If you had a group of students in front of you that did not have an opportunity to go to Jerusalem, what would you recommend as a required seminar for students to be introduced to the Jewish–Christian dialogue? How would you entitle such a seminar, and what would it entail? Rolf Rendtorff: The main point around which I would build this seminar would be the topic of Christian identity with respect to Judaism, including Judaism as it exists today. We Christians have forgotten that Judaism still exists, and we need to remind ourselves of that. In other words, to reconstruct Judaism for ourselves. To pull it out of the closet where it has been banned, to take a good look at it, and to present it in such a manner so that it is an honest reflection of how Judaism has existed for the last 2,000 years up to our current times. We must ask ourselves what change this brings about in me when I study Judaism, something that is very real, even from a theological perspective, and something that also has a theology of its own. Those would be the type of questions I would pose. In the past and in certain circles even today, I have a tendency to provoke others where I thought it might be helpful. But there is no point in being provocative when one wants to awaken an interest among Christians for this type of dialogue. The same holds true for theology students. I would begin by asking, What do we actually know about Judaism? Why do we know so little? What happens when we know more? I would like to repeat that my emphasis is in

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 143

07/01/2014 08:52

144

The Three Sons of Abraham

reformulating our Christian identity. The more I think about it the stronger my convictions are that this is the key issue. The question of formulating our Christian identity is open to debate. The same can be said for another issue that we have not yet mentioned, which does not surprise me, namely that of Christology. Question: You gave the signal. Does Christology have a place in Jewish–Christian dialogue? Is there room for the question of the Messiah? Rolf Rendtorff: This issue is problematic because the concept of a Messiah in the Jewish way of thinking does not exist. I am referring to the term “the Messiah.” The Bekennende Kirche (Professing Church) of 1948 said the following with respect to the Jewish question (the so-called Darmstädter Wort): “By crucifying the Messiah, Israel rejected their call.” It is important to look at every element in this sentence: “Israel [...] crucifying [...] the Messiah.” This sounds as if the Jews knowingly crucified the Messiah. This is a fully absurd assumption. That is why the disciples of Emmaus are so important to me. For many it was unclear if he was the real Messiah. Question: You have touched on the story of the Emmaus disciples. There it is said that Jesus showed them from Moses and the prophets (and at a later time even from the Psalms) that everything had to be fulfilled that way. He did not start with Christology and had, of course, no New Testament at hand. Rather he explained his messianic concept on the basis of the Hebrew Bible. Could you imagine a dialogue with Jews along this line? Rolf Rendtorff: Absolutely. Only, for us Christians everything depends upon the belief that Jesus is the Messiah. And if Jews do not accept this point [...] so what? It seems that we are not able to discuss this question with Jews beyond a certain point. Question: Then, what does it mean for you that Christians regard Jesus as the Son of God? Rolf Rendtorff: I have some wonderful experiences on that, especially with Jewish New Testament scholars like David Flusser, or Alan Segal

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 144

07/01/2014 08:52



The structure of dialogue145

from New York. At one meeting I had a discussion with Segal. I tried to provoke him by saying: “This is impossible for a Jew.” And he answered: “‘Son of God’? Look into your Hebrew Bible and find it in Psalm 2. I have no problems with the term ‘Son of God’.” He even went further and tried to interpret the Trinity from a Jewish viewpoint. He wanted to argue, of course with a twinkling eye, that what we do is all Jewish. There is nothing non-Jewish with Christianity. Question: How would you evaluate the role of messianic Jews in the Jewish–Christian dialogue against what we have discussed so far? Do they have any significance in this dialogue? Rolf Rendtorff: I know messianic Jews personally. However, they are rarely convincing theologically. It is more important for me, as Peter von der Osten-Sacken has formulated, to have a bridge between Jewish Christians then and Jewish Christians today. You cannot remove or undo the 2000 years in between. However, I do not contest that a Jew has the right to the personal conviction that Jesus is the Messiah. It is interesting to note that messianic Jews are only as long a subject of discussion as they insist upon being Jews. If they convert to Christianity, they will become Christians. However, they want to remain Jewish. The basic question, then, remains to be asked, What is their point? Question: We want to thank you for your readiness to take part in this interview and thereby to challenge and to sharpen our understanding of Jewish–Christian dialogue. At the end of our interview, would you like to share with our readers one of your treasured experiences with Jews or Judaism which would encourage us to enter more deeply into dialogue? Rolf Rendtorff: My own biography as a German Christian living in a generation that carries the responsibility for the Shoah is very much involved in the Jewish–Christian dialogue. I was a soldier for three years, with the marines. At my age, I also could have been a guard in a concentration camp. You may understand, then, that it is extremely important to me, how Jews whom I have met treated me as a Christian and as a German citizen. I would not have found my continuing way to Israel if it were not for the invitation extended to me at my first

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 145

07/01/2014 08:52

146

The Three Sons of Abraham

visit to Israel into the home of my colleague Isak Seeligman, who himself had been in the concentration camp of Theresienstadt. He not only invited me to his home, but also introduced me to Gershom Sholem. In a most heartfelt way, Seeligman received me, introduced me to others, and opened to me the doors in Jerusalem, though he was more of a reserved nature. This kind of obligingness is what I have always experienced so far. I think one would experience similar kindness with many Jews. This I want to pass on. Our task is to deliberate the basic thought that we are younger ones on the way. We are the wild branches grafted in. This we should let Jews know, and on this basis, we should ask them to enter with us into dialogue. In the moment when Jews recognize that we do not reach them out of curiosity or as tourists, but rather with true openness and genuine interest, they are ready to enter into fruitful dialogue.

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 146

07/01/2014 08:52

The adventure of dialogue Interview with Elie Wiesel

Question: In Ani Maamin you write: “To be a Jew is to believe in that which links us one to the Other, and all to Abraham [...] Man calls man; The Jew is that call.” How can we believe in that link? Elie Wiesel: To believe in that link is indispensable, essential; otherwise one would be so alone that this solitude would become a crushing burden. My whole approach, so to speak, is to reach out towards the Other. It is not detachment from the Other, but attachment to the Other which fascinates and interests me. Therefore, it is the human bond, the bond between human beings which, for me, is an adventure. Without them, we would be like God, alone. And we are not God. We don’t have the right to be alone. Question: Is it possible to understand the Other and be understood by him? Elie Wiesel: No, but one has to keep on trying. Question: What is peace for you? Elie Wiesel: Peace is, first of all, hope. Peace is rare in history. Usually, peace is a kind of preparation for war. Our true peace is the peace we carry within ourselves. It starts with us. It starts within us. And if it is real, true, it blossoms. Of course, there is a peace, a realistic, pragmatic definition of peace: that there be no war is enough; when people are not killing each other, it’s peace; when children are not being bombed, it’s peace; when women are not raped, that is, somehow, peace. But that is not peace with a capital P. Peace with a capital P would almost have to be a messianic Peace, meaning that there would not even be a desire for war. It is not fear which stops us.

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 147

07/01/2014 08:52

148

The Three Sons of Abraham

It is desire which transcends us. We have to strive for Peace, otherwise, it is not even war, but indifference which overtakes us. Question: In your books, you mention certain obstacles to peace [...] indifference [...] and ambiguity. Elie Wiesel: Of course, because nothing is ever clear-cut. For instance: Have I always been for peace? In 1939 would I have said that I was for peace? For peace, for appeasement? In 1939–40, would I have accepted the verdict and the dictatorship of the enemy? Probably not! Certainly not! I think that I would have done everything—I was still very young—I would have done everything to fight. Indeed, I would not have made peace. I would have waged war against war! But there are also other ambiguities. Question: Namely? Elie Wiesel: Of intervention. When do we have the right to intervene in another’s life? In another’s business? In another’s country? [...] What should we do? Engage in military action? Question: What should we do? Elie Wiesel: Ah! If only I knew [...] In any case, I believe we should stop the bloodshed [...] Things are getting better [...] I am grateful, things are getting better. My struggle has been, first of all, to lift up the siege. It was a besieged city. Things are happening. Sarajevo is already an open city [...] will soon be an open city. We have to go on. We should not allow the troublemaker to continue. Question: There is the guilt of the aggressor [...] Elie Wiesel: Yes. Question: Then, there is the guilt of the one who sees the aggressor and does nothing [...] Elie Wiesel: The spectator. I don’t think it’s the same thing, because the killer is a criminal; complicity is also criminal. Let’s say someone

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 148

07/01/2014 08:52



The adventure of dialogue149

sees, in the street, a person committing an aggression. Of course he is guilty. But, without any doubt, it’s not the same thing. It is the one who kills who is a killer. The one who sees and does nothing is an accomplice to the killer. We must be cautious. Question: Why are we so passive? Elie Wiesel: You mean why don’t we do anything? Because most people are afraid. They are afraid to commit themselves. Commitment implies a lot of things. First of all, a waste of time [...] it’s as simple as that. Because if one commits himself today, it also means that he will commit himself tomorrow. Most people would rather remain apathetic. Question: But it’s not just a question of time, because we choose to spend a lot of time for things we consider as priority. Is it not, rather, that we have lost the sense of what is priority? Elie Wiesel: I’ve mentioned one thing. There are also other factors. There is the fact that human nature is such that there are few people actually capable of generosity. Question: You mention human nature. In your books, you highlight the fact that Auschwitz eludes all explanation [...] how can we, then, overcome something we don’t understand? Elie Wiesel: How can we overcome something we understand?! These are two different processes which both claim acknowledgment. Both are valid. It depends [...] it really depends. As for me, I know that all the questions I had, I still have them. They remain open [...] I will never understand. I do not understand. But does this mean that I should stop being human, stop caring for my fellow men? On the other hand, if someone says: “I do not understand, therefore, I stop caring for others,” I must try to understand him. Question: We are free [...] Elie Wiesel: We are human [...]

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 149

07/01/2014 08:52

150

The Three Sons of Abraham

Question: Is forgiveness essential to peace? Elie Wiesel: No. Question: It is not essential to forgive?! Elie Wiesel: For me, it is not an issue that interests me. Who am I to forgive? I don’t have that power. I am not authorized to forgive. At the most, I could forgive something which has been done to me, personally, [...] but to a whole people! What is of interest to me is memory. And understanding. But forgiveness [...] that’s not in my power. Which does not mean that I do not forgive [...] Question: Maybe not collective forgiveness, of course, but [...] Elie Wiesel: I’ve never yet had someone come up to me, saying: “Mr. Wiesel, I was an SS in Germany in 1944–5. I have personally wronged you. Forgive me.” Question: You say that even the killer was human [...] Elie Wiesel: Yes. Of course, [...] they had two ears, they had a nose, two eyes, a [...] Question: A heart? Elie Wiesel: Why not [...] today we know that the killers were good fathers. Therefore, they had a heart for their children, for their wives, for their lovers, for their mistresses, who knows [...] for their dogs [...] they kept dogs [...] I don’t understand that either [...] How could one kill and remain human? But this does not mean that all humans are murderers. Often, psychiatrists take a shortcut which I do not agree with: since Eichmann was human, since we are all humans, therefore, there is an Eichmann in all of us. No. That’s going too far. Only the one who kills is a killer. There is no such thing as a potential killer. Until someone has actually killed, he is not a killer. Question: Does peace require trust? And how can we trust when we’ve seen what we’ve seen?

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 150

07/01/2014 08:52



The adventure of dialogue151

Elie Wiesel: Because we’ve seen what we’ve seen, we need to trust. I can always turn your question around. Otherwise, what is the alternative? Not to trust? So what? Live in a world of suspicion? In a world of anxiety? Of disdain? An act of trust is sometimes necessary. Question: Speaking about Arab refugees, you say: “We should simply come to the Arab refugees and try to help them. We should say: ‘Listen, we too have been uprooted; we too suffered injustices; we lost more than you did. So let us teach you how one builds on ruins. Let us teach you how one can go on living without rancor and without resentment.’” Is it really possible to teach another? Elie Wiesel: Yes, yes! It all depends! Of course we can! Otherwise, I’m wasting my time as a teacher! Question: But to an enemy? Elie Wiesel: Myself, I never saw in the Arabs an enemy. I think of young Arabs, and I see unhappy men, unhappy women, sometimes led astray by violence, blinded by the wish to do harm, to do justice. For them, it was the same, but not for me. Question: Does peace with the Arab world imply more than a political dimension? Does it imply a religious dimension? Elie Wiesel: Yes, I would think so, because any peace implies a religious dimension. Not only between two nations. When two nations make peace, when two beings make peace, in that agreement, in that movement, there is a presence, a third presence, a religious presence. But again, I don’t talk about that; I very seldom talk about religion. I talk about culture. About education. Question: Why don’t you talk about religion? Elie Wiesel: Because too many people do. Too many harp on that. Question: If you had a word of wisdom for those involved in the peace process, what would it be?

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 151

07/01/2014 08:52

152

The Three Sons of Abraham

Elie Wiesel: Oh! I would simply say: “Learn to listen.” Question: What is there in the act of listening? Elie Wiesel: Listening is an opening. Question: What kind of peace would you like for Israel? Elie Wiesel: For Israel? A creative peace, not of despair, but of hope [...] But I am profoundly optimistic as far as the peace process between Israel and the Arabs is concerned. We cannot give up now. Question: You write: “The sincere Christian knows that what died at Auschwitz was not the Jewish people but Christianity.” Is it still possible for Jews and Christians to speak to one another after what happened? Elie Wiesel: I have been in dialogue with Christian friends for the longest time. Of course, they each know that they can never know what I know. They accept, within the bounds of their love, since we consider ourselves religious, inasmuch as I speak of religion, that our two concepts, that our two attitudes, that our two desires, be not a desire of exclusion or inclusion. What I said about Christianity, I still believe. The fact that the killer was Christian is a problem even more serious for Christianity, more serious than for the victims of the event, the victims being Jews. The killer was Christian! Question: Are you waiting for something from the Christian world? Elie Wiesel: I wait for this recognition. Not for us. For us Jews, in fact, I think it is too late. What could people now do that they haven’t already done? But, after all, we are talking about the world, about humankind. I am talking about the third millennium, the twentyfirst century. There are very few Jews in the world [...] and many Christians! And I think we should do things together to save future generations. Question: For instance?

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 152

07/01/2014 08:52



The adventure of dialogue153

Elie Wiesel: Together, we could fight against fanaticism, against injustice, against oppression. We could do things together [...] Question: You write: “Our children had no effect on their killers. Or on the world. Or on God.” God kept silent [...] In any case, you present Him as a silent God. If that is so, does He still have the right to speak today? Elie Wiesel: Do we have the right to speak today? Question: Was God saying something when He kept silent? Elie Wiesel: I don’t think so [...] Maybe He was. In any case, I do not understand, I don’t understand that language. I like silence, but not that silence. But you know [...] I have my quarrels with God [...] I always had [...] to this day. Question: How do we avoid falling in the trap of imprisoning God in our definitions? Elie Wiesel: How about not defining Him? God is beyond definition. God is always this, but also that. God is always here, but also there. If you close your eyes as you enter in the night, when you are alone [...] you can hear in yourself, words [...] or songs [...] or memories [...] or sighs [...] and that is all you can offer to Him [...] And in offering that to Him, you accept His Presence. Question: In your books you have presented yourself as a witness. You also mentioned the difficulty as well as the fear of not having succeeded in doing so [...] one more time [...] and yet one has to keep going on [...] Elie Wiesel: Uh-hum [...] Question: “If you are searching for a spark, it is in ashes that you must look for it [...]” Elie Wiesel: This is not from me, but from a Hasidic master [...]

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 153

07/01/2014 08:52

154

The Three Sons of Abraham

Question: What about you? Have you found the spark? Elie Wiesel: No, [...] I found ashes. Question: Are you still looking for it? Elie Wiesel: Of course I am! Question: Do you believe in peace? Elie Wiesel: Wholeheartedly! And totally! Even when it escapes. Even when it dims [...] Question: What does being a teacher mean for you? Elie Wiesel: I love to study; I have a passion for learning. And because of my passion for learning, I have a passion for teaching. To pass on. The urge is there to pass on what I have received. And I love to be with my students. There is a bond between us. We are close. Really close. They are close to one another, and I am close to them. Even when I get a sabbatical, I don’t take it; I only take a semester because I need to see them, to listen to them, to be enriched by them. Question: Do your students bring anything to you? Elie Wiesel: Of course they do, otherwise I would not be teaching. And sometimes, I learn more from them than they do from me [...] Question: One last question: If you had a question to ask me what would it be? Elie Wiesel: Oh! I would ask: “What is the question that you would like to ask me?” Question: Why do you always turn my questions around? Elie Wiesel: No, not at all, on the contrary. It is an extension of your question, to show that there is another dimension to your question. And all are very good. But as for me, if you are somewhat acquainted

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 154

07/01/2014 08:52



The adventure of dialogue155

with my work, you already see that I have no answers. I only have questions. So, it’s unfair. You come with your questions [...] And you expect me to answer. But if I answered, I would be lying to myself since I have no answers. So, I try to deepen your questions. This being said, is the question on my lips the same as the question on yours? There are questions even in the Bible [...] There is a question asked by Moses [...] if I were to ask the exact same question, would it be the same? Earlier on, you mentioned faith, and God, and sometimes I have turned your question around. In doing so, is it still the same question? In any case, it shows that there is enough substance to deepen our reflection on the question. In other words, let’s imagine that someone repeats the same question all the time. Does it change in the process? Even if it’s the same person who all the time repeats the very same question? [...] I’m talking about real questions [...] It’s fascinating [...] When I say that I don’t have answers, trust me, I don’t. It’s hard. I accept with deep humility that I don’t have answers. If you wish, what we have done together is an exercise inside the question [...] it’s not an escape [...] Otherwise, why ask you to come and waste everybody’s time [...] It is so that we can, together, engage in a kind of lesson on the question. Question: And what is the lesson? Elie Wiesel: That the question is rich. Profound and hard. Perennial. Questions link human beings; answers divide them.

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 155

07/01/2014 08:52

231137 CH07-13_071-156.indd 156

07/01/2014 08:52

Part III

Forgiving each other: The quest for peace We hope that someday religious authorities of the three monotheistic confessions will call loudly for the true reconciliation between humans; reconciliation according to the spirit of their common ethical values; otherwise, the dark face of those very religions may well drive away what is left of vivid and humanistic compulsions. (Shlomo Elbaz) Forgiveness is not only important for Christians. The fundamental concepts of forgiveness are embedded in every major world religion: one of Allah’s names in the Islamic religion is “Al-Ghafoor” or “The Forgiving One.” (Lourdes Morales-Gudmundsson) To promote peace, Islam makes it binding upon every Muslim to start his daily life as well as social and personal interaction with the phrase “peace be upon you” to anyone he meets. Islam aims at making all individuals peaceloving to the last extent. That is why we are enjoined to greet one another by saying “peace be upon you.” (Ismail Abdullah) Family is the place where forgiveness is most needed (Lourdes Morales-Gudmundsson). It is easier to forgive the distant enemy than the close parent, whom we think we know and whose proximity is threatening our space and our identity. The history of the three Abrahamic faiths is the history of that impossible forgiveness. After the zeal of the first rays of light, each Abrahamic faith became jealous of its own heritage of Truth. Each son of Abraham refused to see the face of the other son, and they became enemies, rejecting each other, replacing each other, killing each other, ignoring each other, and each one defining himself against the other son. For the first time in history, voices from the three faiths raise a call for repentance and forgiveness. One begins to realize that all these conflicts were absurd and ironically based on misunderstandings (Shlomo Elbaz and Ismail Abdullah). Instead of being a source for peace and

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 157

07/01/2014 08:52

158

The Three Sons of Abraham

bringing redemption to the world, religion became a dominant factor in politics and the principal source of tension (Jane Sabes). It is time at last to heal the wounds and return by faith to one’s authentic high purpose (Jane Sabes). Islam should come back to its ideal as the apostle of “peace,” the salam, and propagate peace in the world instead of being perceived as promoting violence and intolerance (Ismail Abdullah). Israel should return to its Mediterranean roots and destiny and thus identify with its eastern neighbors instead of being perceived as a colonial foreign force (Shlomo Elbaz). Christianity should hold again the values of grace and love and humility instead of seeking political power (Jane Sabes). The only way for the three sons to repair the broken relationship and recognize the face of the brother is to forgive each other. The discussion on forgiveness in the context of an interfaith discussion is therefore particularly relevant; all the more as forgiveness is an important notion in all three traditions. The theology of the forgiving God is central not only in Judaism and in Christianity but also in Islamic tradition, where He is called Al Ghafoor, “the forgiving One” (Lourdes Morales-Gudmundsson). Yet, it is not enough for the three sons of Abraham to witness to their respective spiritual traditions of forgiveness. The process of forgiveness should also take place between each other. Forgiving each other would be their best and most convincing testimony on forgiveness. The task to forgive is, however, not easy. We not only need to learn to forgive, we also need to learn how to forgive; for a misunderstood forgiveness could be counterproductive and eventually be dangerous (Lourdes Morales-Gudmundsson and Solomon Schimmel). More importantly, we need to work on our pride, especially the pride that we are right and the other is wrong, the pride of owning the whole Truth. Indeed the professionals on forgiveness have observed that the greatest obstacle for forgiveness between two persons is the fact that each one thinks that they are right. Truth stands on the way to Peace. The act of forgiveness will oblige us to reconsider and reevaluate our relationship to Truth and Peace and have the humility and the courage to admit that our view does not necessarily exclude the opposite view. There is also Truth in the other camp (Lourdes Morales-Gudmundsson).

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 158

07/01/2014 08:52

We must save peace Shlomo Elbaz

It is as if the more we speak of peace, the more this goal seems as fleeting and vital as ourselves. Indeed, we have never so much reasoned about peace, dreamed of peace, discussed peace as we have since the famous, historic handshake of September 13, 1993, on the lawn of the White House. On that day, a wall (Joshua! O Jericho!) fell down, a wall of hatred and of misunderstanding between two peoples, two brothers who had become enemies since less than a century ago. Then we were at the edge of irrational euphoria; every hope seemed possible, hopes of the same intensity as the conflict itself, hopes saturated with tears of joy. On that day, Palestinians and Muslims hugged each other, congratulated each other in eastern Jerusalem, in the midst of a sea of Palestinian flags which had come out of nowhere, under the indulgent eyes of Israeli policemen. We thought we were dreaming. We, who were totally committed to fight for peace, on that day felt our hearts swell with pride because we had believed in spite of all the unbelievers and the deniers; because we had militated towards this moment of mutual recognition and of solemn engagement to implement the accord of Oslo.

The impasse Six months later, we sank into endless discussions, knowing we must react promptly to the enemies of the process of peace who banded together to undermine it. Since then, acts of war against peace have been perpetuated against Israelis, as well as the monstrous massacre of Hebron on Friday, March 6 1994, a day twice sacred (Purim and Ramadan).What an irony! Abominable crimes were committed in the very Cave of the Patriarchs, a most holy place for both communities. Abraham/Ibrahim, our common father, must have shuddered in

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 159

07/01/2014 08:52

160

The Three Sons of Abraham

his tomb which was located right beneath the place of the crime; he must have shed tears of fire at the fate of his offspring. In ancient days, his son Ishmael had been saved from thirst, thanks to the miraculous spring; likewise, his other son Isaac escaped the holocaust thanks to the miraculous ram. But their descendants, for want of miracles, are absurdly, tragically, stabbing and shooting each other. Politicians, observers, and mass media cannot make “head nor tail” of it. Instead, the Middle East conflict displays such a complexity, such an embroilment of mythical as much as political factors, that it challenges the most rational and objective analysis. Raw events are just the thin exterior layer which hides a thick and opaque reality, a reality full of surprises for those who limit their observation to the surface.

Not just a political conflict Unless we refer to the past, to history and to the ancient texts, we will not be able to understand much about this reality. Both the Bible and the Qur’an are needed in this enquiry. The mad massacre of Hebron would then become the cruel and absurd illustration of the power of the irrational and uncontrollable element—some kind of sardonic laughter from this other mystical reality (overlooked by the analysts and the mass media), which erupts into daily life. And this irrational reality sometimes comes with its “heavenly” face and sometimes with its infernal face such as at Hebron. But in this sensitive space, the so-called “Holy Land,” Hebron is not the only place which triggers passion and violence. There are many other sites laden with high emotional significance. Mount Moriah, for instance, especially with its Dome of the Rock and the El-Aqsa Mosque close to the Holy Sepulcher, breaks all records of connotations, nostalgia, obsessions, and collective aspirations; one cannot imagine a more explosive and powerful bomb. The agnostic philosopher André Glucksmann, whose works focus on the perverse nature of the human being, while visiting our country made this astonishing prediction: “If a third world war should break out, it shall be caused by the fate of Jerusalem; indeed, for Jerusalem and Jerusalem only, a billion men are ready to die and to kill. Hence,” he added, “the need of an urgent solution, however weak it may be.” Indeed, Jerusalem is not a place, it is a concept, a value, a symbol, a metaphysical entity

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 160

07/01/2014 08:52



We must save peace161

which is being equally (but differently) claimed by the three monotheistic religions. But Judaism is perhaps the one more than any other group which invests Jerusalem with its fantasies, its ideals, and its past and future destiny. People talk much about Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria. Beth-el, to cite only one of them, is viewed as a mere “colonialist” enterprise. It is not so if we could penetrate the strayed souls of these fanatical Jews. For them, the name of Beth-el arouses a cluster of historical and eschatological associations which abolishes time and creates a link between the biblical past and the messianic future. These time bombs also exist on the other side. This reality is, indeed, disturbing, but there is no use avoiding it; one must face it and take it into account. The Middle East conflict does not just concern territories; it is not just a national struggle between two ethnic groups. It is so much more. It is the confrontation between two ideologies, two cultures, deeply rooted in immemorial myths. And these groups are all the more distrustful and violently hostile to each other because they are relatives (around the monotheistic Abrahamic idea). History is rich with Judeo-Christian and Islam–Christian conflicts. Are we now entering the era of the Judeo-Muslim conflict? This possibility is so frightening that it is occulted at the expense of the politico-territorial view. Now, anyone who wants to get acquainted with this nest of vipers cannot ignore deep and atavistic dimensions of these conflicts. Unfortunately, the political leaders and the experts in political sciences are locked in their rational Western approach and overlook the cultural dimension and its irrational setting.

To get out of the fix Undoubtedly this is the source of misunderstandings and surprises but also of the failures awaiting those who lead the process of peace on the basis of the accords of Oslo. We are merely marking time; we split hairs about insignificant details: a few meters more or less at the border, a thousand more policemen, etc. But we do not hit the heart of the problem, namely, the religious sensitivities, the mystical trends, the mysterious force of the myths embodied in a name, a ritual, a prayer, and also, of course, a place. In this setting, metaphors and symbols possess a real status, as concrete as the holy Scroll or the voice

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 161

07/01/2014 08:52

162

The Three Sons of Abraham

of the muezzin. Here, the five senses and the spirit mingle to create meaning. In this perspective, poetry is more sure and pertinent for the quest of truth than political analysis. What is missing, then, in the political reflection about the Middle East question is the Spirit in its broader sense, beyond any theological reference. Those who live on this volcano may well pay dearly for this deficiency, a price which they already pay for the shortsightedness of leaders, experts, and mediators of all sides. It would be, however, naive to believe that the mere disclosing of the mystical roots of the conflict would be enough to bring it to its end. This step is necessary, but it is not enough. We should then become more specific and explain to the parties that with all due respect to their historical rights and their dreams of restoration to past greatness, they should now take into account the present context and the sociological, economical, and political realities. The latter oblige them to respect each other and to assume the unavoidable necessity of compromises and concessions without which fanaticism, inherent to all religions, will flood over us all. When passions speak, reason is silent; when fanaticism strikes, ethics die. In any religion, these two contradictory potentials exist. On the one hand, moral value; on the other hand, the ugly face of tyranny, auto-da-fés, holy wars, intolerance, and exclusion. In the name of love—divine and human—how many crimes, including the killing at Hebron, have been committed! What the Bible says about bribery and corruption would better apply to fanaticism, which always “blinds the eyes even of the wise and twists the words even of the just” (Deut. 16:19, NAB).

Ethics and politics We hope that someday religious authorities of the three monotheistic confessions will call loudly for the true reconciliation between humans; reconciliation according to the spirit of their common ethical values; otherwise, the dark face of those very religions may well drive away what is left of vivid and humanistic compulsions. In the meantime, the representative leaders who are presently working on the peace process should pay special attention to the cultural element, while pursuing their efforts toward a pragmatic solution. In this perspective, the Arabs would then be able to recognize

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 162

07/01/2014 08:52



We must save peace163

the cultural and spiritual sources of the Zionistic movement, instead of seeing in it a mere symptom of European colonialism. Likewise, Israel would at last assure itself of its Mediterranean destiny and integrate itself into the Middle Eastern cultural space, thereby denying the accusation of being a foreign element. The Jews of Israel, just as the Palestinian Arabs, are rightly and historically at home on this piece of holy land, of Promised Land. They have no choice but to agree on practical modalities for the sharing of sovereignty. And this union, in any case, will affect the love both peoples would continue to devote for their common “fatherland of the heart.”

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 163

07/01/2014 08:52

Violence and peace from the Islamic perspective: An analytical study of textual evidences Ismail Abdullah

Introduction Modern technological advances and rapidly increasing commercial and intercultural contacts have made the world communities realize that there could be no community in the world, small or large, left behind in the fast-developing and technologically integrated global village. Within this increasingly integrated world, societies have become more concerned about the ways and means of ensuring peaceful intercultural communication for better understanding of diverse cultures and societies, in the hope that it would increase cooperation rather than confrontation. Conferences are held, at political and diplomatic levels; educational institutions are encouraged to conduct research toward that end; religious communities stand obliged to explain their religious thoughts. Today, Islam stands as the most misunderstood religion in the world. Its followers have a responsibility to highlight the true picture of Islam. The world today is suffering from chaos and disorder. This scenario is generally blamed on Islam. Does Islam really advocate violence? Is Islam to be held responsible for conflicts in the world? These questions merit serious attention. This chapter discusses the Islamic point of view on peace and violence. An analysis of concepts like violence, peace, mercy, brotherhood, kindness, human rights, and legal protection will be undertaken in the light of textual and scriptural evidences from the Qur’an and sunnah, as well as views of leading modern and classical Muslim clerics.

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 164

07/01/2014 08:52



Violence and peace from the Islamic perspective165

Islam: A conceptual analysis According to Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, the word “Islam” is derived from the Arabic root of “salima” which means to surrender, to submit, to yield, to give one’s self over. Hence, when a person has submitted herself or himself to Allah, he or she “has committed his or her cause to God” or “has resigned himself/herself to the will of God.” Other shades of meaning of the word “Islam” are: to be safe, to be secure, sound, unharmed, blameless, unimpaired, and clearly proven. To say “aslama” means to commit oneself to the will of God or become a Muslim by embracing Islam. Another meaning of “salima” is “peace” or “to become reconciled with one another,” “to reach an agreement” and “make peace” with one another.1 The linguistic connotation of the word “Salam” denotes three interrelated meanings: first, purity and cleanliness from any physical stains and spiritual defects; second, reconciliation, compromise, securing, and peace-making; third, obedience and loyalty.2 Technically, Islam accommodates all these senses. It is, then, logically a religion that: brings peace to humankind; encourages prosperity and wellbeing; stamps out aggression and violence from society; promotes mental happiness; calls for contentment of heart; and seeks to establish harmonious relationship between its followers and the rest of humanity at both personal as well as societal levels. The Qur’an vividly emphasizes the importance of maintaining peace in order to gain felicity, as God says: “those who have believed and whose hearts have rest in the remembrance of Allah. Verily in the remembrance of Allah do hearts find rest! Those who believe and do right: Joy is for them, and bliss [their] journey’s end.”3 Islam upholds absolute belief in the oneness of Allah, indicating complete attainment of peace, both inner and outer, through total submission to the will of Almighty God. Islam is thus a unique religion in its name and nature, because it is the only religion in the world whose name reflects its teachings in regard to both communal and personal dimensions. Contrarily, the name of other religions are either after their founders: Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism; or after ethnic and regional domains: Judaism, Hinduism. Therefore, the usage of “Muhammadanism” by some modern writers is totally unacceptable, as Prophet Muhammad was not the founder

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 165

07/01/2014 08:52

166

The Three Sons of Abraham

of the religion of Islam. He was rather a prophet and messenger of God. Islam is also unique in its straightforwardness, profoundness, and logicality of its teachings. The Qur’an repeatedly declares Islam as a natural religion of humanity. To be a Muslim does not mean to belong to certain regions or society, but whoever submits himself to God is a Muslim regardless of his ethnic background, race, or region. Religion here means submission to Allah’s will and loyalty to it. In Islam, salvation is not confined to certain groups of humanity but for everyone who submits himself to the Almighty God. This universal concept of humanity has been clarified in the Qur’an in these two verses: Those who believe [in the Qur’an], and those who follow the Jewish [scriptures], and the Christians and the Sabians, any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.4

Another verse is: And they say: “None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian.” Those are their [vain] desires. Say: “Produce your proof if ye are truthful. Nay, whoever submits His whole self to Allah and is a doer of good, He will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.”5

Therefore, Islam as a religion signifies complete physical, spiritual, and intellectual submission, surrender and obedience to the Almighty God.6 It is the original religion of human beings, which has been preached and professed by all prophets from the beginning of human history to Prophet Muhammad. By physical submission here we mean “total and unconditional submission without a bidding to performance; it is an automatic, programmed natural acquiescence, a complete compliance—a spontaneous submission [...] and therefore entails no accountability on the part of man, be he Muslim or non-Muslim by faith.”7 However, the Qur’an calls this “choice-less submission” or “involuntary submission”; that is, everything is determined through natural laws through this verse: “Do they seek for other than the Religion of Allah, while all creatures in the heavens and on Earth have, willing or unwilling, bowed to His Will [accepted Islam], and to Him shall they all be brought back.”8 On the other

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 166

07/01/2014 08:52



Violence and peace from the Islamic perspective167

hand, the intellectual submission of man is voluntary and a conscious submission through intellectual will. By spiritual submission, we mean “acknowledgement, and proclaiming that God is all-powerful through regular demonstration of observing His commands and prohibitions in the form of the rites and rituals. Thus, the rites and rituals performed repeatedly and consistently, can build up faith and commitment.”9 Islam means the individual and personal submission of every human being who has, willingly, realized the existence and Oneness of God. The Qur’an tells us that, at the beginning of human creation, every human being has, in fact, testified the oneness of Allah in front of Him: And [remember] when thy Lord brought forth from the Children of Adam, from their reins, their seed, and made them testify of themselves, [saying]: Am I not your Lord? They said: Yea, verily. We testify. [That was] lest ye should say at the Day of Resurrection: Lo! of this we were unaware.10

Therefore, clearly the message of the Qur’an is that “those persons who have been recipients of God’s books are members of one family, possessors of a series of revelations culminating in that given to the Prophet Muhammad.”11

Principles of peace in Islam Islam is against violence Spreading peace on Earth and eradicating violence is the central theme of Islamic teachings. Violence against an innocent person, whoever he might be, has no place in Islam. Murdering children, taking hostages, and terrorizing noncombatants are rejected in Islam. Killing living things without reason is denied by Islamic teachings. Killing one single innocent person is as serious as killing the entire human race. If someone saves a life, it is as if they have saved the life of the whole people. Despite this clear principle advocated by prophets of God, their followers are frequently misled from the right path and turned to spreading mischief and violence on the earth. The Qur’an illustrates the instances of the Children of Israel who transgressed the limit prescribed by their prophets pertaining the rights of each individual to live:

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 167

07/01/2014 08:52

168

The Three Sons of Abraham

that if any one slew a person—unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land—it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.12

In addition, nothing justifies killing or harming innocent people. The Qur’an further teaches that whoever kills a human life without just reason should be sentenced to death as God declares: “We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal. But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by [the light of] what Allah hath revealed, they are [no better than] wrong-doers.”13 In principle, human beings are basically innocent unless they are proven guilty. Therefore, exploding bombs in public places, killing innocent people, and terrifying children are acts that have nothing to do with Islam. Islam is a religion which teaches a nonviolent and peaceful life and encourages development and human progress. The Qur’anic term for violence is fasad. Islam seeks to eliminate fasad from human life. Qur’anic verses condemning fasad abound. For instance: There is the type of man whose speech about this world’s life may dazzle thee, and he calls Allah to witness about what is in his heart; yet he is the most contentious of enemies. When he turns his back, his aim everywhere is to spread mischief through the earth and destroy crops and cattle. But Allah loveth not mischief.14

These two verses prove that God does not condone mischievous acts and violence. It is simply because fasad causes disruption in the social system, leading to huge losses of lives and property. Islam in no way justifies illegal wars and unjust killings. Yet, some groups in the Muslim world have unfortunately used Islam as a faith for fighting against non-Muslims and carrying out violent acts against all people other than Muslims. This is due to their misinterpretation of certain Qur’anic texts which enjoined upon the Muslims to gain power, train themselves, and be ready so as to let their enemies feel scared and not to dare attack them: “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war,

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 168

07/01/2014 08:52



Violence and peace from the Islamic perspective169

to strike terror into [the hearts of] the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly. But if the enemy incline toward peace, do thou [also] incline toward peace, and trust in Allah, for He is One that heareth and knoweth [all things].”15 Meanwhile, some other groups have misinterpreted some Qur’anic passages which require Muslims to fight for justice and to eliminate injustice from the earth. The Qur’an says that if the enemy inclines toward peace, Muslims also should do the same. At the same time, if the oppression, aggression, and violence are over, no hostility should emerge except to those who practice oppression and injustice, “and fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. But if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.”16 It should be borne in mind that these Qur’anic passages of gaining power and spreading justice are directed to the state officials and collective effort of the community to protect the common interest of the Muslim ummah. These are not for individuals to carry out their personal agenda of violence and terrorism and targeting innocent people. Islam does not approve imposing its belief system on others, thus everybody is free to opt for any belief systems that suit him, as God declares: “Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.”17 Islam rejects the killing of a non-Muslim merely because of their faith. Humanity and brotherhood are the basis of human relations in Islam, not conflicts and clashes; peace and cooperation are the foundations of social interaction, not chaos and killing; mutual understanding and cultural harmony are the necessary elements of intercultural relations, not confusion and arrogance; development and maintenance of the means and ways of human life on the earth are encouraged and supported, but distraction and demolishing of human life are totally contrary to the fundamental teachings of Islam.

Universal brotherhood Islam bases its principles of peace and harmony on universal brotherhood of humanity and a universal view of existence. Within this

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 169

07/01/2014 08:52

170

The Three Sons of Abraham

framework, the Qur’an has repeatedly insisted that its ultimate mission is to spread good will, love, mercy, and peaceful coexistence among all the human races in the world. The concept of brotherhood and the idea of philanthropy are rooted in Islamic teachings. Primarily, Islam views the entire human race as one single family (from Adam and Eve) under one kingdom (the kingdom of Allah). The Qur’an, on many occasions, reminds Muslims and non-Muslims of the unity of man. As a matter of principle, color, language, and ethnic background are not the basis to disunite humanity. These are rather signs of racial and cultural identities, which constitute unity in diversity. The Qur’an states that the purpose behind the creation of different tribes and various nations is to help people recognize one another. Diversity of color and culture cannot form the basis of discrimination and justification of killing one another. Acts of violence and aggression in this universal kingdom of God against innocent persons violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. Universal fraternity of man is the permanent base of universal peace among human beings. Muslim scholars in the past and the present agreed that the ultimate objectives of Islamic laws are to maintain the brotherhood and nonviolent coexistence of human societies. Qaradawi, a contemporary Muslim cleric, insists that the Qur’anic verse: “Believers are brothers” (which declares fellowship of the Muslim ummah) in the verse “The Believers are but a single Brotherhood,”18 and the other half of the same verse that requires them to spread peace and harmony in the society “so make peace and reconciliation between your two [contending] brothers; and fear Allah, that ye may receive Mercy,”19 be regarded as a clear and unequivocal affirmation of the religious fraternity of Muslims. However, to Qaradawi, this does not contradict the wide brotherhood of human beings. Rather, the two should in fact be seen as complementary and not contradictory to one another.20 Islam teaches the necessity of having social harmony and spiritual unity among human societies to maintain a prosperous life on Earth. To emphasize the importance of peace and harmony among people, Qur’anic verses have announced from the beginning of its revelation, the unity of mankind in its three aspects: origin, value, and destiny. Numerous Qur’anic verses address the origin of man as to be from a single person and his mate. From them scattered countless men and women. However, the most honored among them are

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 170

07/01/2014 08:52



Violence and peace from the Islamic perspective171

the most righteous. The Qur’anic value of honor is based on ethical values, not race or ethnicity. In other words, according to Islamic teachings, a person’s action should only be evaluated and assessed according to their ethical conduct, regardless of their tribal, ethnic, and cultural background. Equality with universal brotherhood is rooted in Prophet Muhammad’s teachings. All humans are descendants of the same ancestor, thus forming unity of origin as expounded in the Qur’anic passage O mankind! Revere your Guardian–Lord, who created you from a single person, created, of like nature, His mate, and from them twain scattered [like seeds] countless men and women;—reverence Allah, through whom ye demand your mutual [rights], and [reverence] the wombs [that bore you]: for Allah ever watches over you.21

With this account, supremacy of one race over others based on any outward phenomena stands totally rejected in Islam. The Prophet has declared on one occasion: O People! Your creator is one, and you are all descendants of the same ancestor. There is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab, or over the black, over the red, except on the basis of righteous conduct.22

Mercy and kindness versus violence and aggression The Qur’an maintains that general equality of human beings should be maintained regardless of divisions of their races, languages, and social status. In fact, all these divisions are the means for people to know each other and to differentiate one from another, as God says: O mankind! We created you from a single [pair] of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise [each other]). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is [he who is] the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted [with all things].23

Besides, the Prophet teaches that people are like the teeth of a comb. Islam rejects any kind of arrogance and egoism that may lead to any kind of fanaticism,24 which also might eventually lead to violence and injustice against innocent people. Furthermore,

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 171

07/01/2014 08:52

172

The Three Sons of Abraham

equality alone [...] is not the only goal and purpose; rather it is equality with a sense of awareness of the basic bonds of fraternity in creation and descent, and awareness also, of the reciprocal rights and duties which ensue from that. Islamic conception of equality may not therefore be read in isolation from the ties of fraternity and unity of the destiny and origin of mankind.25

The spread of mercy and kindness among the human race, as the Qur’an teaches, is the core substance of the prophetic mission on Earth. Prophet Muhammad was sent as a mercy to all creatures, while universal humanism was the ultimate mission of his message that could be verified from the verse “We sent thee not, but as a Mercy for all creatures.”26 Likewise, the Prophet instructed people how to live together in peace and harmony regardless of race, class or belief. He emphasized that the mercy of God to man is conditioned with the mercy of the person to the rest of humanity.27 A person should be kind and should not harm any living things, physically as well as spiritually. On one occasion, the Prophet describes a real Muslim as the one from whom people feel secure as regard to their lives and properties.28 Another passage says: “By God, he is not a believer from whose nuisance his neighbor is not safe.”29 The Qur’an mentions that al-Salam (peace) is one of Allah’s attributive names, as He is the source of peace and happiness. God declares: Allah is He, than Whom there is no other god; the Sovereign, the Holy One, the Source of Peace [and Perfection], the Guardian of Faith, the Preserver of Safety, the Exalted in Might, the Irresistible, the Supreme: Glory to Allah. [High is He] above the partners they attribute to Him.30

Peace is therefore guaranteed to those who seek to please God as He guides them to the paths of peace, and to the final destination of the human soul, which is named as “home of peace,” which has been clearly stated in the verse “But Allah doth call to the Home of Peace: He doth guide whom He pleaseth to a way that is straight.”31 Countless Qur’anic verses and huge segments of the sunnah of the Prophet call upon us to develop qualities of kindness, tolerance, and generosity; advise us how to interact with others in society, and highlight how true believers react when the ignorant address them, which has been illuminated in the verse “and the servants of [Allah] Most

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 172

07/01/2014 08:52



Violence and peace from the Islamic perspective173

Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say, ‘Peace!’”32 Besides, the Qur’an also guides the Muslim on the best attitude to take toward those who do not behave nicely, with the verse Who is better in speech than one who calls [men] to Allah, works righteousness, and says, “I am of those who bow in Islam?” Nor can goodness and Evil be equal. Repel [Evil] with what is better: Then will he between whom and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and intimate!33

In addition to that, the explanation that mercy is a good act because the mercy of Allah has been extended to all things is also emphasized, since God says: And ordain for us that which is good, in this life and in the Hereafter: for we have turned unto Thee.” He said: “With My punishment I visit whom I will; but My mercy extendeth to all things. That [mercy] I shall ordain for those who do right, and practice regular charity, and those who believe in Our signs.”34

And eventually the Prophetic word makes it clear that Allah is kind and loves kindness in all affairs.35

Love and peace Islam means to commit oneself whole-heartedly to establishing peace and harmony and eradicating violence. The Qur’an calls upon everyone to enter into Islam whole-heartedly, not to follow in the footsteps of the evil one, participating in violence, clashes, and conflicts, through the verse “O ye who believe! Enter into Islam whole-heartedly; and follow not the footsteps of the evil one; for he is to you an avowed enemy.”36 In this verse, it is clear that the Qur’an considers these acts as those of Satan. To promote peace, Islam makes it binding upon every Muslim to start their daily life, as well as social and personal interaction, with the phrase “peace be upon you” to anyone they meet. Islam aims at making all individuals peace-loving to the last extent. That is why we are enjoined to greet one another by saying “peace be upon you.” In the light of the Prophet’s advice: “the best Islam is to greet everyone you come across, whether or not you are acquainted with the person.”37

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 173

07/01/2014 08:52

174

The Three Sons of Abraham

Islam is a peace-loving religion, comprehensive in manner at all levels of life, social as well as individual. Islam promotes peace and mercy through legal protections of everyone through the social welfare of every creature, and through social relations with every human being.

Promotion of peace through intensification of social relations Islam promotes peace through the intensification of social relations between all human beings, Muslim and non-Muslims. Islam aims at developing sustainable peace and brotherhood in all parties of the human race. It forbids the waging of an offensive war on innocent persons or societies.38 After a long and extensive reading of the Qur’anic verses, Fazlur Rahman has come up with the conclusion that the reader of the Qur’an will find only two themes that are consistently preached in the Qur’an: one is the unity of Allah, and the other is an essential egalitarianism. At the same time, Fazlur Rahman attempts to find out the link between what he calls the moral–spiritual ideal of tawhid and the idea of an egalitarian society in the Qur’an. He indicates that the Qur’an seems to say that if there is one God, then essentially there must be one humanity.39 Therefore, no one in Islam enjoys the right to wage war against an innocent person. There are no grounds on which the killing of an innocent person could be justified. Islam encourages peace and promotes social harmony by permitting beneficial exchanges of goods, hospitality, cultural cooperation, and sometimes inter-marriages between Muslims and non-Muslims, breaching the gap between societies and preventing any possible social detachment, as revealed in one of the verses in Al-Ma’idah: This day are [all] things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. [Lawful unto you in marriage] are [not only] chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time, when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost [all spiritual good].40

Islam teaches that beside religious differences, parental relations, rights, and obligations should be maintained; the neighborhood should be protected; business and other social interactions should not

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 174

07/01/2014 08:52



Violence and peace from the Islamic perspective175

be interrupted. These clear-cut guidelines could be sought from the verse And We have enjoined on man [to be good] to his parents: in travail upon travail did his mother bear him, and in years twain was his weaning: [hear the command], Show gratitude to Me and to thy parents: to Me is [thy final] Goal. But if they strive to make thee join in worship with Me things of which thou hast no knowledge, obey them not; yet bear them company in this life with justice [and consideration], and follow the way of those who turn to me [in love]: in the end the return of you all is to Me, and I will tell you the truth [and meaning] of all that ye did.41

Therefore, the Qur’an in other words, “encourages good relations and friendship with the people of other faiths. Of the enjoyment of life and worldly benefits, everything that is lawful for the Muslims is also lawful for the followers of other faiths” or no faith.42 Islam reminds the Muslims that there should be no abuse or hostility between them and the non-Muslims. Both have the same rights and obligations in the Islamic state. Therefore, they should be fair and good to each other. Hence, equal treatment is therefore necessary and inevitable. This is because God loves those who are kind and just with other human races, as He Proclaims “Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for [your] Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.”43 Islam teaches mercy and kindness by demanding that everyone practice good conduct, because one who has done an atom’s weight of good will see it, as anyone who has done an atom’s weight of evil shall see it in the Hereafter. Good manners and conduct are principles applicable not only to the human race but also to every creature on Earth. Donations and acts of charity are extended to every living heart.44 There was one incident where the Prophet encouraged Muslims to donate and give charity even to the non-Muslims. When asked about the wisdom of such an act, the Prophet said: “Don’t you know that God granted the paradise for one Jewish lady because of her help and mercy to a thirsty dog. The weak person and junior fellow humans deserve a treatment that is more merciful.”45 The neighbor, regardless of his religion and belief should be honored and respected.46 Respect for human dignity is deeply rooted in the fundamental teachings of Islam. According to

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 175

07/01/2014 08:52

176

The Three Sons of Abraham

Islamic ethical values, human beings are to be respected, irrespective of their cultural, religious, and racial differences. Even where antagonism is displayed, we have to adopt the way of avoidance of conflict and continue to show respectful behavior. In the eyes of Islam, all human beings are equal and deserve respect.

Elimination of violence through legal protection Islam provides various means and ways to promote peace and mercy and to eliminate violence and oppression throughout the human race and among other creations of God. One of these means is “legal protection,” through which Islam safeguards the rights of its followers, as well as non-Muslims, to ensure the continuation of their peaceful coexistence and secure their mutual interest on Earth. Islam requires its followers to safeguard the rights of non-Muslim minorities in the Islamic states. They should enjoy equal rights to have full participation in the government, economic, and social spheres. Their right to maintain their personal status in the state is guaranteed. To secure social peace and cultural harmony in the state, the shari’ah protects the property of non-Muslims and defends them against unfair treatment and discriminations. The prophet of Islam warned Muslims against any mistreatment of non-Muslims in the Islamic state and declared: “Beware that I shall myself be opponent on the day of Judgment of anyone, who is unjust to a covenanted person (al-muahid) or burdens him with something he cannot bear or takes from him something, or makes him suffer a loss without his valid consent.”47 To maintain peace and mercy Islam advocates: Equality absolutely, without any restrictions or exceptions for the whole of mankind, and without recognition whatsoever of any distinction or superiority of one man over another, or of one group over another, or of one race over another, and that includes equality between men and women, the ruler and ruled.48

Legal protection and justice is not restricted to Muslims, but is also for non-Muslims, that is, all mankind. Rashid al-Ghanushi, in his book The Rights of Citizenship, observes: “Islam does not command justice only for Muslims but for mankind generally, and this is perfectly clear in the Qur’an where justice is an obligation that must be observed even while dealing with one’s enemy.”49 Various Qur’anic verses teach us to be fair and just, even if others practice

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 176

07/01/2014 08:52



Violence and peace from the Islamic perspective177

the contrary toward us. The best instance of universal fairness is from the verse O ye who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just, that is next to piety and fear Allah. For Allah is well acquainted with all that ye do.50

In the process of judicial persecution, Islam stresses equality. Kamali writes: In the areas of crimes and punishment, including just retaliation blood money (diyyah) in unintentional homicide, for personal injuries, the most preferred position is that the shari’ah does not differentiate between the Muslim and non-Muslim citizens of the Islamic state. Thus it is held that the Qur’anic text on just retaliation51 […] explicitly proclaims “life for life” as its basic formula which applies equally to all.52

Although Muslim jurists have minor differences over criminal judgments for Muslims and non-Muslims, they overwhelmingly agree that everyone in the state, regardless of faith and ethnicity, should enjoy justice and equality. Equal rights and obligations are granted for both Muslims and non-Muslims in the Islamic state, including finance, education, and the holding of government office. This is because: “God does not forbid you from being good and just to those who have not waged war against you over your religion.”53 A modern Muslim cleric reached a conclusion that the basic principles of the Islamic shari’ah endorse the equality of all people in respect of the right to live unmolested. According to him, the shari’ah bears in mind that: “no one’s blood is more precious than anyone else’s, and the law does not recognize any distinction among people in this regard.” He notes that differences of opinion among jurists about this issue are merely “matters of personal understanding concerning only the jurists who have expressed the views in question and not necessarily a statement of the general principles of shari’ah.”54 Islam sees equality and justice as substantial and universal principles for everlasting peace and harmony among world societies. The responsibility of reducing crimes and preventing violence in the society is prescribed by the judicial principles of the shari’ah, regardless of the religious following of the criminals as well as the victims.

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 177

07/01/2014 08:52

178

The Three Sons of Abraham

Crime, aggression, discrimination, and violence against an innocent person have neither religious sanction nor legitimacy in the view of the Islamic shari’ah. With regard to equality and peaceful coexistence between Muslims and non- Muslims, Shaltut adds: Islam has declared mankind as a single unity and a requirement of that unity is the equality of all human beings in respect of their rights and obligations, which is also the only way for the establishment of justice. Justice being the overriding objective of Islam cannot be achieved without equality.55

Likewise, Abu al-Ala al-Mawdudi agrees that: The Shari’ah does not differentiate with regard to the application of penalties, especially the prescribed penalties, between Muslims and non-Muslims, as these are applied equally to all. Whether one talks of the punishment of adultery, or theft or slanderous accusation etc., no distinction is made on grounds of the religious following of the perpetrator. This should also be the case in regard to the retaliation and diyyah.56

Conclusion Islam is a peace-loving religion in a comprehensive manner. Countless Qur’anic verses and large segments of the sunnah of the Prophet teach us to possess qualities of kindness, tolerance and mercy. Violence against innocent persons, whoever they might be, has no place in Islam. Murdering children, taking hostage, and terrorizing noncombatants are rejected in Islam. Killing living things without reason is denied by the Islamic shari’ah, while killing an innocent person equals to that of killing all humanity. Differences of faiths and cultures do not justify war and violence. The relationship between Muslim and non-Muslim starts with peace and cooperation. Universal brotherhood and fraternity of man are the permanent basis of universal peace among human beings. Islam reminds Muslims that there should be no abuse and hostility between Muslims and non-Muslims. They have both the same rights and obligations in the Islamic state and they should be fair and good to each other. Hence, equal treatment is inevitable. Philanthropy and brotherhood are the basis of human

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 178

07/01/2014 08:52



Violence and peace from the Islamic perspective179

relations in Islam, not conflicts and clashes or chaos and bloodletting; mutual understanding of cultural harmony should constitute the basic rule for a Muslim. Schools and educational institutions in the Muslim world are required to have a re-look at the existing interpretation of relevant ayat of the Qur’an and Ahadith of the last Prophet. Authorities and teachers have the onus to convey the true and correct message to pupils. Scholars are supposed to ensure that Qur’anic statements and sunnah of the Prophet are not misinterpreted and manipulated. If the Islamic message of peace and tolerance is given due emphasis in the Muslim mind, the days are not far when the world will realize its mistake and apologize to Muslims for branding them as terrorists and violence-loving.

Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

For more linguistic details of the word refer to: Hans Wehr, Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, 3rd edn (London: Macdonald & Evans, 1974). Mustafa Abdul Razak, al-Din wa al-Wahy wa al-Islam, 1st edn (Beirut: Dar al-Qadiri, 1993), p. 57. Al-Ra’d 13: 28–9 Al-Baqarah 2: 62. Al-Baqarah 2: 111–12. Al-Ghazali and Abu Hamid, Ihya Ulum al-Din (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1978), 1: pp. 185–8. Kamar Oniah Kamaruzaman, Islam: A Contemporary Comparative Discourse (ed.) Academy for Civilizational Studies (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2003). p. 18. Ali Imran 3: 83. Kamar Oniah Kamaruzaman, Islam, p. 26. Al-A’raf 7:172. al-Imam Al-Razi, Fakhr al-Din, al-Tafsir al-Kabir (Egypt: al-Matba’ah al-Misriyyah, 1935), 4: pp. 79–80. Al-Ma’idah 5: 32. Al-Ma’idah 5: 45. Al-Baqarah 2: 204–5. Al-Anfal 8: 60–1. Al-Baqarah 2: 193. Al-Baqarah 2: 256. Al-Hujrat 49: 10. Ibid. Al-Qaradawi, Yusuf, al-Khasa’is al-Ammah li al-Islam (Cairo, Egypt: Maktabah Wahbah, 1981), p. 81.

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 179

07/01/2014 08:52

180

The Three Sons of Abraham

21 Al Nisa’ 4: 1. 22 This statement was part of the Prophet’s final remarks in the day of Arafah, in his final hajj (pilgrimage). 23 Al-Hujrat 49: 13. 24 The Prophet announced on several occasions that: “those who promote tribal fanaticism do not belong to us, nor do the ones who fight for asabiyyah, nor those who die for asabiyyah.” Reported by Abu Dawud. 25 Mohammad Hashim Kamali, Freedom, Equality, and Justice in Islam (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Ilmiah Publishers, 1999), pp. 72–3. 26 Al-Anbiya’ 21: 107. 27 Reported by Bukhari, in the Book of Faith and Muslim, in the book of Adab. 28 Reported by Bukhari, in the Book of Faith. 29 Reported by Bukhari. 30 Al-Hashr 59: 23. 31 Yunus 10: 25. 32 Al-Furqan 25: 63. 33 Fussilat 41: 33–4. 34 Al-A’raf 7: 156. 35 Reported by Muslim in the book of Adab. 36 Al-Baqarah 2: 208. 37 Narrated by Abdullah bin Amr: “A man asked the Prophet, ‘What sort of deeds of [what qualities of] Islam are good?’ The Prophet replied, ‘To feed [the poor] and greet those whom you know and those whom you do not know.’” Reported by Bukhari in the Book of Faith. 38 Mahmassani, Arkan Huquq al-Insan (Beirut: Dar lil-Malayin, 1979), p. 260. 39 Fazlur Rahman, Major Themes of the Qur’an (Minneapolis, MN: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1994), p. 38. 40 Al-Ma’idah 5: 5. 41 Luqman 31: pp. 14–15. 42 Kamali, Freedom, Equality, and Justice, p. 117. 43 Al-Mumtahinah 60: 8. 44 It is reported from the Prophet: “Sadaqah is for every living heart.” Reported by Muslim. 45 The Prophet said once that “a person is not one of us who is not merciful to our juniors and respectful to our elders.” Reported by Bukhari. 46 The Prophet said: “One who believes in Allah and the Last Day must honor his neighbors; one who believes in God and the Last Day must honor his guests.” Reported by Bukhari and Muslim. 47 Reported by Abu Dawud. 48 Awdah, Abdul Qadir, Criminal Law of Islam (New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 1999), 1: p. 35. 49 Rashid al-Ghanushi, Huquq al-Muwatanah (Herndon, VA: International Institute of Islamic Thought, Herndon, 1993), p. 48. 50 Al-Ma’idah, 5: 8.

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 180

07/01/2014 08:52

51 52 53 54 55 56

Violence and peace from the Islamic perspective181 Al-Ma’idah, 5: 45. Kamali, p. 119. Al-Mumtahinah, 60: 8. Shaltut, Mahmud, al-Islam (Cairo, Egypt: Dar al-Qalam, 1960), p. 326. Ibid., p. 464. Khurshid Ahmad (ed.), Islamic Perspectives: Studies in Honour of Mawdudi (Leicester: Islamic Foundation, 1979), p. 443.

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 181

07/01/2014 08:52

Religio-political tensions in the world Jane Sabes

In his classic work, The Clash of Civilizations, Harvard professor Samuel Huntington asserts that the causes of conflict between Islam and the West lie in fundamental questions of power and culture. Who is to rule? Who is to be ruled? What further complicates these relations is the differing perspectives of what is right and what is wrong and, thus, who is right and who is wrong.1 The religio-political conflict is not limited, however, to Islam and the West. Take, for example, fifteenth-century Spain, when national authorities forced Jews from the country. In seventeenthcentury Colonial America, new arrivals were required to adhere to a particular religious persuasion in order to gain land, hold office, or be eligible for government services. And, in eighteenth-century Ireland, English penal laws forbad Irish Catholics “to receive education, to enter a profession, to hold public office, to engage in trade or commerce, to live in a corporate town or within five miles of one, to own a horse of greater value than five pounds, to purchase or lease land, to vote, to attend Catholic worship, or be a guardian to a child, or leave a child under Catholic guardianship.”2 Concerning more recent times, former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright writes: In China, authorities saddled with an obsolete ideology of their own are struggling to prevent burgeoning religious and spiritual movements from becoming a political threat. India’s identity as a secular society is under challenge by Hindu nationalists.[...] In Israel, Orthodox religious parties are seeking more influence over laws and society. Secular Arab nationalism, once thought to embody the future, has been supplanted by a resurgent Islam extending beyond Arab lands to Iran, Pakistan, central and southeast Asia, and parts of Africa.[...] A reawakening of Christian activism is also altering how we think about politics

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 182

07/01/2014 08:52



Religio-political tensions in the world183

and culture here in the United States.[...] Even in Europe, which seems otherwise exempt from the trend toward religious growth, the number of observant Muslims is rising quickly.3

Like it or not, religion has become a dominant factor in politics.

Sources of world religio-political tensions One source of religio-political tensions is the unleashing of pathologies found within individuals—pathologies fostered by attitudes of haughtiness, self-absorption, narrow-mindedness, ethnocentrism, power-mongering, and God-complexes. The temptation develops within those once of noble ideals to act using means of intimidation rather than by inspiration. Irrationality of thought is exacerbated where the stakes are high, and nowhere are the stakes higher than in policy making or vying for the hearts and minds of individuals. Consider the following examples—the first is one in which pathologies of a nation went unchecked. In his book, Cost of Discipleship, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a young German theologian, spoke of his government’s extremism, and challenged the religious community and conscience of his day to stand with the Jews against Nazi Germany’s extremism. Few responded to that call. The second case, excesses committed by a community of faith, begged for greater presence and protection by government officials on behalf of the members of the People’s Temple Full Gospel Church. In 1977, lay pastor Jim Jones relocated his church to Guyana to avoid government scrutiny. And, although US Congressman Leo Ryan personally visited Jonestown to look into alleged abuses of church members, over 900 of Jones’ followers were forced to participate in a murder–suicide on 18 November 1978, drinking Kool-Aid laced with cyanide. Displays of pathological behaviors continue to be both startling and unexpected. A second cause of religio-political tensions is that of misunderstandings. With our limited human knowledge, we are prone to misread the intents of others. The following historical account is a prime illustration of this point. In the course of time, the king of the Ammonites died, and his son Hanun succeeded him as king. David [king of Israel] thought, “I will show kindness to Hanun son of Nahash, just as his father showed kindness to me.” So David sent a delegation to express his sympathy

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 183

07/01/2014 08:52

184

The Three Sons of Abraham

to Hanun concerning his father. When David’s men came to the land of the Ammonites, the Ammonite nobles said to Hanun their lord, “Do you think David is honoring your father by sending men to you to express sympathy? Hasn’t David sent them to you to explore the city and spy it out and overthrow it?” So Hanun seized David’s men, shaved off half of each man’s beard, cut off their garments in the middle at the buttocks, and sent them away. When David was told about this, he sent messengers to meet the men, for they were greatly humiliated.[...] When the Ammonites realized that they had become a stench in David’s nostrils, they hired twenty thousand Aramean foot soldiers from Beth Rehob and Zobah, as well as the king of Maacah with a thousand men, and also twelve thousand men from Tob. On hearing this, David sent Joab out with the entire army of fighting men.4

The Ammonite king’s wrongful interpretation of King David’s peaceful expressions proved disastrous. Since interpersonal misunderstandings such as these naturally occur between individuals, it should come as no surprise that different understandings, interpretations, and approaches argued concerning growing uncertainties in this world are inherent between religious and political powers. The third and, I believe, most basic reason that religio-political tensions exist today is that neither religions nor politics are living up to their high calling or intended purpose. As part of their foundational beliefs, all religions advocate tolerance for others—esteeming, even loving, their neighbor as themselves; all faiths subscribe to doctrines of unity and peace and regularly promote an “other world” focus, acknowledging that this earth offers only temporary gains, rewards, and honor. Like religion, most modern nation states advocate noble principles: that individuals have God-given rights which no human entity can compromise or withhold irrespective of social, geographic, or political status; that governments accept checks on their powers so as not to exceed their authority; and that most subscribe to “the rule of law”—reliance on formalized, written law rather than the arbitrary discretion of some government authority. Regrettably, government has moved away from its glorious intent. Rather than carrying out inspired ideals, today’s politicians have come to measure national success in terms of maintaining a robust

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 184

07/01/2014 08:52



Religio-political tensions in the world185

economy. Also, state leaders seem to be more concerned with what satisfies the constituents—what political scientist Herbert Simon refers to as “satisficing”5—rather than with what is the right thing to do. Religion too has failed to live up to its noble standards. Communities of faith react with disdain to modernization which, they believe, ushers in the secularization of society. Using a confrontational approach, religious groups enter the political arena, thinking to mandate morality, ostracizing or applying force to the noncompliant.

In one accord In the twenty-first century, tensions have escalated between religion and politics because neither seems capable of addressing the growing disparities and complexities in this world—economic, political, and societal. Solutions intended to resolve the difference have, for the most part, failed. Isolating those with pathologies, attaching negative labels to dissenters, or threatening attacks on aggressor groups—all techniques commonly employed—are counterproductive, only exacerbating extremist behaviors. Thoughtful, considerate treatment is more likely to prevail and may even convince those with pathological behaviors to join the sane side of the equation. Granted, there are no simple answers for crafting bridges between powers of governments and religions, and yet the dividends to be derived from making a commitment to develop lasting, meaningful relationships cannot be underestimated. However, the most critical, first step for resolving tensions is a return by faith communities and nation states to their authentic, high purpose.

Conclusion We have a tendency to relegate these relation-building efforts to some authority other than ourselves—to the pastor, rabbi, or imam; to the president, secretary of state, or parliament. But we, as citizens of Earth and followers of the King, must visualize the part we might play in mitigating world, national, and community tensions, practicing peace in our own lives. The prophet Jeremiah spoke in these terms. After detailing the account that God’s people were being taken into captivity by the Babylonians because of all the evil they had

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 185

07/01/2014 08:52

186

The Three Sons of Abraham

done, God then directs that the people “pray for the city to which I send you for if it prospers you too will prosper” (Jer. 29:7). No less in our days than in the days of Jeremiah, God asks those of us within communities of faith to pray for our governments. This instruction is accompanied by God’s resolute assurance that we too will prosper.

Notes 1 2 3 4 5

Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996), p. 212. Seumas MacManus, The Story of the Irish Race (Old Greenwich, CT: Konecky & Konecky, 1921), pp. 458–9. Madeleine Albright, The Mighty and the Almighty: Reflections on America, God, and World Affairs (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006), p. 104. 2 Sam 10:1–7, NIV. James J. Gosling. Understanding, Informing, and Appraising Public Policy (New York: Pearson Longman Publishers, 2004), pp. 78–9.

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 186

07/01/2014 08:52

Forgiving the perpetrator Interview with Solomon Schimmel

Question: In your book Wounds Not Healed by Time, you speak about repentance and forgiveness. Can you give us a working definition of those terms from the Jewish perspective? Solomon Schimmel: I am most interested in repentance and forgiveness in the context of interpersonal relationships. This does relate to theological concepts of the individual’s relationship with a God in whom he or she believes, but the focus of the book—and how I will be responding to these questions—involves situations where one individual causes harm to another individual, and repentance and forgiveness exist between them. In terms of the Jewish understanding of repentance, as an ideal, the perpetrator must first be aware that he or she has caused an unjustifiable, inappropriate injury or harm to another person. Since we do not always know when we have offended somebody, we first must become aware of having done so. A person must acknowledge that what he or she did was inappropriate, and feel remorse for what was done, then commit to making as much reparation to and reconciliation with the victim as is feasible under the circumstances. That person must also consciously decide not to repeat this kind of injurious and hurtful behavior. Those are the main elements of repentance. Forgiveness also has several components. First, the victim should not hold a grudge against the perpetrator, and if possible should go beyond that and be willing to reconcile. Where there had been a preexisting relationship of some kind, this would mean reestablishing that relationship as a healthy, positive one. However, in many cases the perpetrator and victim were not necessarily in a prior relationship. If I was mugged on the street by a stranger, the perpetrator did not know me, and I didn’t know him. So there may not be any

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 187

07/01/2014 08:52

188

The Three Sons of Abraham

need to establish a relationship with that person in the context of forgiveness. Question: How does this differ from the Christian concept of repentance and forgiveness? Solomon Schimmel: First of all, there is more than one way Christians think about repentance and forgiveness. There isn’t one universally understood Christian notion about them. Some Christian notions are quite similar to the Jewish one, which is not all that surprising given the fact that both traditions draw upon basic biblical concepts and many of the concepts about repentance and forgiveness are found in the Hebrew Bible. But Christianity also developed its own, new modes of thinking. In terms of how Christian concepts differ from Judaic ones, I would say that with respect to repentance you have some Christian thinkers and denominations who, when they speak of repentance, are primarily concerned with how the perpetrator reestablishes a correct relationship with God—with Christ. And that puts less emphasis on the obligation of the perpetrator to the victim. Not that they ignore it totally, but it is not their primary concern. For some Christians, it is expected that a sinner might say, “Okay, I’ve committed a sin or an injury against somebody. God does not like that, so I have sinned against God. How do I get back into the good graces of God? I will put my faith in Christ as one who has died for my sins and having done so I can feel confident that I am forgiven.” That is where their repentance is focused. In Judaism you haven’t repented and God will not forgive you if you don’t first do everything you can to repair the injury you caused—material and emotional— and be reconciled with your victim. It is only when your victim (assuming that your victim is alive and you know who your victim is) has finally been pacified that your repentance is acceptable, and only then would God be willing to forgive you as well. In terms of Christian forgiveness, I speak in my book about “radical forgiveness”—the notion that forgiving is the highest virtue, independent of whether the perpetrator has repented or expressed any signs of remorse. This notion is one which mainstream Judaism does not accept. The notions that one should “turn the other cheek” or “love your enemy” do not resonate with the Judaic tradition in most circumstances. There are exceptions to this, which I discuss in

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 188

07/01/2014 08:52



Forgiving the perpetrator189

Wounds Not Healed by Time, but overall I think that this would be a feature that differentiates Judaism from Christianity. Question: How do the biblical concepts of “justice” and “mercy” get expressed in the repentance/forgiveness process? Solomon Schimmel: Justice has several meanings. One sense of justice is that somebody causing injury must repair the injury caused and be held accountable for it. (This is one stage in the process of repentance.) Even after the perpetrator has apologized to the victim(s), payment must still be made if there was financial injury, and the perpetrator must do whatever other things he can to help alleviate the pain and suffering that was experienced. This is where the concept of justice comes into play—one must accept responsibility for the injury that was caused and rectify it. Mercy comes into the picture at the point where one is expected— indeed, mandated—to forgive, and that usually is as a response to a repentant perpetrator. Thus one manifestation of forgiveness would be mercy, in the sense that the person who was the victim—to the extent that it is possible—says to himself, to the perpetrator, and to others, “I am no longer going to demand or expect some kind of retribution or punishment for the perpetrator even though I am entitled to it by the criterion of justice.” Obviously, in many situations it is not the victim who decides how or whether the perpetrator will get punished. It is the criminal justice system which does so. But to the extent that the victim is involved in that process, then mercy would and should come into play, when it would be appropriate to the circumstances. Question: Who is responsible (or obligated) to repent? And who is responsible (or obligated) to forgive? When does the victim become responsible to forgive? Solomon Schimmel: The perpetrator is obligated to repent. However, there are many instances in which individuals directly or indirectly supported the perpetrator, encouraged him, or were indifferent to his evil actions (e.g., the bystander who could have prevented the perpetrator from doing what he did, but did not do so). There is also a measure of responsibility for individuals who could have prevented

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 189

07/01/2014 08:52

190

The Three Sons of Abraham

the injury but did not. Thus they would also have an obligation to repent. It would be considered a sin for one not to have done what was possible and should have been done to prevent an unjustifiable injury to an innocent victim. As I said earlier, from the Jewish point of view, the victim becomes obligated to forgive only in response to the repentance of the sinner. If the perpetrator shows no inclination or interest in making any kind of reparation or apology, then there is no obligation to forgive. It still may be worthwhile to forgive, but not out of an obligation to do so. Here is another example where Judaism differs from the “radical forgiveness” doctrine of certain groups within the Christian tradition. Question: Christianity in general teaches that the victim is obligated to forgive every offender of every offense. Do you agree with this, and why? Solomon Schimmel: I don’t agree with it. Why does Christianity say that we should do this? Intuitively it does not seem to be compelling in terms of any concept of justice. Moreover, on psychological grounds it would be very difficult or very unnatural for a victim to forgive every offense and every offender. In terms of our human nature and psychology, and from the perspective of moral philosophy or ethics, I think the burden of argument and proof in defense of the Christian claim falls upon the Christian making that claim. So I don’t agree with it because I don’t see why I should. I say “I” but I don’t mean only me. I am talking about the Jewish tradition as I understand it (others may understand it differently). And many people, not just Jews, disagree with such a Christian view. I think that Islam takes a view more similar to the Jewish view than to the Christian one. And many nonreligious people find it rather strange to assume that there is some kind of automatic obligation to forgive every offense and every offender. Christianity bases its views on its belief that the teachings of Jesus reflect the divine will, and this is how many Christians interpret Jesus’ teachings about forgiveness. This doctrine of radical forgiveness is based upon a theological belief, but it is not compelling in terms of logic or moral philosophy or ethics. Question: Is the desire for retribution or punishment of an offender morally wrong? Does the desire for revenge, retribution, or justice

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 190

07/01/2014 08:52



Forgiving the perpetrator191

have any positive effect on society? On the other hand, can the pursuit of justice ever lead to unjust acts? Solomon Schimmel: I would say that it is not morally wrong to feel that an offender should be held accountable and punished when he or she has acted deliberately or maliciously. Legal systems in every society, including Christian societies, have always assumed that some kind of punishment is appropriate for certain kinds of behaviors. The Catholic Church, when it was a major political force, did not do away with the judicial system. It felt that offenders should be punished. Whether the punishment should be based upon the concept of retribution or deterrence is too complex a question for me to answer in this brief interview. Punishment does not necessarily have to be based on the concept of retribution. It usually is, but there are other rationales one could use to justify punishing an offender. You ask whether the desire for revenge, retribution, and justice has any positive effect on society. In order for society to function, it has to include some kind of judicial system. One could reasonably claim that in a certain sense the judicial system is a socialized channeling of the more basic emotion of the desire for revenge, which is a desire that, unchecked in the absence of social control, could be very dangerous. Even though it could be dangerous, it is not necessarily morally wrong in principle to desire to have revenge against somebody who injured you or injured your family or injured anybody, even someone not related to you. Although the desire for revenge may not always be intrinsically or automatically immoral, it can lead to injustice. One reason why the desire for revenge can be abused is that people usually cannot judge objectively whether the injury caused to them or to others was totally unjustified. Also, the victim, due to passionate and painful feelings of being injured and/ or slighted, will often take revenge way beyond the punishment that would be considered appropriate from the perspective of an objective observer. So revenge can be very dangerous. Indeed, that is why it is very important for society to have a judicial system that channels the victim’s desire for revenge after a court has viewed the wrongful act of the perpetrator through the lens of justice. It is very important that members of society feel that criminals are held accountable and that justice has been done. When they have that sense and that feeling, their desire for revenge may be assuaged and they will not

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 191

07/01/2014 08:52

192

The Three Sons of Abraham

take the law into their own hands. When a person or society feels that there is moral anarchy and no one is holding anyone accountable for what is being done wrong, this leads to taking the law into one’s own hands, which can be extremely dangerous. So in this regard, there is a positive aspect to the effect of revenge, when it is channeled through justice and the justice system. However, it is dangerous if that does not happen, because then the victim’s (or others acting on his behalf or in his name) pursuit of justice can lead to unjust acts. Question: Can forgiving ever be immoral or lead to injustice? Solomon Schimmel: I think that it sometimes can, particularly if the perpetrator does not go through the process of holding himself accountable for what he has done. There are practical dangers, such as in situations of domestic abuse, where people might hold the radical Christian perspective that it is a Christian obligation to forgive the abuser. Often, in situations like that, the abused spouse will be abused repeatedly because no one has held the abuser accountable for what he or she is doing. Forgiving the abuser might give the abuser the feeling that he or she can repeat the abuse. In that sense forgiving can be immoral. In addition, if you let somebody off the hook, not holding him or her responsible within the judicial system for some crime—for example, by not pressing charges because you believe that as a Christian you should forgive—it might leave the perpetrator free to injure other people. There is a case I discuss in Wounds Not Healed by Time about a nun who was gang raped and would not press charges. She was critiqued by others for allowing the rapists to receive a lesser prison sentence and thereby making them available to commit other crimes on other members of society. So inappropriate forgiving can lead to injustice. Question: In your book you discuss two types of forgiveness—private and interpersonal. Can you define these terms and when they are and aren’t appropriate to be given? Solomon Schimmel: By private forgiveness I am referring to situations when you are injured and have a deep sense of anger towards the perpetrator. Private forgiveness is the internal assuaging of your own feelings of anger or resentment, which is not necessarily something

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 192

07/01/2014 08:52



Forgiving the perpetrator193

that you have to make public. You don’t have to tell the perpetrator about it. It’s your way of getting over your anger, resentment, and hostility towards the perpetrator. Interpersonal forgiveness has to do with letting the perpetrator know that you are extending forgiveness and will not necessarily hold him or her responsible. You have some sort of mercy or are willing to try reestablishing a relationship with him or her. When these types of forgiveness are and are not appropriate depends upon the situation. For example, if you feel so much hatred, animosity, and resentment towards somebody that it is eating you up inside, then it would be for your therapeutic benefit to engage in forgiveness. You can do this even if you feel that the perpetrator does not deserve to be forgiven. You do it because it is therapeutic for you and these kinds of feelings are holding you back from leading a healthy normal life. You are unable to go forward because you are held hostage by your perpetrator who is in effect continuously hurting you as you allow these incapacitating feelings to continue. So in that sense it could be appropriate and desirable to engage in private forgiveness. However, there are other ways to deal with these feelings of hatred, some of which do not require forgiveness. In the interpersonal sense of forgiveness, whether it is or isn’t appropriate to forgive depends on the conditions we spoke about earlier. Question: Can a person forgive an offender who has never repented? How does one heal from offenses that were never repented? Solomon Schimmel: Yes, a person can forgive an offender as long as it does not lead to immorality or other forms of injustice as discussed above. If you want to forgive, as a voluntary action on your part, you can, but that’s different from saying that one is obligated to forgive an offender who is not repentant. With respect to how one heals from offenses that were never repented, it depends in part on what you mean by healing. For example, in many cases Jews who were survivors of the Holocaust went ahead to live productive lives and were not consumed or obsessed—at least in their external behavior—with revenge or with getting the perpetrators to repent. So in a certain sense they healed even though the Nazis and their collaborators never repented of their sins. So, one can heal even in the absence of repentance by the perpetrator.

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 193

07/01/2014 08:52

194

The Three Sons of Abraham

I don’t think the healing of the victim has to be contingent upon the perpetrator’s repenting, although I do think that it often does help. Where the perpetrator does repent and apologize and really expresses remorse, this often does have a healing effect on the victim. You often see that with trials in which the victim and the family of the victim want the defendant to at least express remorse and to acknowledge that he or she has done something wrong. So it does seem to be psychologically important for victims in many cases to help them heal from the injury they experienced. But again I don’t think that it is always necessary, and there are ways of going forward with one’s life even though there are plenty of injustices that are perpetrated and will be perpetrated even if no one repents of them. Moreover, the perpetrators will live out their lives in plenty and in prosperity. Kurt Waldheim, who recently died, became the secretary general of the United Nations and the president of Austria even though he never repented for his involvement with the Nazi regime. There were many Nazis who remained in Germany after the war and prospered, or who fled to Argentina and elsewhere and prospered. So there are plenty of cases where victims of these criminals have gone forward productively with their lives while the criminals who perpetrated the most horrific crimes against them and their families were never brought to justice. The criminals denied their guilt and never expressed any remorse or repentance. That, unfortunately, is reality. Question: Can a person forgive someone who is dead? Can a person repent of an offense committed against someone who is now deceased? Solomon Schimmel: You can forgive someone who is dead—in the therapeutic, self-healing sense of forgiveness—by letting go of your anger and resentment. In my book I deal in great detail with how one goes through the process of getting over deep anger and resentment. You don’t just say “I’m not going to be angry anymore.” It’s a lot more complex than that. With respect to whether you can repent of an offense committed against someone who is now deceased, you can repent in the sense that you take responsibility and feel remorse. What you can’t do is make any direct reparation or repair the injury to the deceased person. Often when you injure somebody you also injure family members

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 194

07/01/2014 08:52



Forgiving the perpetrator195

and/or the social or ethnic group to which the victim belongs. If your victim is deceased, you can’t actually repent with respect to your victim. What you can do is at least try to make some kind of gestures of repentance towards the family of the victim or his social group. In a more general sense, you can engage in some kind of “vicarious repentance,” an idea I discuss in my book, based upon Martin Buber’s discussion of guilt. The idea is that, when I injure or hurt somebody, I increase the evil in the world. There is no way I can repair that injury to my victim when he or she is dead. Nevertheless, I can engage in a kind of vicarious repentance by increasing the amount of good in the world in some other way. It is an indirect way of restoring a better balance between good and evil in the world, because I had added to the net evil and now I want to rectify that by contributing to the good. Although this is not the same as repenting to the victim, it is a way of dealing with the fact that the perpetrator would like to repent and wants to repent and needs to do something to feel cleansed of sinful behavior. This vicarious repentance can be very psychologically and emotionally useful to the repentant perpetrator when the victim is no longer alive. Question: In your book you wrote, “Only the victim herself has the moral right to forgive an offense against her, which makes murder a crime that no human can forgive, since the victim is dead” (Wounds Not Healed by Time, p.  66). If this is so, how can a murderer bear the guilt (unforgiveness) for the rest of his/her life in an appropriate manner that does not destroy himself/herself? Solomon Schimmel: First of all, the murderer can go through the stages of remorse, guilt, and vicarious forms of reparations to the extent that he has the capacity to do so. So he can engage in some of the elements of repentance. On the other hand, often the murderer cannot do much because he is incarcerated and does not have the means to make any kind of reparation to a family member or to do something else on behalf of society. One of the consequences of murder is that sometimes you’re going to have to bear the life-long burden of guilt. You’re not always going to be able to overcome all of the guilt you’ve incurred by taking somebody’s life. That is part of your self-inflicted punishment for your evil actions.

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 195

07/01/2014 08:52

196

The Three Sons of Abraham

Question: According to Judaism, how does repentance come about? Who initiates repentance (the offender, the victim, or God)? What are the outward signs of true repentance according to the rabbis? Solomon Schimmel: Repentance is supposed to be initiated on the part of the perpetrator. The perpetrator should become aware of what he has done. Many times, though, this does not happen. Other people can speak to the perpetrator and inform the perpetrator that he has done something wrong. Often the victim does that. Leviticus 19:17 teaches not to hate your brother in your heart, but rather to reprove or chastise him. Sometimes the perpetrator does not even realize that he has done something injurious or wrong, so the victim should inform the perpetrator, which might induce him to apologize and rectify the injury. In many instances this may not be feasible. But in instances where the perpetrator and victim are in a family or spousal relationship, or in a professional relationship, they often can do something. Sometimes a spouse, a child, or a parent did something that was hurtful, although they may have actually meant well and are not even aware that it was hurtful. So you should be able, in a nonconfrontational way, to apprise the person of what was done that was hurtful, and that can then trigger in him or her the process of realizing that something wrong was done and can initiate the process of repentance. In biblical literature, one of the main roles of the prophets was to try to induce repentance. That is what many if not most prophecies are about—exhortations to people of Judah (the southern kingdom) or of Israel (the northern kingdom) who were committing personal sins or were breaking the covenant with God. The prophet’s job was to be a messenger from God to induce the people of Israel to repent of their sins. In this theological view, God, through his messengers, initiates the process of repentance. I think that in contemporary society this is an important role of a spouse or a good friend—to be able to point out that a spouse or friend has done something wrong in regard to another person. Or it is the job of the rabbi, minister, or priest to let individual members of their congregation know when they are behaving in an inappropriate way. I don’t know if clergy feel comfortable in this role, but it is one of the traditional roles that they have always had. The role of a good spouse or friend is, among other things, to be concerned for the virtue and moral wellbeing of one’s

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 196

07/01/2014 08:52



Forgiving the perpetrator197

spouse or friend. So if your spouse or friend is doing something inappropriate, you should be able to point it out to him or her, and be the one who initiates for him or her the process of repentance. Question: How do we know if repentance is sincere? Solomon Schimmel: That’s a very interesting question, because you cannot always know what is going on inside a person’s heart. One test of whether repentance is sincere is if the person was faced with the same temptation, or the same situation of incitement, and could have repeated the sinful or injurious behavior in a way that would have gone undetected. If that person nevertheless chose to stay controlled and not repeat that behavior, that decision could be used to assess whether the repentance is true and sincere. This issue comes up often in court cases. The legal system wants defendants who committed a crime to express remorse. But when a defendant expresses remorse, the judge and the jury often wonder whether the expression of remorse is sincere. Perhaps the defendant expresses remorse only in the hope of receiving a less harsh sentence. How do you know if he really means it? It is not easy to determine. In my book I do make some suggestions to help determine sincerity. I think that in many cases it is not possible to determine whether there was true repentance. Often you cannot know at the moment a person says he or she is repentant that indeed this is so. However, by observing how he or she behaves subsequently, you might be able to arrive at a more reliable retrospective evaluation. In Wounds Not Healed by Time I discuss the Japanese interrogator of a British prisoner of war. The interrogator spent many years after World War II doing all kinds of good deeds in order to atone for what he perceived to be the crimes of his fellow Japanese and his participation in those crimes. In addition, since he considered himself a member of the Japanese military and its oppressive system, he spent much time and resources, on his own initiative, trying to honor the memory of all the prisoners of war who had died in Japanese slave labor camps. This indicated that he was truly penitent because he did these things over a long period of time without anyone forcing him to do so, and neither did he derive any material benefit from doing them. Knowing this about him made it much easier for his British victim to forgive him. These events are described in the very moving

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 197

07/01/2014 08:52

198

The Three Sons of Abraham

story The Railway Man: A POW’s Searing Account of War, Brutality and Forgiveness by Eric Lomax. Question: What is the benefit to the perpetrator and the victim of reparation and repair? And is it necessary always for forgiveness to occur? Solomon Schimmel: When a perpetrator repents and the victim forgives in response, the benefits are obvious, although it is not always necessary for forgiveness to occur in order for the benefits of repentance to take place. At least from the Jewish point of view, the perpetrator should not be repenting primarily in order to be forgiven. Although the Jewish tradition teaches that the victim is obligated to forgive if the perpetrator is sincere in his repentance, this does not mean that the perpetrator is entitled to forgiveness if he repents. From the perspective of the offender, he should repent because he did something wrong, and he has to repair the damage he has caused. Furthermore, repentance is in his own moral and spiritual interest. The benefit of repentance is that it makes the offender become a better human being as a result. And there is a benefit for the victim too. If the victim can forgive, that helps reestablish an improved relationship with the perpetrator in place of the one that was damaged as a result of the perpetrator’s acts. It also alleviates from the victim a lot of the anger and animosity that he is bearing within him, which can be very self-destructive. So the repentance and forgiveness process helps cleanse the victim from negative, harmful emotions. It is not always necessary for forgiveness to occur. The benefit, when it does occur, is that anything which humans can do to bring about reconciliation, love, and good will—and thus remove hurtful feelings—is beneficial to everybody. Question: What advice would you give someone who is seeking to forgive but is struggling to do so? Are there things the victim can do to help himself/herself move towards forgiveness? Solomon Schimmel: I think that basically there are three things to keep in mind. One is to cultivate empathy for the perpetrator where it is appropriate. By empathy I mean trying to understand what the circumstances were in which the perpetrator did what was done.

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 198

07/01/2014 08:52



Forgiving the perpetrator199

Often there are extenuating circumstances which, although they do not remove all guilt and responsibility, can very much attenuate our sense of anger. For example, I don’t believe that poverty of itself automatically causes crime. There are many people and groups who live in abject poverty and yet do not commit violent crimes against other people. On the other hand, it is quite understandable why a young child brought up in ten different foster homes and who was never given love or proper teaching about values would lack a moral compass in life and therefore commit crimes, even vicious ones. It does not exonerate him, but, if I can reflect upon that juvenile (or adult) criminal’s history and background from the perspective of how those might have contributed to his criminal behavior or attitudes, such empathy would enable me to be more forgiving. Another piece of advice is to acquire humility, in the sense of recognizing that all of us have our weaknesses and our flaws. We all have hurt somebody whether accidentally or maliciously. Thus we should be a little less judgmental when we’re dealing with perpetrators, because we should realize that we too are not a hundred percent righteous. This, I think, tends to help the process of forgiveness. Third, as I said earlier, forgiving in the internal, private, personal sense is often a means of acting in your own self-interest to get rid of your negative emotions. Many times holding on to hostility can have a negative effect not only on oneself but on one’s family as well. If I’m obsessed about the perpetrator getting punished and am constantly thinking about what that person did to me—if my sense of being an injured victim becomes so essential to my life, my thoughts, and my feelings—this can be very detrimental to my children and other loved ones. There can be additional reasons to forgive as well, which I elaborate on in Wounds Not Healed by Time, which could induce one to consider making the journey to forgiveness. Moreover, it is important to know how to go about forgiving, which is a complex process, and in the book I provide different moral considerations, practical techniques, and psychological guidelines as to how to deal with hurt and forgiveness, drawing from a wide range of psychologists—Christian, Jewish, and secular—as well as from moral philosophers, theologians, and works of literature.

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 199

07/01/2014 08:52

The grace of forgiveness Interview with Lourdes E. Morales-Gudmundsson

Question: You present seminars and workshops all over the world on “forgiveness,” a subject to which you have devoted a whole book and published numerous articles. Undoubtedly, this is an important topic for you. What experience or reflection led you to this particular interest in the topic of “forgiveness”? Lourdes E. Morales-Gudmundsson: This has been an intellectual as well as a spiritual journey. On the one hand, I became very interested in the topic of suffering while doing research on my doctoral thesis at Brown University. Fray Luis de León (1527–91), considered to be the “father of literary Spanish,” was a Hebrew scholar at a time in Spain when conversos (Jews converted to Christianity, also called marranos in Portugal) were suspected of “judaizing,” that is, returning to their former religious practices under the guise of having converted to the Christian faith. It was discovered that this distinguished theologian of the Old Testament at the University of Salamanca was of Jewish heritage and his envious colleagues ensured that this accusation should come before the Inquisition. As a result, he spent five years in the Inquisition prisons during which time he produced a comprehensive exegetical work on the book of Job in the vernacular Spanish (a courageous “heresy” on his part, since biblical translations had to be in Latin). In his Libro de Job, I found a rich source of thoughts on the meaning of suffering. These thoughts led to several sermons and articles, and, ultimately, to the question: Can deep hurts be forgiven? These cogitations coincided with an invitation I extended to my parents to come to Puerto Rico to help us care for our young daughter, Carmen, while I finished my doctoral thesis. It was at this time that I felt I needed to confront my father with a lifetime of abandonment. Out of this confrontation came a lasting reconciliation between my father and me, and an intimate mandate to further

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 200

07/01/2014 08:52



The grace of forgiveness201

my knowledge of this thing I’d discovered for myself called “forgiveness.” Fortunately for me, my interest in this topic coincided with the release of the first key books on forgiveness by writers such as Lewis Smedes and David Augsburger in the 1980s, as well as with the work of Dr. Robert Enright and the International Forgiveness Institute at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and Dr. Everett Worthington, Jr, at Virginia Commonwealth University. Coming in contact with these books at this particular time launched my own serious research into forgiveness. Question: Why is forgiveness important for any human being and for Christians in particular? Lourdes Morales-Gudmundsson: Let’s begin with the importance of forgiveness for Christians. I can’t think of anything more central to the Christian faith than forgiveness. What we understand as “salvation” with its accompanying traditional concepts of justification (erasing of our past sins), sanctification (growing in Christian virtues), and glorification (the heavenly reward) all began with an act of divine forgiveness. God’s love and grace gave birth to the idea of forgiveness. If love and grace constitute the character of God, then forgiveness is the activation of those seminal traits for us and in us. Forgiveness came to us in the form of “Emmanuel,” who lived out the principles of forgiveness in His life on Earth, verbally forgiving His torturers and murderers, and effectively winning our eternal life through His atoning death and resurrection [...] Of all people on Earth, Christians should have the deepest understanding and the most effective practice of forgiveness. And, yet, I find that the concept is “new” for many Christians. Not new in the sense that they never heard about it, but that they’ve never given it much thought. Even those who understand the centrality of God’s forgiveness to our salvation have not readily seen how human forgiveness is connected to God’s forgiveness. But forgiveness is not only important for Christians. The fundamental concepts of forgiveness are embedded in every major world religion: one of Allah’s names in the Islamic religion is Al-Ghafoor or “The Forgiving One”; Buddhism’s concept of patience or kshanti includes giving up the desire for revenge, a critical factor in forgiveness; Hinduism’s concept of ahimsa (to do or cause no harm) is a sacred doctrine; and Judaism has a rich tradition relating to the how,

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 201

07/01/2014 08:52

202

The Three Sons of Abraham

when, and why of forgiveness. Outside the strictly religious sphere, thinkers such as Richard Holloway, retired Bishop of Edinburgh in the Scottish Episcopal Church, have found a way of persuasively explaining forgiveness to the secular mind using evolutionary theories of human development (see On Forgiveness: How Can We Forgive the Unforgivable?). For Holloway as for other secular thinkers, such as Jacques Derrida, forgiveness is humanity’s last hope for moral redemption. Question: How would you define forgiveness? There have been misunderstandings and confusion about the idea of forgiveness. Could you briefly tell us what forgiveness is and what it is not? Lourdes Morales-Gudmundsson: I like to use the definition developed by the International Forgiveness Institute; not because it’s the only definition out there, but because it’s the most biblical, in my opinion. Forgiveness is a response to an injustice by “turning the other cheek,” i.e., choosing not to repay the offender in kind or demand any restitution. It mercifully chooses not to pursue resentment or revenge. It brings healing not only to the offender, but principally to the victim. It is an act of unmerited good will—“unmerited” because one must assume that there is no real restitution possible in serious offenses. For example, what kind of restitution would make up for murder, or rape, or genocide? Let’s take an even less extreme case of violence. If someone steals $100 from me, restoring the $100 to me would constitute full monetary restitution, but it would not take care of the emotional fallout of anger, fear, suspicion, and humiliation connected with the robbery. That emotional “baggage” can only be dealt with by a “leap of faith” that forgiveness represents—a leap from victimhood to full humanity. What I mean by “full humanity” is a return to that freedom to feel safe in the world again, to believe that most people are benevolent, and to be able to trust people again. True forgiveness has the potential to fully restore a relationship and place it on better ground than it was prior to the relational crisis. Forgiveness is not mere tolerance: it actively wishes and works for the good of the other. Rather than forget or pass over an offense, forgiveness looks the offense squarely in the face, acknowledging (1) its existence, (2) the pain it has caused, and (3) its unacceptability. Nor is it an obligation—when forgiveness is offered, it is always tendered

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 202

07/01/2014 08:52



The grace of forgiveness203

as a gift. If it is to be called forgiveness, it cannot be earned. This does not mean that there are no expectations on the part of the injured party. Even Jesus “expected” that the woman caught in adultery would “Go and sin no more” when He forgave her. However, other Bible texts such as Luke 17:3–4 suggest that the forgiver should be ready to forgive more than once because it is highly likely that the offender will sin again. Nor is forgiveness excusing the offender’s behavior or diminishing the importance of the offense. As long as one is excusing or diminishing, one is denying that there is a problem. Forgiveness, on the other hand, always recognizes that there is a problem. That explains why it’s important to explain why one is forgiving the other. Otherwise it will come across as an unjustified accusation. Question: Could you describe the process of forgiveness in the Christian tradition? Lourdes Morales-Gudmundsson: The Christian Bible is full of references to forgiveness, both anecdotal and doctrinal. In the Old Testament, issues of forgiveness are often dealt with in the context of family relations—Jacob and Esau, Joseph and his brothers. The family is recognized as the principal hotbed of conflicts and, therefore, the logical context for forgiveness. Both these stories teach us that (1) a victim’s anger due to an injustice is legitimate; (2) time is on the side of both victim and perpetrator; (3) the victim can get tired of holding a grudge, thus opening the way for forgiveness; and (4) “proving” a perpetrator’s trustworthiness is okay as long as it leads to forgiveness. The story of David and Saul provides yet another context for the workings of forgiveness. David forgave Saul over and over again. That is, he determined to forgive Saul and then continued to forgive him as many times as necessary to win him over, if possible. The lesson here is that forgiveness is both a one-time decision and a journey or process. God rewarded David’s willingness to always “take the high road,” despite Saul’s relentless hatred. The fact that Saul never repented did not affect David’s ability to forgive and enjoy inner peace. Then there’s Job who found himself in the unenviable position of having to “forgive” God. He understood that it was God who had allowed everything to be taken away from him, but he eventually understands that in “forgiving” God, he is recognizing that the creature cannot question the Creator and the Creator is eminently trustworthy.

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 203

07/01/2014 08:52

204

The Three Sons of Abraham

In the New Testament, forgiveness is at the heart of the “kingdom of heaven” and its ability to transform human thinking and acting. Matthew 5 and 18 and the parable of the Prodigal Son, along with numerous other passages in the writings of the Apostles, make it clear that turning the other cheek and walking the second mile are not mere niceties added on to other more important Christian doctrines. Rather, these are at the heart of what it means to worship God “in Spirit and in truth.” Mercy, compassion, empathy, and altruism are all summarized in the description of love in 1 Corinthians 13; in the enumeration of the “fruit of the Spirit” in Galatians 3; and in the exhortation to love as a reflection of God’s character, as described in 1 John 4. Aside from such passages as Matthew 12:22–37 (the “unpardonable sin”), Matthew 16:13–20 and John 20:19–23 (the disciples’ “authority” to forgive), Matthew 18:15–20 (“how” to forgive), and James 5:13–18 (forgiveness of the ill and dying), the Christian tradition has placed penance and forgiveness at the center of its rites and rituals. The importance of repentance and forgiveness can be traced back from such early Church fathers as Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Cyprian to medieval scholasticism and on through reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, who fed into such Reformed Christian traditions with their emphasis on peace as that represented by Menno Simons (Anabaptists/Mennonites). The Roman Catholic mass is centered on confession, repentance, and forgiveness, which, to this day, lie at the heart of Catholic as well as Protestant worship. Question: Can we forgive even our enemy? Can a person forgive an offender who has never repented? Lourdes Morales-Gudmundsson: The answer to both questions is yes. In fact, the Bible commands forgiveness of the enemy (i.e., the unrepentant offender). But what does it mean to forgive an enemy? I believe it means that you must first distinguish between a friend and an enemy. A friend wishes you well; an enemy hopes to do you ill. A friend stands up for you in the face of others’ criticisms; an enemy joins the chorus of critics. David understood that he was dealing with an avowed enemy. Often it is difficult to determine if a person is a friend or an enemy, particularly when you want to believe that the

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 204

07/01/2014 08:52



The grace of forgiveness205

person is a friend. However, forgiveness works best when you know with whom you are dealing: friend or foe. Once it is determined that you are dealing with an enemy, forgiveness can take the form of setting clear boundaries for the renewed relationship. Expressing what is permissible or not in the relationship is important for the viability of forgiveness. If the enemy will not abide by any of the “rules” set by the injured party, then it is time to place distance between you. David made sure that he kept his distance from the unpredictable enemy, Saul, and yet reached out to him whenever the opportunity presented itself, trying to demonstrate his desire to change the dynamic of the relationship. There are cases like Saul’s where the extent and depth of fear, hatred, and jealousy are such that the enemy cannot be won over. Even so, we can forgive, because forgiveness is something the injured party does in their mind and heart to break free from ill feelings toward the unrepentant enemy. It is for this reason that it is indeed possible to forgive a person who has not, will not, and will never apologize. Question: Is forgiveness difficult? Lourdes Morales-Gudmundsson: Forgiveness goes against every natural human instinct that a serious or even a minor offense awakens. The first thing that an injustice creates in a victim is the need for moral action (i.e., justice). But it can just as easily create the need for immoral action (i.e., revenge). Both the former and the latter make forgiveness difficult, but the level of difficulty in forgiving may also depend on the personality of the victim. Some scholars have found that it is more difficult for certain personalities to forgive than for others. There are laid-back personalities who wonder what all the fuss is about. And then there are those who remember in the minutest of detail every tiny offense that was ever perpetrated against them and refuse to “get over it.” Living a life of “debt-collecting” makes forgiveness impossible, unless the debt-collector is willing to take the “leap of faith” and release their debtors from the bottomless debt owed them. Forgiveness is also difficult because our instincts of pride (“Why should I humiliate myself this way? They started it!”), fear (“What will people think of me?”), and anger (“They won’t get off the hook that easily”) get in the way. We will often sacrifice almost anything,

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 205

07/01/2014 08:52

206

The Three Sons of Abraham

including personal inner peace and even our physical health, to be “right” in our own minds. Forgiveness asks the question: Is it more important ultimately to be right or to be at peace? We almost feel guilty answering that peace should in any way override justice, and yet Jesus in all His teachings gives much more importance to the virtues of forgiveness and peace than those of theological accuracy (“being right”). Question: When can forgiveness be granted according to the Christian ideals? Are there crimes that are unforgivable? Lourdes Morales-Gudmundsson: Forgiveness can be granted at any time and for any reason, no matter how monstrous the offense, evidently. There are those who have survived genocide who affirm that they have forgiven their persecutors. A few years back I taught a seminar entitled “Forgiveness and culture.” One of the assignments included a visit to the Simon Wiesenthal Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles. Students came back amazed at the testimonies of some Holocaust survivors who stated that they had forgiven the German people and even Hitler. How could this be? Some said that they could no longer carry the burden of hatred because it was interfering with their ability to live healthy lives. Others stated that, for them, carrying hatred in their heart was placing them at a moral plane beneath their persecutors and that they could no longer see themselves debased in this way. Later in the quarter a young Rwandan Tutsi shared the hair-raising story of her brush with death. Had it not been that she and her family promised their would-be assassins that they would not take revenge after the massacres, they would have lost their lives. It never ceases to amaze me what humans are capable of forgiving! Forgiveness is exercised in the most extreme of dastardly circumstances. Why? Because I believe we are “hard-wired” to forgive. We are the most miserable when we withhold it and the most prosperous, in every sense of the word, when we give it. Question: Yet the New Testament says that only the sin against the Spirit is unforgivable. Could you comment on that? Would that mean that when we commit crimes against other humans, even children, we may be forgiven, but not when we offend the invisible God?

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 206

07/01/2014 08:52



The grace of forgiveness207

Lourdes Morales-Gudmundsson: God’s forgiveness operates differently than human forgiveness because the entities in relationship are different. The relationship of Creator and creature was the issue at hand when Job demanded an explanation as to why he was suffering so senselessly (Job 10:2). In the end, Job acknowledges that, despite his faithful attendance to rituals and religious duty, he really did not know God. Likewise, it is difficult for us to understand God’s forgiveness. God’s forgiveness is infinite, yet He has chosen that it should be limited by human free will. Such freedom to accept or not accept God’s love and forgiveness are the maximum manifestation of God’s love. When Jesus declared that there was only one unforgivable sin, He meant that the free-will act of rejecting any and all the appeals of God to the human conscience was a human act He is determined to respect. It doesn’t even mean that the Trinity does not forgive; it only means that God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cannot be reconciled to a man or woman who is unwilling to be reconciled to them. Forgiveness and reconciliation are not the same thing. God can still extend love and forgiveness to the hardened human heart because forgiveness is His to give. But it is this hardened heart that wills not to be in a relationship with God. In the sense that such a human chooses not to have God in his or her life, this act is “unforgivable” because it places the human in an irreconcilable position with respect to God. This is not because God wouldn’t be able or willing to be reconciled, but because He can’t. Out of love, He has determined not to stand in the way of the free will of earthly men and women. Question: How do the biblical concepts of “justice” and “mercy” play a role in the experience of forgiveness? Lourdes Morales-Gudmundsson: They are pivotal to the function of forgiveness. On the one hand, mercy is what prompts the injured party to extend forgiveness to an undeserving perpetrator. On the other hand, justice is what drives the victim to confront the wrongdoer, to “remember” in order to acknowledge the existence and the pain of the offense, and to seek restitution through whatever legitimate means are available to her. All through holy scripture, God’s character is presented in this tension between justice and mercy that is forgiveness. God is forgiving because He is both just and merciful. His justice calls on humans to be just and righteous with everyone,

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 207

07/01/2014 08:52

208

The Three Sons of Abraham

not just the privileged. And His mercy appeals to humans to be merciful with the lowly. In other words, forgiveness, as Bonhoeffer reminds us, is not “cheap.” It costs something—the sacrifice of our pride to reach out to the undeserving offender and the sacrifice of our judgmental impatience to extend mercy to the repeat offender. To forgive is to enter into true discipleship. Question: Can forgiving ever be immoral or lead to injustice? Lourdes Morales-Gudmundsson: A misunderstanding of forgiveness can be dangerous. I’ve shown how there are transactions that pass for forgiveness—”forgetting,” excusing, denying, ignoring, or diminishing the importance of an offense. It is these false forms of forgiveness that can throw the victim back into a bad situation to be hurt or even killed. If forgiveness is misunderstood as letting the offender off the hook or as not holding him/her accountable, the victim is exposed to further damage. These and other misinterpretations of forgiveness can lead to injustices and the immoral fruits of conflict. Simply because true forgiveness is an intentional act of the human will to release a wrongdoer from guilt does not mean it approves of the ill perpetrated nor should the offender believe he/she is free to continue abusing the victim’s kindness. As it states in Romans 2:4, God’s kindness and forbearance are meant to lead the sinner to repentance, not more abuse. Likewise, human forgiveness is meant to remedy the damage, not exacerbate it. It is precisely that intentionality of forgiveness that acknowledges the seriousness of the offense, seeks to remedy the damage, and, moved by the higher virtues, chooses to release the offender from the debt. It is the intentional, noble, and gratuitous generosity of this act that is meant to transform or, at least, trump the wicked intentions of the offender. Forgiveness is not in any way approving of the wrong perpetrated; it strongly disapproves of the wrong, but acknowledges what Hannah Arendt calls “the irreversibility of history.” It recognizes that there is no going back to undo the damage done, to resurrect the lives lost, or to reverse the cruelty suffered. Only forgiveness can take the necessary leap into a healing zone from a place of unspeakable hurt. Without it, we are forever doomed to be chained to that one, horrific event in our past. Can forgiveness be interpreted by others as an act of injustice or even cruelty? Yes. Particularly since people looking from the “outside” may be outraged at what seems a gratuitous offering that leaves the

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 208

07/01/2014 08:52



The grace of forgiveness209

victim unrequited. Forgiveness is a very private matter and cannot be judged rightly, except by those involved. Question: The title of your book is significant: “I Forgive You, But…” Is it possible to forgive and yet not forget? Or, reversely, is forgiveness based on forgetting real forgiveness? Lourdes Morales-Gudmundsson: One of the classic forgiveness “truisms” is “forgive and forget.” On the contrary, true forgiveness is the result of painful, but necessary remembering. That is, in order to make the decision to release the debtor from the debt, there must be careful, responsible remembering that will make it clear to the victim that an offense or a crime was in fact committed. Without this process of acknowledgment, there is nothing to forgive! Going back to the story of David and Saul, it was important for David to remember that Saul represented an ongoing danger, but that did not mean that he should withhold his forgiveness. Having said that, there is something one must forget: the feelings of anger and hurt that were created by the offense. It is these that wreak the most havoc in the body and mind of the injured party. Once the forgiveness decision has been made, over time, the hurt feelings begin to diminish until the body and mind are at peace or, as the HeartMath Institute calls it, the whole body is in homeostasis. It is Everett Worthington, Jr, who has rightly noted that transgressions are stressful. When a trauma takes place, the brain secretes a substance called cortisol which in turn creates a memory. Attempts to “forget” are counterproductive to a body that is screaming to remember! He suggests replacing negative emotions connected with the trauma of the offense with positive ones—using empathy or “reframing” to de-stress the physical body. It is worthwhile to remember the injunction in John 8:32—the truth is what sets us free. We cannot be set free if we are not willing to remember and face the truth of what happened. Question: What are the conditions for forgiveness? Lourdes Morales-Gudmundsson: According to some thinkers, such as Jacques Derrida, the only condition for forgiveness is the victim’s willingness to forgive. Nothing else can be called forgiveness: no

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 209

07/01/2014 08:52

210

The Three Sons of Abraham

transactions, no expectations of restitution, nothing. In a sense, he’s right. Confrontation, repentance, confession, seeking restitution—all of these are not yet forgiveness. They are the conditions for forgiveness. In the Christian faith it is God who first offered true forgiveness. That overarching and far-reaching charizomai or forgiveness of God was extended on the cross to everyone and anyone who would claim it. It was given while our backs were turned to Him and it was offered unconditionally. The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that there are conditions that need to be met in order for God’s forgiveness to become operable in the human life. Aphiemi, or that aspect of forgiveness that calls for self-analysis, acknowledgment of sin, repentance, and confession is what activates the free gift of forgiveness. In his Pentecost sermon, Peter’s words cut his listeners to the quick. When they asked what they needed to do to make up for the harm they had perpetrated against the Son of God, Peter did not read off a list of ways to change the past. He simply told them to repent. With that the forgiveness of God would become activated to erase the past as though it had never happened. Confession is the verbalization of one’s repentance—putting words and actions to that from which one repents. Biblically speaking, it’s not enough to cast the mantle of forgetfulness over a wrong. There must be recognition of the wrong done, the intention never to repeat it, and evidences of a changed life. That is forgiveness. The operations of God’s forgiveness are not the same as those between humans. Whereas God’s forgiveness is such that each offense is “new” because He has “forgotten” the last one, humans must remember, not so much the specific wrongs, but the fact that the forgiven perpetrator can be a future source of harm. The biblical maxim “Harmless as doves but wise as serpents” applies to the realities of human relations as they relate to forgiveness. Just as it is the better part of wisdom to keep a pedophile away from children, just so it is wise to keep “juicy news” away from a forgiven slanderer. Nevertheless, the gift of forgiveness is given with the understanding that this may not be the last time the injured party will have to dole out this gift to his or her offender. Question: What advice would you give to someone who is seeking to forgive, but is struggling to do so? Are there things the victim can do to help himself/herself move towards forgiveness?

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 210

07/01/2014 08:52



The grace of forgiveness211

Lourdes Morales-Gudmundsson: Yes, fortunately there is something very fundamental that a person can do to begin the forgiveness journey. First of all, there has to be a desire to forgive. I have a dear friend for whom it took 20 years and a physical illness to get to this important first step. This decision can come as a result of what I call “grudge fatigue,” that is, the injured party or even the perpetrator have become weary of carrying about feelings of anger, resentment, or guilt, and now want to release themselves from the unpleasant burden. If you consider the case of Jacob and Esau, the latter met his brother with open arms, even knowing that Jacob had not apologized for what he had done. Both brothers had reached the point where they desired to forgive and be forgiven. The decision to forgive can also come from what some forgiveness scholars call “reframing.” This process consists of looking at the offender with different eyes, as it were. It employs mental strategies that allow the offender to be seen as generous, kind, and patient—that is, possessing the virtues that he or she once had or that the victim chooses to see the offender as possessing. Projecting these virtues onto an offender, even when he or she is not currently demonstrating them, is a way of “drawing out” what is best in both the offender and the victim. In my book I relate the story of my own experience with “reframing.” As newlyweds, my husband, Reynir, and I attended classes in New York City at the Aesthetic Realism center. This educational philosophy, developed by Eli Siegel, teaches that we are all like paintings in which beauty is the result of opposites working in harmony. In order to be at peace with a difficult person, we must cease to limit our view of them only from their dark side, but rather look at them with all their opposites in harmony, the positive and the negative. My first assignment was to think of a person with whom I was angry at the time and write down all of his defects. At the time I was upset with my brother, Ralph, with whom I had historically a rather rocky relationship. Our relationship was at an all-time low, and I had no problem making a long list of his shortcomings. When I returned with my assignment completed, I was then instructed to go home and write a virtue for every defect I had written down. Needless to say, my team of teachers did not see me for another three months! However, when I did finally finish this task, I had succeeded

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 211

07/01/2014 08:52

212

The Three Sons of Abraham

in “reframing” my brother so that it was very much easier not only to forgive him, but to see my own frailties more clearly. Taking responsibility for my own contributions to conflicts with my brother was the most challenging part of this process. Christian forgiveness scholars suggest that, in order to forgive, we, the victims, must be willing to give up the notion of our complete innocence. In any hostility between adults, both parties must be willing to acknowledge their contribution to the conflict. In Sayings of the Fathers, Abba Poemen rightly exhorts us to “Let go of a small part of your righteousness and in a few days, you will be at peace” (quoted in Christianity Today, May 2006, p. 54). Question: In your dealings with Christians, what is the most recurring obstacle in the Christian community for forgiveness? Lourdes Morales-Gudmundsson: The demand for justice (or revenge) and restitution. Even when people realize that there is no such thing as full restitution or full justice, there is a reluctance to forgive because there is this nagging notion that they are giving something to their offender that he/she does not deserve. This attitude arises from the idea that only those who deserve love and kindness should receive it. Jesus once said that if we love only those who love us, how are we different from unbelievers? In most cases, however, once people understand that giving their offender freedom from the debt they owe benefits the victim people are willing to at least consider the possibility of forgiveness. The demand for fairness from life is another typical obstacle to forgiveness. The insistence that life should/must be fair gets people “stuck” so they can’t move beyond the offense. Yet another obstacle is pride and selfishness. “What will people think of me if I let this person ‘off the hook’?” “Will I look like a weakling or a push-over?” “People won’t respect me.” Concerns over one’s reputation in the community create a barrier to forgiveness. Finally, the greatest obstacle to forgiveness I find is a lack of trust in God. God is perceived as insufficient to take care of the offender and/or the offense. Victims feel that something must be done to exonerate themselves or clear their name or demand restitution. Of course, a victim can use legitimate means, including the courts of the land, to do these things. However, no court settlement can release a victim from what Marilyn Meberg has called the “inner

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 212

07/01/2014 08:52



The grace of forgiveness213

concentration camp” of anger (see The Zippered Heart). Forgiveness belongs to a grace-oriented Christianity rather than a works-oriented one. If victims believe that their works are what will “save” them, it will be extremely difficult for them to understand the liberating power of forgiveness. It will always seem wrong to them, somehow, that “letting go and letting God” will achieve more than all their demands for recompense. Question: Is it always necessary for forgiveness to occur? Lourdes Morales-Gudmundsson: If inner peace, as well as mental and physical health, is necessary, then forgiveness is necessary. That is, if unforgiveness is stealing my mental peace or inflicting an illness on my body, and I know that forgiveness can release the grip of a past offense on my life, I would see forgiveness not only as necessary, but as indispensable. This is certainly the case for the Christian. I’ve had people ask me if just walking away from a difficult relationship is enough. I answer that walking away is important in the case of danger to the victim. But this escape mechanism won’t substitute for forgiveness. Walking away is a form of running away, reflecting an unwillingness to face up to the problem. Forgiveness is not afraid to look the offense squarely in the face. It is intentional in facing the truth, seeking redress, if possible, and, ultimately, letting go of hurtful feelings. Forgiveness goes beyond justice and merely “dropping the matter” by intentionally wishing the offender well. It’s not a mere “letting go,” but a “taking up” of good will and good wishes where once there was resentment. My understanding of forgiveness is that my act of generosity toward my offender benefits me most, since it is I who has been left with the heaviest load of anger and guilt. As self-serving as that may seem, it’s a legitimate way of looking at the matter. It is often the case that the perpetrator is not even aware that he or she has caused harm. Even if such perpetrators are aware, they don’t care whether or not they did harm. In either case, the victim is left “holding the bag.” Is the victim doomed to carry that bag all the rest of his or her life? Yes, unless a decision is made to let it go. What is interesting is that most people don’t realize that they always have the power to let go of that poisonous bag. That power is called “forgiveness.”

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 213

07/01/2014 08:52

231137 CH14-18_157-214.indd 214

07/01/2014 08:52

About the authors Ismail Abdullah is an associate professor in the Department of Qur’an and Sunnah Studies, International Islamic University Malaysia. He obtained his B.A. in Usuluddin from Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt, in 1987. He earned an M.A. in Islamic Revealed Knowledge and Heritage from the International Islamic University Malaysia and a Ph.D. in Islamic Theology from St Andrews University, Scotland, UK. He has published numerous articles in both Arabic and English, as well as participating in national and international conferences. Mordechai (Motti) Arad is Professor of Rabbinic Literature at the Schechter Institutes, as well as at the David Yellin Teachers’ College in Jerusalem. Currently, he is serving as a visiting Talmud professor at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City. He received his Ph.D. in Talmud from the Jewish Theological Seminary in 2000. Dr. Arad’s main interest in research is the attitude toward the Other in Rabbinic literature. He is the author of Desecrators of the Sabbath with Parrhesia. Ganoune Diop is Associate Director of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty for the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, where he represents the Church at the UN in Geneva and in New York. He also works with the International Religious Liberty Association. Dr. Diop’s expertise ranges widely from biblical exegesis and theology to philology with an emphasis on biblical languages and comparative world religions and philosophies. He earned a master’s degree in Philology at the School of Languages and Civilizations of the Ancient Near East in Paris. He completed postgraduate studies in Semiotics Studies and Applied Linguistics at the University of Sorbonne, Paris. He graduated from Andrews University with a Ph.D. in Old Testament Studies in 1995.

231137 Ch19_215-220.indd 215

07/01/2014 08:54

216

The Three Sons of Abraham

Abigail Doukhan is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Queens College, New York City, and holds the Pearl and Nathan Halegua Family Initiative in Ethics and Tolerance Chair. She received a master’s degree in Philosophy from the University of Sorbonne, Paris, and completed her doctorate in Philosophy on Emmanuel Lévinas from the University of Nanterre, Paris. Dr. Abigail Doukhan combines a strong continental background in philosophy with an interest in different forms of thought and cultures, which gives an open-ended approach to her teaching. She is the author of Emmanuel Lévinas: A Philosophy of Exile. Jacques B. Doukhan was born and grew up in Algeria at the crossroads of the three Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity). Dr. Doukhan holds doctorates in Hebrew and Jewish Studies (D.Heb. Lett.) and Theology (Th.D.), and a Master’s in Egyptology. He was educated in France, Israel, and the USA. He is currently Professor of Hebrew Language, Exegesis, and Jewish Studies, and director of the Institute of Jewish–Christian Studies at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University. He also served for 15 years as the editor of Shabbat Shalom, a journal devoted to Jewish– Christian rapprochement. He has authored numerous articles and 11 books, including Israel and the Church: Two Voices for the Same God. Shlomo Elbaz was born in Morocco in 1921 and died in Jerusalem in 2003. Dr. Elbaz was Professor Emeritus of Comparative Literature at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the chairman and cofounder of the movement “East of Peace”. He was the author of Marakech– Jerusalem, a book tracing his spiritual journey from his Arabic motherland to Israel, his fatherland. He had been particularly active in Israeli–Palestinian dialogue especially as it relates to culture and mystics. He is remembered as the poet and promoter of the rapprochement between Jews and Moslems and between Israelis and Palestinians. John Graz is the Director of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty for the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists; Secretary General of the International Religious Liberty Association; Secretary of the Conference of Secretaries of the Christian World Communions and Secretary General of the Council of Interchurch and Interfaith Relations. He earned his doctorate from Sorbonne University in

231137 Ch19_215-220.indd 216

07/01/2014 08:54



About the authors217

Paris. Dr. Graz has written several books translated into more than ten languages and many articles. He has given lectures in more than 60 countries. Graz was a member of the United Nations Expert Group Meeting organized by the UN Special Rapporteur on Racism, AntiSemitism, Islamophobia. He organized the Fourth (Rio de Janeiro), Fifth (Manila), Sixth (Cape Town), and Seventh (Dominican Republic) IRLA World Congresses on Religious Liberty. Irving Greenberg received a Ph.D. from Harvard University and is President of the Jewish Life Network (JLN)/Steinhardt Foundation. JLN’s mission is to create new institutions and initiatives to enrich the inner life (religious, cultural, institutional) of American Jewry. Rabbi Greenberg also served as Chairman of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council from 2000–2. He has published numerous articles on Jewish thought and religion and on the theology of Jewish– Christian relations. His books include The Jewish Way: Living the Holidays and For the Sake of Heaven and Earth: The New Encounter between Judaism and Christianity. Hans Küng studied for the priesthood in Rome and earned a Th.D. at the Institut Catholique in Paris. After his doctoral dissertation, comparing the doctrine of justification in the theology of the Protestant theologian Karl Barth with that of the Council of Trent in the 16th century (finding them compatible), his fame earned him a call in 1960 to the University of Tübingen. An expert (peritus) at Vatican Council II (1962–5), he urged for reform in the Catholic Church. In 1979, the Vatican declared that he could no longer be considered a Catholic theologian. The result: instead of 150 students at his lectures, he had 1,500! Always working for the reform of the Catholic Church and for ecumenism, he then turned more and more to dialogue with world religions and, since 1990, to Global Ethics. Dr. Küng is now Professor Emeritus of Tübingen University and considered as one of the most prolific theologian writers. Among his books are Judaism: Between Yesterday and Tomorrow; On Being a Christian; and Islam: Past, Present and Future. Khaleel Mohammed is Associate Professor of Religion at San Diego State University and a core faculty member of its Center for Islamic and Arabic Studies. Born in Guyana, South America, he completed

231137 Ch19_215-220.indd 217

07/01/2014 08:54

218

The Three Sons of Abraham

an M.A. in History and Philosophy (with a focus on Judaism and Islam) from Concordia University and a Ph.D. in Islamic Law from McGill University, both of Montreal, Canada. Eminently qualified and broadminded, Dr. Mohammed has studied in secular universities as well as traditional Islamic institutions, in Mexico, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Syria, Yemen, and the USA. Lourdes E. Morales-Gudmundsson, Ph.D., is a professor at La Sierra University, with specialties in literature and religion. She has been studying and publishing on the topic of forgiveness for over 25 years. She is the author of I Forgive You, But …. She has presented her seminar by the same title nationally and internationally. A. Rashied Omar is Research Scholar of Islamic Studies and Peacebuilding at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame, Indiana. He earned an M.A. and Ph.D. in Religious Studies from the University of Cape Town, an M.A. in Peace Studies from the Kroc Institute, and also completed study programs in Islamic religious education in South Africa, Sudan, Pakistan, and Malaysia. Omar’s research and teaching focuses on religion, violence, and peace building, especially the Islamic ethics of war and peace, and interreligious dialogue. He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World and author of Tolerance, Civil Society and Renaissance in Post-Apartheid South Africa. Dr. Omar serves as the coordinating Imam at the Claremont Main Road Mosque, international trustee of the Council for a Parliament of the World’s Religions, and international advisor to the Dutch-based Knowledge Forum on Religion and Development. Jon Paulien has a Ph.D. from Andrews University. His doctoral thesis, Decoding Revelation’s Trumpets: Literary Allusions and Interpretation of Revelation 8:7–12 was completed in 1987. He was Professor of New Testament Interpretation at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, for over two decades. In 2007 he became Dean of the Faculty of Religion at Loma Linda University. The author of 18 books and more than a 100 articles, scholarly papers, and other publications, Dr. Paulien is a specialist in the study of Johannine literature (Gospel of John and the book of Revelation). He has written about the importance of Christianity in the Western

231137 Ch19_215-220.indd 218

07/01/2014 08:54



About the authors219

world being relevant to the largely secular Western society. He is also involved in dialogue between Christianity and Islam. Rolf Rendtorff is Professor Emeritus of Old Testament Theology. From 1958 to 1963, he was professor at the Kirchliche Hochschule Berlin; from 1963 to 1990, professor at the University of Heidelberg, where he also served as Rector of the University (1970–2). He has served as Visiting Professor at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, at the Divinity School of the University of Chicago, at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, and at the University of Pretoria, South Africa. Since his first visit to Israel in 1963, he has committed himself to German–Israeli as well as to Jewish–Christian relations. He was a cofounder of the German–Israel Society (1965) and served in different capacities in Jewish–Christian relations in Germany and in the framework of the World Council of Churches. He is the author of many books in biblical studies as well as in Jewish–Christian relations. Some of them are translated into English, including Men of the Old Testament, God’s History, The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch, and Canon and Theology. He is coauthor of The Theology of the Churches and the Jewish People: Statements by the World Council of Churches and Its Member Churches. He is also the author of The Canonical Hebrew Bible and A Theology of the Old Testament. Rabbi David Rosen was born and educated in Britain and continued his advanced Rabbinic studies in Israel, where he received his smichah (ordination) and served as chaplain in the Western Sinai. From 1975 to 1979, he was the Senior Rabbi of the largest Jewish congregation in South Africa; and from 1979–85, Rabbi Rosen was Chief Rabbi of Ireland and lectured at the Irish School of Ecumenics. He is currently the Director of Interfaith Relations in Israel for the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith and the League’s liaison to the Vatican. He is president of the World Conference on Religion and Peace, the all-encompassing world interfaith body. Rabbi Rosen serves as a member of the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultations, which represents organized world Jewry in its relations with other world religious bodies, and is also a member of the state of Israel’s delegation on the Permanent Bilateral Commission with the Holy See, which negotiated the recent accord and normalization of Israel–Vatican relations.

231137 Ch19_215-220.indd 219

07/01/2014 08:54

220

The Three Sons of Abraham

Jane Sabes holds a doctoral degree from Auburn University, Alabama, with the primary focus of study being international public policies and a Master of Public Administration. Former Fellow of Harvard University, her expertise has taken her all over the world, from Beijing University, where she taught for two years, to Washington, DC, where she served as a fellow for the US Government, and the State of Wyoming, where she served as director of the Department of Health. Thus, for the past 30 years, Dr. Sabes has been engaged in various aspects of politics, as political science professor, researcher, consultant, and office holder at local, national, and international levels of government. More recently, her work has focused on mediation and brokering peace between persons in conflict. Solomon Schimmel is Professor of Jewish Education and Psychology at Hebrew College in Newton, Massachusetts, and author of these significant works: The Seven Deadly Sins: Jewish, Christian, and Classical Reflections on Human Psychology and Wounds Not Healed by Time: The Power of Repentance and Forgiveness (both published by Oxford University Press). Dr. Schimmel has written numerous articles and book chapters on Jewish thought, psychology of religion, and Jewish education. He received his B.A. from the City College of New York and M.A. and Ph.D. from Wayne State University, and has been a National Science Foundation Research Fellow at Harvard University and a visiting professor and/or research fellow at Brandeis University, University of Texas, Bar-Ilan University, and Hebrew University. Elie Wiesel received the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway, on 10 December 1986. His Nobel citation reads: “Wiesel is a messenger to mankind. His message is one of peace and atonement and human dignity. The message is in the form of a testimony, repeated and deepened through the works of a great author.” He is Andrew W. Mellon Professor in the Humanities at Boston University, and the author of more than 30 books. Described as a “modern prophet,” a “moving writer,” a “brilliant teacher,” a “witness,” the survivor of Auschwitz stands also at the forefront of current events; and, on the world stage, he has become the symbol of remembrance and conscience. Mr. Wiesel lives in New York City with his family.

231137 Ch19_215-220.indd 220

07/01/2014 08:54

Bibliography Abdul Rauf, Feisal. What’s Right with Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West. 1st ed. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 2004. Abu-Nimer, Mohammed and David W. Augsburger. Peace-Building by, between, and beyond Muslims and Evangelical Christians. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2009. Ahmed, Akbar S. Postmodernism and Islam: Predicament and Promise. London; New York, NY: Routledge, 1992. Ahmed, Akbar S. Islam under Siege: Living Dangerously in a Post-Honor World Themes for the 21st Century. Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA: Polity, 2003. Armstrong, Karen. A History of God: The 4000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. New York, NY: Gramercy Books, 2004. Aslan, Adnan. Religious Pluralism in Christian and Islamic Philosophy: The Thought of John Hick and Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Richmond, England: Curzon, 1998. Aslan, Reza and Aaron J. Hahn Tapper. Muslims and Jews in America: Commonalities, Contentions, and Complexities. 1st ed. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. Bagabas, Abdullah. “A Look into the Future: Is a Clash between Islam and the West Imminent.” Encounters: Journal of Inter-Cultural Perspectives 4, no. 1 (1998): 65-87. Bennett, Clinton. Muslims and Modernity: An Introduction to the Issues and Debates. New York, NY: Continuum, 2005. Berger, Alan L. Trialogue and Terror: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam after 9/11. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2012. Berger, Alan L., David Patterson, David P. Gushee, John Pawlikowski and John K. Roth. Jewish-Christian Dialogue: Drawing Honey from the Rock. 1st ed. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2008. Bhutto, Benazir. Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy, and the West. 1st ed. New York, NY: Harper, 2008. Bieringer, R. and David J. Bolton. Reconciliation in Interfaith Perspective: Jewish, Christian and Muslim Voices. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. Boys, Mary C. and Sara S. Lee. Christians & Jews in Dialogue: Learning in the Presence of the Other. Woodstock, VT: SkyLight Paths Pub., 2006.

231137 Ch20 Bibliography_221-226.indd 221

07/01/2014 08:57

222

The Three Sons of Abraham

Brown, Daniel S. Interfaith Dialogue in Practice: Christian, Muslim, Jew. Fordham University Press, 2012. Brown, Daniel W. A New Introduction to Islam. 2nd ed. Chichester, UK; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Carlebach, Elisheva and Jacob J. Schacter. New Perspectives on Jewish-Christian Relations. Brill Reference Library of Judaism. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2012. Catherwood, Christopher. A God Divided: Understanding the Differences between Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. 1st ed. Colorado Springs, CO: Victor, 2007. Center for Christian-Jewish Understanding. Conference (1998: Oświęcim Poland), Joseph H. Ehrenkranz and David L. Coppola. Religion and Violence, Religion and Peace: Essays from the Center for Christian-Jewish Understanding Conference in Auschwitz, Poland, May 1998. Fairfield, CT: Sacred Heart University Press, 2000. Charlesworth, James H., Frank X. Blisard and Jeffrey S. Siker. Jews and Christians: Exploring the Past, Present, and Future. Shared Ground among Jews and Christians. New York, NY: Crossroad, NY, 1990. Chittister, Joan, Neil Douglas-Klotz and Arthur Ocean Waskow. The Tent of Abraham: Stories of Hope and Peace for Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 2006. Cohen, Naomi Wiener. Essential Papers on Jewish-Christian Relations in the United States: Imagery and Reality Essential Papers on Jewish Studies. New York, NY: New York University Press, 1990. Cook, Michael L. Justice, Jesus, and the Jews: A Proposal for Jewish-Christian Relations. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003. Coppola, Dave, ed. What Do We Want the Other to Teach About Us? Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Dialogues. Fairfield, CT: Sacred Heart University Press, 2006. Croner, Helga B. More Stepping Stones to Jewish-Christian Relations: An Unabridged Collection of Christian Documents, 1975-1983. Studies in Judaism and Christianity. New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1985. Davies, W. D. Christian Engagements with Judaism. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999. De Lange, N. R. M. An Introduction to Judaism. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Denny, Frederick Mathewson, Carlos M. N. Eire, Martin S. Jaffee and John Corrigan. Jews, Christians, Muslims: A Comparative Introduction to Monotheistic Religions. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2012. Dirks, Jerald. The Abrahamic Faiths: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: Similarities & Contrasts. 1st ed. Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications, 2004.

231137 Ch20 Bibliography_221-226.indd 222

07/01/2014 08:57

Bibliography223

Esack, Farid. Qur’an, Liberalism and Pluralism: An Islamic Perspective on Interreligious Solidarity against Oppression. Oxford: Oneworld, 1997. Esposito, John L. “Ismail Ragi Al-Faruqi: Pioneer in Muslim-Christian Relations.” In Makers of Contemporary Islam, edited by John and Voll Esposito, 23-38. New York, NY: OUP, 2001. Al-Faruqi, Isma’il R. and American Academy of Religion. Islamic Studies Group. Trialogue of the Abrahamic Faiths: Papers Presented to the Islamic Studies Group of American Academy of Religion. 4th ed. Issues of Islamic Thought. Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications, 1995. Feiler, Bruce S. Abraham: A Journey to the Heart of Three Faiths. 1st ed. New York, NY: W. Morrow, 2002. Fredriksen, Paula and Adele Reinhartz. Jesus, Judaism, and Christian AntiJudaism: Reading the New Testament after the Holocaust. 1st ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. Gish, Arthur G. Muslim, Christian, Jew: The Oneness of God and the Unity of Our Faith – a Personal Journey in the Three Abrahamic Religions. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2012. Gordis, David M., George Benedict Grose, Muzammil Siddiqi and Benjamin Jerome Hubbard. The Abraham Connection: A Jew, Christian, and Muslim in Dialogue: An Encounter between Dr. David Gordis, Dr. George Grose and Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi A Book of the Academy for Judaic, Christian, and Islamic Studies. Notre Dame, IN: Cross Cultural Publications, Cross Roads Books, 1994. Greenberg, Irving. For the Sake of Heaven and Earth: The New Encounter between Judaism and Christianity. 1st ed. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 2004. Greenstein, Howard R., Kendra G. Hotz and John Kaltner. What Do Our Neighbors Believe?: Questions and Answers About Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. 1st ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007. Grob, Leonard and John K. Roth. Encountering the Stranger: A Jewish-ChristianMuslim Trialogue. The Stephen S. Weinstein Series in Post-Holocaust Studies. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 2012. Hick, John and Edmund S. Meltzer. Three Faiths – One God: A Jewish, Christian, Muslim Encounter. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1989. Hinze, Bradford E. and Irfan A. Omar. Heirs of Abraham: The Future of Muslim, Jewish, and Christian Relations. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2005. Hirschfield, Brad. You Don’t Have to Be Wrong for Me to Be Right: Finding Faith without Fanaticism. 1st ed. New York, NY: Harmony Books, 2007. Idel, Moshe and Bernard McGinn. Mystical Union in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: An Ecumenical Dialogue. New York, NY: Continuum, 1996.

231137 Ch20 Bibliography_221-226.indd 223

07/01/2014 08:57

224

The Three Sons of Abraham

Ipgrave, Michael. The Road Ahead: A Christian-Muslim Dialogue: A Record of the Seminar “Building Bridges” Held at Lambeth Palace, 17-18 January 2002. London: Church House Pub., 2002. Jenson, Robert W., Eugene Korn and Institute for Theological Inquiry. Covenant and Hope: Christian and Jewish Reflections: Essays in Constructive Theology from the Institute for Theological Inquiry. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2012. Jodock, Darrell. Covenantal Conversations: Christians in Dialogue with Jews and Judaism. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2008. Karabell, Zachary. Peace Be Upon You: The Story of Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Coexistence. 1st ed. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2007. Kateregga, Badru D. and David W. Shenk. A Muslim and a Christian in Dialogue. Updated ed. Harrisonburg, VA: Herald Press, 2011. Klein Halevi, Yossi. At the Entrance to the Garden of Eden: A Jew’s Search for Hope with Christians and Muslims in the Holy Land. 1st Perennial ed. New York, NY: Perennial, 2002. Küng, Hans. Judaism: Between Yesterday and Tomorrow, The Religious Situation of Our Time. New York, NY: Crossroad, 1992. Küng, Hans. Islam: Past, Present and Future. Oxford: Oneworld, 2009. Kurzman, Charles. Modernist Islam, 1840-1940: A Sourcebook. Oxford; New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002. Kuschel, Karl-Josef. Abraham: Sign of Hope for Jews, Christians, and Muslims. New York, NY: Continuum, 1995. Levenson, Jon Douglas. Inheriting Abraham: The Legacy of the Patriarch in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012. Levine, Baruch A. Do Jews, Christians, and Muslims Worship the Same God? Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2012. Liepert, David. Muslim, Christian and Jew: Finding a Path to Peace Our Faiths Can Share. Toronto: Faith of Life Publishing, 2010. Magonet, Jonathan. Talking to the Other: Jewish Interfaith Dialogue with Christians and Muslims. London; New York, NY: I.B.Tauris, 2003. Mahmutćehajić, Rusmir and Desmond Maurer. On the Other: A Muslim View. Abrahamic Dialogues. New York, NY: Fordham University Press, 2011. Ma‘oz, Moshe. The Meeting of Civilizations: Muslim, Christian, and Jewish. Brighton England; Portland, OR: Sussex Academic Press, 2009. McGrath, Alister E. An Introduction to Christianity. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1997. Meddeb, Abdelwahab and Stora, Benjamin, eds. A History of Jewish-Muslim Relations: From the Origins to the Present Day. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013.

231137 Ch20 Bibliography_221-226.indd 224

07/01/2014 08:57

Bibliography225

Metri, Tarek, ed. Religion, Law and Society: A Christian-Muslim Discussion. Geneva, Switzerland: WCC Publications, 1995. Mohammed, Ovey N. Muslim-Christian Relations: Past, Present, Future Faith Meets Faith Series. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1999. Mojzes, Paul. Christian-Marxist Dialogue in Eastern Europe. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Pub. House, 1981. Mudge, Lewis Seymour. The Gift of Responsibility: The Promise of Dialogue among Christians, Jews, and Muslims. New York, NY: Continuum, 2008. Neusner, Jacob, Bruce Chilton and William A. Graham. Three Faiths, One God: The Formative Faith and Practice of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Boston, MA: Brill Academic Publishers, 2002. O’Mahony, Anthony and Emma Loosley. Christian Responses to Islam: Muslim-Christian Relations in the Modern World. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2008. Oesterreicher, John M. The New Encounter: Between Christians and Jews. New York, NY: Philosophical Library, 1986. Palmisano, Joseph. Beyond the Walls: Abraham Joshua Heschel and Edith Stein on the Significance of Empathy for Jewish-Christian Dialogue. Academy Series. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2013. Pawlikowski, John. What Are They Saying About Christian-Jewish Relations A Deus Book. New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1980. Perry, Marvin and Frederick M. Schweitzer. Jewish-Christian Encounters over the Centuries: Symbiosis, Prejudice, Holocaust, Dialogue. American University Studies Series Ix, History. New York, NY: P. Lang, 1994. Peters, F. E. The Children of Abraham: Judaism, Christianity, Islam. New ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004. Petuchowski, Jakob Josef. When Jews and Christians Meet. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1988. Porter, Stanley E. and Brook W. R. Pearson. Christian-Jewish Relations through the Centuries. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Reedijk, Rachel. Roots and Routes: Identity Construction and the JewishChristian-Muslim Dialogue. Currents of Encounter. Amsterdam; New York, NY: Rodopi, 2010. Roggema, Barbara, Marcel Poorthuis and Pim Valkenberg. The Three Rings: Textual Studies in the Historical Trialogue of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam Publications of the Thomas Instituut Te Utrecht. Leuven; Dudley, MA: Peeters, 2005. Rothschild, Fritz A. Jewish Perspectives on Christianity: Leo Baeck, Martin Buber, Franz Rosenzweig, Will Herberg, and Abraham J. Heschel. New York, NY: Continuum, 1996.

231137 Ch20 Bibliography_221-226.indd 225

07/01/2014 08:57

226

The Three Sons of Abraham

Rudin, A. James. Christians & Jews Faith to Faith: Tragic History, Promising Present, Fragile Future. 2011 hardcover ed. Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights Pub., 2011. Ruthven, Malise. Islam: A Very Short Introduction. 2nd ed. Very Short Introductions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2012. Saperstein, Marc. Moments of Crisis in Jewish-Christian Relations. London; Philadelphia, PA: SCM Press, 1989. Sherman, Franklin. Bridges: Documents of the Christian-Jewish Dialogue. Vol. 1. New York, NY: Paulist Press, 2011. Smith, Jane I. Muslims, Christians, and the Challenge of Interfaith Dialogue. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2007. Solomon, Norman. Judaism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford; New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996. Solomon, Norman, Richard Harries and T. J. Winter. Abraham’s Children: Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Conversation. 1st ed. London; New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2005. Swidler, Leonard J., Khalid Duran and Reuven Firestone. Trialogue: Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Dialogue. New London, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 2007. Talmage, Frank. Disputation and Dialogue: Readings in the Jewish-Christian Encounter. New York, NY: Ktav Pub. House, 1975. Trible, Phyllis and Letty M. Russell. Hagar, Sarah, and Their Children: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Perspectives. 1st ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006. Troll, Christian W. Dialogue and Difference: Clarity in Christian-Muslim Relations Faith Meets Faith. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2009. Vermès, Géza. Jesus in His Jewish Context. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Volf, Miroslav. Do We Worship the Same God?: Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Dialogue. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2012. Williamson, Clark M. A Mutual Witness: Toward Critical Solidarity between Jews & Christians. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 1992. Woodhead, Linda. Christianity: A Very Short Introduction. Very Short Introductions. Oxford; New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004.

231137 Ch20 Bibliography_221-226.indd 226

07/01/2014 08:57

Index Abraham, Abrahamic, ix–xvi, xviii–2, 4–6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20–7, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 42, 44–64, 66–72, 74, 76, 78, 80–92, 94, 96, 98, 100–2, 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116–26, 129–30, 134, 136, 138, 140, 142, 144, 146–8, 150, 152, 154, 157–61, 162, 166, 168, 170, 172, 174, 176, 178, 180, 184, 186, 188, 190, 192, 194, 196, 198; see also Ibrahim Adam, 4, 24, 52–4, 97, 167, 170 ADL, 28 Adventists, 76–7 Africa, 27, 41, 44, 49, 182 Akedah, 125–6 Al Khazari, x Allah, 51, 59, 61–2, 96–7, 99, 112, 157, 165–75, 177, 180 Aqedah, 72, 115–27 Arabia, 59, 76 Arabs, Arabic, ix, xii, 95, 112, 119, 133, 151–2, 162–3, 165, 179 Arendt, Hannah, 208 Auschwitz, 67–8, 127, 149, 152 Babel, Tower of, 54 Babylon, Babylonia, Babylonian, 4–5, 7, 9–10, 18, 55–6 Bible, ix, 17, 41, 45, 47–8, 55–7, 68–9, 94, 97, 102, 109, 112–13, 115, 119, 121, 124, 132–4, 136, 138, 141–5, 155, 160, 162, 188

231137 CH20 INDEX 227-236.indd 227

blessing, 5, 10, 48, 52–5, 71, 91, 104, 121, 138 brotherhood, xvi, 2, 7, 164, 169–71, 174, 178 Buddhism, 129, 165, 201 Catholics, 59, 75, 77, 182 Charlesworth, James, 61 Christian i–ii, vi, ix–xi, xiii, xvi–xvii, xix, 1, 3, 9–10, 17, 21–3, 29–42, 45–51, 56–7, 59–61, 64–5, 68–9, 71–6, 78–9, 81, 87, 93, 99–100, 103, 109–10, 112–13, 115–19, 121–9, 131, 134–45, 152, 161, 166, 182, 188, 190–192, 199–201, 203–4, 206, 210, 212–13, 216–17, 219–20 Christianity ii–iii, ix–xi, xiii–xv, xix–1, 6, 8–10, 21–7, 29–30, 32–3, 36, 38, 41, 45–50, 57, 60–2, 64–6, 70, 75, 81, 87, 94, 115, 117–18, 125, 127–9, 136–7, 140–1, 145, 152, 158, 165, 188–90, 200, 212–13, 216–18 Christology, 126, 144 Chrysostom, John, 29 circumcision, 66 commandments, xii, xiv, 5, 12–13, 17, 36, 57–9, 64, 100, 102, 113 Constantine, 136 covenant, xi, 36–7, 51, 53, 55, 65, 100, 105–7, 109, 138–9, 196 creation, xii, 47, 52, 54, 68–9, 100, 110, 167, 170, 172

07/01/2014 09:00

228

The Three Sons of Abraham

Creator, 171 crucifixion, 117, 126 Crusades, x, xiv, 32, 48, 136 David, 1–2, 17, 28–30, 34–5, 37, 66, 102, 108, 144, 183–4 Derrida, Jacques, 202, 209 dialogue ii, v–vi, xvi–xvii, 22–3, 26–7, 34–5, 50, 68, 70–9, 81–2, 84–5, 93–4, 99, 110, 116, 119, 121–3, 128–9, 131–2, 134–5, 139–47, 152, 217, 218 Christian–Jewish 22–3, 72, 118, 124, 134, 137, 139, 140–5 Jewish–Muslim 23, 27, 119, 124 Muslim–Christian 126 Jewish–Christian–Muslim vi, 71–2, 115, 131; see also trialogue Dunn, James, 45, 47, 49, 60–1, 112 easternization, 50, 57 ecumenical, 84–5 Eden, 53–5 Ehrman, Bart, 45–6, 49, 56, 60–2 Eichmann, Adolf, 150 eschatology, eschatological, 48, 58, 109, 161 ethic, ethics, ethically, xiv–xv, 1, 42–4, 64, 113, 128, 162, 190 eucharist, xiii Evangelicals, Evangelism 73, 75, 77 exegesis, 6–7, 9, 112, 125, 134 exile, 17, 29, 54, 126 Fackenheim, Emil, 126 faith, ix–xvii, 1–2, 10, 18, 22–3, 25, 31, 42, 44, 47–51, 59, 65–7, 78–80, 90, 93, 95, 97–9, 101,

231137 CH20 INDEX 227-236.indd 228

103, 109, 111, 116, 121, 124, 155, 157–8, 166–70, 172, 174–5, 177, 180, 183, 185–6, 188, 200 fanaticism, 153, 162, 171, 180 Flusser, David, 66, 144 forgiveness, xvii–xviii, 97, 107, 150, 157–8, 187–90, 192–4, 198–200 freedom, 69, 74–6, 79–80, 108, 180 Gaon, Saadia, 120, 125 al-Ghazali, 179 Halevi, Yehuda, x–ix, xvi hatred, x, xix, 1–2, 17, 21–2, 24, 97, 159, 173, 177, 193 holiness, 5, 83–4, 90–1, 100 Holocaust, x, xvii, xix, 21–2, 27, 67, 112, 124, 126–7, 135, 138, 141, 160, 193 Husserl, Edmund, 82–3, 92 Ibrahim, ix, 47, 51, 61, 159; see also Abraham, Abrahamic interreligious, xix, 28, 70, 73–9, 124 intolerance, xiv, 40, 78, 158, 162 Iran, 76–7, 182 Iraq, 59, 74 Ireland, 59, 182 Irenaeus, 117, 125 Isaac, ix, xii, 5, 11, 30, 51, 61, 72, 116–21, 124–6, 160 Ishmael, Ishmaelite, ix, 8, 16, 19, 51, 116, 119–121, 125, 160; see also Ismail Islam, ix–xv, xix–1, 10–11, 23–5, 27, 44, 47–8, 59, 64, 66, 69–70, 75, 79, 81, 87, 94–9, 103, 112, 115, 120, 126, 129, 131, 157–8, 161, 164–71, 173–82, 190

07/01/2014 09:00

Index229

Islamophobia, 217 Ismail, 61, 157–8, 164; see also Ishmael Israel, Israeli, ix–x, xii, xx, 3–5, 7, 11–21, 24–5, 27–30, 32–3, 35–9, 55–6, 59, 65–7, 71, 100, 109, 113, 117, 124, 126–7, 132–3, 137–8, 144–6, 152, 158–9, 161, 163, 167, 182–3, 196 Jacob, ix, xix, 5, 61, 67 Jeremiah, 102, 114, 185–6 Jerusalem, 5, 7, 11, 17, 29, 66, 102, 125, 127, 132–3, 143, 146, 159–61 jihad, xiv, 40, 79 Judaism, ix–xv, xix–1, 3, 6, 10, 22–34, 38–9, 45–9, 60–1, 64–8, 70, 75, 81, 87, 94, 99, 102, 115–16, 118, 120, 124, 126–7, 129, 132–8, 140–1, 143, 145, 158, 161, 165, 188–90, 196 Khazars, x, xvi Kierkegaard, Søren, 123, 126 Kippur, xviii Lebanon, 112 Leibovitz, Yeshayahu, 7 love x, xx, 27, 38, 40, 71, 140, 159–62, 176, 182, 208, 212, 220 Maimonides, 7, 11, 13, 19 Mashiach, 45, 56–7; see also Messiah Messiah, ix–xi, xiii, 34, 45–8, 56–8, 61, 65, 102, 118, 126, 144–5; see also Mashiach Michael, 67, 79, 113, 126 Milgrom, Jo, 125 Mohammed, Khaleel, 1–2, 71, 128–31

231137 CH20 INDEX 227-236.indd 229

Mormons, 77 Moses, ix–x, xii, 5, 16, 61–2, 108, 144, 155 mosque, 10–11, 160 Muhammad, ix–x, xix, 5, 42–3, 47, 62, 69, 120, 165–7, 171 Nachmanides, 134 Nathan der Weise, xix Nebuchadnezzar, 55 Origen, 117, 125 orthodox, orthodoxy, 3, 7, 10, 35, 38, 46–50, 57, 60, 67, 75–7, 115, 182 Pakistan, 74, 76, 182 Palestine, Palestinian, x, 9, 14, 16, 38, 49, 71, 116–17, 127, 133, 159, 163 Paris, xix, 10, 114 passion, xv, xvii, 9, 64, 154, 160 Pauline, 93, 137–8 peace ii, v–vi, x, xiv, xvi–xix, 3–5, 7–9, 11, 13–17, 19, 35, 43, 69, 75, 78–81, 99, 102, 111, 147–8, 150–2, 154, 157–9, 161–5, 167, 169–79, 181, 184–5, 203–4, 206, 209, 211–13, 216, 218–20 Pentateuch, 36 Pentecost, 210 Philo, xx, 116, 118, 124 pluralism, xv, 24–6 prophets, x, 8, 22, 47, 55–6, 61, 67, 69, 104, 107–8, 129, 144, 166–7, 196 proselytism, proselytizing, 34, 73, 75, 79, 84–5 Qur’an ix–x, xviii, 5, 25, 27, 40–4, 47, 51–2, 54, 61–2, 69, 79, 81, 91, 93, 95–99, 112–13, 115,

07/01/2014 09:00

230

The Three Sons of Abraham

119–21, 123, 125–6, 129–30, 160, 164–76, 179–80, 215 Qur’anic v, 40–3, 96–9, 119, 122, 125, 129, 168–72, 174, 176–79 Rashi, 134 reconciliation, xviii, 27, 33–4, 59, 105–6, 124, 157, 162, 165, 170, 187, 198, 200 redemption, 24, 34, 36, 158 Reformation, 49, 93, 109 Reformed Church/Christian, 41, 204 repentance, 157, 187–90, 193–8 resurrection, 65, 125, 167 Rome, 3, 13, 15–16, 19, 49, 61, 75 Rosenzweig, Franz, 26 Sabbath, 46–8, 58–9, 61, 136–7 sabbatical, 14, 154 salvation, x, 17, 24, 34, 62, 65, 67, 73, 88, 98, 108–9, 111, 117, 125, 166 Samaritan, 3 Sanhedrin, 4, 7, 20 Sarajevo, 148 Scholem, Gershom, 146 Scriptures, ix–x, xii, 9–10, 45–7, 93, 101, 104, 111, 113, 119, 166 Socialism, 127 Spiegel, Shalom, 124–5 Sudan, 74 Sufism, 97 supersessionism, 29 synagogue, 20, 45, 136, 141 Talmon, Shemaryahu, 134 Talmud, Talmudic, 3–5, 7–9, 91, 102, 117 temple, 3, 5–7, 11–12, 16, 19, 29, 45, 58, 65, 183

231137 CH20 INDEX 227-236.indd 230

Tertullian, 117, 125 Torah, xii–xiii, 3–5, 7–8, 12–13, 15–18, 20, 47–8, 51–2, 54–5, 68, 102, 110, 113 Toynbee, Arnold, 36 tradition, traditions, x–xi, xiv– xv, xvii–xviii, 1–2, 5, 9, 18, 21, 24–6, 35, 40–3, 46–7, 60, 64, 68–9, 73, 81, 88, 93–5, 102, 107–8, 110–13, 115, 117–21, 123–6, 129–30, 134, 137, 139–41, 158, 188, 190, 198 trialogue 26 Trinity, 10, 126, 128, 145 truth, x–xix, 1–2, 5, 8, 10, 17, 30, 32, 61–2, 64–5, 67, 69, 71, 73, 96, 110–11, 123, 129–30, 142, 157–8, 162, 169, 175 unity, xi, 47, 85, 170–72, 174, 178, 184 violence, x, 31–2, 40, 48, 84, 106, 151, 158, 160, 164–5, 167–71, 173, 175–9, 181 Waldheim, Kurt, 194 Westermann, Claus, 112 Wiesenthal, Simon, 206 women, 76, 147, 151, 170–1, 174, 176 worship, xii, xiv, 18, 20, 57, 65, 74, 101, 113, 129, 136, 175, 182 Wyschogrod, Michael, 67 Yehuda, 8 Zionism, Zionist, Zionists, 37–40 Zoroastrianism, 165

07/01/2014 09:00

231137 CH20 INDEX 227-236.indd 231

07/01/2014 09:00

231137 CH20 INDEX 227-236.indd 232

07/01/2014 09:00

231137 CH20 INDEX 227-236.indd 233

07/01/2014 09:00

231137 CH20 INDEX 227-236.indd 234

07/01/2014 09:00

231137 CH20 INDEX 227-236.indd 235

07/01/2014 09:00

231137 CH20 INDEX 227-236.indd 236

07/01/2014 09:00