This article was downloaded by: [University of Windsor]On: 14 November 2014, At: 02:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Islam and Christian–Muslim RelationsPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cicm20

Christian–Muslim relations into thetwenty‐first centuryAlwi Shihab aa Nahdatul Ulama, Jakarta, IndonesiaPublished online: 14 Oct 2010.

To cite this article: Alwi Shihab (2004) Christian–Muslim relations into the twenty‐first century,Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, 15:1, 65-77

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09596410310001631821

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations,Vol. 15, No. 1, 65–77, January 2004

Christian–Muslim Relations into theTwenty-first CenturyA.ShihabJI. Garut 31MentengRT5 RW7Jakarta PusatIndonesiaashihab@hotmail.com

ALWI SHIHABNahdatul Ulama, Jakarta, Indonesia

ABSTRACT Islam and Christianity have had a mixed relationship over the centuries. Often thesetwo traditions have taken an exclusivist position portraying the other in negative terms. Muslimsand Christians have often lived in tension with each other over many issues such as mission andda�wa, political and religious oppression as well as mutual vilification. Increasingly in the lastfew decades, there have been calls for dialogue from both traditions to be undertaken at thelevel of scripture, religious leadership and socio-cultural traditions. Christian and Muslimcommunities have begun to come together in the spirit of pluralism and mutual recognition. It isthis spirit that must guide each of us to understand the importance of a new way of reading thesacred texts, one which is cognizant of and responsive to the pluralistic realities of the twenty-firstcentury.

Introduction

Christianity has been in contact with Islam for over fourteen centuries. This longperiod of continuous encounter has witnessed many changes and fluctuations ofterritorial and cultural boundaries. It has also been marked by long periods ofconfrontation, as well as times of fruitful cooperation. However, the dominantpattern of relationship between the two faiths has been enmity, hostility andprejudice, rather than friendliness and understanding.

Indeed Christianity and Islam have from their early history had an ambivalentrelationship, which at one and the same time has the potential for deep conflictas well as constructive dialogue. The negative and positive aspects of thisencounter stemmed for the most part from the deliberate accentuation of certainbiblical and qur’anic texts on the part of adherents of both religions. While theearly Church Fathers argued forcefully for religious exclusivism, as expressed inthe well-known formula extra ecclesiam nulla salus, quoting the words of Christ,‘He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me,scatters’ (Matt. 12�30), we find manifest a spirit of inclusivism in the story ofCornelius when St Peter says to him, ‘Of a truth I perceive that God is norespecter of persons; But in every nation, he that fears Him, and worksrighteousness, is accepted with Him’(Act 10�34–5). In other words, the passage

0959-6410 Print/1469-9311 Online/04/010065-13 2004 CSIC and CMCU

DOI: 10.1080/09596410310001631821

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

2:06

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

66 A. Shihab

suggests that God has no favorites, but that anybody of any nationality who fearsHim and does what is right is acceptable to Him.

Equally, we find in the Qur’an calls for dialogue with the Peoples of the Book(Jews and Christians) in the best of manners (Q: 29�46; 16�125), yet the Qur’ancategorically denounces the Christian doctrines of Trinity and the divinity ofJesus. On the one hand the Qur’an considers Christians to be the nearest inaffection to Muslims (Q. 5�82), and on the other it commands its followers towage war against those of the People of the Book who reject faith in God andthe Last Day, until they humbly remit the jizya (Q. 9�29).

As a result of both parties’ positions (Christian and Muslim) in opting for anexclusivist outlook in determining their relationship, misconceptions and distor-tions have continued to blight their perceptions of each other to the present day.Besides the doctrinal disputes that have marred Christian–Muslim relationsthrough the centuries, the failure of leaders of both communities of faith tocontrol the excesses of religious fanaticism among their followers also constitutesa potential source of tension.

Another potentially divisive issue is the missionary character of both Islam andChristianity. Past experience shows that it is impossible to avoid serious tensionsaround this subject, even when people come together in a spirit of dialogue.Howsoever respectful of others Muslims and Christians at their best might be inspreading their faith, they both have a mission to convert all peoples. So missionand da�wa in all their different forms have caused a great deal of tension.

Both Christianity and Islam claimed from the beginning to bring a universalmessage, bearing glad tidings intended for all humankind. Yet each expressed anabsolutist claim to Truth. This claim made any recognition by either one of theother impossible. This absolutist claim, which originated out of excessive zeal,utterly contradicts the basic tenet of each, namely that God created all humanbeings and that He is a God of love who wishes the guidance and salvation ofall His creatures. God is the Truth, Islam insists; if we truly know the Truth, itwill, Christ assured us, ‘Set us free’ (John 8�32).

The New Testament expresses on many occasions the universality of Truth ofthe religion of Christ. St Paul declared to the seeking but misguided Atheniansthat ‘God never left Himself without a witness’ (Acts 14�17). Islam also declaresa universalist view of the truth operating through divine revelation. The Qur’anasserts that ‘there never was a people without a warner’, that is a messenger (Q.24�35). The Qur’an further argues for the divine wisdom in the diversity ofhuman culture, religion and language. The purpose of this diversity is for peopleto cooperate in a life of righteousness because goodness is not judged accordingto either ethnic or religious identity but, as the Qur’an insists, ‘Surely, the mostnoble of you in the sight of God is he who is most pious’ (Q. 49�13).

Regrettably, the universalist view of divine guidance soon came to be obscuredby Christian and Muslim attitudes regarding their respective absolutist truth–claims. Guided by theological, political and worldly ambitions, both Muslimsand Christians sacrificed the universality of truth in the name of religion. Truthhas, therefore, been denied its universality and has become either Christian orIslamic. Each competes with the other in the claim to be the final message tohumankind.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

2:06

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Christian–Muslim Relations 67

It is undoubtedly true that the absolutist claim of truth from both communitieshad many and often tragic ramifications. It was by this doctrine that the FirstCrusade was justified. Pope Urban II proclaimed a crusade before a largeaudience at the Council of Clement in November 1095 ‘to exterminate thepagan, to free the Holy Land and to aid the Christian inhabitants’. To add greaterweight to this proclamation the Pope declared that ‘Christ commands it.’ It wasonly natural that the Christian fighters would assault Muslim cities fiercelywith great religious fervor. The First Crusade, which was followed by severalothers, was instrumental in establishing the pattern for and the spirit of the longhistory of hostility and mistrust between Muslims and Christians and theChristian spirit of hostility against Muslims generated by the Crusades has beencrucial in arousing suspicion about every sphere of Christian activity in theMuslim world.

Speaking about this suspicion from a Muslim point of view, MahmoudAyoub, to whom this essay is dedicated, asserts that there are three areas ofactivity at the root of Christian–Muslim conflict that have occupied the minds ofMuslims. These activities were conceived by Muslims as no more than revivalsof the medieval crusading spirit, namely, colonization, missionary activity andorientalism.

By the middle of the nineteenth century almost the entire Muslim world hadfallen prey to colonial powers and was parceled out among European colonial-ists. Throughout its colonial history, Europe was inspired by the same spiritof mission which inspired the Christian missionary. Missionary work has hada long history of cooperation with colonialism, with which it enjoyed asymbiotic relationship. Clearly, when Christ commissioned his disciples to‘Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations’, he did not wish them toachieve this with the help of exploitative colonial powers. Nor did Jesusintend his mission of love to be carried out in the spirit of sectariancompetition. What ensued from this close cooperation between missionariesand the colonial powers was the fact that most colonized Muslim peopleshave become bitter about and suspicious of all missionary work, regardlessof its motives. It is extremely odd to us to learn of some of the attitudes ofwell-known missionaries toward Islam which only nurtured the spiritof mistrust among the Muslims. For example, Samuel Zwemer confirmsthe aim of missionary activity in saying: ‘The aim of missionary work isnot to bring a Muslim into another religion; it is to bring him out of Islam,so that he may become its opponent and staunch enemy.’1 Naturally,there were a number of missionaries who were sincerely interested insharing their faith with others without any ulterior motives, but theprevalent mood of Muslims has been the unwillingness to distinguishbetween the sympathetic and biased among missionaries. It cannot be deniedthat there has been a constant suspicion about Christian humanitarian services,be they educational, medical or financial in the non-Christian world. Theseservices have often been perceived as an underhand way of conductingmission.

For most Muslims, while colonialism aimed at political and economic domi-nation, missionary activities aimed to win converts and secure the abolition of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

2:06

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

68 A. Shihab

Islam, which is a ‘spiritually and ethically lacking religion’, to quote LaurenceBrowne,2 or ‘a riddle religion’ as Hendrik Kraemer calls it.3

In addition to the above elements of tension, Muslims have also been deeplycritical of the works of orientalists. Muslims consider the aim of many oriental-ists to have been the production of anti-Islamic literature containing mis-state-ments of fact and the setting out of theories based on misperceptions, errors anddistortions: as these distorted materials become implanted and grow in the mindsof Muslims, the conditioning of Muslims willingly to accept the Westernmentality and reject the fundamentals of Islam will be secured. This is one of thecanny strategies of the orientalists as many Muslims perceive it to the presentday.

These are the areas which were crucial in creating the long history of conflictand mistrust between Christians and Muslims. This long period of direct contactof both communities across the Mediterranean, where we have unfairly tendedto remember only the negative, has worked both ways. Just as there wereimperial powers in the Crusades, there were Muslim Turks at the gates ofVienna. Hence, if Christians and Muslims want to correct misunderstandingsobjectively, they have to recognize frankly that these misunderstandings are notwithout certain deep-lying historical roots.

Now, at the start of the twenty-first century, we find ourselves, Christians andMuslims, in a distinctly different situation. Christian–Muslim relations havechanged and improved through the centuries. New horizons in this encounter areslowly but surely being discovered. We are coming out of the period of Westernpolitical imperialism, and we are witnessing the reassertion of the sovereignty ofpeoples around the world, not only Muslims, but others as well. In the Church,the old doctrine of ‘no salvation outside the Church’ has been challenged andthus doors have been opened wide. While in the past one can mention inChristian history exceptional thinkers and theologians who had a positiveattitude toward Islam, now there is even a movement within the Christianchurches which is not simply moving toward repairing the damage of the past,but looking forward to cooperation. However, and this should not be overlooked,although we may boast of having made considerable progress toward greaterunderstanding, the scars of a long history of conflict are still raw and can veryeasily be opened again. Unless greater sensitivity is displayed by both communi-ties the hoped-for harmonious relations may be slow to materialize.

The reality of the interdependence of the global village alone with its masscommunication has changed circumstances radically. Both communities are, ineffect, instantly accountable to each other as they strive to move from arelationship of conflict and confrontation to one of meaningful dialogue based onmutual trust and goodwill. For Christians and Muslims, the traditional friendsand conventional enemies, in order to build a better future they need tounderstand their past encounters. It is also crucial that the spirit of Christ and theteachings of the Qur’an should always remain a goal and a light guiding therespective communities. Hence, sincere efforts need to be made to translate thoseteachings into concrete constructive relations on the ground. Only on this verylevel, on the practical and interactive level, are Christianity and Islam what thetwo communities make of them.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

2:06

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Christian–Muslim Relations 69

The Islamic Context for Christian–Muslim Relations

Islam conceived of itself from the outset as yet another expression of theAbrahamic faith and obedient submission (islam) to God. This faith, moreover,was not limited to Abraham; rather it was the faith of all the prophets before andafter him, including Moses and Jesus. Therefore, the Prophet and his immediatesuccessors did not require the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) toabandon their religion as a price for living in amity with Muslims. Nor does theQur’an claim that Islamic sacred law, the Sharı�a, has abrogated the sacred lawof Moses and Christ, for the Prophet Muhammad regarded his message asconsonant with and complementary to those of the Torah and Gospel. TheQur’an even reassured Muhammad in the face of the Meccan detractors of Islam:‘If you are in doubt concerning that we have sent to you then inquire of thosewho have been reading the scriptures before you’ (Q. 10�94). The Qur’an alsodirects its own wavering followers to the people of earlier scriptures forknowledge and reassurance: ‘Inquire of the people of remembrance (ahl al-dhikr) if you do not know’ (Q. 16�43). It was only because the Qur’anrecognizes Christianity as essentially a true faith, and Christians as a legitimatefaith community, that Christianity has survived in the Muslim world.

All these qur’anic verses illustrate that Muslims and Christians do indeedshare a unity of faith and destiny. Islam and Christianity as religions of the Bookhave far more in common than the theologians of either tradition have beenwilling to recognize. Rashıd Rid� a rightly says that the Christian religion does notitself contradict the Islamic faith; it is rather the Christians who seek tocontradict it. For this reason, Rid� a continues, the Qur’an does not condemnChristianity, but reproaches some of its devotees whom the Qur’an accuses ofdeviating from the true path of Jesus: ‘O People of the Book commit no excessesin your religion; nor say of Allah except but the truth’ (Q. 4�171). And onanother occasion, the Qur’an asserts: ‘Say: “O people of the Book! Exceed notin your religion the bounds of what is proper (trespassing beyond the truth)” ’(Q. 5�77). This qur’anic reproach is directed against Christians who maymistakenly think of God as three independent deities.4

Before we proceed to point out the ideal relation envisioned by the Qur’anbetween Muslim and Christian, which is one not merely of accommodation andcoexistence, but of amity and mutual respect, it is worthwhile to touch uponsome of those verses which seem to promote exclusivism and rejection. It shouldbe borne in mind, however, that the Qur’an provides only the basis for theattitude for Muslims at any given time toward Christians and Christianity. It wasnot political, economic and social considerations which determined the form andoutcome of such an attitude. The Qur’an deals not so much with specific rulesregulating Christian–Muslim relations, but rather presents principles and generalguidelines for such rules and regulations. A perfect example at issue is when theProphet—out of frustration in his efforts to find a word of common consent withthe People of the Book—addressed his followers in the words of the Qur’ansaying: ‘O you who have faith, do not take the Jews and Christians as allies.They are allies of one another’ (Q. 5�51). These words, which in fact referredto political alliances in a specific time of war, ironically, became normative for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

2:06

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

70 A. Shihab

many Muslims in spite of numerous other qur’anic injunctions to seek amity andcooperation between Muslims and the People of the Book.

Another good example of the failure of some to grasp the subtlety of themeaning of the word ‘Islam’, and hence take it to legitimize religious exclu-sivisms, are the following qur’anic verses: ‘Surely the (true) religion with Godis Islam’ (Q. 3�19) and ‘Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it shall notbe accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be among the losers’ (Q.3�85). In my view, through these passages the Qur’an brought a new emphasisto religious identity, namely ‘the true submission to the will of God’. It is thechallenge of active and sincere faith which the Qur’an presents not only toMuslims but to all those who believe in God throughout human history. Whatthe Qur’an wants to affirm is that faith is not simply right belief, but true andgenuine ‘Islam’—that is the total surrender of the human will and destiny toGod. In a sense the Qur’an posits a ‘two-level faith identity’. The first is legal,social and cultural, expressed in an individual’s membership in the Muslimcommunity. The framework or the one word for this identity is Islam as aninstitutionalized religion and legal system. The second is a deeper identity whichis based on faith or ıman. This identity belongs only to God, and God alonedecides its truth or falsehood.

This two-level religious identity is demonstrated clearly when the Qur’anspeaks of the nomadic Arabs (al-a�rab) who said ‘amanna’, meaning ‘We havefaith.’ The Qur’an then counters: ‘Rather say we have become Muslims, for thetrue faith has not yet entered your heart’ (Q. 49�14). To rephrase it: ‘You haveonly submitted yourself to the level of outward legality but not to the inner anddeeper one, namely true faith.’ This verse clearly suggests that faith as auniversal and primordial basis of true religious identity is not limited to theMuslim alone; rather it is extended to the Jews and Christians, as People of theBook, and to all those who have true faith in God and in the day of judgmentand who do righteousness. For this reason, we perhaps may discern why theQur’an leaves open even the question of truth and error in the religious beliefsof the above communities of faith. First and foremost the Qur’an respects thedivine message that came before it; secondly, it directs humankind to respectdifferences and promote religious pluralism and urges us to establish harmoniousdialogue. The Qur’an says:

Surely either we or you are on right guidance or in manifest error. Say:You shall not be questioned as to our sins, nor shall we be questioned asto what you do; say: Our Lord will gather us together and will in the enddecide the matter between us in truth and justice. And He is the one todecide, the One who knows all. (Q. 34�24–6)

This verse also reveals the importance of the qur’anic injunction to eschew anabsolutist attitude. When the Qur’an refers to Muslims and their views, it speaksas if they may have committed sins, whereas when it relates the non-Muslims’stance it does not suggest any wrongdoing on their part.

In addition, the Qur’an also asserts the notion of the unity of scripture byconfirming both the Torah and the Gospel as sources of guidance and light. Asexpressions of the one primordial truth, they must be the sole arbitrators in any

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

2:06

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Christian–Muslim Relations 71

disagreements or conflicts among the people of faith (Q. 5�46–7). The Qur’anexplicitly states as a general principle that ‘God does not forbid you concerningthose who do not fight against you on account of your faith, or seek to drive youout of your dwellings, that you act justly toward them; for God surely lovesthose who are just’ (Q. 60�8). Just treatment of neighbors implies socialintercourse between two different groups of people. The Qur’an also removes thetwo most important social barriers separating the people of different communi-ties, namely dietary and marriage restrictions: ‘The food of the People of theBook is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them, and the chaste womenof the People of the Book are (lawful for you to marry)’, the Qur’an confirms(Q. 5�5). The Qur’an goes further to single out the Christian for friendlytreatment for it says: ‘You will surely find the nearest of them in love to thebelievers are those who say “We are Christians”, because some of them arepriests and monks and they are not arrogant’ (Q. 5�82). This means that in timesof peace and security, Muslims and non-Muslims must live as one society, eachof these communities of faith being subject to its own special socio-religiouslaws.

Accommodation and acceptance, moreover, were not limited to social interac-tion, but included intellectual and theological debate. While recognizing the factthat there are strong differences in doctrinal beliefs between the two communi-ties of faith which would lead to debate and contest, the Qur’an enjoins Muslimsto be fair in their debate:

Do not dispute with the People of the Book except in the fairest manner,save with those of them who have committed wrong. Say, ‘We have faithin that which was sent down to us and that which was sent down to you.Our God and your God is one God; to Him we are submitters (Muslims).(Q. 29�46)

This is, indeed, ecumenism in its widest sense. In times of prosperity and ofsecurity from external dangers, this tolerant attitude was the hallmark ofChristian–Muslim relations. Yet even in times of tensions and hostility, Muslimscould be reminded of such principles as a restraint against the human tendencyto cruel actions in times of war.

Thus, part of the problem lies in the Muslims’ reading of the qur’anic verses.Are they to accept the related verses literally, away from their specific contextsand run the risk of contradicting the general principle set forth in the Qur’anregarding Christian–Muslim relations? They should, instead, take the versesseriously and interpret them in congruence with the general qur’anic spirit. Foronly by so doing may undue controversy regarding the qur’anic directives onhow to deal with the People of the Book be overcome.

In the light of this, we find that the Qur’an, far more than Muslims have everdone, accepts the pluralism of religions and affirms the unity of faith. Itexpresses in a number of ways a fundamental tolerance of earlier religionswhose faith is like that of Islam, which centers on the one and only God. Indeed,one of the doctrinal principles enunciated in the Qur’an is that of religiouspluralism. From the beginning the Qur’an suggests that it is God who permitsthat there be more than one religious community in the world. If God had willed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

2:06

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

72 A. Shihab

otherwise, He would have made humankind one single community. This idea isrepeated on several occasions in the Qur’an. (‘And if God had so willed, Hecould surely have made you all one single community’ (Q. 5�48; 11�118;16�93).) In all these qur’anic passages there is a purpose adduced to religiouspluralism that is inherent in the divine scheme of things. Thus each of thosequr’anic verses continues with a clear indication of this purpose by saying ‘but(He willed it otherwise) in order to test you by means of what He has vouchsafedunto you’ (Q. 5�48). However, the Qur’an goes on to point out that there ishuman accountability with regard to religious pluralism when it says: ‘And youwill surely be called to account for all that you ever did’ (Q. 16�93).

It is true that the Qur’an also says that humans once were members of a singlecommunity (Q. 2�213; 10�19), yet it recognizes the divergent human views thathave appeared in history by God’s will, and that these have eventually led toreligious pluralism. God’s decree in this regard was to permit such differences,as is alluded to by the Qur’an when it says: ‘And had it not been for a decreethat had already gone forth from your sustainer, all their differences wouldindeed have been settled (from the outset)’ (Q. 10�19). Thus, although humanbeings have been divided into diverse religious communities, they have not beenleft without divine guidance.

Addressing the various communities, the Qur’an further asserts: ‘To everyonehave we appointed a (different) way and a course to follow’ (Q. 5�48).Immediately following this verse there is a command: ‘Vie therefore, with oneanother in doing good works’ (Q. 2�148). In other words, the Qur’an urges everyreligious community to strive and compete as in a race in all virtues and gooddeeds. This strongly suggests that there should be competition, not against oneanother but rather in a concerted effort leading toward all that is good.

It is, perhaps, relevant to recall that Islam had previous experiences with theproblem of pluralism and had found ways to confront it very creatively. We needonly recall the splendid civilizations of two Muslim societies marked by highdegrees of pluralism—Moorish Spain and Mongol India. The greater Maghribal-�Arabı had in the past, and still has, an excellent history of tolerance andrespect for the People of the Book. Suffice it to recall that the first Fat�imid caliphin the greater Maghrib, Abu �Ubayd Allah al-Mahdı (r. 909–34) sought advicefrom a Christian hermit for the location of his capital city. If anything, this facttestifies to the general respect that Muslims had for Christians.5 ContemporaryMuslim societies will have no difficulty, I think, in following in the footsteps ofthe successful experiences of those societies so long as the pluralistic spirit ofthe Qur’an is securely maintained.

The verses quoted above speak clearly of religious tolerance and reveal theevident qur’anic principle of inter-faith relations based on a harmonious religiouspluralism. This principle is also in tune with other qur’anic verses which statethat God’s purpose in creating the diversity of humankind is that people mightcome to know and interact with one another despite their different tongues andcolors. The Qur’an states: ‘O men! Behold, We have created you all out of amale and a female, and have made you into nations and tribes, so you mightcome to one another. Verily, the noblest of you in the sight of God is the onewho is most deeply conscious of Him’ (Q. 49�13).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

2:06

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Christian–Muslim Relations 73

There is another important principle set forth by the Qur’an, namely therecognition of the existence of righteous people within each monotheisticcommunity who are deserving of divine reward. Again this principle strengthensthe idea of religious pluralism and rejects the notion of exclusivism. To put itdifferently, religious exclusivism does not accord with the spirit of the Qur’an.For the Qur’an does not favor one religious community over another. In a rareinstance where a verse is repeated twice almost verbatim, this basic principle isunequivocally stated: ‘Surely those who have faith, the Jews, Christians and theSabeans: those (among them) who have faith in God and the last day andperform works of righteousness, will have their reward with their Lord. No fearshall come upon them, nor will they grieve’ (Q. 2�62; 5�69).

Ironically, what we observe throughout history is that the relationship betweenChristians and Muslims worsens at many different times. While at the time ofthe Prophet the elements of amity and harmony were dominant, the succeedinggenerations abounded in tension and enmity. The Prophet invariably urged hisfollowers to promote religious pluralism in which diverse religious communitieswould live side by side in mutual and creative acceptance that would transcendmere tolerance, particularly among the Peoples of the Book. This is because theQur’an regards the People of the Book as a large family of faith, speakingdifferent languages but worshipping the One God.

In this regard, the Qur’an employs two terms to denote people bound by acommon faith or destiny: as�h� ab and ahl. It calls ‘as�h� ab’ the inmates of Paradiseand Hell (as�h� ab al-janna and as�h� ab al-nar) and people with a shared destiny,such as the ‘the people of the Cave’ (as�h� ab al-kah� f) (Q. 2�39; 2�257; 7�42;10�26; 18�9) while the immediate family of such prophets as Noah, Abraham,Moses and Muhammad it calls ahl (Q. 3�33; 11�45). As for the People of theBook, the Qur’an referred to them as ahl al-kitab. The word ahl always signifiesa family relationship (wife, husband and children). The phrase, ahl al-kitab,therefore should be translated as the ‘the Family of the Book’. The Qur’an,furthermore, enjoins all people of faith to show affection and kindness to theirnear relations.

To manifest this spirit of amity, by virtue of the Prophet Muhammad’scognizance of the fellowship of faith with the Christian community, and thecommon monotheistic descent of Abraham, the Prophet decided to send hisdefenseless followers to migrate to Abyssinia to seek protection from thethen-chief Christian country in the area. And when the news reached the ProphetMuhammad of the death of Negus, the Christian, he urged his companions toextend prayers for ‘your brother who died in another land’.6

While a respectful approach to Islam was not prominent among Christiansduring early and medieval Islam, it became the trend of the twentieth century.Many contemporary Christian scholars sincerely attempt to understand and showrespect for Islam and Muslims, among them Louis Massignon, MontgomeryWatt, Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Kenneth Cragg, Yvonne Haddad, AnnemarieSchimmel and many others who have been appreciative of the teachings ofIslam. This change of tone and attitude on the part of many Christians, coupledwith the positive reinterpretation of the qur’anic perspective on Christianity onthe part of Muslims, should inspire both communities to establish more positive

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

2:06

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

74 A. Shihab

and fruitful relations now and in the years to come. However, much effort hasyet to be put in changing the mutual negative views Christians and Muslims stillhave of each other, particularly at the grassroots level.

It is therefore at this juncture, as we start the twenty-first century, that bothcommunities, Christian and Muslim, should move to engage one another in acommon and collaborative effort to promote the basic values for which bothtraditions stand. Both communities should join forces to draw people’s attentiontoward God and what He requires, for example, by advancing the principles ofsocial justice, human dignity and freedom. Christians and Muslims have ethicalvalues which are important for today’s world. In spite of the past tensions, as thetwo most important constituent members of the Family of the Book, they shouldmake once more the ‘revealed word of God’ (al-kitab) the common bond thatties all the people of faith together so that they can enjoy a harmoniousrelationship under a monotheistic canopy. Equally importantly, both communi-ties must strive for a fellowship of faith and not simply create a means by whichthey can understand and tolerate indifferently the existence of one another asseparate communities of faith.

The Importance of the New Reading of the Sacred Texts

In our contemporary world, in which we are aware of the presence of others,believers from different religious traditions can and must work out a commonlanguage by which they can understand each other more deeply and effectively.To achieve this goal each and every one of us should begin to find a much richerway of understanding and responding to the need of our time. The old paradigmsof hostile polemic, proselytizing and converting others in the realm of inter-faithrelations, which long prevailed, simply can no longer apply. Instead, we mustturn to dialogue, which is the most appropriate stance to meet the demands ofthe pluralism of society and the maturity humanity has reached in this age. Oneof the most effective ways of changing unfriendly attitudes is the willingness toread, reinterpret and understand anew the basic principles spelled out in thesacred texts.

Speaking from an Islamic perspective, as regards the importance of reinterpre-tation of the qur’anic teachings let me begin with the fact that many Westernobservers have been perplexed by the phenomenon of modern Islam. Theprevailing notion that modernization is inevitably accompanied by seculariza-tion, and consequently the irreversible decline of religion, seems not to apply toIslam. Ernest Gellner asserts, ‘Islam is as strong now as it was a century ago.In some ways, it is probably much stronger.’ Gellner further comments, ‘So far,there is no indication that Islam will succumb to secularization in the future.’7

In the same line, Arjomand notes that the closer the exposure to modernity anddialogue with Western culture, the stronger the search for Islamic identity.8

In the light of the above, modernity with all its ramifications has a significantdual impact on Muslim society. On the one hand it stimulates the Islamicresurgence as a result of the exposure to modern Western values. On the otherhand it poses a serious challenge to qur’anic values as a result of intellectualfreedom. Consequently Muslims are bound to reevaluate their religious position

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

2:06

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Christian–Muslim Relations 75

in relation to the new social structure brought about by the globalization process.The need to respond to contemporary problems has led to an intensive search forIslamic values and identity that in turn stimulates the reinterpretation of qur’anicteachings.

In general, Muslims vary in their response to modern condition: some exhibita radical opposition to Western cultural influence; some a complete surrender toWestern values; some a selective adaptation to contemporary conditions whilemaintaining the fundamental principles of Islam. To legitimize their attitude,each party invokes different qur’anic principles. As a result we may witnessdiverse interpretations of Islamic teachings.

The failure to promote the spirit of tolerance and religious pluralism of theQur’an will only strengthen the Muslim radical wing. Conversely, success indeveloping Islamic religious tolerance mainly depends on Muslims’ ability tospread a popular understanding of the numerous qur’anic principles of religiouspluralism in general and a positive attitude toward Christianity in particular.Individual Muslims and groups therefore have a moral responsibility to draw onthe rich cultural and intellectual inheritance that was developed during theformative stage of Islam in which harmonious interactions between Islam andChristianity were conspicuously evident.

Conclusion

Because Muslims and Christians are living as neighbors more than ever before,a greater effort toward greater understanding and mutual trust is needed. Onlywhen we get to that stage shall we be able to build a community of concern aspeople of faith who share the same destiny and face the same problems. Toachieve these objectives, some pressing problems are yet to be resolved.

First, one of the failures on the part of people of religion on both sides hasbeen the tendency to allow religion to be manipulated by political leaders. It isthe moral responsibility of religious leaders to prevent religion from beingmisused and appropriated to serve a narrow political interest. A good illustrationof this phenomenon in the Islamic world is the two Islamic conferences on theGulf War, one organized in Saudi Arabia, and the other in Iraq. Both came upwith their conclusions based on the Qur’an and the H� adıth, yet they werecontradictory to one another.

Second, more often than not, noble theories and ideals remain ineffective andignored at the practical level. When the Second Vatican Council began itsstatement on Islam by saying ‘Christians should have respect and esteem forMuslims’, the Catholic Church set for itself quite an ambitious program tochange strongly held attitudes. Thirty years later, this noble aim has notpenetrated very deeply at the grassroots level. It is, therefore, crucial that furtherefforts be made so that the impact of the spirit of Vatican II is felt on the levelof the people in the street.

Third, in most cases both communities are unwilling to be self-critical in thepresence of others, but rather are defensive in the face of conflicts andunpleasant realities. To overcome this predicament, it may be advisable toestablish a kind of representative committee or group of Muslims and Christians

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

2:06

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

76 A. Shihab

that would be ready to intervene and mediate with some credible voice towardgreater understanding. While this may sound utopian, it is crucial in a situationwhere both communities are increasingly challenged by the same global prob-lems.

Fourth, any successful dialogue presupposes a relationship of equals where bothcan accept and respect each other on each other’s terms. In the sphere ofChristian–Muslim dialogue this equality seems to be wanting. There are fewMuslims who know enough about Christianity to be able to dialogue on an equalbasis. This is a gap that Muslims should bridge in order for dialogue to lead intoa fellowship of faith. Furthermore, it is disheartening that the most active Christianmissionaries nowadays are the evangelicals who will not accept religious plural-ism. Likewise the most active Muslim missionaries are those who feel that theonly religion with God is Islam—and not in the sense of the human attitude offaith and obedience to God. Given this situation, clashes are inevitable. Whatensues from this is that many people are disenchanted with dialogue, for theybelieve that dialogue is no more than a kind of inter-religious tea party whereevery participant tries to be as polite as possible and avoids the important issues.

Fifth, it goes without saying that one of the greatest obstacles to goodChristian–Muslim relations has been the notion of mission/da�wa. Both Chris-tians and Muslims have their commitment to it. Muslims must invite people toIslam and Christians have to announce their faith in God’s saving work in Christ.The issue is how both communities can do this in ways that are appropriate andrespect human dignity, and avoid methods that are either obviously or subtlymanipulative. It is therefore a matter of urgency that both communities shouldwork closely together to agree on a set of ethical principles or a commonlyagreed code of conduct regulating mission and da�wa practitioners. Ideallymission and da�wa should shift from the old paradigm of witnessing or invitingindividuals to either Islam or Christianity to working with the aim of conversionto God. In other words, mission and da�wa should take the form of sharing, butnot proselytizing.

Finally, given the fact that Islam is now part of the North American andEuropean reality, as Christianity is part of the Indian, Pakistani and Indonesianreality, it is important for those of us looking toward the future to get out of thedichotomy between ‘Middle East Islamic civilization’ on one side and ‘WesternChristian civilization’ on the other. Today we have a world in which Muslimsand Christians are living, to a greater or lesser extent, in all societies. It istherefore imperative for both communities to be aware of how close they are toeach other today in the face of the forces of unbelief, cynicism, despair andmoral degeneration that are manifest in our cultural, social and political environ-ments. If both sides were able to transcend the historical animosities and movetoward the recognition of their common concerns, it would be the best way tobegin the twenty-first century.

Notes

1. Anwar al-Jundı (1973) Al-mawsu�a al-�arabiyya, vol. 3, p. 245 (Beirut).2. L. Browne, (1944) Prospects of Islam, chapter 8 (London: Student Christian Movement).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

2:06

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Christian–Muslim Relations 77

3. H. Kraemer, (1963) The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World, p. 220 (Grand Rapids, MI: KregellPublishers) (1st edn 1938).

4. See Tafsır al-manar, 2nd edn, vol. 6, pp. 18–20 (Cairo: Dar al-Manar) (1376 AH).5. I. Hammad (1927) Histoire des rois Obaidides (les califes Fatimides), translated and edited by M.

Vondeheyden, p. 21 (Paris/Algiers: Paul Geuthner/Jules Carbonel).6. B. Lewis (1964) The Arabs in History, 3rd edn, p. 40 (London: Hutchinson University Library).7. E. Gellner (1981) Flux and reflux in the faith of men, in idem, Muslim Society, pp. 1–85 (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press).8. S. A. Arjomand (1986) Social change and movements of revitalization in contemporary Islam, in: J. A.

Beckford (Ed.) New Religious Movements and Rapid Social Change, p. 105 (Paris: Unesco).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

2:06

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

2:06

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14