Early Muslim-Christian dialogue: a closer look at major themes of the theological encounter
Transcript of Early Muslim-Christian dialogue: a closer look at major themes of the theological encounter
This article was downloaded by: [University of Oklahoma Libraries]On: 16 March 2013, At: 04:43Publisher: 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
Early Muslim–Christian dialogue: acloser look at major themes of thetheological encounterMun'im A. Sirry aa Department of Religious Studies, Arizona State University,Tempe, AZ, USAVersion of record first published: 12 Apr 2011.
To cite this article: Mun'im A. Sirry (2005): Early Muslim–Christian dialogue: a closer look at majorthemes of the theological encounter, Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, 16:4, 361-376
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09596410500252327
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
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.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Early Muslim–Christian Dialogue: aCloser Look at Major Themes of theTheological Encounter
MUN’IM A. SIRRY
Department of Religious Studies, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA
ABSTRACT Muslim–Christian relations are as old as Islam. Over the centuries the relationshipbetween the two communities has sometimes been one of enmity, sometimes one of rivalry andcompetition. But there have also been periods of frank and fruitful dialogue and collaborationand even moments of sincere friendship, which were not overcome by conflicts. This article dealswith instances of fruitful dialogue in the first four centuries of Islam when Muslims andChristians engaged in serious theological discussions. A number of factors in the early cAbbasidera favored such discussions, such as the cosmopolitan nature of Baghdad and its province, thecaliphs’ patronage of scholarship, the emergence of Arabic as a lingua franca and thedeployment of dialectical reasoning (kalam). But also, quite simply, there were matters thatneeded debating. In this article, the author selects three major themes of the theologicalencounter with the intention of demonstrating how religious ideas were developed over the centuries.
In the modern world questions concerning the possibility of dialogue and interaction
between Islam and Christianity have gained a new focus. The idea of inter-religious dia-
logue is not new, for since the early Muslim–Christian encounter this type of religious
dialogue has taken place and it has become a crucial instrument for developing better
understanding of other religions. The first cAbbasid century (750–850 CE)1 marks a
watershed in terms of a meaningful and productive theological encounter between
Islam and Christianity. This period was creative not only politically, but also intellec-
tually. It is safe to say that the first cAbbasid century or so was the period in the history
of Islamic religious thought which saw the definitive development of cilm al-kalam, the
intellectual discipline that is devoted to the reasoned justification of the truths of the
divine revelation, and to the exploration of the implications of revealed truth for human
thought in general.2 The 80 or so years between the reigns of the Caliphs al-Mahdı
(775–785 CE) and al-Mutawakkil (847–861 CE) were especially fruitful in this
regard, marking the period within which religious debate reached such intensity that
Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations,
Vol. 16, No. 4, 361–376, October 2005
Correspondence Address: Mun’im A. Sirry, Paramadina Foundation, Pondok Indah Plaza III, Jl. TB Simatupang
F/7-9, Jakarta Selatan, Indonesia. Email: [email protected]
0959-6410 Print=1469-9311 Online=05=040361–16 # 2005 CSIC and CMCUDOI: 10.1080=09596410500252327
Isla
m a
nd C
hris
tian–
Mus
lim R
elat
ions
200
5.16
:361
-376
. dow
nloa
ded
from
ww
w.ta
ndfo
nlin
e.co
m
finally al-Mutawakkil discontinued the inter-religious public debates that his predecessors
had notably encouraged.
For Christians too, it was in the course of the first cAbbasid century in the world of Islam
that Christians living under Muslim rule began to compose theological works in Syriac and
Arabic to counter the religious challenges of Islam. These initial Christian kalam works3
were perhaps primarily intended to prevent a mass conversion of Christians to Islam, since
the cAbbasid policy, whose roots stretched back into the programs of the Umayyad caliphcUmar II (717–720 CE), was to summon the subject populations to Islam, and to promise
full political participation to converted Christians, Jews and Magians. The result of the
policy was the rapid spread of Islam among non-Arab subjects in the empire. In other
words, as conversion to Islam facilitated entry into government service, growing
numbers of Christians converted to Islam. This circumstance led leaders of the Christian
communities to look on with alarm and seek ways both to explain the Christian faith and to
stem this tide of conversions. As a result they produced apologies in response to the claims
of Islam, not only in Syriac, the traditional language of Christians in the area, but also in
Arabic, the new lingua franca (Griffith, 2002, p. 63; cf. Tolan, 1996, p. xiii).
It is interesting to consider more closely not only the circumstances in which this intel-
lectual encounter took place, but also the major themes of the encounter and debate
between Muslim and Christian theologians. This paper deals with both aspects with the
intention of demonstrating the development of religious ideas during the theological
encounter between Muslims and Christians in the first four centuries of Islam.
However, for one reason or another, I may go beyond this period of inquiry, especially
to expose different kinds of ideas developed during this period. In the first section, I
will identify problems with regard to sources, at least as they have been dealt with by
some writers. In the course of mentioning briefly the main exponents of the debate,
both Muslims and Christians, I also discuss the circumstances in which this theological
encounter took place. In the second section, I will try to discuss in more detail the
major themes of dialogue, selecting only three of the many issues that were contested
and debated, namely: the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and tah˙
rıf, or falsification, of
Christian Scripture.
Sources for the Study of the Theological Encounter
Theories concerning the cause for the development of kalam fall basically into two cat-
egories. The first theory is the belief of some scholars that Islamic theology came into
existence as the result of influence from outside, including Christian theology (or in
some cases Judaism). Sources usually referred to for the theory of the influence from
Christianity in the formative period of Islam are Duncan B. Macdonald’s Development
of Muslim Theology: Jurisprudence and Constitutional Theory (1903) and more recently
Michael Cook’s Early Muslim Dogma (1981). Macdonald builds his theory on the
existence of ‘polemical’ writings by John of Damascus and Theodore Abu Qurra (1903,
pp. 131–132). Michael Cook moves one step further by claiming ‘that the dialectical tech-
nique of Muslim kalam is a borrowing from Christian theology is no secret’ (Cook, 1980,
p. 32). This theory has played a significant role, especially among Christian scholars, in
portraying the early development of kalam as a result of Christian influence, especially
during the early cAbbasid period.4
362 M.A. Sirry
Isla
m a
nd C
hris
tian–
Mus
lim R
elat
ions
200
5.16
:361
-376
. dow
nloa
ded
from
ww
w.ta
ndfo
nlin
e.co
m
The second theory is the argument of other scholars that theological thinking in Islam
emerged because of an inner-Islamic development in which mainly political issues are
interpreted to be the driving source. Montgomery Watt and Josef van Ess are perhaps
the most prominent scholars to explain the beginning of theological thinking in Islam
as an inner-Islamic process in which politics played a central role. In his The Formative
Period of Islamic Thought, Watt writes that ‘the elaboration of dogma in Islam was
mainly due to internal political pressure’ (Watt, 1973, p. 99). Josef van Ess also concludes,
‘Theology in Islam did not start as polemics against unbelievers. Even the kalam style was
not developed or taken over in order to refute non-Muslim . . . Theology started as an
inner-Islamic discussion when, mainly through political development, the self-confident
naivete of the early days was gradually eroded’ (van Ess, 1975, p. 101).
I think it is difficult, if not impossible, to isolate and identify with any certainty the
extent to which Islamic theology was borrowed from Christian theology. But it is not
difficult to ascertain that Muslim theologians of the first four centuries of Islam were
aware of the Christian theologians who were writing and teaching in their midst. So,
instead of theorizing about the Christian influence on Islamic theology, I would like to
deal with how this theological encounter took place.
As noted above, the second century of Islam represents a period of the emergence of
Christian theological writings in Arabic. The most significant Christian apologists who
wrote in Arabic during the first cAbbasid century are three, and, as it happens, they
represent the three main Christian groups in the Near East. Theodore Abu Qurra (d.
830 CE) was a Melkite; H. abıb Abu Ra’ita (d. 855 CE) was a Jacobite; and cAmmar al-
Bas.rı (d. 850 CE) was a Nestorian (Griffith, 2002, p. 64). They all wrote fairly detailed
discussions of individual Christian doctrines or practices, and each of them wrote a
more popular apology for Christianity covering the main topics that regularly occurred
in day-to-day arguments about religion. In this connection, one must remember that the
primary audience for Christian apologetics in Arabic was the members of the Christian
communities themselves. The purpose would in all likelihood have been to prevent
conversion to Islam and to show that Christians could answer Muslim challenges to
their beliefs (Griffith, 1994, p. 6).
For example, Abu Qurra, one of the best-known Christian theologians, wrote a series of
works in Arabic that were intended to defend the credibility of the doctrines of the Trinity
and the Incarnation, and the claim that Christianity alone was the true religion. Most of his
writings, including twelve major Arabic treatises, have been published (Rissanen, 1993,
p. 21). His writings were also known to Muslims, as is evidenced by the fact that Ibn
al-Nadım (d. 995 CE), the tenth-century Muslim bibliographer, mentioned in his Kitab
al-fihrist that at least two of the three apologists we have named were in dialogue with
Muslim mutakallimun. The Kitab al-fihrist contains a report that Abu Qurra was the
adversary against whom the Muctazilite theologian, cIsa ibn S. ubayh. al-Murdar (d. 840),
wrote a refutation (Nadım, 1970, p. 394) while cAmmar al-Bas.rı appears in the Fihrist
as the person to whom Abu al-Hudhayl al-cAllaf addressed a refutation of the Christians
(ibid., p. 388). Unfortunately none of the anti-Christian works of these two Muslim
mutakallimun are available to modern scholars.
Some writers state that the writings of the Muslim partners in this encounter are not easy
to find. Seppo Rissanen in his Theological Encounter of Oriental Christians with Islam
during Early Abbasid Rule provides two explanations for the lack of Muslim writings.
Firstly, there is as yet in this period no established Islamic doctrinal system. Islamic
Early Muslim–Christian Dialogue 363
Isla
m a
nd C
hris
tian–
Mus
lim R
elat
ions
200
5.16
:361
-376
. dow
nloa
ded
from
ww
w.ta
ndfo
nlin
e.co
m
theological thinking was still in its initial stage of development. Secondly, only very few
of the writings of the first Islamic scholars have been preserved or are otherwise known to
us. In many cases our information about what they taught comes from secondary sources
which in many cases are written by their opponents (Rissanen, 1993, pp. 27–28).
However, I am of the opinion that the lack of writings by representative Muslim
theologians is probably due only to the fact that many of their writings have been lost. I
would also argue that the sources from which we may derive the style and substance of
the dialogue are not only to be found in the form of polemical writings. Polemical litera-
ture, though it is important, constitutes only one source for any study of medieval Muslim
perceptions of other religions. Another important source is historical works, such as the
works of al-T. abarı (d. c. 870 CE), al-Yacqubı (d. 923 CE), and al-Mascudı (d. 956 CE).
These are important sources because through their works we become acquainted with
the intellectual disputes between Muslim and Christian theologians in what we may call
‘majalis’ (meeting places) in which these inter-religious debate sessions took place. In
addition, we are also able to cite some important works of a polemical nature, such as
Risala fı al-radd cala al-nas.ara (Letter about the refutation of the Christians) by
the famous literary writer al-Jahiz. (d. 869), who wrote at the request of the Caliph
al-Mutawakkil,5 and Radd cala al-nas.ara (Refutation of the Christians)6 by cAlı ibn
Rabban al-T˙abarı. All these works have been published in English by N. A. Newman
(1993). There were two other Muslims who wrote works of the same title, namely
al-Qasim ibn Ibrahım al-Rassı (d. 860) and Abu Yusuf Yacqub ibn Ish. aq al-Kindı
(d. 864).7 We may also mention the work of Ibn H. azm (d. 1064) entitled Kitab al-fis.al
fı al-milal wa-al-ahwa’ wa-al-nih˙
al, since it contains a considerable criticism of
Christianity.
What is interesting to note here is how these dialogues and debates were justified,
attacked, contested, and ultimately narrativized by both Muslim and Christian compilers.
In my research so far I have found that Muslim compilers and historians tended to give
credit to Muslim theologians and show that they were the winners in inter-religious
debate, while Christian compilers reported that the Christian theologians successfully
defeated the Muslims. Two instances illustrate this. From the Muslim point of view, we
may look at the work of the famous Muslim historian al-Mascudı, who refers to such a
majlis with fictional detail added. It took place at Ah.mad ibn T. ulun’s (d. 884 CE)
palace. Some Muslim theologians or debaters (ahl al-naz.ar) gathered there and the
amır ordered one of them to inquire of a Copt who also attended the majlis concerning
the validity of the Christian faith. The Copt answered that notwithstanding the fact that
Christianity was so widespread among nations and their rulers, its dogmas were very
irrational (Lazarus-Yafeh et al., 1999, p. 8). Al-Mascudı emphasizes the admission by a
Christian of the irrationality of Christian dogmas. On the other hand, from the Christian
side, Abu Qurra himself reports his debate with several Muslim theologians facilitated
by the Caliph al-Ma’mun. One point of contention is the nature of Christ. Abu Qurra
reports that he said to his interlocutors: ‘Tell me about the Messiah, is he created of some-
thing or not?’ The Muslims answer, ‘He is the Word of God and his Spirit.’ Abu Qurra
then asks, ‘The Word of God and his Spirit, are they delimited and described?’ His inter-
locutors answer, ‘No.’ So Abu Qurra asks again, ‘Are they comprehensible?’ The Muslims
say, ‘No.’ Abu Qurra then poses the difficult question, ‘So tell me, is the Word of God
Creator or created?’ The text says, ‘The Muslims were troubled at once and became
quiet. They could not say anything except “Creator.” The reporter of the debate says
364 M.A. Sirry
Isla
m a
nd C
hris
tian–
Mus
lim R
elat
ions
200
5.16
:361
-376
. dow
nloa
ded
from
ww
w.ta
ndfo
nlin
e.co
m
that al-Ma’mun was astonished at this exchange; and the Muslims left, ashamed,
disgraced’ (ibid., p. 44).
Inter-Religious Debates
In the early cAbbasid period, theological encounters between Muslims and Christians
occurred in the form of exchanges of letters between Muslim and Christian theologians,
such as the Hashimı–al-Kindı correspondence, or in the form of debate between a
Muslim and a Christian and others, such as that involving the monk Abraham of Tiberias
with a number of Muslim debaters (ahl al-naz.ar) in the majlis of the Amır Abd al-Rah.man
al-Hashim in Jerusalem. There are also reported debates in which Christian theologians
appear at the Caliph’s court, defending their faith in response to questions posed by the
Caliph himself, or on his behalf.
Surprisingly only a few scholars have attempted to study this phenomenon of the debate
sessions, which covered every possible topic, quite apart from religious issues (Wagner,
1986). The inter-religious aspects of these debates and the question as to whether they
represent literary fiction or genuinely historical events seem to have attracted even less
attention. A serious attempt—though it seems a very preliminary account—to study
these inter-religious sessions has been made in a collection of workshop papers published
under the title The Majlis: Interreligious Encounters in Medieval Islam.8 This work high-
lights two characteristics of early Islamic society—its plurality and its open-mindedness—
which existed to an extent rarely found in later Islam.
The most well-known debates were the dialogues of the Caliph al-Mahdı with the
Patriarch Timothy I, and the Caliph al-Ma’mun with Abu Qurra. The former dialogue is
preserved in the account of Timothy himself (d. 823 CE), who was the ‘catholicos’ or
patriarch of the Nestorians in Iraq.9 The discussion is said to have taken place in 781
CE. The Caliph asked questions and Timothy responded. The discussion focuses on the
nature and attributes of God and the image of Christ. The Caliph raises the Muslim objec-
tions to Christian doctrines and practices, and the Patriarch provides suitable apologetic
replies. The Caliph also puts forward an allegation that Jews and Christians have corrupted
their Scriptures, and that the coming of Muhammad was foretold in the Bible.10 With the
exception of the last, we shall discuss these issues (i.e. the nature and attributes of God, the
image of Christ, and the alleged corruption of Scriptures) in more detail later. However,
regarding the Christian view of Muhammad, Timothy declares to al-Mahdı:
Muhammad deserves the praise of all reasonable men because his walk was on the
way of the prophets and of the lovers of God. Whereas the rest of the prophets taught
about the oneness of God, Muhammad also taught about it. So he walked on the path
of the prophets. Then, just as all the prophets moved people away from evil and sin,
and drew them to what is right and virtuous, so also did Muhammad move the sons
of his community away from evil and draw them to what is right and virtuous.
Therefore, he too walked on the path of the prophets. (Griffith, 1999, pp. 15–16)
The latter dialogue between Abu Qurra and al-Ma’mun has been more attractive to
Western scholars, partly because of the presumably great influence of Abu Qurra on
both Muslim and Christian theologians, and partly because of the open atmosphere in
the inter-religious debate. All historical sources agree that Abu Qurra was a renowned
Early Muslim–Christian Dialogue 365
Isla
m a
nd C
hris
tian–
Mus
lim R
elat
ions
200
5.16
:361
-376
. dow
nloa
ded
from
ww
w.ta
ndfo
nlin
e.co
m
theologian and philosopher. As noted earlier, his writings must also have been known to
Muslims since Ibn al-Nadım mentions in his Kitab al-fihrist that cIsa ibn S. ubayh.al-Murdar, a Muctazilite, wrote a refutation against Abu Qurra (Nadım, 1970, p. 394).
For several centuries, Muslim polemicists would have him in mind when trying to
refute Christianity. Abu Qurra attended at least two discussions with Muslim theologians:
one with Muslims at the court of the Caliph al-Ma’mun, and the other with Muslims and
Christians of various sects in the presence of a Muslim official (Gaudeul, 2000, p. 34).
It is also worth noting that the age of the Caliph al-Ma’mun (813–833 CE) marked a
period of particular interest for Muslim–Christian exchange, partly because of the orga-
nized debates which took place at his court between representatives of the two faiths,
and partly because of the special role played by Christians in facilitating the translation
of scientific and cultural works from Greek and Syriac into Arabic, a project which the
Caliph was particularly keen to encourage (Goddard, 1996, p. 31). It is a matter of fact
that, with few exceptions, all translators were Christians or Christian converts to Islam.
The translation movement was started in Baghdad during the reign of al-Mans.ur (754–
775 CE) and was continued by his successors including al-Ma’mun, who even founded
in the year 830 CE an institution for this purpose, called Bayt al-H˙
ikma (House of
Wisdom). According to one Muslim author, it was Aristotle himself who provided the
inspiration for the establishment of Bayt al-H˙
ikma by appearing to al-Ma’mun in a
dream (Fakhry, 1983, p. 12). The establishment of Bayt al-H˙
ikma as an institution
where the wisdom of the classical world could be made accessible to Muslim society
through carefully researched translations is one indication of the readiness of the
caliphs and their courts to accept foreign learning. And the frequent debates in which
representatives of theological groups and religious leaders argued a point in public is
another indication. Maybe the clearest evidence of this openness is the sheer speed with
which theology in Islam achieved a distinctive character in the years around 200 AH
(Thomas, 1992, p. 4).
Speaking of the secure freedom of speech debaters enjoyed in his majlis, al-Ma’mun
assures Abu Qurra:
This majlis is fair; in it no one is going to be assailed. Speak your disclaimer; answer
without fear. Here there is ‘nothing but the best’ (Q 29.46). No one will threaten you
with anything, nor should you be distressed personally in regard to anyone. This is
the day on which the truth is to be made evident. With whomever there is any knowl-
edge for the verification of his religion, let him speak. (Griffith, 1999, p. 42)
Thus, the age of al-Ma’mun represents what may perhaps be called an early example of
dialogue between Muslims and Christians, where representatives of each community
were able to outline the principles and practices of their faith with a remarkable degree
of candor and honesty, after being given assurances of having the freedom to do so
with no threat to themselves or to their community. Political power, it is true, rested
firmly and clearly with the caliph, and the representatives of other religious communities
were thus to some extent vulnerable, but they do not seem to have been inhibited and the
discussions do seem to serve as an early example of mutual education and edification
(Goddard, 2000, p. 54).
Unfortunately, this religious climate could not be preserved after al-Ma’mun. In fact, at
an official level the reign of the third successor to al-Ma’mun, al-Mutawakkil (847–861
366 M.A. Sirry
Isla
m a
nd C
hris
tian–
Mus
lim R
elat
ions
200
5.16
:361
-376
. dow
nloa
ded
from
ww
w.ta
ndfo
nlin
e.co
m
CE), represents a turning point in the practical attitude adopted by Muslims towards
Christians. Al-Mutawakkil finally called a halt to the public scholastic disputations that
his earlier predecessor, al-Ma’mun, had notably encouraged, on the grounds that they
were disruptive of the good order of society. The year 850 CE in particular is symbolic
of this change, because of the laws enacted by the Caliph in that year. It is worthwhile
to quote the laws passed by the caliph al-Mutawakkil, as recorded by the historian
al-T. abarı:
In the year (235/850), al-Mutawakkil gave orders that the Christians and the
dhimmıs (protected non-Muslims) in general be required to wear honey-colored
hoods (taylasan) and girdles (zunnar); to ride on saddles with wooden stirrups
and with two balls attached to the rear. . .He gave orders to destroy their churches
which were newly built and to take the tenth part of their house. If the place
was large enough, it was to be made into a mosque; if it was not suitable for a
mosque, it was to be made an open space. He forbade their employment in govern-
ment offices and any official business where they would have authority over the
Muslim. He forbade their children to attend Muslim schools or that any Muslim
should teach them. (Lewis, 1974, vol. 2, pp. 224–225)
This change of attitude towards Christians marked the commencement of a period of
greater hardship for ordinary Christians in different parts of the cAbbasid empire. What-
ever the reasons, al-Mutawakkil had encouraged a discriminatory attitude towards Chris-
tians, which was eventually followed by harsh anti-Christian polemics. We have already
referred to al-Jahiz. who wrote his Risala fı al-radd cala al-nas.ara at the request of the
Caliph al-Mutawakkil. We also know refutations of Christianity written in the same
period around 850 CE by the convert cAlı al-T. abarı and by Abu cIsa al-Warraq (d. 861
CE). By all accounts the reign of the Caliph al-Mutawakkil was a turning point towards
an unfavorable relationship between Muslim and Christian intellectuals in early cAbbasid
times.
It appears that, until the reversal brought about by al-Mutawakkil, the accepted concept
of religion, whatever the shadow cast by its legal and doctrinal interpretation, was still
general enough to allow openness to other faiths and admit a search for knowledge and
culture beyond inter-religious discourse and this naturally tended to broaden the notion
of religion. With al-Mutawakkil, such a relatively open inter-religious dialogue came to
an end, at least for a time, except privately and among friends.11
Major Themes of the Theological Encounter
This section attempts a closer consideration of the major themes of the early theological
encounter. There are many issues that were contested and debated during the first four
centuries of Islam of which we shall look here at only three, namely: the doctrine of the
Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and tah˙
rıf, or falsification, of the Scripture. Our concern
here will focus on the development of Muslim perceptions of Christian doctrines and
practices and not with Christian responses, unless necessary.
Early Muslim–Christian Dialogue 367
Isla
m a
nd C
hris
tian–
Mus
lim R
elat
ions
200
5.16
:361
-376
. dow
nloa
ded
from
ww
w.ta
ndfo
nlin
e.co
m
The Doctrine of the Trinity
Trinitarian theology is not easy to explain and there is no doubt that this doctrine became
one of the most contested issues in the early Muslim–Christian encounter. I would first
like to show how early Muslims perceived this doctrine and how this perception
subsequently developed in their encounter with Christians. In the first instance, it seems
that Muslims understood the doctrine of the Trinity on the basis of how it was represented
by the Qur’an, that is as a trinity that consisted of God, Jesus, and Mary:
And behold! Allah will say: ‘O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men,
“Worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah?”’ He will say:
‘Glory to thee! Never could I say what I had no right to.’ (Q 5.116)
This doctrine does not agree with the doctrine of the Trinity as formulated by the Church
councils, according to which the Trinity consisted of God, the Word, that is the pre-
existent Christ, and the Holy Spirit (Wolfson, 1976, p. 304). Thus the early Muslims
understood the Trinity simply as ‘associating something with God’ (shirk), but after
they came into contact with authoritative exponents of Christianity and learned the art
of argumentation, the debate between Muslims and Christians took on a different character
(ibid., p. 319). Wolfson, in his The Philosophy of Kalam, suggests that two sources, both
dating from the eighth century, show that Muslims did learn of the true meaning of the
Christian doctrine of the Trinity: the first is a fictional debate between a Muslim and a
Christian composed by John of Damascus before 754 CE; the second is a historical
debate between the Patriarch Timothy I and the Caliph al-Mahdı which took place in
the year 781 CE (ibid., p. 310).
In the latter debate, verses from the Bible and the Qur’an were indeed still quoted, and
they were still determining factors in the respective attitudes of the debaters, but there is in
the debate an attempt at logical reasoning. The Caliph was genuinely curious to know how
Christians would reconcile the Trinity with the unity of God. The Patriarch Timothy tried
to explain the reconcilability of these beliefs by making an analogy with (1) a king, who,
because his word and spirit are inseparable from him, is ‘one king with his own word and
spirit, and not three kings’; and (2) the sun, which, because its light and heat are insepar-
able from it, is ‘with its light and heat not called three suns but one sun’. The Patriarch
Timothy wanted to make clear that God is still one and this on the ground that the
unity of God is a relative kind of unity, a unity which allows within itself a distinction
of eternally inseparable parts (ibid., p. 320). With the emergence of the Muctazilites,
the notion of the unity of God became a very important issue to the extent that they
called themselves the ‘people of justice and unity’ (ahl al-cadl wa-al-tawh˙
ıd).
However, when philosophy became a distinct discipline among Muslims independent of
theology, the debate between Muslims and Christians took on another new aspect.
Muslims began to apply the method of logical reasoning in their arguments against the
Trinity. And Christians found themselves compelled to employ the same method in
their defense of the doctrine under attack. Thus, a new type of debate between Muslims
and Christians made its appearance in the ninth to tenth centuries. On the one hand,
Muslims seem to emphasize the hypostases as individuals, and on the other, Christians
try to emphasize the identity between them. In this context, it is imperative to look at
what is said by those Muslim theologians who were active in the ninth century.
368 M.A. Sirry
Isla
m a
nd C
hris
tian–
Mus
lim R
elat
ions
200
5.16
:361
-376
. dow
nloa
ded
from
ww
w.ta
ndfo
nlin
e.co
m
The Zaydı Imam al-Qasim ibn Ibrahım al-Rassı (d. 860 CE), who wrote his brief and
incomplete Al-radd cala al-nas.ara (Refutation of the Christians) at the beginning of the
ninth century, attempted to emphasize the distinct nature of individuals in the doctrine.
In this he says that, according to the Christians, God is three individuals (ashkhas.) who
are distinct as hypostases (aqanım), and united as nature (t˙abı ca) or essence (dhat), and
are equal in divinity, eternity, and power.12 He gives here a portrayal of the Godhead as
three equal entities who share the same nature but are each distinct from one another.
The same is true of al-Qasim’s contemporary Abu Yusuf Yacqubı ibn Ish. aq al-Kindı
(d. 864 CE), the first major philosopher to write in Arabic. In a very short attack on the
Trinity, also entitled Al-radd cala al-nas.ara, he describes the doctrine in similar terms
to al-Qasim: ‘The reality of the substance exists in each hypostasis, and they are all
uniform in it (wa-hiya fıhi muttafaqa), and they each have a specific characteristic
which distinguishes it from the others’ (Thomas, 2001, p. 84).
Slightly later, we find a somewhat different accentuation. Muslim theologians no longer
held rigidly to their own interpretation of the Trinitarian doctrine, but took Christian expla-
nations and responses into consideration. In this stage, we should also mention that some
Christian theologians tended to use the same terms as Muslims, especially in the discourse
surrounding the matter of the divine attributes (s.ifat) of God. And it is difficult to deny that
they were employing the logic of this debate in order to understand and defend the doctrine
of the Trinity in the Muslim context in which they lived. The Nestorian cAmmar al-Bas.rı
(d. 850 CE) is a case in point. cAmmar gives the fullest explanation of the Trinity in his
Kitab al-burhan (The Book of the Proof), which is the shorter of the two works ascribed to
him. Beginning from the statement agreed to by both Christians and Muslims that God is
living, he argues that this description means that God must have life as something eternal
in his essence (lahu dhatiyya azaliyya). This is because the principle (ism) ‘living’ is
derived from ‘life’ and indicates its presence as a determinative reality (macna) in a
being. And so, he explains somewhat innocently, when Christians talk of the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit, they mean only the equivalent of the statement that God is living
and speaking (h˙
ayy, nat˙iq) and that the Father has Life and Word (lahu h
˙ayat wa-
kalima) (Thomas, 2001, p. 89).13
Undoubtedly, this is very interesting experimentation in which each community
attempted to explain their doctrine in ways and terminologies that had become a discursive
tradition among their opponents. In the tenth century this trend was prevalent in the
theological polemics between Muslims and Christians. For example, Abu cAlı al-
Jubba’ı (d. 915), the leading Muctazilite scholar, exposes a further complexity that
arises from explaining the Trinity in Muslim theological terms. To al-Jubba’ı, if the hypos-
tases Life and Word function as attributes, they cannot both be hypostases, as the tra-
ditional doctrine of the Trinity sets out, and also function as attributes, as the Muslim
articulation requires.14
The Divinity of Christ
By the divinity of Christ I refer to the question of the divine sonship of Jesus. This is one of
the issues raised by the Caliph al-Mahdı in his discussion with the Patriarch Timothy. The
Caliph began by accusing the Christians of believing that God married a woman and begat
a son, and then asked how begetting could be possible without genital organs. He also
insisted that Jesus could not be divine, since the eternal cannot be born in time. In addition,
Early Muslim–Christian Dialogue 369
Isla
m a
nd C
hris
tian–
Mus
lim R
elat
ions
200
5.16
:361
-376
. dow
nloa
ded
from
ww
w.ta
ndfo
nlin
e.co
m
he referred to qur’anic verses, such as: ‘The messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a
Messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Man, and a Spirit of Him’
(Q 4.171); and ‘He (God) begetteth not nor was begotten’ (Q 112.3). The Caliph also
held that, if Jesus died, this showed he was not God, since God cannot die (Watt, 1991,
p. 63). In response to this accusation, Timothy not only explains and defends the Christian
teachings ‘from within’, but also refers to qur’anic verses that could be given a Christian
interpretation. He refers to the qur’anic title ‘Word of God’ attributed to Jesus. In response
to the Caliph’s question as to whether God could die, Timothy refers to the classical dis-
tinction between the natures of Christ, implying that it was only the human nature of Christ
that died.
Before going further, I would like to make a brief comment on why the Qur’an displays
considerable opposition towards any idea of a relationship between Jesus and God. I think
this rejection of the language of sonship needs to be seen against the background of the
religious beliefs of the Meccans, for in that city the belief was in a pantheon of gods
and goddesses who in turn produced sons and daughters by their interaction. So the Chris-
tian use of the word ‘son’ to describe Jesus may have been liable to misunderstanding. In
this context, I tend to agree with Hugh Goddard in his Muslim Perceptions of Christianity,
who says: ‘Initially this Qur’anic rejection of sonship was almost certainly a rejection of
polytheistic Meccan ideas, rather than Christian ones, and the problem is thus that even if
subsequently statements like this have been taken to refer to Christianity, this may not
have been their primary intention or thrust’ (Goddard, 1996, p. 12).
However that may be, if we look at polemical literature such as Al-radd cala al-nas.ara
by al-Jahiz. and the work of the same name by cAlı ibn Rabban al-T. abarı, we find that the
Christian claim regarding the divinity of Christ (i.e. that Christ is the son of God) consti-
tutes the main theological issue. Al-Jahiz. denies that God could have a son whether by
generation or by adoption. God’s divinity is not recognized if He is perceived as having
human attributes, the kinship of created things and the relationship of being a servant
(Jahiz., 1926, p. 26).15 He explains further that if Christ is called ‘son of God’ on the
basis that God created him without sexual intercourse, then Adam and Eve were more
deserving of that title, because in their case neither sexual intercourse nor a woman was
needed. Neither does Christ have any right to be called ‘son of God’ on the basis that
God brought him up because he was nurtured just like other people (ibid., p. 32).
Al-Jahiz. continues his comparison of Adam and Christ by claiming that Adam was the
more amazing since his virtues were more distinguished: his home was in heaven, he
was placed in paradise and angels were at his service, etc.
Al-Jahiz.’s intention is clear: the Christian doctrine of divinity and humanity being
present at the same time in Christ is, to his mind, unacceptable because it associates
God with human qualities. God cannot have qualities which are deemed inferior. On
the contrary, extraordinary qualities in Christ or in other prophets are considered by
him as an indication not of divinity, but of God’s glory.
Similarly, cAlı al-T. abarı underlines the unity and eternity of the human being Jesus
Christ. His central objection to the divinity of Christ is the alleged implication that God
then would be subjected to change and deprived of his essential unity: how can eternal
divinity be present in temporal being (Leirvik, 1999, p. 109)? Another prominent
example of Muslim refutation of the belief in Christ’s divinity is found in the book on
divine unity (Kitab al-tawh˙
ıd) written by the theologian Abu al-Mans.ur al-Maturıdı
(d. 944). His argument is mainly directed at the notion of Christ’s divine sonship, and
370 M.A. Sirry
Isla
m a
nd C
hris
tian–
Mus
lim R
elat
ions
200
5.16
:361
-376
. dow
nloa
ded
from
ww
w.ta
ndfo
nlin
e.co
m
the claim that Christ’s miracles are proof of his divinity. His refutation is based on rational
arguments underpinned by qur’anic assertions, not in a separate document directed against
Christians as with al-Jahiz˙
and cAlı al-T. abarı, but as an integral part of a systematic
presentation of the Islamic faith. David Thomas suggests that al-Maturıdı’s refutation of
the divine nature of Christ may mark:
a new stage in Muslim theology, in which active involvement in live issues of debate
was becoming less urgent than the need to see and understand how the element of
historical belief fitted into a continuous and comprehensible structure. If so, this
attack anticipates the more elaborate but equally academic anti-Christian arguments
in the great theological compendiums written a few decades later by al-Baqillanı andcAbd al-Jabbar. (Thomas, 1997, p. 49)
However, it must also be mentioned here that in addition to this strong refutation of
Christian belief in the divinity of Christ, some other Muslim theologians propose
benign reinterpretations. Abu H. amid al-Ghazalı (d. 1111 CE) may be counted as one of
them. In the later work attributed to al-Ghazalı, Al-radd al-jamıl li-ilahiyyat cIsa bi-
s.arıh˙
al-injıl (Excellent refutation of the divinity of Jesus based on the Gospel),16
al-Ghazalı argues that the title ‘Son of God’ should be interpreted metaphorically. He
further argues that a mystical/metaphorical interpretation of the God-language referring
to Jesus is indispensable because the alleged divinity of Christ leads to the suffering,
death, and burial of God (Leirvik, 1999, p. 115).17
Besides al-Ghazalı, Montgomery Watt singles out the Ashcarı theologian al-Shahrastanı
(d. 1153 CE) as the most sympathetic interpreter of Christianity among tenth- and
eleventh-century Muslim thinkers. Watt remarks:
It was perhaps because of this study (of the sects in detail) that al-Shahrastani gave
prominence to points in Islamic teaching about Jesus which appear to place him
above other prophets, and he avoids condemning the phrase ‘son of God’, instead
regarding it as metaphorical, and quoting verses where ‘sons’ and ‘father’ were
used of the relation of other Christians to God. (Watt, 1983, pp. 58–59)
In line with al-Ghazalı and al-Shahrastanı, the modern Muslim thinker Mahmoud Ayoub
examines the terms ‘ibn’ and ‘walad’ in the Qur’an and argues that ‘Ibn (son), which is
used only once in the Qur’an in relation to Jesus, may be understood metaphorically to
mean son through a relationship of love or adoption’ (Ayoub, 1995, p. 65). On the
other hand, the term walad, Ayoub further argues, means ‘offspring,’ and thus primarily
signifies physical generation and sonship (ibid., p. 65).
Tah˙rıf (Falsification of the Scripture)
The prevalent view among early Muslims has apparently been that Jews and Christians
had only misinterpreted their Scriptures, not falsified them. Gradually, however, a
theory of a conscious falsification (tah˙
rıf) of the Scriptures on the part of the Christians
evolved. From the middle of the ninth century onwards the Muslim attitude toward the
Bible started to change. On the one hand, biblical texts were now used in the debate
with Christians; on the other hand, a kind of Bible criticism began to develop.
Early Muslim–Christian Dialogue 371
Isla
m a
nd C
hris
tian–
Mus
lim R
elat
ions
200
5.16
:361
-376
. dow
nloa
ded
from
ww
w.ta
ndfo
nlin
e.co
m
Muslim polemic combined the use of logical arguments of a philosophical nature with
scriptural arguments based on the Old and New Testament. This indicates a better
knowledge of the Bible due to the availability of translations or information passed on
by converts.18
In the debate with Christians about Scripture, the question of naskh (abrogation) arose;
the Christians took a more lenient attitude toward this matter than did the Jews, since they
themselves believed in the ‘abrogation’ of the Old Covenant by the new. Here the principal
point of attack by Muslim polemicists with regard to Scripture is consequently not naskh,
as in the case of Judaism, but the accusation of tah˙
rıf, corruption of the text both of the Old
and of the New Testament (Waardenburg, 1999, p. 43). Various positions were held with
regard to the texts, corresponding with different interpretations of tah˙
rıf. Was the text itself
falsified, or were certain lines simply omitted? Or was the text itself reliable but wrongly
interpreted by the Christians?cAli al-T. abarı, who was a Christian convert to Islam, undoubtedly had a good knowl-
edge of the text of the Bible, which he used after his conversion to Islam to demonstrate
the truth of Islam over and against Christianity. In addition to his Al-Radd cala al-nas.ara,
he wrote Kitab al-dın wa-al-dawla fı ithbat nubuwwat al-nabı Muh.ammad (The book of
religion and empire on the confirmation of the prophethood of the Prophet Muhammad).
One of the interesting things about this book is its relatively positive evaluation of the
reliability of the biblical text. cAlı al-T. abarı quoted a number of passages from the Old
and New Testaments, which indicates his acknowledgment of the reliability of the biblical
text. However, this is not surprising, given the fact that his fundamental intention was to
establish the truth of the Prophet Muhammad’s mission from the biblical text (T. abarı,
1342/1923).
A later Muslim writer who came from a family of converts from Christianity to
Islam, Ibn H. azm, made a vastly different assessment of the value of the biblical text.
In his famous work, Kitab al-fis.al fı al-milal wa-al-ahwa’ wa-al-nih˙
al, he wrote a
section on Iz.har tabdıl al-yahud wa-al-nas.ara (Exposure of the alteration made by
the Jews and the Christians). He held the view that the Christian scriptures were com-
pletely corrupt (Leirvik, 1999, p. 114). We have little space to discuss his arguments,
but we can safely say that Kitab al-fis.al may be called ‘a forerunner of modern Bible
criticism’ (Waardenburg, 2003, p. 25). One possible explanation about what drives
Ibn H˙
azm to advocate such a dismissive view of the Bible is given by Montgomery
Watt. According to Watt, Ibn H˙
azm’s harsh criticism of Christianity and Christian
beliefs and practices should, in addition to taking his personality into account, be
read as a defensive measure in an unstable political and cultural context, since he
was living in the unsettled Islamic Spain of the eleventh century. Ibn H˙
azm himself
was imprisoned more than once, so he certainly writes as one who is very much on
the defensive. ‘The net result of all his study and writing was not a better understanding
of Christianity, but a strengthening of the very inadequate perception of Christianity,’
writes Watt (1991, p. 67).
What is interesting to note, however, is that alongside the negative stream of thought
about the Bible illustrated by Ibn H˙
azm, there was also a more positive stream that
occupied a middle ground between the views of cAlı al-T. abarı and Ibn H˙
azm and
argued that it was not the text of the Bible which had been corrupted by Christians
but rather its interpretation. This view was held by two prominent figures from the
later portion of the classical period, namely al-Qarafı (d. 1285 CE) and Ibn Taymiyya
372 M.A. Sirry
Isla
m a
nd C
hris
tian–
Mus
lim R
elat
ions
200
5.16
:361
-376
. dow
nloa
ded
from
ww
w.ta
ndfo
nlin
e.co
m
(d. 1328 CE) (Watt, 1991, p. 45; cf. Goddard, 1996, p. 36). Al-Qarafı in his Kitab al-
ajwiba al-fakhira holds that Christians are not mushrikun (polytheists) but simply kuffar
(unbelievers or infidels, that is, non-Muslims) (Qarafı, 1322/1904, p. 136). Ibn
Taymiyya in his Al-jawab al-s˙
ah˙
ıh˙
li-man baddala dın al-masıh˙
, argues that the
forgery of the biblical text is restricted to the historical parts of the Bible, whereas
with regard to the legislative parts of the Bible, the text is still valid.19 This work
was formulated as a response to the work of the Syrian monk Paul of Antioch, who
became famous for his Letter to a Muslim Friend (Cyprus letter), probably written
between 1199 and 1203 (Goddard, 1996, p. 65), a document that reached Ibn Taymiyya
more than a century afterwards through Cyprus (Gaudeul, 2000, pp. 190–191). As an
influential preacher in Damascus, Paul had already been involved in Christian–
Muslim discussion. In his work, he endeavors (in a conciliatory tone) to prove from
the Qur’an itself that Islam in fact teaches that Christianity is the true religion. Although
Ibn Taymiyya thoroughly refutes the claims that the Qur’an could be interpreted in a
Christian sense, he still seems to accept as authentic most of the Scriptures quoted
by the Christians, apart from passages too directly contrary to the Qur’an (i.e. the cru-
cifixion). Ibn Taymiyya’s Al-jawab al-s˙
ah˙
ıh˙
has been described by Thomas Michel as ‘a
work whose length and scope have never been equaled in Muslim critiques of the Chris-
tian religion and whose depth of insight into the issues that separate Christianity and
Islam sets it among the masterpieces of Muslim polemic against Christianity’
(Michel, 1990, p. 3).
Concluding Remarks
From the above discussion we may conclude that although the theological discussions
were more or less designed to prove the superiority of one religion over another, the dia-
logue was very constructive and meaningful. It is true that, with few exceptions, most
Islamic literature on Christianity has been framed in the language of polemics, but it is
also true that the ideas concerning the mutual exchange of terms and methods of argumen-
tation developed during the encounter, indicating the dynamic of dialogue and the possi-
bility of seeking out a common platform between the two religious communities.
Moreover, we must keep in mind that both Islam and Christianity have evolved in a
wide variety of contexts so that we should not conceive of them as monolithic. The clearest
indication of this is the fact that Muslim perceptions of Christianity did develop over the
centuries.
If we put this theological encounter into the modern context, each of these two religious
communities seems to be dominated by what we may call ‘an exclusive approach’, that is,
they have seen their religion as the only true religion and denied any form of salvation
outside of their own religion. However, through intense religious discussions there has
emerged an inclusivist position that acknowledges possible (but partial) truth and salvation
outside of a particular religion. Now, there is the inevitable demand to take one step
further, that is, to a pluralist approach to the understanding of religions, which may be
defined as the general idea that each and every particular religion is an equally valid
expression of the universal to which such particular religions relate. Hans Kung, John
Hick, and Paul F. Knitter (on the Christian side) and Mahmoud Ayoub and Seyyed
Hossein Nasr (on the Muslim side) have already opened the door to this kind of approach,
Early Muslim–Christian Dialogue 373
Isla
m a
nd C
hris
tian–
Mus
lim R
elat
ions
200
5.16
:361
-376
. dow
nloa
ded
from
ww
w.ta
ndfo
nlin
e.co
m
which enables us to enter into the world of inter-religious dialogue, engagement, and
collaboration.
Wallahu aclam bi-al-s.awab.
Notes
1. The cAbbasid period came to an end in 1258 when Baghdad fell to the Mongols.
2. On the authenticity of ‘kalam’, see Gardet, 1986.
3. I borrow this term ‘Christian kalam’ from Harry Austryn Wolfson in his seminal work, The Philosophy
of Kalam (Wolfson, 1976, p. 80).
4. Referring to the first three centuries after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, J. Windrow Sweetman
says, ‘It is the period when the Christian influence was most potently exercised in theology and it is the
formative period of Muslim theology’ (1947, p. 1).
5. Al-Jahiz. does not write to Christians, he writes to Muslims (on the Caliph’s order) on how they should
behave towards the Christians. In fact, the letter is addressed to the Caliph’s secretary who passed on the
order. Al-Jahiz.’ text, Risala fı al-radd cala al-nas.ara, has been translated by Y. Finkel into English
(Jahiz., 1927). For a brief discussion on the content of the letter, see Gaudeul (2000, pp. 48–52). The
reason why al-Jahiz. was so dismissive and offensive in attacking the social position of Christians is prob-
ably that he wrote his letter (Risala fı al-radd cala al-nas.ara) upon the orders of the Caliph al-Mutawak-
kil, who was very hostile to Christians.
6. The main theme of his refutation is that Christianity cannot be true because it teaches that Jesus is, at the
same time, and under the same aspect, creator and creature. cAlı al-T. abarı was a Christian who converted
to Islam at the age of 70, during the reign of al-Mutawakkil (847–861 CE). For a brief account about him
and his book, see Gaudeul (2000, pp. 42–48).
7. I will discuss the last two Muslim authors with regard to the issue of Trinity.
8. This book consisted of nine papers presented at a workshop held at the Institute for Advanced Studies,
Hebrew University, Jerusalem, in July 1995.
9. If we accept that Timothy I is indeed the author of the text, we have before us an interesting account of
the questions posed by the highest Muslim political officeholder to the highest Christian spiritual office-
holder. For an English translation with introduction and notes, see Newman (1993, pp. 163–267).
10. This last question asked by the Caliph was delicate. Any derogatory remark would be considered as an
insult. A refusal to acknowledge Muhammad’s prophethood might be seen as implying he was a liar. So,
Timothy avoids answering negatively without falling into the trap of recognizing Muhammad’s prophet-
hood. Instead, he praises Muhammad for having walked in the path of the prophets.
11. For more discussion on this issue and other cases of inter-religious dialogue under Muslim rule, see
Waardenburg (2003, pp. 110–129).
12. For detailed discussion on al-Qasim’s ideas, see Abrahamov (1990).
13. On cAmmar’s argument, Thomas says, ‘His argument gives an example of how Christians at this time
were coming under the influence of Muslim theological concepts, and appeared to find it congenial as
well as apologetically advantageous to make use of them.’
14. For detailed discussion on al-Jubba’ı, see cAbd al-Jabbar (1958).
15. Jahiz. (1927, p. 26) (its translation can be found in Newman (1993)).
16. In recent times, doubt has been raised as to whether al-Ghazalı was really the author of this work (Watt,
1991, p. 67).
17. For detailed discussion on al-Ghazalı’s arguments, see Sweetman (1955, pp. 262–309).
18. For instance, cAlı al-T. abarı, a convert from Christianity, cites many biblical passages which are sup-
posed to announce the mission of the prophet Muhammad and the coming of Islam.
19. On the issue of tah. rıf, Ibn Taymiyya says, ‘fa-culima anna fı hadha al-injıl h.ukman anzala Allah, lakinna
al-h.ukm min bab al-amr wa-al-nah.y, wa-dhalika la yamnacu an yakuna al-taghyır fı bab al-ikhbar, wa-
huwa alladhı waqaca fıhi al-tabdıl lafz˙
an. Wa-amma al-ah˙
kam allatı fı al-tawrah fa-ma yakadu ah. adun
yaddacı al-tabdıl fı alfaz.iha’ (It is known that in this Gospel there is a judgment handed down from
God, but this judgment is in the matter of commands and prohibitions. But this does not prevent alteration
occurring in the area of information, and it is in this where alteration occurred as regards the text. Regard-
ing the legal judgment found in the Torah, almost no one claims alteration in their wording) (Ibn
Taymiyya, 1993, pp. 423–424). For the study of this book with partial English translation, see Michel
(1984).
374 M.A. Sirry
Isla
m a
nd C
hris
tian–
Mus
lim R
elat
ions
200
5.16
:361
-376
. dow
nloa
ded
from
ww
w.ta
ndfo
nlin
e.co
m
References
cAbd al-Jabbar (1958) Kitab al-mughnı, vol. 5, ed. M. M. al-Khud˙arı (Cairo: publisher not known).
Abrahamov, B. (1990) Al-Kasim b. Ibrahim on the Proof of God’s Existence (Leiden: Brill).
Ayoub, M. (1995) Jesus the Son of God: a study of the terms ibn and walad in the Qur’an and tafsır tradition, in:
Y. Y. Haddad & W. Z. Haddad (Eds), Christian–Muslim Encounters (Gainsville, FL: University Press of
Florida), pp. 65–81.
Cook, M. (1980) The origins of kalam, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 43, pp. 32–43.
Cook, M. (1981) Early Muslim Dogma: a Source-Critical Study (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Ess, J. van (1975) The beginnings of Islamic theology, in: J. E. Murdoch & E. Dudley Sylla (Eds) The Cultural
Context of Medieval Learning (Boston, MA: Reidel Publishing Company), pp. 87–111.
Fakhry, M. (1983) A History of Islamic Philosophy, 2nd edn (New York: Columbia University Press).
Gardet, L. (1986) Art. cilm al-kalam, Encyclopedia of Islam, new edn (Leiden: Brill), pp. 1140–1150.
Gaudeul, J.-M. (2000) Encounter & Clashes: Islam and Christianity in History (Rome: Pontificio Istituto di Studi
Arabi e d’Islamica).
Goddard, H. (1996) Muslim Perceptions of Christianity (London: Grey Seal).
Goddard, H. (2000) A History of Christian–Muslim Relations (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).
Griffith, S. H. (1994) Faith and reason in Christian kalam: Theodore Abu Qurrah on discerning the true religion,
in: S. K. Samir & J. S. Nielsen (Eds), Christian Arabic Apologetics during the Abbasid Period (750–1258)
(Leiden: Brill), pp. 1–43.
Griffith, S. H. (1999) The monk in the emir’s majlis: reflections on a popular genre of Christian literary apologetics
in Arabic in the early Islamic period, in: H. Lazarus-Yafeh, M.R. Cohen, S. Somekh & S. H. Griffith (Eds)
The Majlis: Interreligious Encounter in Medieval Islam (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag), pp. 13–65.
Griffith, S. H. (2002) The Beginnings of Christian Theology in Arabic (Brookfield, VT: Ashgate Publishing
Company).
Ibn Taymiyya (1993) Al-jawab al-s.ah. ıh. li-man baddala dın al-masıh. , ed. cAlı ibn H. asan ibn Nas.ir (Riyad: Dar
al-cAs.ima).
Jahiz., al- (1927) Risala fı al-radd cala al-nas.ara, English translation by J. Finkel, Journal of the American Orien-
tal Society, 47, pp. 311–334.
Lazarus-Yafeh, H., Cohen, M. R., Somekh, S. & Griffith, S. H. (Eds) (1999) The Majlis: Interreligious Encoun-
ters in Medieval Islam (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag).
Leirvik, O. (1999) Images of Jesus Christ in Islam (Uppsala: Swedish Institute of Missionary Research).
Lewis, B. (1974) Islam, from the Prophet Muhammad to the Capture of Constantinople (New York: Harper &
Row).
Macdonald, D. B. (1903) Development of Muslim Theology: Jurisprudence and Constitutional Theory
(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons).
Michel, T. F. (1984) Ibn Taymiyya: a Muslim Theologian’s Response to Christianity (Delmar, NY: Caravan
Book).
Michel, T. F. (1990) Teaching the Christian faith in the faculties of theology of Turkey, Encounter: Documents
for Muslim–Christian Understanding (Rome: Pontifical Institute of Arabic and Islamic Studies), 164
(April), pp. 1–9.
Nadım, Muh.ammad ibn Ish. aq al- (1970) The Fihrist of al-Nadim, ed. and trans. by B. Dodge (New York: Colum-
bia University Press).
Newman, N. A. (Ed.) (1993) The Early Christian–Muslim Dialogue: a Collection of Documents from the First
Three Islamic Centuries (632–900): Translation and Commentary (Hatfield, PA: Interdisciplinary Biblical
Research Institute).
Qarafı, al- (1322/1904) Kitab al-ajwiba al-fakhira (Cairo: publisher not known).
Rissanen, S. (1993) Theological Encounter of Oriental Christians with Islam during Early Abbasid Rule (Abo:
Abo Akademi University Press).
Sweetman, J. W. (1947 and 1955) Islam and Christian Theology, parts 1 and 2 (London: Lutterworth Press).
T. abarı, cAlı ibn Rabban al- (1923) Kitab al-dın wa-al-dawla fı ithbat nubuwwat al-nabı Muh. ammad, ed. A.
Mingana (Cairo: Muqtat.af, 1342; Manchester, 1923).
Thomas, D. (1992) Anti-Christian Polemic in Early Islam (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Thomas, D. (1997) Abu Mans.ur al-Maturıdı on the divinity of Jesus Christ, Islamochristiana, 23, pp. 43–64.
Thomas, D. (2001) The doctrine of the Trinity in the early Abbasid era, in: L. Ridgeon (Ed.) Islamic Interpret-
ations of Christianity (Richmond: Curzon), pp. 78–98.
Early Muslim–Christian Dialogue 375
Isla
m a
nd C
hris
tian–
Mus
lim R
elat
ions
200
5.16
:361
-376
. dow
nloa
ded
from
ww
w.ta
ndfo
nlin
e.co
m
Tolan, J. V. (Ed.) (1996) Medieval Christian Perceptions of Islam (New York: Garland Publishing).
Waardenburg, J. (1999) Muslim Perceptions of other Religions: a Historical Survey (Oxford: Oxford University
Press).
Waardenburg, J. (2003) Muslims and Others: Relations in Context (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter).
Wagner, E. (1986) Art. ‘Munazara’ (1986) The Encyclopedia of Islam, new edn (Leiden: Brill), pp. 565–568.
Watt, W. M. (1973) The Formative Period of Islamic Thought (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).
Watt, W. M. (1983) Ash-Shahrastani’s account of Christian doctrine, Islamochristiana, 9, pp. 249–259.
Watt, W. M. (1991) Muslim–Christian Encounter: Perceptions and Misperceptions (New York: Routledge).
Wolfson, H. A. (1976) The Philosophy of Kalam (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
376 M.A. Sirry
Isla
m a
nd C
hris
tian–
Mus
lim R
elat
ions
200
5.16
:361
-376
. dow
nloa
ded
from
ww
w.ta
ndfo
nlin
e.co
m