embracing the other as an extension of the self

7/29/2019 Embracing the Other as an Extension of the Self

1/10

ATW91:3

Em bracing the "Other" as anExtension of the Self:Muslim Reflections on the Epistleto the Hebrews 13:2

A. R A S H I E D O M A R *

Be not forgetful to entertain strangers:for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.(He brew s 13:2, KJV)

There is an urgent need for interfaith dialogue to get past cucum -ber sandwiches and samoosas to the real business of truly lovingeach other and em bracing "the other" as an extension o f ourselves.One wa y of mov ing interreligious dialogue to a higher level of en-gagem ent beyond mere "tolerance" to deeper, mo re enduring in-terreligious cooperation is to read and emb race the sacred texts ofreligious traditions other than one's own for inspiration. M ost re-ligious traditions celebrate hospitality and welcoming of thestranger. This paper explores such an ethical and moral teachingwithin Christianity. Th e search is undertaken by a Muslim scholar

I wifl begin with thre e pre hm inary o bservations. Eirst, the idea ofreading the sac red texts of religious traditions o the r tha n one's own isnot a new and novel phen om eno n. Regrettably, our interreligious his-tory is replete with endeavors aimed at refnting and rebutting theauthenticity of each others' sacred texts. One of the most well-knownMuslim examples that comes to mind is that of the eleventh-centurySpanish Muslim scholar Abu Muhammad 'Ali ibn Hazm (d. 1064 CE) .Ibn Hazm wrote perhaps one of the earhest systematic textual cri-tiques of the Old and the New Testaments. In his five-volume work,


2/10

434 Anglican Theological ReviewAl-Fisal Fi al-Milal Wa-al-Ahwa Wa-al-Nihal {An Analysis of W orldReligious Communities, Ideologies, and Sects), ibn Hazm employedthe Muslim theology of revelation {wahy) to prove that the Torah andthe gospels had been historically corrupted.^ Ibn Hazm is the pro-genitor of the Muslim doctrine oitahrif, the charge that the Jews andChristians had corrupted their divinely revealed scriptures. His po-lemical style is an abiding legacy that continues to bedevil Muslimrelations with other religions, and in particular Muslim dispositionsand consequently readings of the sacreid texts of Jews and Christians.This leads to my second preliminary observation.^

One of the most critical challenges in interfaith dialogue is thequestion of language, in both its hteral as well as symbolic forms. Theinterfaith en co un ter is not only biased by the language within which itoccu rs, it is also conditioned by a powerful symbolic language, nam elythe pre dom inant categories of thought within which it occurs. Clobalrealities dictate that we live within the hegemony of the English lan-guage, which inevitably privileges those who are more proficient inEnglish and disempowers the less proficient or non-English speakers.This is illustrative of the power dynamics and partiahty of hegemoniccontem porary discourses on interreligious dialogue. In o rder to m eetthe subtle but powerful pressures on non-Western traditions to con-form to prevailing discourses of "civility," non-W este rn scholars ofteninadvertently shore up concepts and texts from their own traditionsthat app ear to correspon d to "fashionable" Western concepts.

This was precisely the faultline in ibn Hazm s methodology. Hewas employing a peculiarly Muslim discourse and theology of revela-tion and exegetical tradition in order to read and critique the Old andNew T estam ents. Th e re sult of his flawed analysis was m isun der stan d-ing and irreverence. A more careful examination of the nature of dif-ferent sacred texts, however, may suggest that in fact M uslims, Jews,and Ch ristians o per ate with radically different theologies of revelation.Supporting such a view, the Muslim comparative religionist Mahmoud

^ Abu M uham mad "Ali Ahmad ibn Hazm , Kitab Al-Fisal Fi al-Milal Wa-al-Ahwa


3/10

M U S L I M R E F L E C T I O N S O N H E B R E W S 13:2 4 35Ayoub has argued that one m ay be able to differentiate betw een validbut distinct modes of revelation. The Bible, according to Ayoub, ism ore a revelation of action or a record of Cod's acting in the history ofhumankind.'^ O n the oth er hand, for Ayoub, the Q ur'anic m ode of rev-elation is more direct communication or commandment from Cod tohum an b eings. W he the r one accepts the veracity of Ayoub s depictionis not my point; I am essentially arguing tha t a de ep sensitivity to andapprec iation of the differences in our theologies of revelation m ay as-sist us in building bridges of understanding between interfaith com-munities. In other words, to fairly interpret what sacred texts are say-ing, we have to hear th em in the context of their theological paradigm sin a process of m utua l illumination. This leads to my third and last pre -liminary observation.

My response to these questions is that while conflict is an inevi-table pari of the human condition, it is not inevitable that conflictshould take the form of hostility and enmity. As Louis Kriesberg hasso eloquently reminded us, conflicts can be constructively trans-formed."* The point is that hostility and enmity are constructed byhum an beings and thus can be unm ade by hum an beings. Ou r m isper-ceptions and constructions of the "other" have profound conse-quences for religious conflict. When we perceive others to be strang-ers, enem ies, or dem ons , violence is likely.

If we are to transform our relationshipfor which there is direneedthe followers of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions mustretrieve each others humanity and end the mutual dehumanizationthat is currently taking place. One small but imporiant step is to ac-knowledge that many of our sacred texts and stories display "ambiva-lence" and therefore contain the seeds for violence. Most religionsthus provide opp ortun ities for justifying violence as well as healing. Iwould like to refer to a periinent example from my own experienceand location.

M ore than two decades ago ther e was a vociferous theological de -bate in South Africa concerning the biblical perspective on apartheid.The white supremacist policy of apartheid was formed in the name


4/10

436 Anglican Theological Reviewof Christianity. Many of the key leaders of the oppressive apartheidregime were also devout adherents of the Dutch Reformed Church.The discriminatory apartheid education policy was justified in refer-ence to certain highly controversial interpretations of the Bible andlabeled "C hristian National Educa tion." This led to an im portant the o-logical document called the Kairos Document (1985), produced byblack South African Christians to lam ent thes e interpre tations by pos-ing a challenging question: "Can the Bible be u sed for any pu rpose at

5Th e answer, of course, is Yes.Are these varying interpreta tions of scriptural texts uniq ue to theBible? The answer is No! All of our sacred religious texts display thesame "ambivalence." A contempo rary example of this is the intermit-ten t audio messages released by Osam a bin Laden, in which he invokesseveral passages from the Muslim sacred sc ripture, the Q ur'an , in sup-po rt of his call for Muslims to engage in a global jihad , includ ing ac ts ofterror (irhab), in order to drive the Americans and Israelis out of the"Holy Lands." No twithstanding th e fact that Osam a bin Laden is plac-

in g his own spin on things, he is citing from the sam e Q ur'an that I holdto be sacred.^How then can we account for this textual ambivalence? Arguingwithin the context of the Mushm sacred scripture, the Qur'an, theCalifornia-based Professor of Islamic Law Khalid Abou El Fadl hasprovided a cogent response to this question. "The meaning of thetext," he contends, "is often as moral as its reader. If the reader is in-tolerant, hateful, or oppressive, so will be the interpretation of thetext."'^The point is that all sacred texts and stories provide possibilitiesof intolerant as well as tolerant interj)retations. Moreover, in situa-tions where rehgious groups are caught up in protracted confiict, theinterpretation of scripture is invariably shaped by the conflict. Theway we talk about our sacred stories affects the way we think and

^ The Kairos Document: Challenge to the Church: A Theological Comment onthe Political Crisis in South Africa, second edition (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans


5/10

M U S L I M R E F L E C T I O N S O N H E B R E W S 13:2 43 7ultimately th e way we act. W hat is nee ded is a reinterp retation of thenarrative, so that healing and a transform ed relationship with the p er-ceived enem y beco m e integral parts of a renew ed spiritual vision.O ur first task, the n, is to acknowledge th e fact of interp retive am -bivalence, no matter how distressing that may be. Second, we mustmuster faithful and coherent ways of dealing constructively with thetexts, symbols, and rituals that display ambivalence. Third and mostimporiant, we must base our arguments upon sacred stories that areunambiguously healing, Hfting them up so that they stand out as bea-cons of hop e and transformation.

I wou ld like to offer o ne such beacon of ho pe from the Ne w Tes-tament. The passage I have chosen for reflection comes from theEpistle to the Hebrews: "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: forthereby some have enteriained angels unawares" (13:2, KJV). Thispassage is one of many biblical texts that prov ide th e theological foun-dations for wh at has be en described as th e Ch ristian d octr ine of "radi-cal love of the other."^ A profo und teachin g indeed!As a Muslim scholar, I found myself instinctively drawn to beginwith a linguistic analysis of this biblical text. Fro m th e van tage poin t ofsem antics, it is striking to note that the G reek equivalent of the English"entertain strangers" is philoxenia. Th e first elem ent of the word, philo,refers to love or friendship, and thus the passage means more thansimple hospitahty. Philoxenia is not a mere sentimental response tothe "other," but truly "love for stran gers." This bibhcal text is there foreliterally exho rting its rea ders to "love for strang ers," as oppos ed to itsantonym xenophobia, which translates as "fear or hatr ed of stran gers ."The Christian scriptural quotation that forms the basis of my re-flections comes from the final chapter of the epistle. The Epistle tothe He brew s is uniq ue in the N ew Testamen t, in that its fiterary genreis distinctively different from any of the other New Testament writ-ings. Hebrews is widely recognized to be a sermon, and more specifi-cally an exho rtation. In fact, verse 2 is part of a greater section (H eb .13:1-17) tha t m akes up the final exhortations of the ep istle to living an

8 For the origins of radical love for the other, see tlie Parable of the Good Sa-


6/10

438 Anglican Theological Reviewauthentic Christian life. Since the epistle's genre is a sermon, and apriestly sermon at that, the purpose and intention of the author isprincipally to exhort, strongly urge, or encourage his readers to live anauthentic life as attested to by the witness of Jesus Christ.

Verse 2 is part of a subsection (13:1-6) that deals with exhorta-tions concerning community Ufe, family life, and personal conduct.The first two verses contain a double exhortation to "brotherly" con-duct, namely "brotherly love" {philadelfiaf and "hospitality" {philox-enia). Aside from its occurrence here, philoxenia^^ occurs six times inthe New Testament. In contrast to its usage outside early Christianliterature, the word in New Testament texts is always used metaphori-cally for love toward "brothers" and "sisters" in the faith, though notlimited exclusively to one's own faith tradition. In Creek literature thisusage is practically unknown and the word is understood as physicallove of brothers and sisters. Our author, however, becomes concreteright away and illustrates this attitude toward fellow Christians byreadiness to receive one's neighbor in one's home.

The ideal of hospitality was widespread in antiquity: by hospital-ity the "alien" becomes part of one's world and ceases to he felt as amenace. For the first generations of Christians, hospitality was par-ticularly needed in receiving missionaries and offering refuge for mi-grants. This teaching has enormous implications for healing our worldfrom the proliferating disease of xenophobia.

In order to appreciate the contextual significance of this passage,biblical scholars inform us, we need to trace it back to the Book ofCenesis and the visit of three "strangers" to the great patriarch Abra-ham. The passage reads as follows:The LORD appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre, as he satat the entrance ofhis tent in the heat of the day. He looked up and

^ Philadelfia, "brotherly love," or as it is translated above, "mutual love," thus im-plying reciprocity, is the source from which the more specific attitudes and actions ofverses 2-6 flow. ]3ehind the translation "let mutual love continue" lies the continuouspresent imperative of the Greek verb mena ("I remain"), which in turn looks back toearlier injunctions to patient and enduring loyalty to the otlier.


7/10

M U S L I M R E F L E C T I O N S ON H E B R E W S 13:2 439saw three men standing near him. When he saw them, he ranfrom the tent entrance to meet them, and bowed down to theground. He said, "My lord, if I find favor with you, do not pass byyour servant. Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet,and rest yourselves under the t ree. Let me bring a little bread,that you may refresh yourselves, and after th at you may pass onsince you have come to your servant." So they said, "Do as youhave said." And Abraham hastened into the tent to Sarali, andsaid, "Make read y quickly th ree m easures of choice flour, knead it,and m ake cakes." Abraham ran to the herd , and took a calf, tenderand good, andgave it to the servant, who hastened to prepare it.Then he took curds and milk and the calf that he had prepared,and set it before them; and he stood by them un der the tree whilethey ate. They said to him, "Where is your wife Sarah?" And hesaid, "There, in the tent." Then one said, "I will surely return toyou in due season, and your wife Sarah shall have a son." AndSarah was hstening at the tent entrance behind him. Now Abra-ham andSarah were old, advanced in age; it had ceased to be w ithSarah after the manner of women. So Sarah laughed to herself,saying, "After I have grown old, and my husband is old, shall Ihave pleasure?" The L O R D said to Abraham, "Why did Sarahlaugh, and say, 'Shall I indeed bear a child, now tha t am old?' Isanything too wonderful for the L O R D ? At the set time I will re tur nto you, in due season, and Sarah shall have a son." But Sarah de-nied, saying, "I did not laugh"; for she was afraid. He said, "Ohyes, you did laugh." (Genesis 18:1-15)From the above passage we learn that Abraham may not have

understood who the strangers are, but in the profoundest sense theyrepresent the presence of God, and the consequence is a blessing forbarren Sarah: the child Isaac.

The biblical teaching is clear: giving hospitality and loving-Idndness to strangers, who are always to be seen as children of God,even the presence of God^with the consequence of blessingestab-lishes itself as a pattern early on in the Jewish tradition, and hence inGhristianity.

Moreover, the biblical message is profound: whenever strangers


8/10

440 Anglican Theological Reviewin many ways that is literally and profoundly true. By eating together,the truth of God s presence gets itself into usalternatively, it is anoutward sign of that inward presence. Can we Jews, Christians, andMuslims work togeth er to recover this aspect of our traditions for t hefeeding an d healing of the w orld?Th e exhortation in He brew s 13:2 to show hospitality to strangers ,since by doing so "some have e nte rtain ed angels" witho ut knowing it,is a direct reference back to the text in Cenesis 18 of Abraham and thethr ee "angelic" figures. This biblical teaching resona tes well with twoMuslim teachings found in two of the p rimary sources of Islamic guid-ance. The first is found in the Qur'anic concept of ta'aruf whichmeans getting to know "the other," or, as I inte rpre t it, em brac ing thestranger as an extension of yourself This concep t is eloquently cap-tured in Sura al-Hujurat, of the Qu r'an:

O Humankind! We have created you of a male and a female,and fashioned you into nations and tribes,so that you may know each other/recognize each other [ta'aruf](not despise each other);surely, the most honorable of you with God is the best inconduct.Lo! God is All-Knowing, All-Aware.(Qur'an 49:13; translations of Qur'anic verses are the author's )The above verse from the Qur'an enjoins human beings to cele-brate gender, cultural, and national diversity through ia'a ru /(re co gn i-

tion/affirmation) of each other through intimate knowledge, and notmere toleration. Through this verse the Qur'an teaches that differ-ences among humankind are not incidental and negative, but ratherthat human diversity represents a God-willed, basic factor of humanexistence. The Qur'anic concept o ta'aruf is an alternative vision toxenophobia, and represents one of the basic core teachings of Islam.This Qur'anic verse is further supported by a Muslim teachingfound in the hadith Hterature, commonly called the Prophetic tradi-

tions, the second most sacred source of Islamic guidance after theQ ur'an. Imam Muslim (d. 865 CE) , who com piled one of the two m ost


9/10

M U S L I M R E F L E C T I O N S O N H E B R E W S 13:2 4 41will reply: "O my Lord, how could I visit Thee when Thou art theLord of the worlds?" Thereupon God will say: "Did you not knowthat a servant of Mine was sick but you did not visit him, and wereyou not aware that if you had visited him, you would have foundMe by him?" God will then ask: "O son of Adam, I asked you forfood but you did not feed Me." The person will reply: "My Lord,how could I feed Thee when Thou art the Lord of the worlds?"God will ask: "Did you not know that a servant of Mine asked youfor food but you did not feed him, and were you not aware that ifyou had fed him you would have found him by My side?"^^

It is clear that all of ou r sacred texts celebra te th e co nce pt of hos-pitality and consequently endorse the practice of welcoming thestranger into our midst. The challenge facing Jews, Christians, andMushms is to hberate themselves from narrow conceptions throughwhich they define themselves as communities of privilege and exclu-sion. In my view, the htmus test for "good" and "bad" rehgious prac-tice is the exten t to which we are willing to em brace the "other," who-ever that "other" may be. We nee d to recognize our comm on hum an-ity and see others as a reflection of ourselves. If we do not try to"know" th e other, how can we ever "know" the Divine?In conclusion, I would hke to commend you for your hospitalityand welcoming of me a M ushm, a stranger to share with you som eof my reflections on a Ch ristian New Tes tam ent sacred text. Your gen-erous gesture is a great beacon of hope at this time of distress. Yourvision of moving interreligious dialogue to a higher level of engage-ment beyond mere "tolerance" to deeper, more enduring interreh-gious cooperation is a compefling one. Recafling the "eating" and"meal sharing" metaphor I alluded to earher, I would restate this in-terfaith imp erative of our tim e as follows: T he re is an urg ent ne ed forinterfaith dialogue to get past cucumber sandwiches and samoosas tothe real business of truly loving each other and e mb racing " the othe r"as an extension of ourselves.


10/10

embracing the other as an extension of the self

Documents