I presented a hypothetical, rare situation to some Muslims on yahoo answers just out of curiosity of what responses I would get. I asked how they would view a Muslim who follows Quranic law, denies Jesus’ divinity, but believes Jesus died to save a small remnant of Israel from the coming judgment of 70 C.E. and to break down the walls separating Jews from Gentiles instituting a new covenant, thereby in Allah’s favor, rising from the dead and ascending to his right hand (which would imply Jesus’ Messiahship). A few people commented this hypothetical person would not be truly Muslim because the Quran denies Jesus’ death.
Now I am by no means an expert on Islam or the Quran. In fact, I know very little about either (I plan to change that eventually, though). On the other hand, there is a passage, depending on the translation, which suggests Jesus in fact died (Quran 5:117). The author of understanding-islam.com agrees from a Quranic perspective Jesus died. Yet, the Quran makes it clear “Allah raised him up unto Himself.” The author of understanding-islam.com interprets this to mean God took Jesus’ body to prevent its disgrace. Does this interpretation do justice to the language, however? Is it such a big leap to agree with the gospels that Jesus rose from the dead?
Too often I see Christians engage Muslims by resorting to ad hominem arguments. I wonder if it is possible, on the other hand, to engage Muslims in favor of Christianity by referring to the Quran. This, of course, would require the openness to study Islam and the Quran. What do you think about that? Is it even worth the Christian’s time to read the Quran when he has the whole canonical Bible to worry about? One of my friends seems to advise against it lest the Christian sway himself from his faith (in Jesus); according to him, the Bible is breathed by God, whereas the Quran is, perhaps, breathed by something else.
One person I have become very good friends with recently, the one who sort of sparked my thoughts about the hypothetical Muslim, is an ex-Muslim Christian (who happens to still favor some Islamic traditions, understandings, and conducts), said the best way to engage a Muslim is to simply be his friend (first?), show the love of Christ, and be ready to explain Christianity and the Bible when asked. But when it comes to discussing Islam and Christianity, I think it is better to embrace the texts that represent those two faiths (while of course acknowledging to oneself that one represents and presents a truer image of God and his message over the other), rather than attacking them.
What do you guys think? Do any of you know more about Islam than me and can offer some comments?
Keep in mind I am somewhat posting in ignorance, but I thought these ideas were worth sharing despite how oblivious I appear to be to other religions.
Re: The hypothetical Muslim, or how to make them like us
I don’t know much about Islam. I have a few Muslim friends.
What does it mean to be someone’s "friend"? Does it mean that we try to make them like us? Does it mean that we fear that they will make us like them? Can one be "friends" with those that he believes are espousing a less truthful image of God? Does this not imply a hierarchical relationship? What kind of "friendship" is that?
Instead of "friends," I think it would be more valuable to see Muslims as "neighbors."
On covenanting with the neighbor, I would highly recommend Walter Brueggemann’s The Covenanted Self, especially chapter one that discusses the convenanted relationship one has with self, neighbor and God.
At the end of that section, Brueggemann suggests that convenanting as neighbors includes:
1) Solidarity at the daily extremes of joy and sorrow…with and for and on behalf of the neighbor
2) Building up, which means recasting what is permitted, the delicate dialective of freedom and yielding for the sake of the whole
3) Truthful love and loving truthfulness, which reimages us as creatures of the gospel.
Brueggemann says that
Re: The hypothetical Muslim, or how to make them like us
Can you give me some more details on the book you recommended? What is it about, specifically?
You said:
I don’t understand what you mean. I have friends who are atheists and agnostics (or extremely lukewarm Christians) and it does not affect our relationship. Can it not be the same with Muslims, Jews, and so on?
By saying “friend,” I was not implying one tries to form an artificial relationship with a hidden agenda. I simply meant “friend.”
Re: The hypothetical Muslim, or how to make them like us
Can you give me some more details on the book you recommended? What is it about, specifically?
The book looks at a wide range of topics through the lens of the first five books of the Old Testament. Some of the issues inlude faithfulness, responsibility, and justice in a changing world. He reconsides the notions of praise and lament, grace and duty, truth and power. So, in some sense, the book isn’t about anything in particular. It is a collection of essays that help rethink issues like obedience as a "revolutionary discipline" that enacts a powerful hope for newness and visibly demonstrates our communion with God. And so on. I really enjoyed. You can see more about it at Amazon or some www site like that.
The series of questions I asked weren’t directed at you specifically. I
should have made that more clear. They were questions that I think we
all should consider. Nevertheless the questions did play off some of
your comments. I’ll try to explain further.
I don’t understand what you mean. I have friends who are atheists
and agnostics (or extremely lukewarm Christians) and it does not affect
our relationship. Can it not be the same with Muslims, Jews, and so on?
When you say you have atheist and agnostic "friends," what does that mean in everyday terms in relation to your Christian friends?
But when
it comes to discussing Islam and Christianity, I think it is better to
embrace the texts that represent those two faiths (while of course
acknowledging to oneself that one represents and presents a truer image
of God and his message over the other), rather than attacking them.
When I first read this comment, I thought: you’ve traded "attacking them" with harboring a personal sense of hierarchy and superiority, where your beliefs are more true than their lesser beliefs. Why not just have your beliefs as a Christian and they have theirs as a Muslim? Why are your beliefs more true than the Muslim’s beliefs? It doesn’t seem to me that they have to be compared and one valued over the other. Faith in God isn’t a zero-sum game, where a gain for you is a loss for them. Why can’t they just be different beliefs and leave it at that?
Is it even worth the Christian’s time to read
the Quran when he has the whole canonical Bible to worry about? One of
my friends seems to advise against it lest the Christian sway himself
from his faith (in Jesus); according to him, the Bible is breathed by
God, whereas the Quran is, perhaps, breathed by something else.
When I read this comment, I thought: Is it worth reading the newspaper? Is it worth reading novels or watching TV? We usually do all these things and still find time to read the Bible. Why can’t we fit reading the Quran in there? We have the time, I dare say. But, as your friend suggests, many are fearful that reading the Quaran might challenge their own faith. And so I asked in my last post, do we fear that they will try to make us like them?
Do you fear that your atheist and agnostic friends will make you like them? Do you personally believe that your beliefs are more true than theirs? Would you fear befriending a Muslim because they may unsettle your beliefs? Would you try to unsettle their beliefs?
When your friend says that the Bible is breathed by God and the Quran created by something else, does that not sound like your friend values his faith over theirs? Does that not sound like he is pretty confident that his truth is more truthful than the Muslims truth?
…an
ex-Muslim Christian (who happens to still favor some Islamic
traditions, understandings, and conducts), said the best way to engage
a Muslim is to simply be his friend (first?), show the love of Christ,
and be ready to explain Christianity and the Bible when asked.
When I read this, I thought that "engage" sounded an awful lot like making them like us. Maybe I read too quickly. What do you think? What does "engage" mean to you? Does it mean assert your story of Christ and leave it at that? Or does it mean more? Like, trying to get the Muslim "friend" to actually become a "Christian" friend?
I guess that much of my point is that "friend" doesn’t mean one and
only one thing. It can mean a lot of things depending on the context
in which it is used. So, whether one can be a friend to a Muslim or a
Jew, as they are friends to atheists and agnostics, and as they are
friends to fellow Christians—depends on what you mean by "friend."
Why do I say this? Because, I would bet that at some level, there is a
difference in the way you treat your atheist friends in relation to
your Christian friends, and so I would say it would be the same with
Muslims.
I think that to the extent that we harbor a personal sense of
superiority and say to ourselves that our truth is more truthful than
theirs, the practical activity of being a "friend" is varies. I mean, do you acknowledge to yourself that your truth is more truthful than your Christian friends truth? Or is there no need for that acknowledgement? If not, why?
my reseaRe: The hypothetical Muslim, or how to make them like us
I was excited to see your post, Jacob, because I am writing a paper on "friendship" theology and ecclesiology. I believe this line of questions offers promise for improving the "conversation" as between people of differing faiths. Because I am Roman Catholic, I am following the lead of what I think is novel and seminal work done by John Dadosky writing in the Heythrop Journal in its most recent publication advocating a re-interpretation of Vatican II to include a theology of friendship in addition to the widely held communion theology of the documents coming out of that council.
Contrary to your suggestion, the trend is not to abandon the word friend for the word neighbor, but to go in the other direction and convert the word neighbor to a meaning closer to the notion of friend. I can tell you that friendship theology is not well developed in the literature. The most developed friendship philosophy is, according to my research, attributable to a political philosopher of the 20th Century named John Macmurray. Aside from Macmurray, there is not much in the literature. More on this in another post, perhaps.
Appropriate here is what to do with the so-called "world texts" of scripture. I was busily constructing an elegant theory of friendship when, as a passing thought, I checked scriptural references to the word "friend." I came upon James 4:4 and the dishonest manager parable of Luke.
Adulterers! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. James 4:4
I tell you, make for yourselves friends by means of unrighteous mammon, so that when you fail, they may receive you into the eternal tents. Luke 16:9
It does not appear that the New Testament is firendly toward the concept of friendship. But finding these scriptural references raised other issues as well. As a scholar, I have found scripture that is contrary to what I believe. So, what to do? Why interpret, of course, until I have made the scriptures, through exegisis and biblical interpretation, say or mean what I want them to say or mean, or at least not contrary to my thesis. These thoughts trouble me. How much of what we do in biblical interpretation is precisely this sort of disingenuosness, I wonder?
But back to the point, your questions are extremely good ones, especially in the RC context. Is it really necessary, that we bring all people in to communion with (and subject to dominion of) the Church or can we engage in conversations in an environment of friendship which results in mutual covenants concerning our co-existence?
Other words that come into play are freedom and relationship.
Also, I spent the summer reading the Quran, and have some impressions about the Holy Scripture which I can share if anyone is interested, but I suggest that no one should be interested because I am very much now more sensitive to the idea that the Quran cannot be adequately translated into English and that much that has meaning in the Quran does not have meaning from a hellenistic perspective.
Thanks for your post.
Re: my reseaRe: The hypothetical Muslim, or how to make them lik
Thanks for your kind words.
Your comments about how the Quran “cannot be adequately translated into English” really hits on a fundamental gap between the two different religious traditions—Christianity and Islam—even though they may share many similarities—such as being Abrahamic and monotheistic.
But what does that gap mean? It depends, I think. At the very least, though, I think that it is a possibility to embrace or to exclude. And that is what covenanting is about—knowing when to do what.