915075771

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Subasic, Elvedin]On: 2 March 2010Access details: Sample Issue Voucher: Islam and Christian-Muslim RelationsAccess Details: [subscription number919608056]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Islam and Christian-Muslim RelationsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713424660

The Quest for 'A Common Word': Initial Christian Responses to a MuslimInitiativeYvonne Yazbeck Haddad a; Jane I. Smith b

a Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, Georgetown University, Washington, DC,USA b Harvard Divinity School, Cambridge, MA, USA

To cite this Article Haddad, Yvonne Yazbeck and Smith, Jane I.(2009) 'The Quest for 'A Common Word': Initial ChristianResponses to a Muslim Initiative', Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, 20: 4, 369 — 388To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09596410903194852URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09596410903194852

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713424660

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09596410903194852

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

The Quest for ‘A Common Word’:Initial Christian Responses to a MuslimInitiative

YVONNE YAZBECK HADDAD� & JANE I. SMITH��

�Alwaleed Center for Muslim–Christian Understanding, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA;� �Harvard Divinity School, Cambridge, MA, USA

ABSTRACT To a world experiencing heightened suspicion and distrust between Christians andMuslims, a call for dialogue and understanding between the two faiths may seem a welcome

event. Such a call was issued in October of 2007 when 138 Muslims from around the world sentan invitation to Christian leaders to cease their mutual fear and diatribe, find some measure of

theological common ground, and work together for world peace. What motivated such aninitiative, and how has it been received? In this essay we will examine some of the reasons forthe call, the content of the invitation, and the kinds of responses given by Christian individuals,

denominations and communities.

The Context of the Call

Tensions between Muslims and Christians in many parts of the world have heightened in

the last decade, and remain volatile today. From the 1979 Khomeini Revolution in Iran to

the collapse of the Soviet Empire to the Gulf wars and the current American military pres-

ence in Iraq and Afghanistan, fears have been fueled that a clash of civilizations will pit

Islam against the nations of the West, especially the United States. Despite former Presi-

dent Bush’s insistence on the virtues of ‘moderate Islam’ and his identification of Islam as

a ‘religion of peace’, the policies and discourse of his administration after the terrorist

attacks of 11 September 2001 were taken by many Muslims to be openly antagonistic

to them and their religion. Incidents of terrorism linked with Islamic extremism in

Europe and other parts of the world correspondingly have been seen by the West as evi-

dence that Islam indeed harbors strains of violence.

While several Muslim-inspired terrorist events in Europe have served to enhance

Western fears of Islam, other incidents have appeared to Muslims to be proof of

Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations,

Vol. 20, No. 4, 369–388, October 2009

Correspondence Address: Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad, Alwaleed Center for Muslim–Christian Understanding,

Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057; Email: [email protected].; Jane I. Smith, Harvard

Divinity School, 45 Francis Avenue, Cambridge MA 02138, USA; Email: [email protected]

0959-6410 Print/1469-9311 Online/09/040369-20 # 2009 University of BirminghamDOI: 10.1080/09596410903194852

Downloaded By: [Subasic, Elvedin] At: 13:43 2 March 2010

Western scorn of the religion of Islam and its Prophet. One of the most publicized of

those was the so-called ‘cartoon controversy’. On 30 September 2005, a series of some

12 cartoons, mostly deprecating the Prophet Muhammad, was published in the Danish

newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Among the most offensive drawings was one that portrayed

Muhammad’s turban as a bomb. The cartoons were reprinted in more than 50 newspapers

worldwide, as a result of which hundreds of thousands of Muslims took to the streets to

protest and riot, leading to incidents of brutality and killing. Christians were shocked,

Muslims were angry and hurt, and interfaith relations suffered a serious setback.

The scene was thus set for a highly charged reaction by Muslims to another incident that

they interpreted as again insulting their religion. This incident served as a major precipitat-

ing factor in the Muslim invitation to dialogue under consideration here. On 12 September

2006, Pope Benedict XVI traveled to Regensburg, Germany, to speak to representatives of

science from Bavaria. In his talk he quoted Byzantine Emperor Manual II Paleologus, who

apparently made derogatory remarks about Islam during the siege of Constantinople by

Muslims in the fifteenth century. ‘Show me what Mohammed brought that was new’, the

Emperor purportedly said, ‘and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as

his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached’ (Benedict XVI, 2006). The

emperor, clarified the Pope, was saying that violence is incompatible with the nature of

God and of the soul.

Once more Muslims were deeply offended by the apparent insult to their religion and

their beloved Prophet, and again violence broke out. The Pope publicly apologized for

his remarks and insisted that the words of the Byzantine emperor in no way reflected

his own feelings. He was, he protested, only providing background in what he intended

as a call for dialogue. Nonetheless, the speech was taken by Muslims as a reiteration of

the ancient diatribe by Christians against Islam, portraying it as a violent and irrational

religion. (In Qom, Iran, Ayatollah Khatami purportedly commented that the Pope and Pre-

sident Bush were united in their efforts to repeat the Crusades (Popham, 2006).) Muslims

felt that when the Pope in his Regensburg remarks emphasized the fact that Muslims owe

allegiance to a God who rules by divine law, he was in fact implying that there is little or

no room for natural reasoning in Islam. This, too, they find offensive. Despite his defense

of his talk, Muslims inferred from the speech that the Pope was less than enthusiastic about

the possibility of interfaith dialogue (Kalin, 2009).

It is against this background of violence, suspicion and misunderstanding that the

‘Common Word’ made its appearance.

Muslims Propose a New Initiative

On 13 October 2007, 138 Muslim Sunni and Shi‘i leaders, including two women and

representing countries and cultures around the world, signed a document called ‘A

Common Word Between Us and You’ (see www.acommonword.com).1 The initiative

for the ‘Common Word’ missive came from the Royal Aal al-Bait Institute for Islamic

Thought in Amman, Jordan. Founded in 1981 by HRH Prince El Hassan bin Talal, a

42nd generation direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad, the Institute has fostered

in-depth study of interfaith dialogue and sponsored several symposia on intellectual

engagement between members of the two faiths.

The initial response to Pope Benedict’s Regensburg Address came in September of

2006, when, under the leadership of Hassan’s nephew Prince Ghazi, 38 high-level

370 Y.Y. Haddad & J.I. Smith


Muslim leaders wrote taking exception to the Pope’s comments about Islam. When

the Vatican failed to respond, the Aal al-Bait Institute made a second effort which

resulted a year later, on the anniversary of the Regensburg speech, in the ‘Common

Word’ letter. Divided into three parts, the letter cites the scriptural basis in both Islam

and Christianity for (1) the call to love of God, (2) the call to love of neighbor, (3)

common ground for future dialogue. The theme is taken from the Qur’an (3.64), ‘Say,

O People of the Book [Christians and Jews]! Come to a common word between us and

you.’ The commonality, of course, was intended as the primary theme of the letter,

though, as we shall see, it is the next words in the same verse that were to strike

warning bells in the hearts of some Christians: ‘We worship none but God (Allah) and

we associate no partners with Him.’ What, they have wondered, do we then do with the

doctrine of the Trinity?

While the Pope was intended as the primary recipient, the document was addressed

to the heads of many different Christian communions including Eastern Orthodox patri-

archs, judicatories of a number of Protestant denominations, and leaders of Christian

churches in general. Since that time, it has received a variety of responses not only

from Roman Catholics but also from other Christians including Evangelicals, mainstream

Protestants, and several Orthodox leaders. The ‘Common Word’ letter was designed to

affirm that, while differences exist, there is a sound basis for religious understanding

as well as for practical cooperation between Christianity and Islam. While the text

itself does not chart a new theological path, it represents a major effort by Muslims to chal-

lenge their Christian counterparts to join them in affirming commonalities at a time when

reactionary voices within each tradition are decrying the other and fueling regional con-

flicts in various parts of the world. In many ways ‘A Common Word’ (hereafter CW)

can be said to be unique, an invitation unparalleled in the history of Christian–Muslim

relations.

Among the stated purposes of the document is not only the pursuit of dialogue but rec-

ognition of the need in today’s world for cooperation and understanding among members

of the world’s two largest religions. Noting that Christians and Muslims together make up

more than 55% of the world’s population, the letter cites the relationship between the two

religious communities as the single most important factor in helping bring about peace in

the world. If Christians and Muslims fail to relate to each other peacefully, it says, the rest

of the world will find it even more difficult to achieve peace.

The CW document, as might be expected, has received serious negative criticism as

well as accolades from Christians of different communions, reflected in the initial

responses by leaders of a number of Protestant denominations. A few Christians even

found the message potentially threatening, reading into the text the challenge to either

accept the Muslim interpretation of commonality or suffer the consequences. Whether

or not the initiative will in the end turn out to be a real breakthrough in Christian–

Muslim relations depends on the extent to which both parties move past first reactions

to generate on-going and substantive forums of engagement. While conversations have

taken place about the CW within both communities, this article looks specifically at the

various ways in which Christians have received this unprecedented initiative in the year

and a half since its appearance.

Before getting to these particulars, however, it may be useful to consider the general

context of recent interfaith dialogue in the West, into which the CW message came.

The Quest for ‘A Common Word’ 371


Dialogue in the West

Dialogue has rarely seemed more urgent than in the current climate of fear-mongering and

anti-Islamic rhetoric in Europe and America. It is important to acknowledge that dispas-

sionate, reasonable and well-informed conversations between Muslims and Christians

are indeed already happening in a variety of international venues, and most specifically

in the US. Since the 1980s many local American Christian ecumenical councils have

expanded to become interfaith, including Muslims as well as Jews and others (see

Smith, 2007, ch. 7). Invitations to dialogue have come primarily from Christians, most

commonly taking shape as gatherings to exchange information about faith and practice.

In some instances those who initiate dialogues are more intentional about focusing on a

particular theme such as theology, spirituality or ethics. Many Protestant denominations

have made formal statements to foster better knowledge and tolerance of Islam (Haines,

1991), and Roman Catholics since Vatican II have been holding a number of structured,

continuing dialogues with Muslims. Some initiatives cut across denominational and con-

fessional lines, seeking on local and national levels to bring together Muslims and Chris-

tians of various creeds and backgrounds for mutual understanding and, often, for common

community action.

It may be frustrating to some Catholics to see that much of the impetus for the ‘Common

Word’ document lies in implicit criticism of the Pope’s Regensburg comments. In fact, the

Roman Catholic Church has fostered many dialogue initiatives in the last four decades.

Pope Paul VI’s Nostra Aetate Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian

Religions that emerged from the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) gave the signal for

greater appreciation of non-Christian religions in general, and of Islam in a way that

appeared entirely new in Catholic tradition. The Declaration expresses esteem for

Islam, commending Muslims for various theological positions that find reflection in Chris-

tian tradition, such as monotheism, veneration of Jesus as a prophet, and belief in the final

judgment of all humanity. Catholic theologians have spilled much ink over the precise

interpretation of Nostra Aetate and, while they have not always agreed on the correct

interpretation, they concede that it presents a new possibility in Christian–Muslim

relations. The US Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has since partnered with the

Islamic Society of North America to organize on-going Christian–Muslim dialogues on

both coasts and in the Middle West. Capitalizing on the understanding that grows with

continuity, these groups have focused on theological exchange and liturgical explanation

(Fitzgerald & Borelli, 2006).

Since Vatican II, however, papal pronouncements on non-Christian religions have

seemed somewhat less open than Nostra Aetate. Pope Paul VI himself, in a 1975 declara-

tion on the position of the Church toward non-Christian religions entitled Evangelii Nun-

tiandi, specified that conversion to Christianity is the primary purpose of interfaith

conversation, and the Vatican’s 5 September 2002 Dominus Jesus declaration was clear

that salvation is only to be found through the Catholic Church (Fitzgerald & Borelli,

2006, p. 41). These pronouncements have naturally been factored into Catholic dialogue

initiatives, but have not served fully to discourage them.

Protestants have had fewer show-case examples of sustained dialogues, but sporadic

efforts have been made by denominations and organizations. The Episcopal Church, Evan-

gelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Methodist

Church, and United Church of Christ denominations have sponsored dialogue initiatives



and produced publications promoting better understanding of Islam. Many have spoken

out against the public anti-Muslim rhetoric that has come from some Evangelical

leaders, especially since 9/11. The World Council of Churches (WCC) has promoted

Christian–Muslim dialogue through various offices for many decades. Its American

partner, the National Council of Churches of Christ (NCCC), began interfaith work in

the 1970s through the Task Force on Christian–Muslim Relations. Now the Interfaith

Relations Commission, housed with the NCCC in New York City, has assumed the

tasks of organizing local and national dialogues with Muslims and Islamic organizations,

cooperating with Muslim leaders in setting up guidelines for dialogue, working to form

relations with the African American Muslim community, promoting an understanding

of Muslim and Christian positions on human rights, and helping counter negative

images of Islam.

At the same time that these positive efforts toward interfaith exchange have been taking

place in the American context, some conservative Christians have continued public rheto-

ric that seriously jeopardizes mutual understanding between members of the two faiths.

Public voices are still heard in the media defaming the Prophet, the Qur’an, and Islam.

In some cases, Christian denominations themselves represent different opinions on the

issue of Christian–Muslim dialogue, with more liberal members encouraging it and con-

servatives declaring that they will not engage in such activity. Some Evangelical Chris-

tians have retreated into polemics, portraying Muslims as the enemy of the gospel.

Since 2005, several videos linking religion and politics have been circulated, equating

radical Islam with Nazism. The NCCC’s Commission on Interfaith Relations has formally

condemned all such forms of so-called ‘Islamofascism’.

Meanwhile, Muslims themselves in the US have begun to see the value in initiating dia-

logues with Christians. Since 9/11, some who had been reticent about engaging in inter-

faith activities because they feared that the real Christian motive is evangelization, have

begun to be more open, particularly insofar as that effort can contribute to the propagation

of an understanding of moderate Islam. Several years ago, the Council on American–

Islamic Relations (CAIR), which monitors Muslim civil rights, sponsored an ‘open

house’ project in which American mosques were encouraged to invite Christians and

others in their communities to visit Muslim places of worship and learn first-hand about

their beliefs and practices. Some national Muslim organizations, including the Islamic

Society of North America (ISNA), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), and

the Ministry of [the late] Warith Deen Mohammed, now invite Christians to take part in

their national conventions. The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) has organized

interfaith meetings and specifically invited members of the NCCC and the USCCB to par-

ticipate in dialogue sessions (Nimr, 2002, p. 174).

This, then, is some of the background in the United States against which the CW initiat-

ive must be seen. Other activities, too extensive to be detailed in this overview, have of

course been taking place in various parts of the world. We will now consider the responses

of various Christian groups and individuals to the initiative, looking particularly at main-

line Protestants, Anglicans, Orthodox and Roman Catholics.

Mainline Protestant Christian Responses to CW

The World Council of Churches General Secretary, Rev. Dr Samuel Kobia, welcomed the

letter and noted the importance of its timing, given the need for guidance in today’s violent



world. In February 2008, a council of Christian scholars of interfaith relations gathered to

draft a more detailed response which was released the following month. The resulting

essay, entitled ‘Learning to Explore Love Together’, noted that, just as Vatican II

changed the way Catholics viewed other religions, so the CW clearly indicates that

Muslim leaders ‘are committed to fresh thinking about the relationship between Islam

and Christianity’ (WCC, 2008). The council recommended the formation of a joint plan-

ning group, Muslims and Christians, to prepare steps for common action, and the organ-

ization of a series of consultations involving Muslim and Christian leaders, scholars and

practitioners. The emphasis on action is understood to be a move forward from the theo-

logical tone set by the CW letter. In the second half of their response, the WCC leaders

discussed areas of potential disagreement between Muslims and Christians, but encour-

aged both sides not to let those differences fuel hostility. It has been those areas of

disagreement on theology, however, that have served as the focus of some of the most

severe critique of the CW by some Christian leaders.

As part of its ongoing response to the CW initiative, the WCC hosted a consultation

outside Geneva, Switzerland, on 18–20 October 2008, to which a number of Christian

world communions, the World Evangelical Alliance and the Roman Catholic Church

sent representatives. The aim of the consultation was to articulate a Christian theological

understanding of what it means to be in dialogue with Islam, and to identify those theologi-

cal issues that relate to a Christian self-understanding in relation to Islam. Churches from

various parts of the world, includingAsia, Africa, Europe and theMiddle East, participated.

The National Council of Churches in the US responded to CW by calling it deliberate,

thoughtful, and a sign of hope in a violent world. The NCCC’s ‘An Ecumenical Response

to “A Common Word Between Us and You”’started with a quote from Luke 10.25–28,

which talks about the importance of loving God. A lengthy section of the NCCC’s response

affirms the importance of seeking common ground and being in communitywith each other,

at the same time acknowledging that there are differences in the realities that comprise the

common ground on which both Muslims and Christians stand, particularly in the under-

standing of God’s revelation and God’s grace. The essay moves to the issue of justice as

also imperative in our common commitment. The document then uses the occasion of

the CW to highlight the NCCC’s recently established National Muslim–Christian initiat-

ive. The result of many years of trying to bring together Muslim and Christian leaders,

the initiative proposes to encourage mosques and churches to engage with each other for

education and understanding, for combined response to negative events or emergencies,

and for the development of ‘positive interaction between the two communities’ (NCCC,

2008). The statement ends with a reference to the qur’anic call to vie with one another in

righteousness and good works, so that equality, fairness, justice and peace might prevail.

Themovement from an affirmation of the CW’s emphasis on love to highlighting the essen-

tial task of pursuing justice demonstrates in very carefully articulated language what has

turned out to be a major distinction for many Christians.

Among the early responders to theCWwere theEvangelical LutheranChurch inAmerica

and the Presbyterian Church (USA). Lutheran Bishop Mark Hanson replied on 12 October

2007, expressing his appreciation of the faithfulness of the drafters in intending their docu-

ment to contribute to peace among religions, and acknowledging that the document needs to

be studied at greater length (Hanson, 2007). Three days later the Presbyterian Church

(USA), which has had a long relationship with Muslims in the United States, welcomed

the invitation offered by the CW to compare qur’anic and biblical commonalities. Clerk



of the General Assembly Clifton Kirkpatrick called the initiative ‘bold and heartening’, and

also encouraged its serious consideration by Presbyterians, specifically in the context of

local interactions between Christians and Muslims (Kirkpatrick, 2007). On 21 December

2007, the faculty of the Columbia Theological Seminary, a Presbyterian institution, used

the opportunity presented by the CW to encourage efforts toward common understanding

between members of different religious communities, and specifically between Muslims

and Christians (Columbia Theological Seminary, 2007).

More conservative Christian denominations have tended to respond to the CW by

emphasizing the lack of freedom sometimes experienced by Christians in Muslim

countries, comparing that with the opportunities Muslims are guaranteed for full partici-

pation in American society. The term often used for equality of opportunity is ‘recipro-

city’. David Coffey, president of the Baptist World Alliance, for example, while

welcoming the CW on 16 October 2007 as a groundbreaking initiative, also expressed

his deep concern about the denial of full religious liberty to Christians living in Muslim

nations. Coffey, who wrote as an individual and not as the voice of Baptists, expressed

his hope that his denomination would be issuing a formal statement (which, as of this

writing, has not yet appeared) (Coffey, 2007). Following the same theme, Executive

Director James Schrag of the Mennonite Church USA acknowledged the courage and

charity of the CW signers in the face of Christian misunderstanding and often hostility

towards Islam. Schrag even asked the forgiveness of Muslims for times in which they

have been mistreated by Christians. He emphasized, however, that Mennonites would

welcome the opportunity to talk with Muslim leaders about the profoundly significant

matter of religious freedom (Schrag, 2007).

Anglican Responses to CW

The Church of England responded to the CW quickly and, through the Archbishop of Can-

terbury, quite positively. The Archbishop, one of the 28 religious leaders specifically

named in the letter, plays two important roles. On the one hand he is the leader of 38 inde-

pendent Anglican churches around the world. On the other, he is leader of the established

religion in the United Kingdom, and as such he is responsible for advocating for all reli-

gious groups in the country (Amos, 2008). Archbishop Rowan Williams, who is known as

a supporter of healthy interfaith relations, was among the first of the leaders to whom the

CW was formally addressed to respond. He issued a press release welcoming the letter,

and saying that it forms the basis for future relationship building (Williams, 2007a). He

also emphasized the importance of respecting religious minorities who live in areas in

which another faith is in the majority. While he was referring specifically to the impor-

tance of appreciating minority communities in Britain, others of his Christian colleagues

applied the same argument to Christian communities living in majority Muslim countries

who are experiencing injustices under Muslim rule.

The Archbishop also underscored the work that is currently going on under the aegis of

the Anglican Church, referring especially to two specific projects. The first is an annual

dialogue with the Al-Azhar al-Sharif in Cairo, begun in 2002 with the signing of a joint

agreement by then Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord George Carey, and the Grand Imam

of Al-Azhar. The agreed goals were to encourage mutual understanding, to work together

to solve problems and conflicts, and to oppose injustice and the abuse of human rights. A

Joint Committee meets annually, alternating between Egypt and the United Kingdom.



Clare Amos, the Director of Theological Studies at the Anglican Communion Office, in a

November 2008 report to the communion, strongly encouraged participants to take

seriously the need for achieving sustainable, ongoing, practical outcomes to the dialogue,

to be set out in a three- to five-year plan for practical developments (Amos, 2008).

Al-Azhar did not sign the CW, saying that they had not been invited to participate in

drafting the document and that the professors from Al-Azhar University who signed it

did so as individuals and not as representatives of the august body. At the recent

meeting of the Anglican–Al-Azhar dialogue group, the president of Al-Azhar University

ruled out theological discussion on the grounds that it would lead to a dead end, as had all

previous such efforts. He wanted to restrict the dialogue to social and political issues on

which Christians and Muslims might agree and cooperate.

The second major dialogue activity in which the Anglican Church has been involved is

an annual meeting of Christian and Muslim scholars called Building Bridges, a series of

seminars in England and elsewhere in which Muslim and Christian participants engage

theologically with each other, often around the understanding of religious texts. Amos

notes that the dialogue meetings with Al-Azhar, in which the Christian contingent is

entirely Anglican, concentrate primarily on social and ethical issues. The role of the Arch-

bishop in those meetings is thus as the Anglican leader. In the Building Bridges project

which the Archbishop has convened personally, however, Christian participation is ecu-

menical and the dialogue has been overtly theological (Amos, 2009).

The Archbishop took the initiative to continue response to the CW by contacting the

other recipients of the letter and bringing them together for a consultation. In June

2008, church leaders representing a wide range of geographical areas and communions,

including Roman Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox, convened to discuss the letter

and ways to continue to respond. After the consultation, based on his having listened care-

fully to this wide range of Christian representation, Archbishop Williams wrote personally

to all the signatories of the CW. The response is entitled ‘A Common Word for the

Common Good’, in which theology and ethics are brought together in an attempt to

base the struggle for justice on the understanding of God’s nature and unity. In this

lengthy epistle (17 pages typescript) the Archbishop draws the conclusion that, in the

light of the CW letter, five specific topics need to be commonly pursued:

(1) Loving and praising the one God ‘who deals with us in love, compassion, justice and

peace’. It should be noted here that the Archbishop, unlike Pope Benedict XVI, starts

from the assumption that Muslims and Christians do worship the same God, a distinc-

tion crucial to the theological discussion to be described below.

(2) Pursuing the common good of all humanity, with practical implications for future

relations.

(3) Studying our respective scriptures, and the ways in which they play different roles in

the two traditions.

(4) Respecting and discussing differences rather than remaining imprisoned in mutual

fear and suspicion.

(5) Searching for ‘a common awareness of responsibility before God . . .’ (Williams,

2007b).

It is clear that ArchbishopWilliams did not represent the thinking of all Anglicans either

in his initial response or in ‘A Common Word for the Common Good’. Michael Nazir-Ali,



for example, the Bishop of Rochester, responded immediately and critically to the CW

letter. ‘The two faiths’ understanding of the oneness of God is not the same’, Nazir-Ali

told the Times of London. ‘One partner cannot dictate the terms on which dialogue

must be conducted. This document seems to be on the verge of doing that’ (Nazir-Ali,

2007). His concern is that the CW is a Muslim initiative and not one that surfaced in con-

sultation with Christians. Nazir-Ali feels that the document redefines Christianity in an

untenable manner, undermining, or at least misunderstanding, the core of the Christian

faith by trying to fit the Christian notion of the unity of God in three persons into the

qur’anic imperative to refrain from ascribing partners to God. It might be argued that

Nazir-Ali’s objection, though couched in theological terms wanting to protect the

notion of the Trinity, is not unrelated to his apparent deep concern about the rapidly

growing presence of Islam in Britain (Nazir-Ali, 2008).

Anglican Bishop of London Richard Chartres found himself in line with Archbishop

Rowan Williams when he said that he acknowledged a Muslim perspective in the CW

but did not find that in itself to be threatening. Such a substantial letter demands a substan-

tial Christian response which articulates the Christian perspective on the unity of God, he

says. Rather than objecting to the presupposition of the CW, however, Chartres believes

that such a well articulated Christian response will help stimulate both conversation and

cooperation between the two religions (Chartres, 2007). Chartres’ attempts to dwell on

similarities between passages of the Bible and the Qur’an were not appreciated by all

his readers. As one conservative blogger put it, ‘There are similarities between Jesus

and Father Christmas, but nothing to justify joint global conferences’ (‘Cranmer’, 2007).

In the meantime, answering a call from the Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury for

input from around the Anglican Communion, the Anglicans’ American cousin, the Epis-

copal Church, issued its own response to the CW. This document was prepared by Lucinda

Mosher on behalf of the Office of Ecumenical and Interreligious Relations. Noting that the

Common Word invitation was actually issued on ‘Eid al-Fitr, the breaking of the fast of

Ramadan, Mosher reflects that what is perhaps the most interesting part of the document

is the linking of the Christian commandment to love with the Muslim profession of the

oneness of God. Christians are thereby provided an opportunity to experience

the Islamic exegetical process. Unlike Nazir-Ali and some others, Mosher feels that the

way the document interprets the Islamic negation of the possibility of God having any

associates actually ‘enables us Christians to accept the invitation with integrity’

(Mosher, 2008). Citing Anglican experiences with Al-Azhar in Cairo and the Building

Bridges Seminar, as well as the 1988 Lambeth Conference of Bishops of the Anglican

Communion, she argues that Anglicans/Episcopalians articulate their theology of reli-

gious difference in profoundly incarnational terms yet with the end of holding ‘difference’

together. The CW discussion will highlight differences within and between Christian

communions as well as between Christians and Muslims. The Anglican contribution,

Mosher believes, will be the effort to hold together the diversity of answers.

The Yale Initiative and Other Evangelical Responses to CW

While Archbishop Williams was reaching out to the other recipients of the CommonWord

on one side of the Atlantic, a group of scholars from Yale University in New Haven, Con-

necticut, set in motion a response that was to have notable consequences on the other side.

On 12 October 2007, Dean Harold Attridge and professors Joseph Cumming, Emilie



Townes and Miroslav Volf published a response to the CW entitled ‘Loving God and

Neighbor Together: A Christian Response to A Common Word Between Us and You’.

The authors invited other Christian leaders to sign the document, which called for

cordial relations between Christian and Muslim communities and supported the further-

ance of interfaith dialogue. Shortly thereafter a full-page spread appeared in The

New York Times, which bore the signatures of some 300 major Christian leaders, including

Rick Warren, controversial participant in the Inauguration ceremony of President Obama.

The ‘advertisement’ elicited the enthusiastic approval of Muslim leaders from a number of

Muslim countries including Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Abu Dhabi.

Yale Divinity School (YDS), under the leadership of Miraslav Volf, director of the

Yale Center for Faith and Culture and YDS faculty member, then called an eight-day

conference on 24–31 July which drew more than 150 participants from nearly 40

countries.

The meeting, which was entitled ‘Loving God and Neighbor in Word and Deed’, is

reported to have cost some $850,000, a major portion of which was contributed by an

anonymous donor (Peno, 2009). Participants were greeted at the airport, moved quickly

through security, and treated with a high level of hospitality throughout their visit.

Because the meeting was attended by a number of royalty and other dignitaries, security

was extremely tight. Local students and other volunteers worked alongside professional

translators, while special arrangements for Muslim prayer such as ceremonial washing

stations and prayer areas were provided. Female workers were asked to dress modestly.

The first half of the conference was devoted to workshops at the Divinity School, which

were closed to the public and the press with the aim of providing an opportunity for frank

exchange in a protected environment. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts opened the

second part of the meeting with a public address aimed at the promotion of commonality

and the protection of basic rights. Muslim and Christian scholars and clerics spoke. A

small number of rabbis also took part in the discussions. The CW theme of loving God

and neighbor served as the framework for the meeting. The last day of the conference

saw final agreement on a declaration that acknowledged four points of commonality

between Muslims and Christians: recognition of God’s love, respect for the rights of the

other, commitment to continuing dialogue, and defense of the legitimacy of interfaith dia-

logue (Brown, 2009).

The Yale conference itself was not to everyone’s liking. Sarah Ruden, a visiting scholar

at YDS and a Quaker, found the structure of the gathering unnecessarily exclusive, and

attempts made to honor the sensibilities of the visiting Muslims excessive and insulting.

Ruden was particularly offended to read a statement from YDS Dean Harold Attridge

saying that, because Christians are hosts during the conference, concepts of decency,

honor and modesty were to be defined by Muslim rather than the school’s usual standards.

‘But it isn’t simply that I was ticked off (though I was) at being asked not to wear sandals

or speak at any length to any male or even smile at one or shake one’s hand’, she writes,

but that the organizers were ‘so prone to create impressions in conflict with reality, and so

oblivious of what this could lead to’ that the only result could be a waste of time (Thomas,

2008). The author of an on-line article about Ms Ruden’s responses acknowledges that as a

theological liberal she may have reacted with excessive zeal. Nonetheless, he says, the

insistence of YDS that the conference abide by Islamic rules is reminiscent of the

dhimmi status of Christians over the centuries who not only had to pay a tax to their

Muslim rulers but were to do so with humility and self-abnegation.



The original Yale document, to which so many Christian leaders affixed their names,

continues to be highly controversial. Its signatories run the gamut from liberal to conser-

vative, the latter coming under some severe criticism by colleagues who see many reasons

for not wanting to support the Common Word letter. One of the keynote addresses at the

Yale conference was given by Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of

Evangelicals (NAE), noteworthy for the fact that until recently Evangelicals have not

had much involvement in interfaith dialogue. Anderson himself asserted that he had

signed the document and taken part strictly as an individual and not on behalf of the

NAE, insisting that his reason was to help Muslims learn about the Gospel (Anderson,

2008). Anderson also stated that he was influenced by the fact that he was told that

Christian brothers and sisters living among Muslims might be in jeopardy if he did not

sign, which observers have noted sounds more like intimidation and blackmail than

neighborly love and agreement (cited in De Leon, 2008).

Also supporting the conference was Richard Cizek, former vice-president of the NAE.

Both Anderson and Cizek were strongly attacked by Evangelical colleagues for signing the

document for reasons ranging from theological to political. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of

the highly influential conservative Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has been

adamant in his critique of the CW. He stated on his radio program in January of 2008

that he thinks the Yale document is confusing, that its Christian apology for the Crusades

is unnecessary, and that the statement does not proclaim the divinity of Christ as the Son of

God. He also questioned whether the 138 signers of the CW really represent the Islamic

world (Mohler, 2008).

The Review of Faith and International Affairs (6(4), Winter 2008) featured two articles

that illustrate the pros and cons for conservative Christians signing off on the Muslim

initiative. In ‘Why I signed the Yale response to “A Common Word”’, John

G. Stackhouse Jr of Regent College in Ontario admits that he would have been more com-

fortable if the CWmore clearly articulated the difference between the faiths in terms of the

nature of God. ‘[A]s a Christian of traditional conviction who identifies with the inter-

national evangelical impulse in particular’, he says, ‘I want everyone to come to saving

faith in Jesus Christ, including all of the Muslims of the world’ (Stackhouse, 2008,

p. 58). Nonetheless, he was willing to sign the Yale document because he sees the CW

as a creative attempt to bridge what he calls the ‘putative clash of civilizations’ in a civi-

lized way. While he understands why some Christians (and indeed some Muslims) might

be impatient with the emphasis on commonality and want to quickly articulate points of

contention, he feels that recognizing that we are not totally different, and thus not alien

or unsympathetic to one another, is a way forward in today’s difficult world. Stackhouse

participated in the Yale conference, and in his article he paid respect to the Muslim and

Christian men and women there who were earnestly trying to honor God in ways that

reflect their deepest belief. ‘I’m glad I was there’, he concludes, ‘and I’m glad I signed

the Yale response in the first place’ (Stackhouse, 2008, p. 59).

Giving voice to a different response is Keith Pavlischek, who tells his readers ‘Why I

would Not Have Signed the Yale Response to “A Common Word”’. He charges fellow

conservatives with having taken the easy way out in signing on to what he calls ‘a pro-

foundly flawed document’ (Pavlischek, 2008, p. 61). Among these flaws, he cites assump-

tion of corporate Christian responsibility for the Crusades and the ‘war on terror’, failure to

spell out the real differences between Islam and Christianity in the understanding of love,

uncritical acceptance of the CW’s claim that love of God and neighbor are fundamental to



Islam, and uncritical acceptance of the designation ‘prophet’ for Muhammad. Such errors,

he insists, constitute a moral and intellectual embarrassment. Pavlischek also points to a

reality that a number of critics of CW have noted, namely that the Royal Aal Al-Bayt Insti-

tute, initiator of the CW, has posted fatwas (legal opinions) on its website condemning to

death Muslims who convert to Christianity.

An internet booklet titled ‘The Truth About A Common Word’, written by two converts

from Islam to Christianity, purports to be the tip of an iceberg exposing the true meaning of

the CW letter (Solomon & Al-Maqdisi, 2008). The love of God that the Muslim signers of

CW, as well as the Christian signers of the Yale document, affirm, they say, is really a love

that is exclusive to the claims and person of Christ. Love of neighbor in Islam is restricted

to Muslims, in contrast to which love in the Christian understanding is universal.

‘Common Word’ as described in Q 3.64, the authors insist, is not an invitation at all but

really a call to Islam. They go so far as to accuse the signers of CW of taqiyyah, or deceiv-

ing the readers by not providing the Muslim interpretations of the verse. The common

word proposed in the document is actually, they insist, a denial of the Sonship and Lord-

ship of Christ, what they term ‘an exercise in skilled duplicity’. The authors argue that love

of non-Muslims is not to be found in either the Qur’an or the traditions. The booklet may

well serve to reflect the deep reservations of many conservative Christians to the CW

initiative.

Orthodox Responses to CW

It is also important to mention the Eastern Orthodox communions, whose voices are often

not heard in Western conversations about dialogue. In fact, they have not been heard very

loudly in the CW conversations either. As members of the World Council of Churches,

some have signed on to the document produced by that body (Interfax, 2007). The

burden of history lies heavy on many of these Orthodox Churches, which have been at

the forefront of the encounter between the two faiths since the beginning of Islam. Con-

versation about commonality is difficult when many within their ranks look to centuries

of conflict, persecution and living as dhimmis under Muslim rule, and fault Islam for

their heritage of pain and for the decline of their communities.

Because many Orthodox communities continue today to live in proximity to, or even

under, majority Muslim rule, it is not surprising to find that when they do respond it is

often with concerns of justice for Christian minorities first in mind. We disapprove of

the limitation of religious freedom of Muslims or anybody else living in a country the

majority of whose population is Christian, says His Beatitude Chrisostomos, Archbishop

of Cyprus. ‘Of course, the same respect is demanded for Christian minorities in Muslim

countries, and especially local Churches, which exist in majority Muslim nations.’ Begin-

ning his response to the CW letter with appreciation for ethical values and the common

pursuit of peace promoted by the initiative, Chrisostomos is clearly most interested in

noting relations between Christians and Muslims in Cyprus and particularly its invasion

by Turkey in 1974, creating what he calls deprivation of religious rights of Christians, spo-

liation of churches, destruction of religious artifacts and offense of religious symbols. The

hope of His Beatitude lies in the possibility that the CWmight contribute positively toward

changing that unacceptable situation (Chrisostomos, 2007).

Similarly, Mar Eustathius Matta Roham, Archbishop of Jezira and the Euphrates of the

Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch, moves his reply clearly toward a concern for justice.



He begins by arguing that what Christians understand by God’s love for humanity really

has no counterpart in Islam, because it is grounded in the core of Christian faith, namely

the Doctrine of Salvation. Moving to the meaning of the love of neighbor, he says that

when Muslims say neighbor they mean geographically proximate, while Christians give

neighbor a universal connotation. What is relevant, however, is how Christians and

Muslims are treated by the other. That is to say, do they enjoy the same human rights?

He concludes a lengthy argument by quoting from an Arab Christian college student:

‘A large number of Christians suffer from all kinds of pressure in Muslim countries

because of their religious beliefs. If Muslim religious leaders truly want peace in the

world, why don’t Muslim countries give Christians the same human rights that Muslims

enjoy in the West?’ The archbishop hopes that the signers of the CW and those who

reply to it will work together for peace among all nations (Eustathius Matta Roman,

2008). Several responses from Armenian Orthodox communions emphasize the impor-

tance of living together in harmony and of respecting the other, giving as an example

the ways in which some Muslims helped Christian Armenians fleeing from Muslim perse-

cution after the First World War (Aram I, 2008; Petrosyan, 2008).

The Archbishop of New York and Metropolitan of All America for the Ukranian Auto-

cephalous Orthodox Church, Rev. Mykhayil Javchak Champion, looked at the CW some-

what more positively than his Eastern counterparts. Champion feels that the small number

of Orthodox responses to the CW signals a feeling of insecurity among Eastern Christians.

Noting that Christians and Muslims have found ways in which to live cooperatively in the

Ukraine, he emphasized the importance of thinking positively and inclusively, referring to

Christian responses both to other Christians and to Muslims (Champion, 2007).

Sparse in representation, and primarily concerned with justice, the Orthodox responses

to the CW as a whole do not add significantly to theological reflection on the issues raised

in the letter. The case is different, as we shall see, with the Roman Catholics.

Roman Catholic Responses to CW

But what of the Roman Catholic Church, to which the CW initiative was apparently pri-

marily addressed? For some time the Vatican was silent about the letter, following its prac-

tice of deliberating carefully rather than responding quickly, as did some Protestant leaders

in the United States. The Vatican is not new to Christian–Muslim dialogue, its Pontifical

Council for Interreligious Dialogue (PCID) having been in business for decades, and it fre-

quently interacts with Muslim majority states through its diplomatic corps. Nonetheless, as

Drew Christiansen, SJ, Director of the Office of the International Justice and Peace of the

US Catholic Conference, remarks in ‘The Context of the “Common Word”’, those outside

of Vatican circles tended to suspect that the Vatican was not enthusiastic about this

unusual initiative on the part of Muslim leaders (Christiansen, 2008, p. 49). In fact, the

Vatican had never answered the initial ‘Open Letter to the Pope’ signed by 38 Muslim

clerics and scholars protesting at the Pope’s comments in his Regensburg Address of 12

September 2006.

Nonetheless, Roman Catholic theologians and scholars were venturing their own

interpretations of the CW letter while awaiting official word from the Church. The

USCCB responded cautiously, apparently waiting for a more definitive signal from the

Vatican. On 13 October 2007, it welcomed the initiative for a broad dialogue that

would address the hopes and challenges put forward by the signers of the CW



(USCCB, 2007). At a 14 March 2008 Christian–Muslim conference at Georgetown

University, Professor Daniel Madigan, SJ, former Director of the Institute for the Study

of Religions and Cultures at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, had this to

say: ‘What we see demonstrated in this new project is a more confident Muslim identity

that has developed in a less conflictual and more pluralist setting. It finds no need to

engage in polemics, yet its critical skills are by no means blunted’ (Madigan, 2008).

Noting the growing group of Muslims who are seriously engaged in what he calls

‘mutual theological hospitality’, Madigan worries that Christians have not yet found a con-

vincing way to proclaim the message of the Christian faith to Muslims. Muslims continue

to be perplexed by such doctrines as Trinity, Christology, sin and redemption, he says.

Because these tenets are central to Christian relationship with the divine, it is not an

option to simply say (as many who engage in the interfaith enterprise are tempted to

do) that they should not be mutually explored and discussed.

Meanwhile, the Vatican was moving at its own pace to prepare a response to CW. Pope

Benedict has more than once expressed his concern that the Muslim conviction that the

Qur’an is the revealed word of God makes progress in common theological discussion

very difficult. Since the death of Pope John Paul II, who had been rather more open to con-

versation with Muslims, the Roman Catholic Church has taken what many would consider

a harder line position towards Islam. Diplomacy must always be pursued, of course, but

theological discussion is something else. One of the first moves Benedict XVI made

after taking office was to send Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, a leading expert on

Islam and head of the Council on Interreligious Dialogue, away from the center of influ-

ence in Rome to be papal nuncio in Egypt. This signaled to some observers that a clear

distinction was to be made between John Paul II’s understanding of God and that of Ben-

edict XVI. While the former seems to have held that Christians, Jews and Muslims believe

in and worship the same God, Benedict has made it clear that theological claims on both

sides make such commonality virtually impossible.

Accusations that the Vatican was ignoring the CW were, of course, untrue, despite

Muslim disappointment that the Pope had not responded immediately. Cardinal Jean-

Louis Tauran, head of the PCID, remarked that he thought the CW initiative showed

good will and the hope that dialogue could help overcome prejudices (Catholic News

Agency, 2007). In the early days after the CW was sent, however, succeeding releases

from Tauran signaled his concern about freedom of religion for Christians in some

Muslim majority countries and for the difficulty of real theological dialogue. In late

October, a number of signatories to the CW wrote again to the Vatican expressing their

frustration at not hearing directly from Pope Benedict and at the tone of the comments

coming from Tauran (‘Chiesa Espresso’, 2007).

It turns out that on 27 November 2007, only a little more than a month after the CW was

sent, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Bertoni wrote on behalf of the Pope to Prince

Ghazi bin Mohammad bin Talal inviting some of the authors of the CW document to

meet for conversation with the Pope and Cardinal Tauran. On 4–5 March 2008, the dele-

gation of five Muslims and five Christians representing the PCID gathered in Rome. They

agreed to schedule what they called ‘The Catholic–Muslim Forum’, to meet for the first

time on 2–6 November 2008, in Rome, with 48 participants. The agenda was to be divided

into two sections: Theological and Spiritual Foundations, and Human Dignity and Mutual

Respect (Christiansen, 2008, p. 49). The topics, of course, reflect the primary concerns

expressed in all of the Christian responses to the CW: God-talk and justice-talk.



And so, on the designated dates, the Christian–Muslim conference was held. Partici-

pants from each community included scholars, clerics, religious authorities and counse-

lors, and represented 28 countries around the world. Cardinal Tauran headed the

Catholic contingent, and Mustafa Ceric, the Grand Mufti of Bosnia and Herzegovina, rep-

resented both Sunni and Shi‘ite Muslims. Three Catholic and two Muslim women were in

attendance, including Islamic Society of North America President Ingrid Mattson, who

had been an original signer of the CW. Except for a few of the participants, as was true

of the signatories to the original document, they were a self-selected group not related

to state bureaucracies. The Vatican contingent itself included four bishops from countries

in which Christians live as minority citizens within a Muslim majority: the Bishop of

Multan from Pakistan, the apostolic legate of Abu Dhabi, the bishop of Kirkuk in Iraq,

and the Melkite Archbishop of Aleppo (Heneghan, 2008a). No Saudis were present,

which was notable because Saudi Arabia presents problems for some Christian partici-

pants insofar as it does not permit the public practice of Christianity or any religion

other than Islam. (Saudi King Abdullah, however, sponsored an interfaith dialogue held

in Barcelona in the summer of 2008, to which he invited Jews, Hindus and Buddhists

among others. He later held another meeting in New York at the United Nations.)

The first part of the gathering was devoted to conversation among the participants about

love of God and neighbor, human dignity and mutual respect in the two traditions. The

delegation was then received by the Pope inside the Vatican. ‘Let us resolve to overcome

past prejudices and to correct the often distorted images of the other’, said Pope Benedict,

‘which even today can create difficulties in our relations’ (Donadio, 2008a). Acknowled-

ging the gathering to be a clear sign of mutual esteem, he affirmed the intent that each side

should listen to the other with respect. Mustafa Ceric and Seyyed Hossein Nasr of George

Washington University in Washington DC spoke for the CW delegation.

The issues discussed reflected the responses that we have seen from different Christian

denominations to the initial text of the CW. On the one hand, the discussion was theolo-

gical, questioning whether in fact there can be any kind of commonality between the two

religions as long as Muslims affirm that the Qur’an is God’s divine and immutable word,

and Christians affirm the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus. Can we respect each other’s

scriptures? they asked. Signatories to the CW seem to have acted precisely out of that pos-

ition of respect, calling on Christians to be faithful to their own scripture (Schutz, 2008).

On the other hand, the conversation was practical and centered on questions of human

justice. Swiss intellectual Tariq Ramadan reflected at the end of the conference that

among the thorniest questions tackled by the participants were apostasy (in this case refer-

ring specifically to conversion from Islam to Christianity), which Islam does not permit,

and freedom of worship when Christians are minorities in Muslim countries (Donadio,

2008a). Do Christians have the right to build churches in Muslim countries, or to otherwise

practice their faith in public? It was the religious freedom conversation at the forum that

attracted the most media attention. The problem for some of the Muslim participants in

talking about such issues, of course, is that freedom of religion is governed by state law

and is not open for discussion.

Participants generally agreed that it is not necessary to find absolute agreement and uni-

formity of belief in order to share the ‘common word’ affirmed in the original letter. Love,

they said, is an essential quality of God, but the way that love is understood and experi-

enced can be quite different in the respective traditions. It was clear that the ways in

which the two communities have experienced and responded to modernity are often



different. Even religious freedom itself can be understood in various ways. The fact that

Pope Benedict XVI sees mission and dialogue as two aspects of the same venture is

problematic for many Muslims. There is no question that Muslims from their perspective

sometimes see the missionary activity of certain American and European churches, and

the relationship of that activity to the power structure of the West, as problematic

(Kalin, 2009), just as Christians have expressed concern over Muslim acts of dacwa or

bringing others to the faith of Islam. The participants have pledged to gather every two

years to continue their conversations, meeting alternately in Rome and in a Muslim

country.

Christian Troll, Jesuit professor of Islamic studies and long-time participant in Chris-

tian–Muslim dialogue sessions, has written at some length about his experiences at and

interpretation of these fora. The new element here, he says, is that the initiative came

from Muslims and not, as has usually been the case, from Christians. The initiative was

not simply from the royal family in Amman, but shows the support of a wide range of

influential Muslims. The focus on the dual command of love as inherent both in the

Bible and in Islamic law, he notes, provided ‘a completely new starting point’ (Gropp,

2008). It would have been less surprising if the Muslims had emphasized God’s mercy,

especially since humankind’s love of God is not a major theme of the Qur’an. Troll

thinks that Sufism, in which love is dominant, may have influenced the thinking of

some of the original signers of the CW. Like many others, he feels that while the CW

emphasis on love of God and neighbor is important, the primary concerns of the Christian

Church are human dignity, human rights, and freedom of religion.

Another experienced interfaith dialogue hand, Samir Khalil Samir SJ of the Papal

College in Rome, raises serious questions about the CW project. Acknowledging the

fact that so many countries and affiliations are represented in the signers, he nonetheless

worries about the content. The term ‘love’ is rarely to be found in the Qur’an, he says, and

is not one of the names of God. What Muslims mean by love is what Christians would call

obedience, so that the term really has two meanings. He notes that when Muslims quote

from the Qur’an they say ‘God said’, but when they quote from Christian scripture they

say something like ‘as it is found in the New Testament’, clearly illustrating their differing

assumptions about the respective texts. ‘If we remain at this level’, warns Samir, ‘we risk

casting a dialogue based on ambiguities’ (Samir, 2007, p. 4). He concludes his analysis by

expressing his hope that the CW may actually begin the process of addressing the injus-

tices experienced by Christians in many parts of the Christian world. ‘Above all’, he

remarks, ‘it is to be hoped that the next step will focus on the more delicate issues of reli-

gious freedom, the absolute value of human rights, the relationship between religion and

society, the use of violence, etc.’, issues that worry both the Muslim world and the West

(Samir, 2007, p. 6).

The text of the Catholic–Muslim joint declaration that emerged as a result of these

deliberations at the Vatican is available online (Asia News, 2008). Among its main

points, reflecting both commonality and difference, are:

(1) Christians see the love of God and neighbor manifested in the love of Christ for the

Father, while for Muslims love is a timeless transcendent power that pre-exists

human love for God.

(2) God’s most precious gift to humans is life, which is always to be honored and

preserved.



(3) As a creation of God, each person is endowed with dignity and thereby entitled to

freedom individually and communally.

(4) Love of neighbor includes the right of individuals and communities to practice their

religion privately and publicly.

(5) The religious convictions and practices of minorities are entitled to respect and not

ridicule.

(6) Oppression, aggressive violence and terrorism, especially in the name of religion,

must be renounced.

Despite the fact that the Seminar brought together significant voices to discuss major

themes of the CW, the result has not been obvious enthusiasm on the part of the

Vatican for continued dialogue, at least in the theological sense. On 24 November

2008, Pope Benedict XVI seemed to shift the topic of future conversations from theology

to the practical consequences of religious differences. ‘An interreligious dialogue in the

strict sense of the word is not possible’, he says, ‘without putting one’s faith in parenth-

esis.’ He does stress, however, that intercultural dialogue is very important (Donadio,

2008b). Catholic scholar George Weigel defends the Pope’s interest in dialogue, saying

that he is simply trying to get it out of the clouds of theory and down to the business of

living together with justice despite creedal differences (Donadio, 2008b).

Cardinal Tauran, head of the PCID, seems to have fairly summarized the Vatican’s pos-

ition when, on 16 December 2008, he both called the Vatican meeting a fresh bid for

mutual understanding and acknowledged that it is getting hard to identify a direction

for the dialogue. ‘In my opinion there are too many Christian–Muslim initiatives’, said

the Cardinal. ‘One doesn’t know where this will go. That proves there is a great interest,

but it shows a bit of confusion’ (Heneghan, 2008b).

Concluding Thoughts

For more than 14 centuries, Christians and Muslims have lived together in harmony as

neighbors and fought bitterly over territories and doctrines. Today, the situation continues

to be charged. Christian fear of Islam for some is a result of self-proclaimed religiously-

inspired acts of violence, and for others is a response to the rapid growth of the Islamic

population in the West. Muslim fear of Christianity is related to a century of imperialism

by Western nations in many forms, including the recent invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq

and the continuing American support of Zionism. That 138 Muslims took the initiative to

reach out to Christians, and that a series of interfaith meetings occurred in a little over a

year as a response to that initiative, must be seen as a signal breakthrough, whatever its

specific conclusions. Nonetheless, as an attempt to identify real common ground, or a

common word between the faiths, the effort in the eyes of some observers clearly fell

short.

The CW has been criticized by some Muslims as Christianizing Islam, and by some

Christians as Islamizing Christianity. Neither, or both, may be true. Did it create a new

arena of theological discourse that can bring the two communities together, or did it

move in directions that are threatening to traditional theologians and exegetes on both

sides? The Christian denominations that have congregations living under Muslim rule

raised the issue of their just treatment, while those engaged in missionary activity

focused on religious freedom as a right for Muslims to convert to Christianity with



impunity. All denominations appear to have members who raise the issue of Christology in

light of their concern that the seeming equation of Christian and Muslim beliefs in the love

of God and the love of man is too facile and ignores differences that have survived over

many centuries.

In the age of the internet, letter signing has become a simple and quick means of seeking

support for an opinion. Whether all the signatories to the CW read the careful crafting of

the letter and approved its interpretation of the Qur’an verse may never be known. The

same might be asked of the succeeding documents that have come out of the discussions,

such as the Yale letter that generated controversy among conservative Christians. It

remains to be seen, then, whether the CW and the discussions it has spawned will really

break new ground, or will simply be one more example of the conundrums that have dead-

locked Christian–Muslim dialogue over the centuries.

After all, how can we really talk about theology, as the Pope suggests, when at heart our

theologies differ significantly? One might be tempted to agree, seeing from the conversa-

tions outlined above, that there are a number of questions on which there is clearly no theo-

logical consensus: Do we worship the same God? Must Christians see in Islamic

‘monotheism’ an absolute threat to the doctrine of the Trinity? Do concepts of the love

of God and love of neighbor mean the same thing in Islam and Christianity? Is it possible

to really respect each other’s scriptures? Is it appropriate to talk about theology at all while

injustice and violence continue, and while Christians living under Muslim rule are being

denied freedom of religion?

These are not new questions. But what is new, as has been identified, is the effort of a

significant group of Muslims to invite conversation with Christians. And what is also new

is the amount of excitement and activity—sometimes enthusiastic and sometimes highly

critical—that the CW has elicited, as well as the number of meetings and gatherings

that it has spawned. We have yet to see, of course, whether the intentions of various

groups to reconvene to continue the conversation will actually eventuate. And it also

remains to be seen if the theological differences identified here can be pursued with enthu-

siasm precisely because of the challenges they present, and whether the issues of (in)jus-

tice to which many have pointed can serve as a stimulus to a large group of the world’s

leading clerics and religious intellectuals to actually move in the direction of more peace-

ful solutions for a world deeply in need of strong moral leadership.

Note

1. From a Muslim perspective the fact that a wide range of signatories are involved suggests that the impor-

tant goal of ijmc, or consensus, among believers was achieved (Kalin, 2008).

References

Amos, C. (2008). Christians and Muslims in England: the joys and sorrows of ‘establishment’, Lecture delivered

at Georgetown University conference ‘The Future of Christian–Muslim Relations: Where Do We Go from

Here?’, 14 March, Typescript.

Amos, C. (2009) For the common good: the Church of England, Christian–Muslim relations and ‘A Common

Word’, Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, 20(2), pp. 183–196.

Anderson, L. (2008) Signing the letter to Islam, 20 November. Available at http://www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION (accessed 23 February 2009).



Aram, I (2008) Letter to Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad bin Talal, 6 February. Available at http://www.acommonword.com/lib/downloads/Aram-I-Armenian-Orthodox-Catholicos.pdf (accessed 8 June 2009).

Asia News (2008) Catholic–Muslim joint declaration, 11 June. Available at http://www.asianews.it/index.

php?l¼en&art¼13687&size¼A (accessed 8 June 2009).

Benedict XVI (2006). Faith, reason and the university: memories and reflections, Papal address at University of

Regensberg, 12 September 2006. Available at http://www.zenit.org/article-16955?l¼english (accessed 20

October 2007).

Brown, F. (2009) Yale Christian/Muslim conference concludes with call for further interfaith talks, 8 January.

Available at http://www.yale.edu/divinity/news/080804_news_interfaith.shtml (accessed 8 June 2009).

Catholic News Agency (2007) Muslim leaders write to Pope, Cardinal Tauran calls letter ‘a very encouraging

sign’, Catholic News Agency, October 12. Available at http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n¼10644 (accessed 8 June 2009).

Champion, M. J. (2007) Reflections on ‘A Common Word between Us and You’, Ukrainian Orthodox Autoce-

phalous Church, 9 December. Available at http://www.acommonword.com/index.php?page¼responses&

item¼46 (accessed 8 June 2009).

Chartres, R. (2007) A global conversation on the love of God, 11 October. Available at: http://bishopoflondon.

org (accessed 10 January 2008).

‘Chiesa Espresso’ (2007) A communique by Muslim scholars. Available at http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/

articolo/173685 (accessed 8 June 2009).

Chrisostomos, Archbishop of Cyprus (2007) A reply to the open letter of 138 Muslim leaders. Available at http://acommonword.com/en/christian-responses/115-response-from-his-beatitude-chrisostomos (accessed 13

December 2008).

Christiansen, D. SJ (2008) The context of the ‘Common Word’, Review of Faith and Internatonal Affairs, 6(4),

pp. 49–65.

Coffey, D. (2007) Personal response from the BWA President to letter from Muslim Scholars, Baptist World

Alliance, 16 October. Available at http://www.bwanet.org/default.aspx?pid¼701 (accessed 8 June 2009).

Columbia Theological Seminary (2007) Faculty response to ‘ACommonWord betweenUs andYou’, 21December.

Available at http://www.acommonword.com/index.php?page¼responses&item¼48 (accessed 8 June 2009).

Cranmer (2007) Muslim clerics demand peace, or else. . .. Available at http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2007/10/muslim-clerics-demand-peace-or-else.html (accessed 8 June 2009).

De Leon, P. (2008) Who you gonna serve? Theological difficulties, in A Common Word between Us and You.

Available at http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Deleon/who_you_gonna_serve.htm (accessed 8 June

2009).

Donadio, R. (2008a) Catholics and Muslims pledge to improve links, New York Times, 6 November. Available at

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/world/europe/07pope.html (accessed 8 June 2009).

Donadio, R. (2008b) Pope questions interfaith dialogue, New York Times, 24 November. Available at http://

www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/world/europe/24pope.html (accessed 8 June).

EustathiusMattaRoman,Mor (2008)A response to the letter of the 138 esteemed Islamic scholars, 21 January.Avail-

able at http://www.acommonword.com/index.php?page¼responses&item¼53 (accessed 8 June 2009).

Fitzgerald, M. & Borelli, J. (2006) Interfaith Dialogue: A Catholic View (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis).

Gropp, L. (2008) Catholic–Islamic dialogue: interview with Christian Troll. For freedom of faith. Available at

http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-478/_nr-836/_p-2/i.html (accessed 8 June 2009).

Hanson, M. S. (2007) ELCA Presiding Bishop responds to letter from Muslim leaders, 12 October. Available at

http://www.elca.org/bishop/messages (accessed 15 November 2007).

Heneghan, T. (2008a) Catholics, Muslims open landmark talks at Vatican, Yahoo News, 4 November. Available

at http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/2008 (accessed 2 January 2009).

Heneghan, T. (2008b) Too many Christian–Muslim dialogues, Vatican says, Reuters, 9 November. Available at

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-36409220081109 (accessed 8 June 2009).

Interfax (2007) Russian Orthodox Church will answer the letter of 183 Muslim’s [sic] leaders, 30 November.

Available at: http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act¼news&div¼4007 (accessed 13 December 2008).

Kalin, I. (2008). ‘The Common Word’ and the state of Muslim–Christian Relations, Paper delivered at George-

town University conference ‘The Future of Christian–Muslim Relations: Where DoWe Go FromHere?’, 14

March, Typescript.

Kalin, I. (2009) The Vatican’s encounter with Islam, Today’s Zaman, 26 January. Available at http://

todayszaman.com/tz-web (accessed 15 February).



Kirkpatrick, C. (2007) Kirkpatrick welcomes initiative from Muslim religious leaders and scholars. Office of the

General Assembly, 15 October. Available at http://www.pcusa.org (accessed 10 January 2008).

Madigan, D. SJ (2008). Reflections on the future of Christian–Muslim relations, Paper delivered at Georgetown

University conference ‘The Future of Christian–Muslim Relations: Where Do We Go From Here?’, 14

March, Typescript.

Mohler, A. (2008) A ‘Common word’ between Christians and Muslims, The Albert Mohler Radio Program, 8

January. Available at: http://www.albertmohler.com/radio_show.2008-01-08 (accessed 23 February 2009).Mosher, L. (2008) Renewing our pledge: reflections on A Common Word between Us and You from the Episcopal

Church, 24 February. Available at http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/A_Common_Word_

response.doc (accessed 8 June 2009).

National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA (NCCC) (2008) An ecumenical response to ‘A CommonWord

between Us and You’, 8 October. Available at http://www.ncccusa.org/news/ecumenicalresponse.html

(accessed 9 June 2009).

Nazir-Ali, M. (2007) Lingering questions about the Muslim letter, 25 October. Available at http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p¼2288 (accessed 8 June 2009).

Nazir-Ali, M. (2008) Extremism flourished as UK lost Christianity, The Sunday Telegraph, 6 January. Now avail-

able at http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/01/uk-extremism-flourished-as-uk-lost.html (accessed 8

June 2009).

Nimr, M. (2002) Muslims in American public life, in: Y.Y. Haddad (Ed.)Muslims in the West: From Sojourners

to Citizens, pp. 169–186, (New York, Oxford University Press).

Pavlischek, K. (2008)Why I would not have signed the Yale response to ‘A CommonWord’, Review of Faith and

International Affairs, 6(4), pp. 61–63, Available at http://www.rfiaonline.org/archives/issues/6-4 on free

registration.

Peno, J. (2009) Hospitality a centerpiece of YDS Christian–Muslim conference, 8 January. Available at http://www.yale.edu/divinity/notes/080904/hospitality.shtml (accessed 2 February 2009).

Petrosyan, Y. (2008) Response to open letter from 138 Muslim scholars, Armenian Daily, 4 February. Available

at http://www.azg.am/EN/2008040206 (accessed 13 December 2008).

Popham, P. (2006) Pope’s apology fails to placate Muslims as violence goes on, The Independent World, Septem-

ber 18. Available at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/popes-apology-fails-to-placate-muslims-as-violence-goes-on-416467.html (accessed 15 December 2008).

Samir, S. K. SJ (2007) The letter of 138 Muslim scholars to the Pope and Christian leaders, Available at http://

www.acommonword.com/index.php?page¼responses&item¼14 (accessed 8 June 2009).

Schrag, J. (2007) Mennonite Church USA sends response to Muslim letter,Mennonite Church USA, 5 November.

Available at: http://www.mennoniteusa.org/news (accessed 10 January 2008).

Schutz, D. (2008) About the Catholic Muslim Forum, 21 November. Available at http://cumecclesia.blogspot.

com/2008/11/about-catholic-muslim-forum.html (accessed 8 June 2009).

Smith, J. I. (2007) Muslim, Christians and the Challenge of Interfaith Dialogue (New York: Oxford University

Press).

Solomon, S., & Al-Maqdisi (2008) The truth about A Common Word, Available at http://www.answering-islam.

org/authors/solomon/truth_about_common_word.html (accessed 8 June 2009).

Stackhouse, J. G. (2008) Why I signed the Yale response to ‘A CommonWord’, Review of Faith and International

Affairs, 6(4), pp. 57–59, Available at http://www.rfiaonline.org/archives/issues/6-4 on free registration.

Thomas, J. (2008) Western Christian dhimmitude versus Islamic intransigence, Answering Islam, Available at

http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/thomas/yale_rules (accessed 8 June 2009).

US Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) (2007) Response from the USCCB Communications Office to ‘A

Common Word between Us and You’, 13 October. Available at http://www.acommonword.com/index.

php?page¼responses&item¼15 (accessed 20 January 2008).

Williams, R. (2007a) Archbishop’s response to ‘A Common Word’, 11 October. Available at: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1219 (accessed 23 November 2008).

Williams, R. (2007b) A common word for the common good: to the Muslim religious leaders and scholars who

have signed A CommonWord between Us and You and toMuslim brothers and sisters everywhere, Typescript.

World Council of Churches (WCC) (2008) Learning to explore love together,World Council of Churches: Inter-

religious Dialogue and Cooperation, Available at http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-programmes/interreligious-dialogue-and-cooperation/interreligious-trust-and-respect/20-03-08-learning-

to-explore-love-together.html (accessed 8 June 2009).



Date post:	27-Apr-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dinos2000
View:	81 times
Download:	0 times

915075771

Documents