‘A Common Word’: Islam’s Trojan Horse January 27, 2008
Posted by Paul Edwards in A Common Word Between Us and You, Islam and Christianity, Peter Sookhdeo.trackback
In October of 2007, 138 Muslim clerics produced a letter adressed to Pope Benedict XVI and “to the leaders of all the world’s churches, and indeed to all Christians everywhere” seeking common ground for cooperation between Christianity and Islam. It is in reality a continuation of the original “open letter to the pope” written by 38 Muslim clerics in October 2006 in response to The Pope’s Regensburg Lecture in September of 2006 in which he quoted a 14th Century Byzantine emperor citing the inconsistency between Islamic holy war, or conversion by compulsion, with what the Q’uran itself teaches about compulsory conversion: it’s against it.
This new letter, timed for release on the first anniversary of the original open letter to the Pope, has come to be known as ‘A Common Word Between Us and You.’ It focuses on what both the Q’uran and the Bible ostensiby say about loving one’s neighbor in the name of the One who is Love (Allah and/or Jehovah). The Introduction to the Letter says in part:
Muslims and Christians together make up well over half of the world’s population. Without peace and justice between these two religious communities, there can be no meaningful peace in the world. The future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians.
The basis for this peace and understanding already exists. It is part of the very foundational principles of both faiths: love of the One God, and love of the neighbour. These principles are found over and over again in the sacred texts of Islam and Christianity. The Unity of God, the necessity of love for Him, and the necessity of love of the neighbour is thus the common ground between Islam and Christianity.
What could possibly be wrong with seeking dialogue and cooperation between Muslims and Christians? Wouldn’t many of the world’s tensions be relieved if Muslims and Christians could learn to live together in peace?
The Yale Center for Faith and Culture, representing a wide spectrum of evangelical Christianity, was quick to issue a conciliatory response to A Common Word (much to the dismay of conservative theologians within evangelicalism) which says in part:
We receive the open letter as a Muslim hand of conviviality and cooperation extended to Christians world-wide. In this response we extend our own Christian hand in return, so that together with all other human beings we may live in peace and justice as we seek to love God and our neighbors.
Muslims and Christians have not always shaken hands in friendship; their relations have sometimes been tense, even characterized by outright hostility. Since Jesus Christ says, “First take the log out your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye” (Matthew 7:5), we want to begin by acknowledging that in the past (e.g. in the Crusades) and in the present (e.g. in excesses of the “war on terror”) many Christians have been guilty of sinning against our Muslim neighbors. Before we “shake your hand” in responding to your letter, we ask forgiveness of the All-Merciful One and of the Muslim community around the world.
But is A Common Word Between Us and You what it appears? Dr. Peter Sookhdeo is the International Director of the Barnabas Fund and Director of the Institute for the Study of Christianity and Islam. Dr. Sookhdeo is also a convert to Christianity from Islam and an internationally recognized authority on Islam. We discussed ‘A Common Word’ on one of my recent programs.
What we have here is a Muslim polemic and second, Islamic Dawah because Islamic Dawah is Islamic mission. It’s taking the message to unbelievers to say to them, “This is who we are, this is what we are. We are very close to you. What is going to be the next step.” Islam at this moment in time, and the authors of this letter, are concerned with how they are going to make their faith appealing in such a way as to be embraced.
Now, I fully understand that there is a huge diversity in the 138 scholars. Not all of them may have this as their intention. The dilemma is, given the nature of Islam, practical Islam, and many of those who signed up from the Saudis and the Muslim Brotherhood, and others, we have to look at the nature of their faith, how they see it, and how they are wanting it understood and proclaimed in our day.
The problem with interfaith dialogue between Muslims and Christians is that we are not speaking the same language. What Islam means by love in its relationship to God and neighbor is not at all what Christianity means by the same terms:
The point about the open letter is this: love of God is not central in Islam; it is submission. Their own theologians, both past and present, would say, “Love is an attribute. Love is not in the nature of God. That’s blasphemous.”
Secondly, Islam does not teach love of neighbor. What it does is to define the duties one would have towards people around you according to shari’a. If I may give you a simple illustration: Last weekend the Al Azhar University in Cairo, which is the foremost theological institution in the world in Sunni Islam, issued a fatwah on reconversion, people who have converted to Islam are now not just to be apostate and killed, but rather their body parts are to be cut off until they die. Two of the signatories of the Yale response are the senior leaders of the Al Azhar. So the question is this: how can they on the one hand affirm ‘love of neighbor’ and on the other hand call for, effectively, the crucifixion of converts of Islam to Christianity? And this is where the issue of truth has become crucially important.
The reality is that it is very possible that the intention of the letter is to infiltrate Christianity with the message of Islam, softening any opposition to its teachings, so as to prepare Christians for an all-out embrace and ultimate submission to Islamic teaching, which after all is the goal of Islam: submission of every human being to Allah.
Looking at the common letter and the words which describe it out of the Q’uran, it sounds good until you look at the verse of the Q’uran in the context, and then you discover it is a dawah context, it actually attacks the Trinitarian position. So whilst on the surface the words are ok, when you look at it from the context you have a real problem.
Secondly, when the Yale letter responds by speaking of the Abrahamic faiths, it presupposes that Jews, Christians, and Muslims derive their faith from a common source, and so we are “Abrahamic faiths.” That presupposes that our understanding of God is the same. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, based on both the Old and New Testaments, we can accept the common understanding of God. In the Islamic tradition their understanding of God is radically different. And so, it’s difficult to understand how we can use the term “Abrahamic faiths.”
But furthermore, I would agree (and I’m sure we all would) that it is important for Muslims and Christians to sit together and discuss common problems which we all face in our world today. I think meetings of such a nature, I think is essential. Secondly, that Christians must love. At no point are we called to hate anyone. Christians have no enemies; we love our enemies. But herein lies the dilemma. If we’re going to sit down and discuss, what do we discuss? Is it fine points of theology which we have in common? Or is it going to be society, how we live together? So what is the position of Christian minorities in the Muslim world, human rights, and religious liberty? If we’re going to talk about, therefore, our understanding of God in that context then it must begin to shape that kind of discussion. And this is where I think the Yale letter has fallen short, because it mixed up theology with practice. Practice says, “Yes we can discuss; yes we can love our enemies, but nowhere do we embrace the ideaology of our enemies.” Nowhere are we called to embrace the principles of Islam.
But just how much damage has been done to ‘the faith once for all delivered to the saints’ by Christian leaders who signed the Yale response apologizing for ‘the war on terror’?
If I may touch on a crucial issue within the Yale letter, which has caused us all much concern, that is the apology. It does say some Christians, in fact many Christians, may wish to apologize for the Crusades. But then it goes on to link the Crusades with, it says, “the excesses of ‘the war on terror’ which many Christians may wish to apologize for.”
Now American citizens may or may not agree with what their government have and are doing in the context of the Muslim world, on wars on terror. And they have every right to disagree or to agree. But to say that that is a ‘Christian’ war, and the ‘war on terror’ is a Christian act, I believe is woefully wrong and is now putting Christians in the Muslim world at risk, and also our troops at risk because the Muslims are now saying, “See, we told you. We were right and you were wrong. Christians are violent and they’re brutal and their ‘war on terror’ is hurting all of us, and here are Christians having to apologize for that. I don’t believe that the Yale signatories would have wanted that. I think those who wrote this letter (the Yale response) got it wrong.
The issue for me is that the Christians in this country are the staunchest supporters of this “war on terror”. Which should have never gone to Iraq. Saddam was sympathetic to Christians, this is not hearsay, this comes from personal friends who are Iraqi and who are Christians. After 9/11 we should have sent an elite group of fighters to take out the ones who did the act then came home to attend to our many other pressing needs like our contribution to global warming, aids, poverty, and our crumbling infrastructure. Now 6 years later we are in a mess that will destroy this nation and the NeoCons like Bush and Chaney deserve all the credit.
I believe that Islam, just like Christianity is peaceful(at least most of the people so claim it as their faith). There are scriptures in the quran that fundamentalist take to heart, but there are many biblical passages that taken to heart would mean genocide to anyone who doesn’t adhere to our standards of God. Strict fundamentalism is the problem, and I am not talking about cherry picked fundamentalism that we have today where people seem to explain away the “not so pleasant” scriptures. It’s those who think that all contents of scripture are applicable for today, both Islam and Christianity cannot adopt that think or both religions will suffer.
Right on Pixelmaster! We need more people who think like you!
1 Timothy 1:15
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
Fellas,
Can’t say myself, that any scriptures qualify as “not so pleasant”.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
- Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
- Lev 20:12 If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed perversion; their blood is upon them.
- Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
- Lev 20:14 If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire, that there may be no depravity among you.
- Lev 20:18 If a man lies with a woman during her menstrual period and uncovers her nakedness, he has made naked her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
Don,
Do you support this without explaining it away as Old Testament vs new? My initial point is with unabated fundentalism, the ones who take the above as applicable for today. It happens in Islam and in Christianity.
This common call for Christians and Muslims to dialogue sounds great - on the outside.
What most people don’t understand is this:
Under Islamic law, before Islam can make war against the infidel with Allah’s blessings, the infidels must first be offered an opportunity to submit to Islam. Osama bin Laden has just recently asked the leaders and people of the United States to embrace Islam. So has Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. All these letters offer the West the “opportunity” to submit to Allah as being equal to God. They also warn that, should their offer be rebuffed, “The very survival of the world is at stake.”
This paragraph came from an article by Hal Lindsey on WND
(Link: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58106)
There has also been talk of an American Hiroshima coming soon - maybe as soon as this year - from many sources.
Personally - I believe this is an attempt by the Muslim Clerics to “reach out” to the infidels (us) in order to justify their detonating a nuclear device in one or more cities in our country. To them - they would have done all that Allah requires and be totally justified in their actions.
So let’s not take our eyes off their true intent - to globalize Islam - either by us giving in willingly or by force.
Pix,
I agree that the majority of Muslims probably are peaceful, despite their religion. I do think there are mixed motives in this Islamic proposal, but that’s not really anything different from the Evangelical Christian approach. Evangelical Christians are out to convert the world, so any time they try to make peace with other religions, they also have an ulterior motive.
It’s ironic to hear an Evangelical, Paul, refer to this common Christian-Islamic approach to winning converts as a “Trojan horse.” You do the same thing!
The fact that there are mixed motives doesn’t mean the exercise is not worthwhile, however. If it results in a peaceful world in which you can all try to convert each other without murdering each other, let’s do it. I say this at my own peril, because the only thing Christians and Muslims agree on is that the non-religious are scum.
Pix
Sure would clean it up a great deal.
Just curious, is your problem with the message, the messenger or both?
I love the fight in you however.
Don,
Do you truly believe what you said? “Sure would clean it up a great deal.” Should I bring up the biblical justification of slavery? My point is we have move on as a society of excepting many of the tabboo proclimations in scripture, this god for both the quran and the bible. My issue is with ultra fundementalism, sounds like you may be in that camp, if you are looking for a church why don’t you look up Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church maybe he would be of your liking.
Pix
Smile, it was humor. As for Fred Phelps, he is too watered down to consider that. Humor again!
On a serious note, we have watched how you have come from being a “fundie” to a Christian searching for his place, to now a person whom relegates scripture as “tabboo proclimations” (sic) and the God of them as lower case god. How sad.
Matthew 13:20-21
20But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
21Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.
Best to ya!
Don,
Humor doesn’t translate well in writing. BTW, I am still in the searching for truth faze. The sentance “this god for both the quran and the bible” was supposed to be “this GOES for both the quran and the bible.” my mistake
I am a born again christian, but I do not claim that scripture is infallible, inerrant, etc. I also, think that the christian right is niether christian, nor right. I feel that I have been duped by this group for many years. Do I harbor a little distain, yeah, and I imaging that some of my reactions to the distain can be overblown. However, I think my point in the initial post still stands, both faiths have many wonderful peace loving indivduals, both faiths however, have scriptures that taken to the enth degree mean genicide for those who do not adhere to them. So when I hear a “knowledgeable” christian tell me how bad the Islam faith is because there are certain scriptures that say “kill the infedel” I want that person to look at the plank in their own text and realize they have cherry picked the good in scripture and left the bad out.
Skeptimal,
I am a christian who believes it is your “God given” right not to believe in anything at all. I am encouraged that some in my faith are waking out of their slumber on this issue. Pixelmaster seems to understand that the Christian Right has framed our “moral” issues in our society for christians to “rally” around. Even though, often times they don’t do anything about that “moral” issue. The understanding that in order to get people to stand behind you, you first need an enemy for them to hate is very important in understanding they Christian/Religios Right.
Pix
Explanation accepted. Perhaps sarcasm would have been a better characterization of my humor.
BTW how do you know you are born again if your bible is not inerrant? Who gets to pick and choose what parts are true and which are not? I have a suggestion to that question, How about the Holy Spirit. It is his office that “guides and leads”.
Skeptimal
You are so correct, you do have a “God given” right not to believe or believe. This is where I part with some on this blog.
Iggy,
You said: “I am a christian who believes it is your “God given” right not to believe in anything at all.”
Thanks for that. Like you, I believe in religious freedom. The difference between us and Evangelicals and most Muslims is that we believe in religious freedom for everyone, and not just those who believe as we do.
Pixelmaster,
I am amazed at how quickly you fall for the “new atheists” and other skeptics bait concerning the Bible. Have you really submitted your life the the Lord Jesus Christ? Because you are in open defiance of his word and agreeing with those who hate him. The Old Testament supports slavery in the modern sense? Please!! I highly suggest you read the response to Sam Harris’s “Letter to A Christian Nation” title “Letter to a Maladjusted Misotheist”.
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/harrisletter.html
The guy point by point refutes the supposed danger of believing the whole Bible, and how the Old Testament supposedly supports all this “evil” stuff. Old Testament slavery was essentially servanthood, it was an economic nessecity in ancient times. Normally prisoners of war, prisoners in general, and those who were in debt went into slavery. Unlike the surrounding cultures the mandate for “slavery” that GOD GAVE THE ISRAELITES, is quite human. They were to be released every 7 years, and sent off with enough money and supplies to get on their own feet. They could be disciplined only slightly harder than your own children, and if you seriously hurt them you were to be punished, set them free, and pay them in response. Futhermore men and women were treated equally under the system… It is irresponsible to read writings that are thousands of years old concerning an institution (slavery) and assume that it is talking about what happened her in America 150 years ago…
Concerning the stoning of people, you do not have to worry about Christians passing laws to stone immoral people. There is practically no evidence from Church history that any Christians took these mandates as applying to them. Sure in the middle ages, the secular government burned at the stake those who went against the church. This of course was not right, and more had to do with the fact that medievel Europe was socially weak and anyone who question institutions that held society together were viewed as terrorists. However, if we are to assume, as the “new atheists” do, that Old Testament laws motivated these people to burn people at the stake because they were such “bible thumpers” (they weren’t) then why didn’t they STONE THEM?! The answer is simple, one of the number one focuses of Jesus ministry is the judgment of the Nation of Israel and the prophecy of its soon destructions, and the dawning of a new era for the people of God. In short, Jesus founded a Church not a Civil Government that has the authority to carry our such executions. So how could God have mandated such “horrible” things? Read the Bible, and let it shape your worldview… If you truly are submited to the Lord Jesus and his revelation of God you know that God is infinetly Holy and has manifested his grace, and goodness to every creature in creating, sustaining, and blessing them. He even demonstrates his grace in all the pain and suffering of this world because as CS Lewis said, it is his megaphone to get our attention that something isn’t right. Yet man reviles God, and perverts his Laws and the image they were created in the face of all this and is therefore condemned. Bottom line, the Biblical presupposition is against man and for God. He was perfectly just to order such punishments in the Old Testament, and even they were to show us how terrible sin is and cause us to turn to God for salvation. The child sacrificing, idol worshipping, orgy engaging canaanites were also not innocent victims of a “war like” God either… They were given 400 years to repent, and didn’t. The women and children were killed not only because the Biblical view of man shows that children inherit the sins of their parents but also because this is over 3000 years ago. They didn’t have welfare money, or orphanages to house thousands of women and children. Case Closed.
Skeptimal,
Why must you continue to bear false witness against the majority of honest American Christians? Do you really think evangelicals want to erase the 1st ammendmant? That is ridiculous, Christians have historically upheld religious freedom in this country, it is what made evangelicalism flourish. Christians of course believe that other relgious views are incorrect, but unlike many liberals they don’t try to condemn those that they disagree with as “hate criminals”. It’s called good old fashioned tolerance… In other words, you can be completely wrong and I will tell you that, but I still treat you with respect and diginity as being in the image of God…