A note on Muslim-Christian dialogue

Over at Avari-Nameh, Haroon has a lengthy discussion on a post by a Christian blogger. Faith-Gambler (Reid Bradley) discusses what he has learnt from the book Islam and the Bible: Why Two Faiths Collide. [1] For his part, Faith-Gambler has responded to Haroon's original comments.

My concern here, however, is not to prove or disprove Reid's points. It is with how Muslims and Christians approach each other in a "dialogue". [2] The assumptions which exist on both sides conducting comparative religious analysis, stifle disussions to the point where they are talking over each other. The major problem seems to be that of the subjects chosen to 'compare' in such discussions.

The Qur'an is often held as being directly comparable to the Bible, most often by Muslims. But this assumes that the Christian has the same understanding of "revelation" as the Muslims. Is this the case?

For the Muslim, "revelation" is an experience which only a prophetic figure undergoes (I am talking here of a religious doctrine, and not the literal definition of the word usually translated as "revelation", wahy). This revelation between the Divine and the individual (through whatever 'mechanism') produces a principal "text" (the "Word of God"); as well as, according to various Muslim authorities, his other deeds and sayings (usually classified under his sunnah). [4] In this way the prophet is the vehicle of the revelation; but his own activity, though distinguished from the actual revelation, is still strongly bound up with the it. There are other Muslim ideas regarding "revelation", but the above summary should cover all formulations.

Yet, from what I understand (and corrections are appreciated here), "revelation" is different for most Christians. "Revelation" can imply a form of inspiration under Divine guidance limited not just to prophetic figures. Any -- religious or pious -- individual can receive "revelation" in this way. This seems to introduce a much more subjective angle to the Muslim idea. [5] This 'subjectivity' can be in the form of various limiting factors such as language and "culture" and should, therefore, allow for more flexibility in religious interpretations. This is not to say, however, Christians do not consider the Bible the "Word of God"; it is just they understand it to mean something else.

From this follows the flip-side of the dialogue which is often pushed heavily by certain Christian missionaries: that Jesus is comparable to Muhammad (pbut). But this must be a Muslim understanding. For, in the eyes of the Christian, Jesus (p) must be more than merely human. To the Muslim, however, Muhammad is only human (despite the high esteem he is held in by Muslims), and this he believes is the same for Jesus (p). So a comparison across religious traditions becomes difficult. Often discussions are then reduced to the crude and formulaic "Muhammad is war, Jesus is love". Further, it is often asked by Christians as to what "prophecies" Muhammad (p) made. It should be noted that the word nabi (and rasul), though translated as 'prophet' (and 'messenger'), carry different meanings for the Muslim. The primary mission of a nabi, within Islamic theology, is to 'remind people of their ultimate end', and not to mimic the job of a soothsayer who 'predicts' this or that worldly event (even though various predictions have been attributed to the Prophet (p) in Islamic traditions).

A possible direction in which dialogue could be directed is that, by giving room for internal rationality, the subjects under comparison should be modified. Jesus (p) seems to have a position in the eyes of the Christian that the Qur'an has in the eyes of the Muslim, in that he is the "revelation", with the Bible playing the role of the vehicle. Indeed, some people have said that the Bible is better compared to the hadith literature (from which we get most of our historical and literary sources on Muhammad (p)); both could be considered a thoroughly human effort to recall a particular religious history, and not some free-floating "text" from beyond history, which emerges and clothes itself in human time.

Notes
[1] The title is interesting: it suggests that the subjects being compared are Islam and the Bible; but this is a mistake. The Bible is a collection of writings (histories, as well as "literature"), dividied by Christians into (i) the Old Testament, which itself is a collection of older Hebrew texts, of importance to Judaism; and (ii) the New Testament, again subdivided into various texts. Then we need to consider which and what version, and what canon, of the Bible we are discussing. I doubt a Copt or a Greek Orthodox Christian will be too happy at being told his religious text is not the "real" Bible. Islam, on the other hand, is either a purely historical phenomenon (for the outsider, non-believer) or a normative religion (for the believer); a trans-historical "truth". I cannot suggest why the authors would have chosen this title. Maybe someone can help?

[2] "Dialogue" as opposed to "debate". I dislike "debate" in this context because debates are about "winning", or being seen to "win", an argument, regardless of the concern for "truth". Deedat-eqsue debates, aimed at proving this or that, don't really meet the spirit of Qur'an 16:125, I feel, whatever popular appeal they may have.

[3] For those who are interested in such things, the translation of the names of previous Scripture mentioned in the Qur'an, as well as the name 'Qur'an' itself, is a whole different story. Please ask an historian and linguist of near-eastern religion and language for more.

[4] The "Word of God" and his sunnah are, nonetheless, sharpley separated. Again, it should be noted here that all Muslims accept the idea of sunnah, whatever content and scope it is said to have. I hope people can appreciate that reducing a whole tradition and history into a small paragraph is often impossible.

[5] I would say that a prophetic experience even from the Muslim perspective is a highly subjective experience (I mean, you or I don't undergo this). But even though classical Islamic theology has been concerned with protecting the 'objectivity' of the Prophet's (p) experience, the mere fact that a study of language, of sirah and of hadith forms a core part of Qur'anic interpretation is enough to suggest that it is not only moderns who appreciate the flexibility (and problems) of 'subjectivity'. Muslims have also had other interpretations of "revelation"; the Sufi kashf is one such example.

Comments

[Reid]

Thebit,

You and Haroon, and several other Muslim Blogs are helping me to Understand Islam better. I'm looking forward to Haroon's response to my response and glad you are joining in on the conversation as well. Blog on Man, Blog on.