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: masirry@yahoo.com

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