The Metamorphosis of the Notion of Love
of God and of « Neighbor »
An
Interpretation of the Root hbb [to love] in the Koran
From November 4th to 6th, 2008, an
important Catholic-Muslim symposium was held in Rome, which gathered together two delegations of
29 representatives each. Its main theme: « Love of God and Love of Neighbor, » had been delineated in: A common Word Between Us and You, the Letter of the 138 Islamic scholars to Pope Benedict XVI and Christian leaders. It presented Islam
as « religion of love of God and
love of the close one », according to
the Arabic version of the Letter.
“The-close-one”, al-jar in Arabic, means “the-closest-to-me”, a sense far
from the universal reach of the word neighbor – al-qarib in
Arabic –, which Jesus uses in Luke
10:23-37 (parable of the good Samaritan), as the main promoter of
this symposium, Samir Khalil
commented. The nuance
is significant enough but the English version of the Letter leveled it out. So, what then? Perspectives for the future, or
deadlock?
Not without leaving unaddressed
a couple of important questions, the final declaration of the symposium does
advocate « respect of the person
and his or her choices in matters of conscience and religion, » given the acknowledged basis of « common rights. » The affirmation of such a principle is
essential, this could not be emphasized enough. Furthermore, it insists upon « renouncing any oppression, aggressive
violence, terrorism,
especially when perpetrated in the name of religion. »
A few
Muslim signatories showed a certain degree of hesitancy as to some of the
formulations that
could have caused them problems, but the step was finally taken. These
principles come to the fore strengthened with the prospect of another gathering
scheduled for before 2010. Even if this symposium has so far scarcely been
echoed in Islamic countries, it could very well in the future. Doubtlessly, one
of the main ambiguities regards the question of the communal rights to be
fought for. Islamic communities in the West, which the text seriously presents
as being oppressed, are paralleled with the fate of Christians in Islamic
countries, whose lives are often really threatened, not to mention about their
possessions and children.
The final declaration of the symposium also leans towards
giving credence to an implicit idea, namely: that all religions are
equally good, while the straying from religion’s genuine purpose to excesses is
assuredly blameful. Indeed, such an idea could hardly not have been propounded.
It has been sanctioned for more than twenty years in the mainstream media, and
Muslim intellectuals echo it as well. We will not dwell on this. Instead, we
want to take a close look at the Koranic text in
order to really know what it actually says or wants to say regarding the love
of God and of the close one –
according to the words of the under-title in Arabic which gave its theme
to the symposium.
• Occurrences of the Root hbb [to Love]
First of all, it is fitting to locate in the Koranic text the several
instances of the root hbb, to love. The number of cases matters: 133. We find this root
essentially in its verbal form and in a variety of contexts, a little like its
English equivalent. The substantive form barely appears, in most cases in
connection with the verb. With the exception of verse 2.165 (where the root hbb appears 4 times), the expression « love of God » (hubb Llahi) is not
to be found, but man is said or invited to love God four times (2.177; 3.31;
5.54 + 24.22 to love the fact that God forgives). Reference is sometimes made, in
a negative fashion, to « the love of possessions/things » (hubb 3.14; 76.8; 89.20; 1008), as well as, from a contrary
position, to not loving/liking
them (38.32; 49.12; 61.13;
75.2; 76.27; 89.20 + 6.76 where Abraham is said not to love fleeting
things). One can also love (hbb) a desirable goal (3.152.188; 9.108 + 49.7 the faith
made lovable). The root scarcely appears to convey the human sentiment/feeling
of love (3.119; 7.79 [negatively]; 12.8.30; 28.56 [obscur
meaning]).
Inversely, the root hbb shows up quite
often in reference to God’s attitude towards men, for instance, in such
somewhat stereotyped expressions as: « God loves those who purify
themselves, or the pious ones, or those who repent, etc. » (about twenty
times in the course of the Koranic text). They seem
overall fairly restrictive. Others are expressly negative: God does not love those who violate summons (to
fight, 2.190; not to make unlawful, 5.87; not to trespass the bounds of
privacy, 7.55), disorder (2.205), the usurer kafir (= infidel or wicked –
2.276), kafirs (3.32),
wrongdoers (3.57.140), the arrogant and vainglorious (4.36), he who gives
to perfidy and crime (4.107), evil speech (4.148), mischievous Jews (5.64), the wasters (6.141; 7.31),
the treacherous (8.58), the boastful one (16.23), traitors to faith or kafir-s
(22.38), the bragger who exults (28.76), those who do mischief (28.77), the
unfaithful or kafirs (30.45), any arrogant
boaster (31.18; 57.23), evildoers (42.40).
One must not forget that to be rejected from the love of God means to
be doomed to hell-fire: the Jews, who incur God’s wrath (as affirmed in sura 1, the Fatiha introducing
prayer), are marked for irrevocable condemnation to dwell therein (2.80; 3.24;
4.46-47; 5.78 etc. + 98.6), joining up with Christians (targeted in the
introductory Fatiha
as well + 4.51.116; 5.33.72; etc.).
• A God Who Does Not Love Those Who
Do Not Sacrifice All to Him
The vision put forward in the Koran becomes clearer. Never is the
Koran affirming that God loves all men. He nevertheless appears as loving some,
which can also be accounted for in the Bible. However, in the latter, the
language expressing God’s favor is typically balanced with affirmations of His
universal love. Such affirmations are not to be found in the Koran. Likewise,
if God is said to be merciful – repeatedly so throughout the Koran – one
must understand that He “chooses for His special mercy whom He wills.” (2.105;
3.74; etc.) To come up with the notion of universal love on the part of the God
of Islam, the authors of the final declaration of the Roman symposium have had
to appeal to a word, allegedly preserved in tradition, spoken by Muhammad: “a hadith indicates that God’s loving compassion for
humankind is greater, even than that of a mother for her child (Muslim, Bab al-Tawba
21)”. However, other hadiths,
from the 600,000 that have been fabricated, point to the opposite direction.
The purport was notwithstanding commendable.
All in all, in the Koran and according to the spirit of
Islam’s tradition, only one category of men is loved by God, a state of affairs
that particularly comes to the fore in the last Koranic
verse in which God is said to love:
: God loves those who go so far as
to kill in His way (formula
signifying: for His cause) (61.4).
Let us not delude ourselves as
to translate the 3rd form (to go so far as) of the verb qatala, to kill, as to fight. This would simply amount to conveniently shifting the
meaning. The notion of fighting does
not imply in and of itself that of killing.
Besides, the notion of wrestling-fighting,
as that of effort, is expressed by
another verb, jahada (from which we derive jihad,
wrestle). Those whom God loves are
those ready to kill for Him.
This state of affairs is not without distressing Pope
Benedict XVI, as well as some Muslim people affirming not to recognize
themselves in a Koranic tradition they claim to be
ill-adapted to our times. But, was it more in the seventh-century? In fact, it
is necessary to understand the logic implicit to the text beyond the immediate
perception that stumbles with the question: how can a God, whom we imagine
good, approve of evil actions, while ordering the good and forbidding evil? For
centuries this question has presented itself as a dead end in which philosophy
sinks in attempting to understand what Islam is. It all begins to make a little
more sense if we get onto the whole issue another way.
Let us consider the symposium’s second theme, namely:
« Love of Neighbor. » In the Koran, the concern is with love as it
relates to those who are near (relatives, friends in a neighborhood). It does not regard whoever becomes the neighbor, let alone enemies. There
is the exception of one verse (Sura al-Imran
v.119), which must be read following what precedes:
3.118
« O you who believe! Take not as confidants those outside yourselves […]
Hatred has already appeared from their mouths [that of the people doomed to
hell, cf. v.116], but what their hearts conceal is far worse… »
3.119
« You, you are those who love them,
but they do not love you; and you believe in the whole Book. When they meet
you, they say: “We believe.” But, when they are alone, they bite off the very
tips of their fingers at you in their rage. Say: “Perish in your rage” »
(Saudi traduction IFTA)
• When Love Turns Into a Justification of Hatred
To come to grip with the extent of the significance of these verses,
it is necessary to identify those who are pointed at: they are said to be filled
with hatred towards true believers and to adhere only to parts of the
« Book ». Which Book? It cannot be the Koran, which does not yet
exist, and which one never partially believes in. The reproval
frequently encountered in the Koran with respect to « hiding » a
portion of the Book (2.23; 4.51; etc.) « while they know it »
provides a good clue. It always points to the (rabbinic) Jews which it blames,
not just for some partial pushing aside of the teachings, say of the Prophets (ketuvim), but
rather for radically rejecting the Book. But, as has been shown [1], the « whole
Book » frequently referred to as prototype and held to be kept in Heaven,
is “the Torah and the injil ”-gospel
(singular). On earth, it presents itself under the form of a Lectionary (in Arabic, qur’an) used
by true « believers » when they gather together, which obviously is
one and the same as the « Koran » about which the Koranic
text itself refers more than 60 times [2]. Of this Book, the rabbinic Jews cannot but
reject the second part, the injîl derived from the Gospel of Matthew. They
systematically reject any reference or indication as to Jesus’s
Messiahship (Jesus, called Messiah 11 times in
the current form of the Koran). Such a refusal, according to the Koran,
provides the explanation as to why God cannot love the Jews and dooms them all
to hell. One only has to read [3], and the whole theory
falls into place.
Now here in sura al-Imran, one might be surprised with the
attitude full of “good sentiments” expressed in verse 119: the true believers
are said to love the (rabbinic)
Jews. Yet, the verse continues: because the latter hate the former (v.118),
they all the more deserve to be detested. The true believers are accordingly
set in the position of the victims
who only have got to defend themselves. Is this not precisely what the Islamic
posture is characteristically all about?
The underlying logic here is implacable. The true believer loves
humankind. The salvation of the world is his goal, and this goal is so great
that it is well worth all sacrifices. The end justifies the means, because it
greatly exceeds man individually, or even as a community. Human life is but
naught in the face of the salvation wished by God. In return, the God of love loves
those who sacrifice all to Him and are willing “to go as far as to kill” for
His sake. And it is He who takes upon Himself the responsibility of the
massacres perpetrated in His Name (8.17; 9.14; etc.).
As far as the reasoning is concerned, no mistake is there to be found.
It is the goal that is questionable, not the means, presented as legitimate in
the light of two reasons: • First,
in view to the end quest after •
Second, because he who “fights in God’s way” is automatically the victim of
other men who, under the hold of Satan, are maintained in ignorance (jahiliyya) of
Islamic Revelation, or worst, reject it. Such are the ones who prevent those
God has chosen (3.110) to serve Him by taking over the whole world. As Muslim,
a believer is always pure and always the victim of non-Muslims, whatever he
does. Present-day preachers don’t miss an opportunity to make the point clear:
Islam is Good. Islam is pure. A similar mindset has sometimes been seen at work
among baptized people turning Christianity into a travesty through nationalistic
commitments and degenerating it into a cause to be fought for. Nevertheless,
this alteration of Christianity’s authentic meaning and the outrage it gave
rise to scandalized Christian conscience.
• Moving Beyond Lies to Look Forwards
Together to the Future
The unique bottom line question therefore is the following: has God
revealed to man a system allowing him to root up evil from this world? If so,
everything holds together. The philosophical blind alley of a God standing
surety for evil acts vanishes into thin air. Those whom God has chosen above
all others [4] stand in a position to
assert that they love God. They adore a God who holds them up above all
others. They can also declare that they love these others, even when they butcher them, snatch their children, banish
them away from their own countries, etc. The Koranic
faithful loves God and other people. Other people, however,
while they should be grateful to the Koranic
faithful, hate him instead.
Unmistakably, we are here dealing with a radical alteration of the
Biblical Revelation, most specifically, with a radical alteration of the
Revelation of Jesus. No seventh-century man could have made this up. So drastic a revision, that is, alterating down to the root system itself, could only have
resulted from the dissident influence and making of first-century people
sufficiently familiar with the Apostles and the Judeo-Christian milieu of the
early apostolic Church. The mention above regarding “Torah and injil” was not brought up in vain. Indeed, it gives
indication as to the milieu wherein lies the point of departure. There is a
sense in which Islam is but the very perpetuation of an original turnover of
the Revelation of God’s Love in Jewish milieu. In truth, was not Christianity
itself exclusively, or by a very large majority, a Jewish phenomenon, and so
throughout several generations? Such a perspective allows the taking of some
steps back vis-a-vis the history of « the Arab
Prophet » (whose biography was first put together two centuries after the
alleged events), in favor of a more objective historical scholarship freed from
its a priori conceptions.
The question raised above may now disclose its real stakes: has God
revealed to man a system allowing him to root up evil from this world? If
we say that such a mean of salvation does not exist, or, in other words, that
our world is inexorably doomed to evil, all that is left to give a semblance of
meaning and order to this life is a fear of the hereafter.
Such discourses legitimize the Islamists’s
agenda. Jesus says a lot more. The New Testament bears witness to it, though
one does need to take the pain of turning to places regrettably left basically
unread today. Some current trends in prevailing circles of biblical scholarship
have been pulled towards ideological reinterpretations of parts of the Gospels
while disavowing others. But it is precisely to those that we urgently ought to
return so as to read them afresh. Not in the light of contemporary exegetical studies,
which on the questions at stake here have overall demonstrated their
uselessness, but together with Jewish and Muslim friends who will not fail to
raise up the right questions.
Interreligious dialogue is critical –
Pope Benedict XVI has made it very clear from the outset of his
pontificate – and more so than ever in times such as ours where people are
massively misinformed and manipulated to the core. But there exists no
guarantee whatsoever that a « dialogue » such as that which just took
place in Rome will have the effect of keeping off the perspective of grievous
troubles in our cities. Its final declaration can only be a step. Never can we
expect to lenify rancor and hatred by simply coating
them with the word « love. »
Nor are we to help the temperature of dissentient or warlike
discourses spoken in the name of God drop in by breaking the thermometer of
words.
This article was
first published under the title: La cause de l’amour
selon l’islam in Liberté Politique, Spring
2009, n° 44, p. 55-61.
Translated by Sébastien Renault