Rel 103 - Fall 2015 - Paper #2 Rough drafts due via email.docx

Rel 103 - Fall 2015 - Paper #2
Rough drafts due via email: Thursday, October 29 by the end of
class time
Final drafts due via isidore: Sunday, November 1 by the end of
the night (11:59pm)
Late penalty: 10 points per day
Your task: Use our course texts on the Christian, Buddhist, and
Islamic traditions to try to
convince Dr. Stephen Prothero that his multiple mountain
metaphor for studying religious
traditions is not a perfect solution to understanding the
“furiously religious” world that we
live in.
Requirements:
1. You may not use any sources that we did not cover in our
class! If you do this, I will ask
you to rewrite the paper and you will receive a significant point
deduction.
2. You must find a way to use the following 3 documents:
Nostra Aetate, A Common
Word Between Us and You, and Makransky’s “Thoughts on
Why, How, and What
Buddhists Can Learn from Christian Theologians.” Your use of
these 3 documents
should be close to the heart of your argument.
3. You are also allowed to use the other documents we covered

so far, but you do not have
to use them if you would rather stick to the 3 documents
mentioned in #2.
4. You are allowed to creatively make use of the podcast that
we listened to on October 22
during class. I’ve posted a link to it in the resources section of
Isidore.
5. The paper must be at least 800 words but no longer than
1,500 words.
6. You must submit the final draft of this paper through Isidore
as a Word or Pages file.
Other formats will not work!
Suggestions:
1. Consider writing this paper in the form of a letter to Dr.
Prothero. This would allow you
to have a clear sense of your audience as you write. If you do it
this way, you can spend
less time talking about Prothero’s article and more time on your
own argument.
2. Keep in mind that Prothero is a smart man and that his
multiple mountain metaphor is
not totally worthless. Try to acknowledge this in your writing
too.
3. Write out an outline of what you plan to do before you write
the full paper. I’d be happy
to give you feedback on your outline if you send it to me before
the rough draft deadline.
Grading rubric:

10% Contains solid grammar and spelling (Use the Write Place
if this worries you!)
10% Fits the length requirement and contains appropriate
citations
20% Displays ability to creatively and coherently link course
concepts together
30% Contains a clear, convincing argument
30% Exhibits an appropriate use of sources
包塔米尔
包塔米尔
包塔米尔
包塔米尔
包塔米尔
Buddhist-Christian Studies 31 (2011) 119–133. © by University
of Hawai‘i Press. All rights reserved.
Thoughts on Why, How, and
What Buddhists Can Learn
from Christian Theologians
John Makransky
Boston College

With my co-panelists, I am asked to respond to the question:
“Can and should Bud-
dhists and Christians do theology (or Buddhology) together, and
if so why and how?”1
I will respond as a Tibetan Buddhist of Nyingma tradition. My
answer is “yes,” we
can and should, where “doing theology together” for me means
learning things from
Christian theologians that illumine significant aspects of my
Buddhist understand-
ing. How is one to learn things for Buddhist understanding from
Christian theol-
ogy—what method should be used? I find the method of
comparative theology, as
developed recently by scholars such as Francis Clooney and
James Fredericks, to be
a productive approach for interreligious theological learning,
including Christian-
Buddhist learning. But first the question of why must be
addressed: a Buddhist com-
parative theology must be motivated and informed by a theology
of religions that
convincingly articulates for Buddhists why they can learn things
from religious oth-
ers that can make a positive difference for their own
understanding and practice of
awakening.
If the why and how to learn from religious others is well enough
addressed, then
one would have the motivation and orientation to explore
specific Buddhist learnings
from non-Buddhist theologies. In what follows, then, I will
make a start at addressing
the how, why and what of Buddhist interreligious learning by

briefly summarizing the
method of comparative theology, considerations toward
developing a Buddhist theol-
ogy of religions that can support such learning by Buddhists,
and some examples of
Christian themes that have been resources for my own learning.
comparative theology
The purpose of comparative theology is to learn from a different
religious tradition in
enough depth and specificity to shine significant new light on
your own. By paying
careful attention to elements of another religious tradition in
their own context of
doctrine and practice, your perspective on corresponding
elements of your own faith
120 BUDDHIST-CHRISTIAN STUDIES
may be shifted in ways that permit new insights to emerge. This
does not merely
involve learning at a distance about other religious beliefs and
cultures that leaves your
own religious self-understanding unaffected. Rather,
comparative theological analysis
provides a method to learn from religious others in specific
ways that newly inform
your understanding of your own faith and may also energize and
deepen your practice
of it.2 For this kind of learning to occur, certain supportive
dispositions are necessary,
such as those identified in Catherine Cornille’s book The Im-
Possibilty of Interreligious

Dialogue. These include: (1) doctrinal humility, the
acknowledgment that the doc-
trinal formulations of your own tradition, including its
formulations of other reli-
gions, are conditioned viewpoints that have never perfectly
captured the whole truth;
(2) knowledgeable commitment to your own religious tradition,
so that whatever
you learn from religious others may inform your religious
community and tradition
through you; and (3) in the context of potential Buddhists
learning from Christians, a
belief that there is enough common ground between Buddhism
and Christianity that
it is possible to hear things from Christians that make a positive
difference for Bud-
dhists in their own understanding and practice of awakening.3
theologies of religions
For such dispositions to support comparative theological
learning, in turn, they must
be motivated and informed by an adequate theology of religions.
A theology of reli-
gions is an understanding of other religious systems that
explores their potential
truth from within the theological framework of your own
religious tradition. You
can, as an individual, learn many things from other religions.
But for your learning
to inform not only yourself but also your religious community
and tradition, it must
make sense to your tradition in its own framework of
understanding. And as Mark
Heim, John Thatamanil, and Kristen Kiblinger have argued,
behind any interest (or

disinterest) in learning from other religions lies a theology of
religions that is either
conscious or unconscious.4 How do I see the potential to learn
significant truths from
religious others? If my theology of religions is uncritically
exclusivist, I may see only
errors in religious others unaware that my perspective on them
is limited by my own
vision. Or if my theology of religions is uncritically pluralist, I
may only hear from
religious others the presumed commonality of religions that I
think I already know.
In either of these cases, new learning is not permitted.5 For
example, if I were to see
an unconditioned truth as the revelatory source of my own
religious tradition while
viewing other religions merely as conditioned human artifacts,
how paltry other reli-
gions’ teachings would appear to me compared to my own. To
support learning for my
religious tradition from a religious other that permits something
really significant and
fresh to be heard, my theology of religions, while rooted in my
own tradition, would
have to see religious others as potential sources of profound
truth, without reducing
them just to what I thought I knew before engaging them.
Diverse theologies of religions are possible for any religious
tradition, and a num-
ber of alternative theologies of religions have been operative
throughout the history
of Buddhism in Asia.6 Below I will offer considerations toward
constructing a con-

BUDDHISTS CAN LEARN FROM CHRISTIAN
THEOLOGIANS 121
temporary Buddhist theology of religions that would support
interreligious learning.
Such a theology of religions, if it is to be taken seriously by
Buddhists, must be based
in fundamental Buddhist understandings of core teachings.
Some of the implications
of those teachings could turn the attention of Buddhists toward
religious others as
potential sources of truth. But such teachings have been
employed traditionally in
ways that orient Buddhists away from the possibility of
religiously important learn-
ing from non-Buddhists. So to explore how core Buddhist
teachings could newly
inform interreligious learning for Buddhists today, I must not
only summarize them
in their traditional forms, but also relate them to experiences of
interreligious learn-
ing today and to current work in theologies of religions.
buddhist theology of religions
Why did the Buddha teach? A principal reason, Buddhists
believe, is that different
spiritual paths taught in the world lead to different spiritual
results, many of which
fall short of complete liberation from the inmost causes of
confusion and suffering.
This, Buddhists believe, compelled the Buddha to “turn the
wheel of the dharma,” to
reintroduce the way of the Buddhas to the world, the way that
leads to inmost libera-

tion, the realization of nirvana. In the Salleka Sutta ascribed to
kyamuni Buddha, the
Buddha describes dozens of ways that religious practitioners,
mostly of non-Buddhist
traditions known in his time, believed they had accomplished
complete liberation
(Skt. mok a), the highest religious end, while falling far short of
it unawares. The Bud-
dha then explains in detail how proper practice of his liberating
path provides a way
to be released from every layer of clinging to conditioned
experience, fully to realize
the freedom of the unconditioned state, nirvana. This is
formulated in Indo-Tibetan
Buddhist traditions like my own as follows: The fullest
realization of reality is a
stable, nondual insight into the empty, unconditioned nature of
all experience—the
emptiness of all conceptualized appearances—accompanied by
an impartial, powerful
compassion for all beings who have not realized the inmost
freedom of such insight.
Any religious beliefs or practices that encourage reifying and
clinging to any concep-
tualization of truth, God, scripture, religious identity, ritual,
religious experience, or
ethical prescription as an ultimate would obstruct realization of
the emptiness of all
such constructed forms, and thus, even in the name of religion,
prevent the attain-
ment of the fullest religious end, the unconstructed,
unconditioned nirvana. Careful
guidance is required to learn to pay such penetrating, stable
attention to experience
that even the subtlest clinging to reified concepts collapses.

The Buddhist understanding that different modes of practice
lead to different
soteriological results and the fullest result can only be attained
by methods appropri-
ate to it (methods that the Buddha imparted) has established the
main purpose for
communicating the Buddha’s teaching in the world.7
In sharp contrast to this foundational Buddhist understanding, a
popular contem-
porary option in theology of religions, developed by John Hick
and others, called
“theological pluralism” asserts the following. Since all great
world religions engage
the same ultimate reality, which they call by different names,
then in spite of their
differences in belief and practice all such religions should lead
to the same essential
realization of that ultimate reality, the same basic salvific
result.8 But as the previous
paragraph implies, to accept that assertion is to put aside a
primary concern of the
Buddha and his followers—to investigate the efficacy of
specific beliefs and practices
promulgated by religions because the results of religious
practice, which could be
inmost liberation or unconscious bondage to suffering in the
name of religion, depend
on the specific functions of those beliefs and practices—not on
a grand narrative of
equality of religions.

Nevertheless, for Buddhist philosophers to assert that different
kinds of spiritual
paths lead to different results does not mean that just one
narrowly specified way of
belief and practice is authentically liberating. Buddhist
traditions have also com-
monly taught that there are many possible modes of learning
and practice that lead
to liberation, not just one way, as exemplified in kyamuni
Buddha’s diverse ways of
guiding different kinds of people in the practices of his
liberating path. This teaching
is the doctrine of skillful means (Skt. up ya-kau alya),
according to which the teach-
ings of the Buddhas are ever adapted to the diverse mentalities
and needs of beings so
as to meet them effectively in their own horizons of
understanding.
In a number of Mah y na Buddhist scriptures that emerged in the
early centuries
ce, such as those of the Avata saka collection, the teaching of
skillful means was
expanded in connection with the cosmic dimension of
Buddhahood, dharmak ya, the
infinite, nondual awareness of the Buddhas that pervades all
reality. The infinite mind
of the Buddhas, these scriptures assert, communicates the
dharma in limitlessly diverse
ways to meet the varied mentalities of beings in all realms of
existence, compas-
sionately entering persons of varied walks of life and religious
culture into dharma
practices conducive to their mundane and supramundane well-
being.9 Indeed, the

skillful means of Buddhahood, in communicating the buddha’s
core teaching of the
Four Noble Truths, goes beyond all established religious
expectations and teaching
norms, including familiar Buddhist ways of expressing those
very truths. As the Avata saka
scripture puts it:
In this world there are four quadrillion names to express the
four holy truths
in accord with the mentalities of beings, to cause them all to be
harmonized
and pacified. . . . [And] just as in this world there are four
quadrillion names
to express the four holy truths, so in all the worlds to the east—
immeasurably
many worlds, in each there are an equal number of names to
express the four
holy truths, to cause all the sentient beings there to be
harmonized and pacified
in accordance with their mentalities. And just as this is so of the
worlds to the
east, so it is with all the infinite worlds in the ten directions.10
Such a scriptural passage implies that it is the infinite mind of
the Buddhas that is the
ultimate ground and source of liberating truth for all peoples,
cultures, and religions,
analogous to the Abrahamic belief in the one God as the
transcendental source of
revelation for all humankind.11
But, from a Buddhist perspective, even if there is one
underlying source for diverse
expressions of truth in the world, it does not necessarily speak
with equal clarity,

THEOLOGIANS 123
depth, and fullness in all the world’s traditions. Even if the
infinite mind of the Bud-
dhas is the ultimate source of liberating truth for all, it is
kyamuni Buddha, many
scriptures proclaim, that is the preeminent manifestation of that
Buddha-knowledge
for this eon. He is the one who has spoken the liberating truth
of dharma with the
greatest specificity, depth, and completeness, with a unique
focus on core liberating
principles that are not as central to other traditions—
foundational Buddhist doc-
trines that proclaim no substantial self in persons and the
emptiness of independent
existence of all phenomena as keys to the deepest liberation of
persons. And it is the
Buddha’s dharma heirs, contained in the sa gha community that
he established, who
uphold this unique teaching for the world.12
For a theology of religions to make sense to Buddhists
(including those in my
Tibetan tradition), the principles summarized in preceding
paragraphs cannot be
ignored. The teaching that Buddhahood employs infinite means
of communication
that transcend the established expectations of all traditions,
including Buddhist ones,
could direct the attention of Buddhists to the possibility of
profound truth in other

religions. So can the Buddhist concern to critically analyze
beliefs and practices of
religious traditions (both Buddhist and non-Buddhist) for
soteriological efficacy. But
the tendency narrowly to identify the primary source of
revelation with kyamuni
Buddha and his community makes it difficult for many
Buddhists to view non-
Buddhist religions as possessing a source of truth comparable to
their own. And the
concern to critically analyze all beliefs is usually marshaled for
Buddhist critiques of
beliefs of religious others (including beliefs of Buddhist
others), not as an analytical
tool to avoid missteps while learning from religious others. The
traditional Buddhist
allergy to the notion of learning important religious things from
religious others,
including Christians, has been exacerbated in the modern period
by the Asian expe-
rience of Western colonialism, which many experienced, in part,
as an aggressive
assault by Christian missionaries on indigenous Asian beliefs in
support of the West-
ern domination of their societies.
The Buddhist principles summarized in this section, as
traditionally employed,
have tended to constrain the possibility of new learning from
religious others by sub-
suming others within a Buddhist system of belief that is
functionally closed to new
input by them. Such principles, then, cannot be drawn on
uncritically if they are to
inform a Buddhist theology of religions today that would
adequately support inter-

religious learning. Yet they must contribute to any theology of
religions that would
make sense to Buddhist traditions, including my tradition of
Tibetan Buddhism.
I believe those principles can be drawn on in fresh ways that
avoid closing off new
learning from religious others, if they are informed by fresh
experience of interreli-
gious learning and by some current work in theologies of
religions.
my buddhist interreligious learning
This section will focus on elements of my learning as a
Buddhist from Christians.
Such learning has reinforced for me the Buddhist understanding
that Buddhahood,
as a source of limitless skillful means, can communicate
through non-Buddhist modes
of teaching in ways that transcend accustomed frames of
reference, including my
conditioned Buddhist expectations. In dialogue and study, I
have encountered Chris-
tians whose spiritual insights and qualities profoundly illumined
my own Buddhist
understanding about which they knew nothing, for example, by
embodying absolute
trust in the ground of being; by recognizing the holy,
sacramental nature of everyday
things; or by vividly expressing the intrinsically communal
nature of spiritual awak-

ening. What follows are examples of a few areas of Christian
theology that are rich
sources of reflection for me. This is not the place to provide
extensive analysis of each,
but to give a fuller sense of my learning process, I will discuss
the first of these areas
at a little more length below.
1. Christian models of atonement include the understanding
that human beings
are not in a position to redeem themselves from sin; rather, God
is the effec-
tive agent of atonement and redemption for humanity. This
expresses what
theologians call an objective aspect of atonement. Christian
concern with salvific
power from beyond the human ego deepens my engagement with
analogous
issues of agency and objectivity implicit, it seems to me, in
elements of Bud-
dhist practice, as in the method of exchanging self for others
(tong-len) central
to Tibetan Buddhism.
2. The Judeo-Christian teaching of absolute surrender in faith
to God as source
and ground of all creation has helped anchor Christian
reflections on poverty
and sacramental vision. Because all beings, as creations of God,
are grounded
in God, to know them in their depth is to know them as visible
manifestations
of grace, as holy beings of immeasurable worth.13 Such
teachings have further
informed and energized my Buddhist understanding of refuge
(in Nyingma

tradition) as absolute surrender to the expanse of openness and
awareness that
is the empty ground of all beings. To be surrendered to that
ground (zhi) is
to be surrendered to the inmost being of persons, a purer vision
of them that
elicits reverence, love, and compassion for them. Articulations
of Christian
sacramental vision have further inspired me, as a Nyingma
Buddhist, to
see persons not as ungrounded, isolated entities of no intrinsic
worth but as
expressions of a primordial ground, embodiments of original
wakefulness and
profound goodness (tath gata-garbha, Buddha-nature), however
obscured that
may be in them by inner tendencies of delusion and grasping.
Christian sacra-
mental teaching somehow further informs and energizes this
Buddhist way of
knowing for me.14
3. The themes above inform (and are informed by) the two
great command-
ments of Matthew 22:36–40. A Pharisee asks Jesus: “Teacher,
which com-
mandment in the law is the greatest?” Jesus replies: “‘You shall
love the Lord
your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with
all your mind.’
This is the greatest and the first commandment. And a second is
like it: ‘You
shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two
commandments hang all
the law and the prophets.” The New Interpreter’s Bible
comments: “One can-

not first love God and then, as a second task, love one’s
neighbor. To love God
is to love one’s neighbor, and vice versa.”15
The striking equation of the second commandment with the
first has made
me repeatedly reflect (from my Nyingma perspective) on the
relation between
THEOLOGIANS 125
devotion to Buddhahood (dharmak ya, Buddha-nature) as the
empty uncondi-
tioned ground (zhi) of beings and unconditional love for all
those beings. Because
of this connection, to cultivate unconditional love, compassion
and joy in per-
sons empowers and is empowered by increasing surrender to
Buddhahood as
the empty cognizant ground of all persons. This becomes the
unity of wisdom
and love within the bodhisattva path of my tradition. And the
ancient Jewish
term “commandment” in the quote from Matthew points me with
further
depth into the Tibetan concept of dam tsig (samaya), the
exigence of deepest
commitment to the ground and practice of wisdom/love for the
sake of all.
4. Ecclesiology: As Dominican theologian J. M. R. Tillard has
written: “To be
‘in Christ’ is to find oneself under the power of the Spirit of

God that . . . knits
into the unity of one body those who receive the gospel of God.
. . . Whoever
is ‘in Christ’ and ‘in the Spirit’ is never in a relation of one to
one with God.”16
Human participation in God, in this view, is intrinsically
communal,
ecclesiological. The individual is incorporated into the body of
Christ that
reaches out to all in the building of God’s kingdom. One’s
relationship to
God can never be isolated from one’s relation to others in God.
Although communal participation has been a central part of
Buddhist
practice from the beginning, Buddhist communities were
understood as
collections of individuals, following in the Buddha’s footsteps
individually
while guided by common disciplines and rules of living
(dhamma and vinaya).
The rhetoric of path as ontologically individual was retained
even as com-
munal dimensions of path gained increasing emphasis and
centrality in a
number of Buddhist traditions, prominently in Mah y na
movements. And
the Buddhist doctrinal thread of individualism was given
renewed emphasis
in the meeting of Buddhism with the modern West, as it seemed
to match the
intense individualism of Western interest in spirituality.
Nevertheless, “ecclesiological” aspects of Buddhism took
highly developed
doctrinal expression in Mah y na traditions (including my own),
in ways that

indicated the path and fruition of awakening must be understood
as intrinsi-
cally, ontologically communal. Seemingly separate individuals
awaken to a
communal dimension of reality that they were not previously
conscious of,
remaking them into a collective extension of the Buddhas’
liberating activ-
ity on behalf of the world. The ultimate fruition of the
bodhisattva path,
Buddhahood, embodies itself not just as an individual
attainment (rang don,
dharmak ya) but as a power to coalesce communities of
awakening (zhen don,
r pak ya) and to incorporate bodhisattvas into bodies of
Buddhahood—enlight-
ened dimensions known as sambhogak ya and nirm nak ya—as
agents of
enlightened activity for beings.17 But unlike Tillard’s Christian
understand-
ing, bodhisattva path and fruition are intrinsically communal
not because
bodhisattvas are “knit into one body” by a supernatural Spirit,
but because
their practices awaken them in wisdom and love to the
interdependent,
ultimately undivided nature of all beings (undivided suchness,
tathat ).
5. I am struck by the Christian concern with a God of justice,
vividly embodied
in Jesus as the one who challenges oppressive attitudes and
structures with
special attention to the poor and marginalized. It has pushed me
to seek
increased clarity on the meaning of the unconditional

compassion associated
with the bodhisattva path of awakening. The Christian theme
points me back
into Buddhist sources further to observe how bodhisattva
compassion, as an
unconditional expression of wisdom, upholds something in
persons by simul-
taneously confronting something in them. To uphold persons in
their deepest
potential of freedom and goodness is to confront us in all the
ways we hide
from that potential—the individual and social inhibitions and
structures that
prevent us from responding fully to others with reverence and
care. And, to
be pointed by Christian ecclesiological thought to
“ecclesiological” aspects of
Buddhism noted above shifts my understanding of what it means
as a Bud-
dhist to respond to needs of the contemporary world. Instead of
focusing on
individual attempts to address social problems in the context of
each indi-
vidual’s own practice of dharma, we might freshly explore how
communal
dimensions of awakening in Buddhist praxis “knit” Buddhist
individuals and
communities into interconnected, integrated responses of
service and action
that respond to concrete needs and problems of societies and the
natural world.

Each Christian theme above shifts my lens on a corresponding
aspect of Buddhist
thought and practice, shining light on further implications of
corresponding Bud-
dhist themes in their similarity and difference, infusing them
with greater depth and
energy in my understanding and practice. It is as if Buddhahood
is speaking in and
through the Christian mode of expression to empower a deeper
engagement with
Buddhist principles, in ways I had not expected, do not control,
and do not fully
comprehend.
an objective aspect of christian atonement
that sheds light on buddhist praxis
I will discuss a bit more the first theme mentioned above,
atonement. The Christian
doctrine of atonement concerns Christ’s redemption of humanity
from sin through
his life, death, and resurrection. Two aspects of this doctrine
have caught my atten-
tion: (1) the agent of atonement for humankind is God in Christ,
not sinful humans.
Since humanity does not even know the full depth of its own
sinful condition, includ-
ing its distorted tendencies of will and judgment, human beings
are powerless to
rectify that condition. (2) There is an objective aspect of God’s
atonement for our sins
through Christ. The redemptive power of God’s action comes
not just through the
subjective personal responses of human beings to such a loving
God, but by Christ’s

self-offering on our behalf.18 God came to us in Christ and
Spirit to do the work of
reconciliation we cannot do for ourselves. This expresses an
objective structure to
reality—both with regard to the fallen condition of humankind
and to the objective
power of God’s grace to reintegrate his creatures back into his
loving purpose. John
Macquarrie, discussing Christ’s salvific work as it reached
completion on the cross,
says: “the classic view [of atonement] includes an objective
side. The self-giving of
Christ is continuous with the self-giving of God, and the whole
work of atonement
is God’s. . . . something needs to be done for man, something
that he is powerless to
do for himself. . . . Here that absolute self-giving, which is the
essence of God, has
THEOLOGIANS 127
appeared in history in the work of Jesus Christ, and this is a
work on behalf of man, a
work of grace.”19
In Tibet, one of the principal practices for progressing on the
bodhisattva path of
awakening is the contemplative exchange of oneself for others,
given vivid expres-
sion in the practice of tong-len, literally the practice of
“offering and receiving.” After
experiencing the power of love and compassion through prior
contemplative cultiva-

tions, the practitioner takes that power into the tong-len
contemplative pattern of
offering and receiving. From compassion, one imaginatively
takes the sufferings of
beings upon oneself, into the empty nature of one’s mind. From
there, out of love, one
imaginatively offers them all of one’s well-being, resources,
and positive capacities.20
There is a tendency in some Buddhist discussions of tong-len to
articulate it as a
technique to become more compassionate through the effortful
use of imagination. In
this articulation, the agent of tong-len is the ego-centered
human being who is learn-
ing to reverse her ego orientation by reconditioning subjective
patterns of her mind
toward greater love and compassion for beings. This is true as
far as it goes. But from
the perspective of my own tradition, it doesn’t capture the fuller
Buddhist ontology
behind tong-len, which Christian reflections on the agency and
the objective dimen-
sion of atonement help point out.
In the contemplative understanding of my tradition, Tibetan
Nyingma, the ulti-
mate agent of tong-len is the awakening mind of enlightenment
(bodhicitta) that has
been hidden within the human being, the innate Buddha
awareness that is the infinite
cognizant ground and backdrop of all our experiences. Buddha
awareness (dharmak ya,
rigpa) is our deepest nature, but has been obscured by the
conditioned patterning of
our ego-centered thought and reaction. The pattern of tong-len

helps reconform the
person to her deeper nature, bringing out her innate capacity of
enlightened response,
of compassion and love for beings as her greater self. When
engaged in depth, tong-len
flows progressively more spontaneously from the empty-
cognizant ground of one’s
being, taking the world’s delusions and sufferings back into that
ground, and from
that place of oneness with the Buddhas, blessing beings. The
liberating power that
tong-len unleashes gradually incorporates the practitioner into
the body of the Bud-
dhas by drawing her into the stream of their enlightened
activity. From this perspec-
tive, it would not be correct to say that the transformative
power of the practice comes
just from reconditioning the subjectivity of the practitioner, as
if the ego-centered
personality were the primary agent of the practice. The ultimate
agent of tong-len,
gradually discovered from within its practice, is innate
Buddhahood (dharmak ya),
which works in and through the practitioner from beyond her
ego-centered mind, to
do what is not possible for that mind.
This is not to say that tong-len, though broadly analogous in its
pattern of exchang-
ing self for others, soteriologically equates with the cross of
Christ. Each such concept
is embedded in its own framework of doctrinal understanding
that differs founda-
tionally from that of the other tradition. But because the
similarities are embedded
in such radically different worldviews, elements of Christian

reflection on subjective
and objective aspects of salvation both reveal analogous
tensions in Buddhist tradi-
tion and shine new light upon them for me—deepening my
Buddhist understanding
and practice.21
where does the light of interreligious understanding come from?
It seems to me that the ideas and words that Christians employ
in their theological
reflections, of themselves, are not what shed so much light for
me on Buddhist under-
standing, since no Christian with whom I am in dialogue
(contemporary or ancient)
has the expertise to know how so profoundly to inform my
Buddhist worldview.
Rather, it feels as though the deepest reality that my own
tradition engages, Buddha-
hood, dharmak ya, communicates aspects of truth to me in my
own religious location
through the religious other, illumining elements of my tradition
in surprising ways
beyond anyone’s planning. Buddhahood can do this, it is taught
in my tradition,
because the infinite mind of the Buddhas is undivided from the
empty, cognizant
ground of persons.22 Meanwhile, Christian dialogue partners I
have known have said
analogous things about their dialogical learning from Buddhism.
It is as if, they say,

the Spirit of God is teaching them through the interreligious
encounter with Buddhist
thought or practice.
In light of all that has been said thus far, a further question
arises for me toward
developing a Buddhist theology of religions that would support
interreligious learn-
ing: How to give due weight to these two poles: (1) to my
inherited Buddhist under-
standing that different kinds of path lead to different ends, with
the fullest soterio-
logical end involving a stable, non-dual awareness of the empty
nature of all things,
without which the deepest roots of inner bondage are not cut;
and (2) my experience
that Christian theologians who are unacquainted with, even
uninterested in, such
teachings of emptiness can function as revelatory sources for
my Buddhist under-
standing and path. How can both those poles be adequately
held? Some elements
of theologian Mark Heim’s theology of religions have begun to
help me to navigate
those poles.
learning with and from a christian colleague
In developing his own distinctive theology of religions,
Christian theologian Mark
Heim has argued that people of different religions engage the
same ultimate real-
ity, which is endowed with many aspects, qualities, and
potencies—the trinitarian
God for Heim, Buddhahood for me.23 Through differing
frameworks of thought and

practice, different religious traditions direct the attention of
their practitioners more
intensively to certain qualities of that one ultimate ground than
to others. Since peo-
ple of different religious frameworks engage different qualities
of the same ultimate
reality with greater intensity, they would be expected to achieve
different fulfillments
from their practice—different soteriological results. And
because they pay primary
attention to differing aspects of ultimate reality, they integrate
its qualities differ-
ently in their realization of it.24
These points by Heim accord with the two Buddhist principles
summarized in
THEOLOGIANS 129
section IV, and also nuance them. On the one hand, from the
perspective of my Bud-
dhist tradition, the deepest ground of liberating truth, which I
call Buddhahood and
Christians call God, in its power to communicate transcends
established expectations
of all religious traditions including Buddhism. On the other
hand, also essential to
Buddhists is the principle that different kinds of path lead to
different results, and it
behooves the Buddha’s followers critically to investigate any
proposed framework of
belief and practice for liberating efficacy, without assuming all
such frameworks sup-

port the same soteriological result.
Implied in Heim’s approach, I believe, is the understanding that
conceptual
frameworks distinctive of each religious tradition are both
necessary and inherently
limiting. They are necessary to establish systematic religious
understandings that
inform all practices and to provide a conceptual container that
receives the findings of
practice experience to make them accessible to future
generations. A conceptual map
of soteriological ground, path, and result is essential to inform
each stage of practice
in any religious tradition. It is the framework based upon which
practitioners are pre-
pared to engage even nonconceptual ways of practice, such as
the nondual meditations
of Tibet or apophatic Christian modes of contemplation. But any
conceptual frame-
work (whether Buddhist or non-Buddhist) is also limited,
because in the very act of
pointing our attention to particular areas of understanding and
experience it lessens
our attention to other areas. In addition, all such conceptual
frameworks are limited
by historical and cultural conditioning of which none of us are
ever fully aware.25
When we relate the Buddhist principles of section 4, and
examples of Buddhist-
Christian learning in sections 5 and 6, to Heim’s suggestions
above, further light is
shed on my experience of interreligious learning. A Buddhist
conceptual framework
of belief and practice, by focusing my attention on certain

aspects of reality in a
certain way, both increases my receptivity to those aspects and
implicitly prevents
my fuller attention to other aspects, which Christian theologians
with a different
religious orientation and practice may engage more fully. The
same is true for prac-
titioners of other religions. For this reason, people of each
tradition have much to
learn from religious others, precisely because of their otherness.
Religious others may
be empowered through their framework of practice to know
certain aspects of ulti-
mate reality in greater depth than one may yet know through
one’s own tradition. An
implication of this is that we are driven by the ultimate reality
that grounds our own
religious understanding to the religious other for further
teaching, further revelation.
A sign of becoming more intimate with Buddhahood or God in
this view would
be a growing tendency for you to view others who are deeply
formed by their tradi-
tions as potential religious teachers—not because you have
abandoned your tradition
but precisely the opposite. To become more receptive to
ultimate reality through your
tradition is to be made increasingly attentive to the voice of that
reality as it makes
itself heard through other religious frameworks. Thus, as a
Tibetan Buddhist, elements
of Christian teaching can function for me like an encounter with
a profound Tibetan
lama—they interrupt my established preconceptions to allow
reality to speak afresh,

to make more of itself known to me in my own religious
location.
At the same time, from this perspective, there is no reason to
assume that different
frameworks of belief and practice lead to the same
soteriological result. For example,
Mark Heim, operating within a Christian framework,
understands the fullest spiritual
fulfillment to be deepest communion with God in Christ, a
dualistic communion. I,
operating within a Buddhist framework, understand it to be
fullest realization of the
nondual wisdom and compassion of Buddhahood. These
different understandings are
based in different systems of doctrine and practice, and the
religious experiences they
inform and express need not be equated. Nor can I step out of
my own conditioned,
finite religious perspective to fully understand and rank the
possible fulfillments of
other world religions (or even of other Buddhist traditions).
There may be individuals
in other traditions whose beliefs and practices function in ways
that deeply free them
from inner causes of suffering beyond what I know, beyond how
my own historically
conditioned tradition has conceptualized what’s possible.
As a follower of the Buddha I am required to maintain an
exploratory perspec-

tive on practice and result that asks critical questions both of
non-Buddhists and
Buddhists—how might these beliefs and practices inhibit or
support liberation? At
the same time, based on all that has been said above, as a
follower of the Buddha, it
behooves me to learn from religious others—because their lens
on reality may permit
them greater intimacy with aspects of it and because elements
of their understanding
may interrupt reified elements of my own in importantly
informing ways.
Even when Mark Heim and I disagree about fullest spiritual
results, we are moti-
vated to listen deeply to each other for further learning in and
through our differences,
since the ultimate ground of our traditions can teach each of us
more by means of the
other’s perspective. Indeed, it is because we inhabit such
different worldviews that
such fresh revelation may come through the other. This implies
that religious others
in their difference exist not just to be overcome through the
apologetics of one’s own
tradition, but are needed if one is to learn more fully from the
ultimate reality that
grounds one’s tradition. To lose the religious other (by
dismissing him or reducing
him to a straw man of one’s apologetics) would be to lose a
potential religious teacher,
whose different lens on reality uniquely interrupts ways I have
subconsciously mis-
taken my lens on reality for reality.26
Again, from a Buddhist perspective all such explorations in

theology of religions
and comparative theology cannot be divorced from the need to
explore critically
whether beliefs and practices of religions (Buddhist and non-
Buddhist) help cut inner
causes of bondage, evoke our best capacities, release us into our
deepest ground of free-
dom. But for such critical inquiry to be well informed, it needs
a lot of help—from
resources of Buddhist tradition, from current disciplines of
investigation and analysis,
and also from alternative perspectives that only religious others
can provide.27
conclusions
Without compromising my inherited Buddhist focus on specific
forms of practice
leading to specific results whose fullest realization I understand
in Buddhist terms,
I view religious others as deeply engaged with the same
ultimate reality (the same
ultimate ground of experience) that Buddhists engage,
potentially realizing some
THEOLOGIANS 131
aspects of that reality more deeply through their modes of
understanding and prac-
tice than I have yet as a Buddhist because they are not Buddhist.
This would explain
the depth dimension of my experience of inter-religious
learning—as if Buddhahood

were tutoring me through the Christian theologian, showing me
more possibilities
of Buddhist understanding than I had previously seen, more than
my Buddhist for-
mation alone had permitted. What has been said here about
Buddhist learning from
Christians is equally applicable to Buddhist learning from all
other religious others.
This kind of theology of religions has been called “open
inclusivism.”28 The Bud-
dhist open inclusivism articulated here can support Buddhist
ways of engaging in
comparative theology, in interreligious learning. In such work,
we explore what can
be learned from elements of another religion, doing so from
within the perspective
of our own religious worldview. This is done not just to
categorize religious others
within preestablished, unchanging categories of our own
tradition, but to permit new
learning from religious others to inform and enlarge the
understandings of our tradi-
tion. This is done not by turning away from our own tradition
but by learning better
to keep faith with the deepest ground of that tradition, and
through that, to receive
more of what it can only teach us through religious others.
notes
1. These reflections are richly informed by discussions in the
past few years with colleagues
Paul Knitter, Mark Heim, Catherine Cornille, John Thatamanil,
Frank Clooney, Michael
Himes, Wendy Farley, Charles Hallisey, Anantanand

Rambachan, Abraham Velez, Loye Ash-
ton, Leah Weiss Ekstrom, Karen Enriquez, Willa Miller, and
many others, for which I am
grateful.
2. For excellent foundational introductions to methods and
approaches of comparative
theology, see Francis X. Clooney, Comparative Theology: Deep
Learning across Religious Borders
(Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010); Francis X. Clooney, ed.,
The New Comparative Theol-
ogy: Interreligious Insights from the Next Generation (New
York: T&T Clark, 2010); and James
L. Fredericks, Buddhists and Christians: Through Comparative
Theology to Solidarity (New York:
Orbis, 2004).
3. Catherine Cornille, The Im-Possibility of Interreligious
Dialogue (New York: Crossroad Pub-
lishing, 2008).
4. Heim and Thatamanil have argued this point in oral
presentations to Luce AAR seminar
gatherings in Theologies of Religious Pluralism and
Comparative Theology, 2010. Kiblinger
makes this point convincingly in her article “Relating Theology
of Religions and Comparative
Theology,” in The New Comparative Theology, ed. by Francis
X. Clooney SJ (New York: T&T
Clark, 2010), 24–32.
5. The considerations in this paragraph on the need for a
theology of religions to support
work in comparative theology are developed more fully in
Kiblinger, “Relating Theology,”
24–32.

6. For examples of diverse Buddhist theologies of religion
operative through the history of
Buddhism in Asia, see John Makransky, “Buddhist Perspectives
on Truth in Other Religions:
Past and Present,” Theological Studies 64, no. 2 (2003): 334–
361.7. For fuller discussion of
these points, see John Makransky, “Buddhist Inclusivism:
Reflections toward a Contemporary
Buddhist Theology of Religions,” in Buddhist Attitudes to
Other Religions, ed. by Perry Schmidt-
Leukel (St. Ottilien, Germany: EOS Editions, 2008), 47–68.
8. Some leading formulations of theological pluralism appear in
The Myth of Christian
Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions, ed. by
John Hick and Paul F. Knitter (New
York: Maryknoll, 1987) and in The Myth of Religious
Superiority: A Multifaith Exploration, ed. by
Paul F. Knitter (New York: Orbis, 2005). For a Buddhist
critique of theological pluralism, see
Makransky, “Buddhist Inclusivism,” 49–53.
9. For fuller discussion of skillful means as ways of relating to
religious others in early and
later Buddhist traditions, see Makransky, “Buddhist
Perspectives on Truth,” 342–354.
10. Thomas Cleary, trans., The Flower Ornament Scripture: A
Translation of The Avata saka
Sutra (Boston: Shambhala, 1993), 276, 281.

11. See Makransky, “Buddhist Perspectives on Truth,” pp. 346–
354 on alternative ways
the Four Noble Truths have been expressed in Asian cultures,
including noncognitive ways.
See Makransky, “Buddhist Inclusivism,” 53–60 for more on
Buddhahood’s infinite means and
Buddhahood as ultimate source of all religions.
12. “Buddhist Inclusivism,” pp 56–57.
13. See references to Augustine, Francis of Assisi, Jonathan
Edwards, and Gerard Manley
Hopkins on poverty and sacramental vision in Michael J. Himes
and Kenneth R. Himes, Full-
ness of Faith: The Public Significances of Theology (Mahwah,
NJ: Paulist Press, 1993), 110–113.
Also Johann Baptist Metz, Poverty of Spirit, trans. John Drury
(New York: Newman Press,
1968).
14. One sign of deepening refuge in the Buddha is a deepening
reverence for persons in
their innate Buddhaness, their profound dignity and potential.
On pure perception, see Chokyi
Nyima Rinpoche (with David Shlim), Medicine and
Compassion: A Tibetan Lama’s Guidance for
Caregivers (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2006), 51–53, 62, 66,
108, 114; John Makransky,
Awakening through Love (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2007),
131–155.
15. New Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press,
1995), 8: 423–426.
16. J. M. R. Tillard, Flesh of the Church, Flesh of Christ: At the
Source of the Ecclesiology of Com-

munion (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2001), 6.
17. The perfected form of Buddhahood, referred to as sambh
gak ya in the three Buddha-
body scheme of Mah y na treatises, is understood not just as an
isolated embodiment of
enlightenment but as a “body of communion in the joy of the
dharma,” a supramundane form
that communes with advanced bodhisattvas in the dharma
qualities and energies of immeasur-
able love, wisdom, and joy that radiate to all beings. This is
pictured in numerous Buddha-
realm scenes of Mah y na scriptures and in Asian Buddhist art,
contributing to the develop-
ment of the tantric ma ala. On this see John Makransky,
Buddhahood Embodied (Albany, NY:
SUNY Press, 1997), chaps. 4, 5, and 13; John Makransky,
“Buddhahood and Buddha Bodies”
in Encyclopedia of Buddhism Vol. I, ed. by Robert Buswell
(New York, Macmillan, 2004), pp.
76–79; and David McMahan, Empty Vision (London:
RoutledgeCurzon, 2002) chapters 4 and 5.
Implicit bodhisattva “ecclesiologies” in Mah y na scriptures
include scenes in which bodhi-
sattvas function not just as isolate individuals on individual
paths to enlightenment but as
communal expressions of Buddha activity—many bodhisattvas
performing enlightened activi-
ties throughout numerous realms as one community (bodhisattva
sa gha), thereby functioning
as part of the body of the Buddhas (nirm nak ya) through the
power of their prior vows and
merit, the blessings of the Buddhas (adhi h na, radiance), and
emergent qualities of Bud-

dha nature (tath gata-garbha). For examples of bodhisattvas
depicted in Mah y na s tras as
a communal, “ecclesiological” expression of liberating Buddha
activity, see Makransky, Bud-
dhahood Embodied, 183–184; Edward Conze, trans., The Large
Sutra on Perfect Wisdom (Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass, 1979), 573–643; Burton Watson, trans. The
Lotus Sutra (NY: Colum-
bia Univ., 1993), 190–195; Robert Thurman, trans. The Holy
Teaching of Vimalak rti (Uni-
versity Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1986), 69–
71; Etienne Lamotte, trans.
S ra gamasam dhis tra: The Concentration of Heroic Progress
(London: Curzon, 1998), 159–161;
Cecil Bendall and W. H. D. Rouse, trans. Sik -samuccaya
Compiled by S ntid va (Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass, 1981), 290–306.
18. See, for example, John Macquarrie, Principles of Christian
Theology (New York: Charles
Scribner’s, 1977), 316–325; Paul Tillich, A History of Christian
Thought (New York: Simon &
THEOLOGIANS 133
Schuster, 1968), pp. 165–172, 240–241; Hans Kung, On Being a
Christian (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1968), pp. 419–436; Francis Schussler Fiorenza and
John Galvin, eds., Systematic
Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives (Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress, 1991), 1: 275–297; Keith
Ward, Christianity: A Short Introduction (Oxford, England:
Oneworld, 2000), 56–62.

19. Macquarrie, Principles, 320. Italic emphasis is
Macquarrie’s.
20. For a more detailed explanation of the theory and practice
of tong-len, see, for exam-
ple, Jamgon Kongtrul, The Great Path of Awakening, trans. Ken
McLeod (Boston: Shamb-
hala, 1987); Pema Chodron, Start Where You Are (Boston:
Shambhala, 1994); Dilgo Khyentse
Rinpoche, Enlightened Courage (Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion, 1993);
Traleg Kyabgon, The Practice of
Lojong (Boston: Shambhala, 2007); and Makransky, Awakening
through Love, 157–199.
21. My reflections on atonement and Buddhism have been
informed by conversations with
Mark Heim, in the context of his own comparative theological
inquiries into atonement in
light of Buddhism.
22. On this see Nyoshul Khenpo with Lama Surya Das, Natural
Great Perfection (Ithaca, NY:
Snow Lion, 1995); Sogyal Rinpoche, The Tibetan Book of
Living and Dying (New York: Harper
Collins, 2002), 154–176; Chagdud Tulku, Gates to Buddhist
Practice ( Junction City, CA:
Padma Publishing, 2001), 169–192, 247–255; Makransky,
Awakening through Love, 33–68.
23. In this section I draw selectively on just a few of Mark
Heim’s points. I am not adopting
his full theology of religions here.
24. For Mark Heim’s Christian Trinitarian perspective on these
points, see Mark Heim, The

Depth of the Riches: A Trinitarian Theology of Religious Ends
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman’s, 2001),
167–168, 174–197, 210–222, 289–295. For a Mah y na Buddhist
perspective on them, see
John Makransky, “Buddha and Christ as Mediators of the
Transcendent: A Buddhist Perspec-
tive,” in Buddhism and Christianity in Dialogue, ed. by Perry
Schmidt-Leukel (Norwich, Nor-
folk, England: SCM Press, 2005), 189–199 and Makransky,
“Buddhist Inclusivism,” 60–65.
25. On the unconscious limitations of historical conditioning,
see Makransky, “Buddhist
Inclusivism,” 58–64.
26. The theme of “interruption”—religious others functioning as
sources of revelation
by interrupting accustomed frameworks of one’s own
tradition—is informed by the work of
Lieven Boeve, Interrupting Tradition: An Essay on Christian
Faith in a Postmodern Context (Lou-
vain: Peters Press, 2003), 163–179. It is also informed by
numerous Asian Buddhist stories of
masters who interrupt accustomed conceptual frameworks of
individuals and institutions by
unexpected modes of teaching or action, so the dharma can be
re-revealed in that moment in
a fresher and fuller way.
27. Parts of this section are much informed by enriching
conversations I have been fortunate
to have with Wendy Farley, Abraham Velez, and Karen
Enriquez.
28. On open inclusivism, see Catherine Cornille, Im-
Possibilisty, 197–204.

Copyright of Buddhist - Christian Studies is the property of
University of Hawaii Press and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
Nostra Aetate
DECLARATION ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE
CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
Second Vatican Council
October 28, 1965
Revised English Translation*
1. In our day, when people are drawing more closely together
and the bonds of friendship
between different peoples are being strengthened, the church
examines more carefully its
relations with non-Christian religions. Ever aware of its duty to
foster unity and charity among
individuals, and even among nations, it reflects at the outset on
what people have common
and what tends to bring them together.

Humanity forms but one community. This is so because all stem
from the one stock which
God created to people the entire earth (see Acts 17:26), and also
because all share a
common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident
goodness, and saving designs extend
to all humankind (see Wis 8:1; Acts 14:17; Rom 2:6-7; 1 Tim
2:4) against the day when the
elect are gathered together in the holy city which is illumined
by the glory of God, and in
whose splendor all peoples will walk (see Apoc 21:23 ff.).
People look to their different religions for an answer to the
unsolved riddles of human
existence. The problems that weigh heavily on people's hearts
are the same today as in past
ages. What is humanity? What is the meaning and purpose of
life? What is upright behavior,
and what is sinful? Where does suffering originate, and what
end does it serve? How can
genuine happiness be found? What happens at death? What is
judgment? What reward
follows death? And finally, what is the ultimate mystery,
beyond human explanation, which
embraces our entire existence, from which we take our origin
and towards which we tend?
2. Throughout history, to the present day, there is found among
different peoples a certain
awareness of a hidden power, which lies behind the course of
nature and the events of
human life. At times, there is present even a recognition of a
supreme being, or still more of a
Father. This awareness and recognition results in a way of life
that is imbued with a deep
religious sense. The religions which are found in more advanced

civilizations endeavor by
way of well-defined concepts and exact language to answer
these questions. Thus, in
Hinduism people explore the divine mystery and express it both
in the limitless riches of myth
and the accurately defined insights of philosophy. They seek
release from the trials of the
present life by ascetical practices, profound meditation and
recourse to God in confidence
and love. Buddhism in its various forms testifies to the essential
inadequacy of this changing
world. It proposes a way of life by which people can, with
confidence and trust, attain a state
of perfect liberation and reach supreme illumination either
through their own efforts or with
divine help. So, too, other religions which are found throughout
the world attempt in different
ways to overcome the restlessness of people's hearts by
outlining a program of life covering
doctrine, moral precepts and sacred rites.
The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in
these religions. It has a high
regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and
doctrines which, although
differing in many ways from its own teaching, nevertheless
often reflect a ray of that truth
which enlightens all men and women. Yet it proclaims and is in
duty bound to proclaim
without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth and the life (Jn
1:6). In him, in whom God
reconciled all things to himself (see 2 Cor 5:18-19), people find
the fullness of their religious
life.

The Church, therefore, urges its sons and daughters to enter
with prudence and charity into
discussion and collaboration with members of other religions.
Let Christians, while witnessing
to their own faith and way of life, acknowledge, preserve and
encourage the spiritual and
moral truths found among non-Christians, together with their
social life and culture.
3. The church has also a high regard for the Muslims. They
worship God, who is one, living
and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven
and earth,1 who has also
spoken to humanity. They endeavor to submit themselves
without reserve to the hidden
decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God's
plan, to whose faith Muslims
eagerly link their own. Although not acknowledging him as
God, they venerate Jesus as a
prophet; his virgin Mother they also honor, and even at times
devoutly invoke. Further, they
await the day of judgment and the reward of God following the
resurrection of the dead. For
this reason they highly esteem an upright life and worship God,
especially by way of prayer,
alms-deeds and fasting.
Over the centuries many quarrels and dissensions have arisen
between Christians and
Muslims. The sacred council now pleads with all to forget the
past, and urges that a sincere
effort be made to achieve mutual understanding; for the benefit
of all, let them together
preserve and promote peace, liberty, social justice and moral
values.

4. Sounding the depths of the mystery which is the church, this
sacred council remembers the
spiritual ties which link the people of the new covenant to the
stock of Abraham.
The church of Christ acknowledges that in God's plan of
salvation the beginnings of its faith
and election are to be found in the patriarchs, Moses and the
prophets. It professes that all
Christ's faithful, who as people of faith are daughters and sons
of Abraham (see Gal 3:7), are
included in the same patriarch's call and that the salvation of
the church is mystically
prefigured in the exodus of God's chosen people from the land
of bondage. On this account
the church cannot forget that it received the revelation of the
Old Testament by way of that
people with whom God in his inexpressible mercy established
the ancient covenant. Nor can
it forget that it draws nourishment from that good olive tree
onto which the wild olive branches
of the Gentiles have been grafted (see Rom 11:17-24). The
church believes that Christ who
is our peace has through his cross reconciled Jews and Gentiles
and made them one in
himself (see Eph 2:14,16).
Likewise, the church keeps ever before its mind the words of
the apostle Paul about his kin:
"they are Israelites and it is for them to be sons and daughters,
to them belong the glory, the
covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises;
to them belong the
patriarchs, and of their race according to the flesh, is the
Christ" (Rom 9:4,5), the Son of the

Virgin Mary. It is mindful, moreover, that the apostles, the
pillars on which the church stands,
are of Jewish descent, as are many of those early disciples who
proclaimed the Gospel of
Christ to the world.
As holy scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize God's
moment when it came (see Lk
19:42). Jews for the most part did not accept the Gospel; on the
contrary, many opposed its
spread (see Rom 11:28). Even so, the apostle Paul maintains
that the Jews remain very dear
to God, for the sake of the patriarchs, since God does not take
back the gifts he bestowed or
the choice he made.2 Together with the prophets and that same
apostle, the church awaits
the day, known to God alone, when all peoples will call on God
with one voice and serve him
shoulder to shoulder (Soph 3:9; see Is 66:23; Ps 65:4; Rom
11:11-32).
Since Christians and Jews have such a common spiritual
heritage, this sacred council wishes
to encourage and further mutual understanding and appreciation.
This can be achieved,
especially, by way of biblical and theological enquiry and
through friendly discussions.
Even though the Jewish authorities and those who followed
their lead pressed for the death
of Christ (see Jn 19:6), neither all Jews indiscriminately at that
time, nor Jews today, can be
charged with the crimes committed during his passion. It is true
that the church is the new
people of God, yet the Jews should not be spoken of as rejected
or accursed as if this

followed from holy scripture. Consequently, all must take care,
lest in catechizing or in
preaching the word of God, they teach anything which is not in
accord with the truth of the
Gospel message or the spirit of Christ.
Indeed, the church reproves every form of persecution against
whomsoever it may be
directed. Remembering, then, it’s common heritage with the
Jews and moved not by any
political consideration, but solely by the religious motivation of
Christian charity, it deplores all
hatreds, persecutions, displays of anti-semitism directed against
the Jews at any time or from
any source. The church always held and continues to hold that
Christ out of infinite love
freely underwent suffering and death because of the sins of all,
so that all might attain
salvation. It is the duty of the church, therefore, in it’s
preaching to proclaim the cross of
Christ as the sign of God's universal love and the source of all
grace.
5. We cannot truly pray to God the Father of all if we treat any
people as other than sisters
and brothers, for all are created in God's image. People's
relation to God the Father and their
relation to other women and men are so dependent on each other
that the Scripture says
"they who do not love, do not know God" (1 Jn 4:8). There is no
basis therefore, either in
theory or in practice for any discrimination between individual
and individual, or between

people and people arising either from human dignity or from the
rights which flow from it.
Therefore, the church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ,
any discrimination against
people or any harassment of them on the basis of their race,
color, condition in life or religion.
Accordingly, following the footsteps of the holy apostles Peter
and Paul, the sacred council
earnestly begs the Christian faithful to "conduct themselves
well among the Gentiles" (1 Pet
2:12} and if possible, as far as depends on them, to be at peace
with all people (see Rom
12:18) and in that way to be true daughters and sons of the
Father who is in heaven (see Mt
5:45).
Notes
I . See St Gregory VII, Letter 21 to Anzir (Nacir), King of a.
Mauretania: PL 148, col. 450 ff.
II. See Rom 11:28-29; see Vatican Council II, Dogmatic
Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium.
* As found in Austin Flannery, O.P., ed., Vatican Council II:
Constitutions Decrees,
Declarations. A Completely Revised Translation in Inclusive
Language (Northport, NY:
Costello Publishing, 1996).
55

The ACW Text
A COMMON WORD
BETWEEN US AND YOU
In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful,
Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and fair
exhortation, and contend with them in the fairest way. Lo!
thy Lord is Best Aware of him who strayeth from His way,
and He is Best Aware of those who go aright.
(The Holy Qur’an, Al-Nahl, 16:125)
(I) LOVE OF GOD
Love of God in Islam
The Testimonies of Faith
The central creed of Islam consists of the two testimonies of
faith
or Shahadahs1, which state that: There is no god but God,
Muham-
mad is the messenger of God. These Two Testimonies are the
sine
qua non of Islam. He or she who testifies to them is a Muslim;
he
or she who denies them is not a Muslim. Moreover, the Prophet
Muhammad U said: The best remembrance is: ‘There is no god
but
God’ ...2
The Best that All the Prophets have Said
Expanding on the best remembrance, the Prophet Muhammad U
also said:

The best that I have said—myself, and the prophets that
came before me—is: ‘There is no god but God, He Alone,
In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
And may peace and blessings be upon the Prophet Muhammad
56
A Common Word
He hath no associate, His is the sovereignty and His is the
praise and He hath power over all things’3.
The phrases which follow the First Testimony of faith are all
from
the Holy Qur’an; each describes a mode of love of God, and
devo-
tion to Him.
The words: He Alone, remind Muslims that their hearts4 must
be devoted to God Alone, since God says in the Holy Qur’an:
God
hath not assigned unto any man two hearts within his body (Al-
Ahzab, 33:4). God is Absolute and therefore devotion to Him
must
be totally sincere.
The words: He hath no associate, remind Muslims that they
must love God uniquely, without rivals within their souls, since
God says in the Holy Qur’an:
Yet there are men who take rivals unto God: they love them as
they should love God. But those of faith are
more intense in their love for God … (Al-Baqarah, 2:165)

Indeed, [T]heir flesh and their hearts soften unto the
remembrance
of God … (Al-Zumar, 39:23)
The words: His is the sovereignty, remind Muslims that their
minds or their understandings must be totally devoted to God,
for
the sovereignty is precisely everything in creation or existence
and
everything that the mind can know. And all is in God’s Hand,
since
God says in the Holy Qur’an: Blessed is He in Whose Hand is
the
sovereignty, and, He is Able to do all things (Al-Mulk, 67:1).
The words: His is the praise remind Muslims that they must be
grateful to God and trust Him with all their sentiments and emo-
tions. God says in the Holy Qur’an:
A nd if thou wert to ask them: Who created the heavens and the
earth, and constrained the sun
and the moon (to their appointed work)? they would say:
God. How then are they turned away? / God maketh the
57
The ACW Text
provision wide for whom He will of His servants, and
straiteneth it for whom (He will). Lo! God is Aware of
all things. / And if thou wert to ask them: Who causeth
water to come down from the sky, and therewith reviveth
the earth after its death ? they verily would say: God. Say:

Praise be to God! But most of them have no sense. (Al-
‘Ankabut, 29:61–63)5
For all these bounties and more, human beings must always be
truly grateful:
G od is He Who created the heavens and the earth, and causeth
water to descend from the sky, thereby
producing fruits as food for you, and maketh the ships
to be of service unto you, that they may run upon the sea
at His command, and hath made of service unto you the
rivers; / And maketh the sun and the moon, constant in
their courses, to be of service unto you, and hath made of
service unto you the night and the day. / And He giveth
you of all ye ask of Him, and if ye would count the graces
of God ye cannot reckon them. Lo! man is verily a wrong-
doer, an ingrate. (Ibrahim, 14:32–34)6
Indeed, the Fatihah—which is the greatest chapter in the Holy
Qur’an7—starts with praise to God:
I n the Name of God, the Infinitely Good, the All-Merciful. /
Praise be to God, the Lord of the worlds. /
The Infinitely Good, the All-Merciful. / Owner of the Day
of Judgement. / Thee we worship, and Thee we ask for
help. / Guide us upon the straight path. / The path of those
on whom is Thy Grace, not those who deserve anger nor
those who are astray. (Al-Fatihah, 1:1–7)
The Fatihah, recited at least seventeen times daily by Muslims
in
A Common Word

the canonical prayers, reminds us of the praise and gratitude due
to
God for His Attributes of Infinite Goodness and All-
Mercifulness,
not merely for His Goodness and Mercy to us in this life but ul-
timately, on the Day of Judgement8 when it matters the most
and
when we hope to be forgiven for our sins. It thus ends with
prayers
for grace and guidance, so that we might attain—through what
begins with praise and gratitude— salvation and love, for God
says
in the Holy Qur’an: Lo! those who believe and do good works,
the
Infinitely Good will appoint for them love. (Maryam, 19:96).
The words: and He hath power over all things, remind Muslims
that they must be mindful of God’s Omnipotence and thus fear
God9. God says in the Holy Qur’an:
A nd fear God, and know that God is with the God-fearing. /
Spend your wealth for the cause
of God, and be not cast by your own hands to ruin; and do
good. Lo! God loveth the virtuous. (Al-Baqarah, 2:194–5)
A nd fear God, and know that God is severe in punishment. (Al-
Baqarah, 2:196)
Through fear of God, the actions, might and strength of
Muslims
should be totally devoted to God. God says in the Holy Qur’an:
A nd know that God is with those who fear Him. (Al-Tawbah,
9:36) …
O ye who believe! What aileth you that when it is said unto you:
Go forth in the way of God, ye

are bowed down to the ground with heaviness. Take
ye pleasure in the life of the world rather than in the
Hereafter? The comfort of the life of the world is but
little in the Hereafter. / If ye go not forth He will afflict
you with a painful doom, and will choose instead of
you a folk other than you. Ye cannot harm Him at all.
58
59
The ACW Text
God is Able to do all things. (Al-Tawbah, 9:38–39)
H I
The words: His is the sovereignty and His is the praise and He
hath
power over all things, when taken all together, remind Muslims
that just as everything in creation glorifies God, everything that
is
in their souls must be devoted to God:
A ll that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth glorifieth
God; His is the sovereignty and
His is the praise and He hath power over all things. (Al-
Taghabun, 64:1)
For indeed, all that is in people’s souls is known, and account-
able, to God:
H e knoweth all that is in the heavens and the earth, and He
knoweth what ye conceal and what ye pub-

lish. And God is Aware of what is in the breasts (of men).
(Al-Taghabun, 64:4)
As we can see from all the passages quoted above, souls are de-
picted in the Holy Qur’an as having three main faculties: the
mind
or the intelligence, which is made for comprehending the truth;
the
will which is made for freedom of choice, and sentiment which
is
made for loving the good and the beautiful10. Put in another
way,
we could say that man’s soul knows through understanding the
truth, through willing the good, and through virtuous emotions
and feeling love for God. Continuing in the same chapter of the
Holy Qur’an (as that quoted above), God orders people to fear
Him as much as possible, and to listen (and thus to understand
the
truth); to obey (and thus to will the good), and to spend (and
thus
to exercise love and virtue), which, He says, is better for our
souls.
60
A Common Word
By engaging everything in our souls—the faculties of
knowledge,
will, and love—we may come to be purified and attain ultimate
success:
S o fear God as best ye can, and listen, and obey, and spend;
that is better for your souls. And those who are

saved from the pettiness of their own souls, such are the
successful. (Al-Taghabun, 64:16)
H I
In summary then, when the entire phrase He Alone, He hath no
associate, His is the sovereignty and His is the praise and He
hath
power over all things is added to the testimony of faith—There
is no god but God—it reminds Muslims that their hearts, their
individual souls and all the faculties and powers of their souls
(or
simply their entire hearts and souls) must be totally devoted and
attached to God. Thus God says to the Prophet Muhammad U in
the Holy Qur’an:
S ay: Lo! my worship and my sacrifice and my living and my
dying are for God, Lord of the Worlds. / He
hath no partner. This am I commanded, and I am first
of those who surrender (unto Him). / Say: Shall I seek
another than God for Lord, when He is Lord of all things?
Each soul earneth only on its own account, nor doth any
laden bear another’s load ... (Al-An’am, 6:162–164)
These verses epitomize the Prophet Muhammad’s U complete
and utter devotion to God. Thus in the Holy Qur’an God enjoins
Muslims who truly love God to follow this example11, in order
in
turn to be loved12 by God:
S ay, (O Muhammad, to mankind): If ye love God, fol-low me;
God will love you and forgive you your sins.
61

The ACW Text
God is Forgiving, Merciful. (Aal ‘Imran, 3:31)
Love of God in Islam is thus part of complete and total devotion
to God; it is not a mere fleeting, partial emotion. As seen above,
God
commands in the Holy Qur’an: Say: Lo! my worship and my
sacri-
fice and my living and my dying are for God, Lord of the
Worlds. /
He hath no partner. The call to be totally devoted and attached
to
God, heart and soul, far from being a call for a mere emotion or
for
a mood, is in fact an injunction requiring all-embracing,
constant
and active love of God. It demands a love in which the
innermost
spiritual heart and the whole of the soul—with its intelligence,
will
and feeling—participate through devotion.
H I
None Comes with Anything Better
We have seen how the blessed phrase: There is no god but God,
He Alone, He hath no associate, His is the sovereignty and His
is
the praise and He hath power over all things—which is the best
that all the prophets have said—makes explicit what is implicit
in
the best remembrance (There is no god but God) by showing
what
it requires and entails, by way of devotion. It remains to be said

that this blessed formula is also in itself a sacred invocation—a
kind of extension of the First Testimony of faith (There is no
god
but God)—the ritual repetition of which can bring about,
through
God’s grace, some of the devotional attitudes it demands,
namely,
loving and being devoted to God with all one’s heart, all one’s
soul,
all one’s mind, all one’s will or strength, and all one’s
sentiment.
Hence the Prophet Muhammad U commended this remembrance
by saying:
He who says: ‘There is no god but God, He Alone, He hath
no associate, His is the sovereignty and His is the praise
and He hath power over all things’ one hundred times in a
day, it is for them equal to setting ten slaves free, and one
62
A Common Word
hundred good deeds are written for them and one hundred
bad deeds are effaced, and it is for them a protection from
the devil for that day until the evening. And none offers
anything better than that, save one who does more than
that13.
In other words, the blessed remembrance, There is no god but
God, He Alone, He hath no associate, His is the sovereignty and
His is the praise and He hath power over all things, not only re-
quires and implies that Muslims must be totally devoted to God
and love Him with their whole hearts and their whole souls and

all
that is in them, but provides a way, like its beginning (the
testimony
of faith)—through its frequent repetition14—for them to realize
this
love with everything they are.
God says in one of the very first revelations in the Holy Qur’an:
So invoke the Name of thy Lord and devote thyself to Him with
a
complete devotion. (Al-Muzzammil, 73:8)
Love of God as the First and
Greatest Commandment in the Bible
The Shema in the Book of Deuteronomy, 6:4–5, a centrepiece of
the Old Testament and of Jewish liturgy, says:
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! / You
shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with
all your soul, and with all your strength15.
Likewise, in the New Testament, when Jesus Christ the Messiah
X is asked about the Greatest Commandment, he answers X:
But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the
Sadducees, they gathered together. / Then one of them, a
lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, /
“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” /
63
The ACW Text

Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the LORD your God with
all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ /
This is the first and greatest commandment. / And the sec-
ond is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’
/ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the
Prophets.” (Matthew, 22:34–40)
And also:
Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them
reasoning together, perceiving that he had answered them
well, asked him, “Which is the first commandment of all?”
/ Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments
is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.
/ And you shall love the LORD your God with all your
heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all
your strength.’ This is the first commandment. / And the
second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbour as
yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than
these.” (Mark, 12:28–31)
The commandment to love God fully is thus the First and Great-
est Commandment of the Bible. Indeed, it is to be found in a
num-
ber of other places throughout the Bible including:
Deuteronomy,
4:29, 10:12, 11:13 (also part of the Shema), 13:3, 26:16, 30:2,
30:6,
30:10; Joshua, 22:5; Mark, 12:32–33 and Luke, 10:27–28.
However, in various places throughout the Bible, it occurs in
slightly different forms and versions. For instance, in Matthew
22:37 (You shall love the lord your God with all your heart,
with
all your soul, and with all your mind), the Greek word for
“heart”

is kardia, the word for “soul” is psyche, and the word for
“mind”
is dianoia. In the version from Mark, 12:30 (And you shall love
the
lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all
your
mind, and with all your strength) the word “strength” is added
to
the aforementioned three, translating the Greek word ischus.
64
A Common Word
The words of the lawyer in Luke, 10:27 (which are confirmed
by Jesus Christ X in Luke, 10:28) contain the same four terms
as
Mark, 12:30. The words of the scribe in Mark, 12:32 (which are
approved of by Jesus Christ X in Mark, 12:34) contain the three
terms kardia (“heart”), dianoia (“mind”), and ischus
(“strength”).
In the Shema of Deuteronomy, 6:4–5
(Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! / You
shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with
all your soul, and with all your strength).
In Hebrew the word for “heart” is lev, the word for “soul” is
nefesh, and the word for “strength” is me’od.
In Joshua, 22:5 the Israelites are commanded by Joshua to love
God and be devoted to Him as follows:

But take careful heed to do the commandment and the law
which Moses the servant of the LORD commanded you, to
love the LORD your God, to walk in all His ways, to keep
His commandments, to hold fast to Him, and to serve Him
with all your heart and with all your soul. (Joshua, 22:5)
What all these versions thus have in common—despite the lan-
guage differences between the Hebrew Old Testament, the
original
words of Jesus Christ X in Aramaic, and the actual transmitted
Greek of the New Testament—is the command to love God fully
with one’s heart and soul and to be fully devoted to Him. This
is the
First and Greatest Commandment for human beings.
In the light of what we have seen to be necessarily implied and
evoked by the Prophet Muhammad’s U blessed saying:
The best that I have said—myself, and the prophets that
came before me—is: ‘There is no god but God, He Alone,
He hath no associate, His is the sovereignty and His is the
praise and He hath power over all things’,16
65
The ACW Text
we can now perhaps understand the words ‘The best that I have
said—myself, and the prophets that came before me’ as equating
the blessed formula ‘There is no god but God, He Alone, He
hath
no associate, His is the sovereignty and His is the praise and He
hath power over all things’ precisely with the ‘First and
Greatest

Commandment’ to love God, with all one’s heart and soul, as
found
in various places in the Bible. That is to say, in other words,
that the
Prophet Muhammad U was perhaps, through inspiration,
restating
and alluding to the Bible’s First Commandment. God knows
best,
but certainly we have seen their effective similarity in meaning.
Moreover, we also do know (as can be seen in the endnotes),
that
both formulas have another remarkable parallel: the way they
arise
in a number of slightly differing versions and forms in different
contexts, all of which, nevertheless, emphasize the primacy of
total
love and devotion to God17.
H I
66
A Common Word
(II) LOVE OF THE NEIGHBOUR
Love of the Neighbour in Islam
There are numerous injunctions in Islam about the necessity and
paramount importance of love for—and mercy towards—the
neighbour. Love of the neighbour is an essential and integral
part
of faith in God and love of God because in Islam without love
of

the neighbour there is no true faith in God and no righteousness.
The Prophet Muhammad U said: None of you has faith until you
love for your brother what you love for yourself.18 And: None
of
you has faith until you love for your neighbour what you love
for
yourself.19
However, empathy and sympathy for the neighbour—and even
formal prayers— are not enough. They must be accompanied by
generosity and self-sacrifice. God says in the Holy Qur’an:
I t is not righteousness that ye turn your faces20 to the East and
the West; but righteous is he who believeth
in God and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture
and the prophets; and giveth wealth, for love of Him, to
kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer
and to those who ask, and to set slaves free; and observeth
proper worship and payeth the poor-due. And those who
keep their treaty when they make one, and the patient in
tribulation and adversity and time of stress. Such are they
who are sincere. Such are the pious. (Al-Baqarah, 2:177)
And also:
Y e will not attain unto righteousness until ye expend of that
which ye love. And whatsoever ye expend, God
is Aware thereof. (Aal ‘Imran, 3:92)
Without giving the neighbour what we ourselves love, we do not
67
The ACW Text

truly love God or the neighbour.
Love of the Neighbour in the Bible
We have already cited the words of the Messiah, Jesus Christ X,
about the paramount importance, second only to the love of
God,
of the love of the neighbour:
This is the first and greatest commandment. / And the sec-
ond is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’
/ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the
Prophets. (Matthew, 22:38–40)
And:
And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neigh-
bour as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater
than these. (Mark, 12:31)
It remains only to be noted that this commandment is also to be
found in the Old Testament:
You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall
surely rebuke your neighbour, and not bear sin because of
him. / You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge
against the children of your people, but you shall love
your neighbour as yourself: I am the LORD. (Leviticus,
19:17–18)
Thus the Second Commandment, like the First Commandment,
demands generosity and self-sacrifice, and On these two
command-
ments hang all the Law and the Prophets.

H I
68
A Common Word
(III) COME TO A COMMON WORD
BETWEEN US AND YOU
A Common Word
Whilst Islam and Christianity are obviously different
religions—and whilst there is no minimising some of their
formal differences—it is clear that the Two Great-
est Commandments are an area of common ground and a link
between the Qur’an, the Torah and the New Testament. What
pref-
aces the Two Commandments in the Torah and the New
Testament,
and what they arise out of, is the Unity of God—that there is
only
one God. For the Shema in the Torah, starts: (Deuteronomy,
6:4)
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! Likewise,
Jesus
X said: (Mark, 12:29) The first of all the commandments is:
‘Hear,
O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one’. Likewise, God
says
in the Holy Qur’an: Say: He, God, is One. / God, the Self-
Sufficient
Besought of all. (Al-Ikhlas, 112:1–2). Thus the Unity of God,
love

of Him, and love of the neighbour form a common ground upon
which Islam and Christianity (and Judaism) are founded.
This could not be otherwise since Jesus X said: (Matthew,
22:40) On these two commandments hang all the Law and the
Prophets. Moreover, God confirms in the Holy Qur’an that the
Prophet Muhammad U brought nothing fundamentally or essen-
tially new: Naught is said to thee (Muhammad) but what already
was said to the messengers before thee (Fussilat, 41:43). And:
S ay (Muhammad): I am no new thing among the mes-sengers
(of God), nor know I what will be done with
me or with you. I do but follow that which is Revealed to
me, and I am but a plain warner (Al-Ahqaf, 46:9).
Thus also God in the Holy Qur’an confirms that the same eter-
nal truths of the Unity of God, of the necessity for total love
and
69
The ACW Text
devotion to God (and thus shunning false gods), and of the
neces-
sity for love of fellow human beings (and thus justice), underlie
all
true religion:
A nd verily We have raised in every nation a messen-ger,
(proclaiming): Worship God and shun false
gods. Then some of them (there were) whom God guided,
and some of them (there were) upon whom error had just
hold. Do but travel in the land and see the nature of the

consequence for the deniers! (Al-Nahl, 16:36).
W e verily sent Our messengers with clear proofs, and revealed
with them the Scripture and the
Balance, that mankind may stand forth in justice… (Al-
Hadid, 57:25)
Come to A Common Word!
In the Holy Qur’an, God Most High tells Muslims to issue the
following call to Christians and Jews—the People of the
Scripture:
S ay: O People of the Scripture! Come to A Common Word
between us and you: that we shall worship none
but God, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him,
and that none of us shall take others for lords beside God.
And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are
they who have surrendered (unto Him). (Aal ‘Imran, 3:64).
Clearly, the blessed words: we shall ascribe no partner unto
Him
relate to the Unity of God. Clearly also, worshipping none but
God,
relates to being totally devoted to God and hence to the First
and
Greatest Commandment. According to one of the oldest and
most
authoritative commentaries (tafsir) on the Holy Qur’an—the
Jami’
Al-Bayan fi Ta’wil Al-Qur’an of Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin
Jarir
70

A Common Word
Al-Tabari (d. 310 A.H. / 923 C.E.)—that none of us shall take
oth-
ers for lords beside God, means ‘that none of us should obey in
disobedience to what God has commanded, nor glorify them by
prostrating to them in the same way as they prostrate to God’.
In
other words, that Muslims, Christians and Jews should be free
to
each follow what God commanded them, and not have ‘to
prostrate
before kings and the like’21; for God says elsewhere in the
Holy
Qur’an: Let there be no compulsion in religion…. (Al-Baqarah,
2:256). This clearly relates to the Second Commandment and to
love of the neighbour of which justice22 and freedom of
religion are
a crucial part. God says in the Holy Qur’an:
G od forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on
account of religion and drove you not out
from your homes, that ye should show them kindness and
deal justly with them. Lo! God loveth the just dealers. (Al-
Mumtahinah, 60:8)
H I
We thus as Muslims invite Christians to remember Jesus’ X
words in the Gospel (Mark, 12:29–31):
… the LORD our God, the LORD is one. / And you shall love
the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul,
with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the
first commandment. / And the second, like it, is this: ‘You

shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ There is no other
commandment greater than these.
As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them
and that Islam is not against them—so long as they do not wage
war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them
and drive them out of their homes, (in accordance with the verse
of
71
The ACW Text
the Holy Qur’an (Al-Mumtahinah, 60:8) quoted above).
Moreover,
God says in the Holy Qur’an:
T hey are not all alike. Of the People of the Scripture there is a
staunch community who recite the revela-
tions of God in the night season, falling prostrate (before
Him). / They believe in God and the Last Day, and enjoin
right conduct and forbid indecency, and vie one with an-
other in good works. These are of the righteous. / And
whatever good they do, nothing will be rejected of them.
God is Aware of those who ward off (evil). (Aal-‘Imran,
3:113–115)
Is Christianity necessarily against Muslims? In the Gospel Jesus
Christ X says:
He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not
gather with me scatters abroad. (Matthew, 12:30)
For he who is not against us is on our side. (Mark, 9:40)

… for he who is not against us is on our side. (Luke, 9:50)
According to the Blessed Theophylact’s23 Explanation of the
New Testament, these statements are not contradictions because
the first statement (in the actual Greek text of the New
Testament)
refers to demons, whereas the second and third statements refer
to people who recognised Jesus, but were not Christians.
Muslims
recognize Jesus Christ as the Messiah, not in the same way
Chris-
tians do (but Christians themselves anyway have never all
agreed
with each other on Jesus Christ’s X nature), but in the following
way: … the Messiah Jesus son of Mary is a Messenger of God
and
His Word which he cast unto Mary and a Spirit from Him ...
(Al-
Nisa’, 4:171). We therefore invite Christians to consider
Muslims
not against, and thus with them, in accordance with Jesus
Christ’s
X words here.
Finally, as Muslims, and in obedience to the Holy Qur’an, we
72
A Common Word
ask Christians to come together with us on the common
essentials
of our two religions

T hat we shall worship none but God, and that we shall ascribe
no partner unto Him, and that none of us
shall take others for lords beside God … (Aal ‘Imran, 3:64)
Let this common ground be the basis of all future interfaith dia-
logue between us, for our common ground is that on which
hangs
all the Law and the Prophets (Matthew, 22:40). God says in the
Holy Qur’an:
S ay (O Muslims): We believe in God and that which is revealed
unto us and that which was revealed unto
Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the
tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that
which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no
distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have
surrendered. / And if they believe in the like of that which
ye believe, then are they rightly guided. But if they turn
away, then are they in schism, and God will suffice thee
against them. He is the Hearer, the Knower. (Al-Baqarah,
2:136–137)
Between Us and You
Finding common ground between Muslims and Christians is not
simply a matter for polite ecumenical dialogue between selected
religious leaders. Christianity and Islam are, respectively, the
largest
and second largest religions in the world and in history.
Christians
and Muslims reportedly make up over a third and over a fifth of
humanity respectively. Together they make up more than 55%
of
the world’s population, making the relationship between these
two

religious communities the most important factor in contributing
73
The ACW Text
to meaningful peace around the world. If Muslims and
Christians
are not at peace, the world cannot be at peace. With the terrible
weaponry of the modern world; with Muslims and Christians in-
tertwined everywhere as never before, no side can unilaterally
win
a conflict between more than half of the world’s inhabitants.
Thus
our common future is at stake. The very survival of the world
itself
is perhaps at stake.
And to those who nevertheless relish conflict and destruction
for
their own sake or reckon that ultimately they stand to gain
through
them, we say that our very eternal souls are all also at stake if
we
fail to sincerely make every effort to make peace and come
together
in harmony. God says in the Holy Qur’an:
L o! God enjoineth justice and kindness, and giving to kinsfolk,
and forbiddeth lewdness and abomination
and wickedness. He exhorteth you in order that ye may
take heed (Al-Nahl, 16:90)
Jesus Christ X said: Blessed are the peacemakers … (Matthew,

5:9), and also: For what profit is it to a man if he gains the
whole
world and loses his soul? (Matthew, 16:26).
So let our differences not cause hatred and strife between us.
Let
us vie with each other only in righteousness and good works.
Let
us respect each other, be fair, just and kind to one another and
live
in sincere peace, harmony and mutual goodwill. God says in the
Holy Qur’an:
A nd unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth,
confirming whatever Scripture was
before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by
that which God hath revealed, and follow not their desires
away from the truth which hath come unto thee. For each
We have appointed a law and a way. Had God willed He
could have made you one community. But that He may try
you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you
74
A Common Word
as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. Unto
God ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that
wherein ye differ. (Al-Ma’idah, 5:48).
Wal-Salaamu ‘Alaykum, Pax Vobiscum.
NOTES

1 In Arabic: La illaha illa Allah, Muhammad Rasul Allah. The
two Shahadahs actually both
occur (albeit separately) as phrases in the Holy Qur’an (in
Muhammad, 47:19, and Al-Fath,
48:29, respectively).
2 Sunan Al-Tirmidhi, Kitab Al-Da’awat, 462/5, no. 3383;
Sunan Ibn Majah, 1249/2.
3 Sunan Al-Tirmidhi, Kitab Al-Da’awat, Bab al-Du’a fi Yawm
‘Arafah, Hadith no. 3934.
It is important to note that the additional phrases, He Alone, He
hath no associate, His is
the sovereignty and His is the praise and He hath power over all
things, all come from
the Holy Qur’an, in exactly those forms, albeit in different
passages. He Alone—referring
to God—is found at least six times in the Holy Qur’an (7:70;
14:40; 39:45; 40:12; 40:84 and
60:4). He hath no associate, is found in exactly that form at
least once (Al-An’am, 6:173).
His is the sovereignty and His is the praise and He hath power
over all things, is found
in exactly this form once in the Holy Qur’an (Al-Taghabun,
64:1), and parts of it are found
a number of other times (for instance, the words, He hath power
over all things, are found
at least five times: 5:120; 11:4; 30:50; 42:9 and 57:2).
4 The Heart: In Islam the (spiritual, not physical ) heart is the
organ of perception of
spiritual and metaphysical knowledge. Of one of the Prophet
Muhammad’s U greatest visions
God says in the Holy Qur’an: The inner heart lied not (in
seeing) what it saw. (Al–Najm,
53:11) Indeed, elsewhere in the Holy Qur’an, God says: [F]or
indeed it is not the eyes that

grow blind, but it is the hearts, which are within the bosoms,
that grow blind. (Al-Hajj,
22:46; see whole verse and also: 2:9–10; 2:74; 8:24; 26:88–89;
48:4; 83:14 et al. ... There are in
fact over a hundred mentions of the heart and its synonyms in
the Holy Qur’an.)
Now there are different understandings amongst Muslims as
regards the direct Vision of God
(as opposed to spiritual realities as such) be it in this life or the
next—God says in the Holy
Qur’an (of the Day of Judgement):
That day will faces be resplendent, / Looking toward their Lord;
(Al-Qiyamah, 75:22–23)
Yet God also says in the Holy Qur’an:
Such is God, your Lord. There is no God save Him, the Creator
of all things, so worship
Him. And He taketh care of all things. / Vision comprehendeth
Him not, but He compre-
hendeth (all) vision. He is the Subtile, the Aware. / Proofs have
come unto you from your
Lord, so whoso seeth, it is for his own good, and whoso is blind
is blind to his own hurt. And
75
The ACW Text
I am not a keeper over you. (Al-An’am, 6:102–104).
Howbeit, it is evident that the Muslim conception of the
(spiritual ) heart is not very different
from the Christian conception of the (spiritual ) heart, as seen in

Jesus’s X words in the New
Testament: Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
(Matthew, 5:8); and Paul’s
words: For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face.
Now I know in part, but then I
shall know just as I am known. (1 Corinthians, 13:12)
5 See also: Luqman, 31:25.
6 See also: Al-Nahl, 16:3–18.
7 Sahih Bukhari, Kitab Tafsir Al-Qur’an, Bab ma Ja’a fi
Fatihat Al-Kitab (Hadith no. 1); also:
Sahih Bukhari, Kitab Fada’il Al-Qur’an, Bab Fadl Fatihat Al-
Kitab (Hadith no. 9), no. 5006.
8 The Prophet Muhammad U said :
God has one hundred mercies. He has sent down one of them
between genii and human
beings and beasts and animals and because of it they feel with
each other; and through it
they have mercy on each other; and through it, the wild animal
feels for its offspring. And
God has delayed ninety–nine mercies through which he will
have mercy on his servants on
the Day of Judgement. (Sahih Muslim, Kitab Al-Tawbah;
2109/4; no. 2752; see also Sahih
Bukhari, Kitab Al-Riqaq, no. 6469).
9 Fear of God is the Beginning of Wisdom: The Prophet
Muhammad U is reported to
have said : The chief part of wisdom is fear of God—be He
exalted (Musnad al-Shahab, 100/1;
Al-Dulaymi, Musnad Al-Firdaws, 270/2; Al-Tirmidhi, Nawadir
Al-Usul; 84/3; Al-Bayhaqi,
Al-Dala’il and Al-Bayhaqi, Al-Shu’ab; Ibn Lal, Al-Makarim;
Al-Ash’ari, Al-Amthal, et al.) This
evidently is similar to the Prophet Solomon’s X words in the
Bible: The fear of the lord is the

Rel 103 - Fall 2015 - Paper #2 Rough drafts due via email.docx

Rel 103 - Fall 2015 - Paper #2 Rough drafts due via email.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Rel 103 - Fall 2015 - Paper #2 Rough drafts due via email.docx

Similar to Rel 103 - Fall 2015 - Paper #2 Rough drafts due via email.docx (16)

More from debishakespeare

More from debishakespeare (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Rel 103 - Fall 2015 - Paper #2 Rough drafts due via email.docx