{"id":3267,"date":"2017-08-30T14:56:03","date_gmt":"2017-08-30T14:56:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/?p=3267"},"modified":"2017-08-30T14:56:03","modified_gmt":"2017-08-30T14:56:03","slug":"christians-and-muhammad","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/2017\/08\/30\/christians-and-muhammad\/","title":{"rendered":"Christians and Muhammad"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"Here is the text of a paper I had to write for a class I took this summer through Fuller Seminary on “understanding Islam.” \u00a0It was a really interesting class, and as you can see from this paper, there was lots of material to wrestle over. \u00a0The prompt for the paper was “Who is Muhammad according to Islamic sacred text and tradition, and what do I, a Christian, say about him?” \u00a0I don’t claim deep expertise here, and this is only my student paper, but I hope some readers might find it interesting<\/p>\n

I. \u00a0Who is Muhammad According to Islamic Sacred Text and Tradition?<\/strong><\/p>\n

In Islamic text and tradition, Muhammad is the Prophet of God.\u00a0 (Hillenbrand, p. 38; Esposito, p. 5; Forward, Chapter 2.)\u00a0 As God\u2019s Prophet, Muhammad received and conveyed the Divine revelation of the Qur\u2019an.\u00a0 (Esposito, p. 19.)\u00a0 Muhammad\u2019s teaching and life beyond the text of the Qur\u2019an are also normative for Muslims.\u00a0 The primary sources for Muhammad\u2019s life and significance in Islamic piety are the Qur\u2019an, the hadith<\/em> (canonical sayings of Muhammad), and the sira<\/em> (biographical materials about Muhammad).\u00a0 (Hillenbrand, p. 38).\u00a0 The hadith<\/em> and sira<\/em> together form the Sunna<\/em>, the report of Muhammad\u2019s \u201ccustomary or normative behavior.\u201d\u00a0 (Ibid.<\/em>, p. 39.)\u00a0 In both the Sunni and Shi\u2019ite traditions, the hadith<\/em> reports play a \u201clegislative\u201d function over many details of daily life.\u00a0 (Ibid.<\/em>)<\/p>\n

The sira <\/em>includes various miraculous signs that confirm Muhammad\u2019s status as Prophet and place him a line of Prophets running from the Hebrew Scriptures to Jesus.\u00a0 These include the foretelling of Muhammad\u2019s coming by Jewish and Christian sources, the literal cleansing of his heart as a child by angels, and the recognition of his Prophetic status by Bahira the Christian monk.\u00a0 (Hillenbrand, p. 43-44.)<\/p>\n

A major challenge for any Christian assessment of Muhammad is the Islamic claim that Muhammad not only follows in line with the Hebrew prophets and Jesus but that by his reception and recitation of the Qur\u2019an he acts as God\u2019s messenger (rasul<\/em>) to correct corruptions that had crept into the Hebrew and Christian scriptures.\u00a0 This includes the claim that Jesus cannot have been the divine Son of God.\u00a0 Moreover, the Qur\u2019an states that Muhammad is \u201cthe Seal of the Prophets,\u201d which most Muslims believe means Muhammad is God\u2019s final Prophet.\u00a0 (Ali, Qu\u2019ran, Sira 33:40; Forward, p. 32.)<\/p>\n

In addition to his role as Prophet and lawgiver, many Muslims focus on Muhammad\u2019s personal piety and mystical relationship with Allah.\u00a0 Particularly in the Sufi tradition, Muhammad is an exemplar of the mystical path.\u00a0 (Forward, pp. 42-49.; Hillenbrand, Chapter 8.) The figure of Muhammad also plays a vital role in popular religious life and piety.\u00a0 Many Muslim boys are named after the Prophet, and the Prophet\u2019s name and reputation are jealously guarded.\u00a0 (Forward, pp. 49-53.)\u00a0 Some forms of popular piety involve supposed relics of the Prophet, even though orthodox teaching frowns on such practices.\u00a0 (Ibid.<\/em>)\u00a0 In addition, Muhammad was a political and military leader and serves for Muslims as an example of effective, pious leadership over the Islamic community or umma<\/em>.\u00a0 (Hillebrand, pp. 45-47.)<\/p>\n

With all the status accorded to Muhammad by Muslims, he is not considered in any sense divine.\u00a0 The central Islamic theme of God\u2019s transcendence and unity (tawhid<\/em>) precludes any notion that Muhammad could be in any sense a divine being.\u00a0 (Hillenbrand, p. 90; Esposito, pp. 24-25.)\u00a0 The first \u201cpillar\u201d (arkan<\/em>) of Islam, the basic confession of faith (the shahada<\/em>), asserts that \u201cI testify that there is no god by God.\u00a0 I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of God (rasul Allah<\/em>).\u201d\u00a0 (Hillenbrand, p. 89.)\u00a0 The shahada<\/em> makes clear both Muhammad\u2019s unique role and his absolute distance from God\u2019s own person.<\/p>\n

II. \u00a0What do I, a Christian, Say About Muhammad?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Polemics between Christians and Muslims historically have focused substantially on the nature of God (the Trinity), the nature of Jesus (Christology), and the status and role of Muhammad. (Tieszen, p. 249.)\u00a0 These are interrelated themes because the Qur\u2019anic claims of God\u2019s tawhid<\/em>, in contrast to Christian claims about Jesus\u2019 Divine Sonship, flow from Muhammad\u2019s role as God\u2019s authorized messenger.\u00a0 The question of Muhammad is also vexing for Muslim-Christian relations because of the central importance within Islam \u2013 reflected in the shahada<\/em> \u2013 of recognizing Muhammad as God\u2019s messenger.\u00a0 (Cragg, p. 1.)<\/p>\n

Many early Christian responses to Muhammad emphasized his alleged sexual immorality and violence.\u00a0 (Marshall, p. 162.)\u00a0 Some early Christian sources attributed Muhammad\u2019s ecstatic prophetic experiences to epilepsy.\u00a0 (Ibid.<\/em>)\u00a0 Today some Christians adopt the same kind of approach, often with an emphasis on claims that Muhammad\u2019s revelations were the result of demon possession.\u00a0 (Ibid<\/em>.)\u00a0 This latter approach intensified starting with the first Iraq war and adopted an even more urgent tone after the September 11 attacks, as some influential popular Christian teachers equated the rise of Islam with dire apocalyptic scenarios focused on the nation of Israel. (Hagee.)\u00a0 Pastor John Hagee\u2019s book Jerusalem Countdown<\/em>, for example, claims that Islamic leaders in Iran will launch a nuclear war against Israel, which will trigger the \u201cGreat Tribulation\u201d at the end of history.\u00a0 It includes a chapter on \u201cUnveiling Islam.\u201d\u00a0 (Ibid.<\/em>)\u00a0 This book was a New York Times bestseller and sold over one million copies.[1]<\/a> \u00a0It is only the tip of the iceberg in a vast network of evangelical and other Christian media enterprises that closely links an extreme form of dispensational chiliasm with the threat of Islam.<\/p>\n

The narrative offered by Hagee and others of his ilk powerfully combines themes of American exceptionalism, nativism, and presumptive Biblical piety.\u00a0 It is widely influential in popular American evangelical religion.\u00a0 It undoubtedly has played a role in evangelical support for President Donald Trump, and might even directly influence U.S. policy.\u00a0 (Mathias.)\u00a0 It is also exegetically, theologically, and historically unhinged.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, both the historical and contemporary polemic does illustrate some of the difficulty for any Christian perspective on Muhammad.\u00a0 The prompt for this paper asks \u201cWhat do I<\/em>, a Christian<\/em>, Say About Muhammad\u201d (emphasis added).\u00a0 To identify first as \u201ca Christian,\u201d I must make certain claims about Christ that at points will conflict with orthodox Islamic claims about Muhammad.\u00a0 The core of these differences are not only matters of detail, but also may comprise basic differences in theological outlook.<\/p>\n

Some of these differences are explored helpfully in Kenneth Cragg\u2019s groundbreaking book Muhammad and the Christian<\/em>.\u00a0 (Cragg.)\u00a0 Cragg acknowledges that Christians should recognize the value of Muhammad\u2019s call to abandon idolatry.\u00a0 \u201cThe Christian has every reason, conceptual, compassionate and contemporary,\u201d Cragg says, \u201cto recognize how vital that call is in the common world, how kin to the Biblical claim, and how relevant to what he believes to be the goal of the Gospel.\u201d\u00a0 (Cragg, p. 150.)\u00a0 And yet, Cragg notes, this recognition \u201cin no way ends our quarrel:\u00a0 it could mean we continue it as a quest.\u201d\u00a0 (Ibid.<\/em>)\u00a0 For Cragg, the heart of the difference inheres in what he calls the \u201cGospel\u2019s patterns\u201d of nonviolent redemption.\u00a0 (Ibid.<\/em>)\u00a0 The Gospel, Cragg says, discloses that God relates to humans \u201cnot only in law and education, but in grace and suffering.\u201d\u00a0 (Ibid.<\/em>, p. 158.)\u00a0 Cragg thinks the Islamic emphasis on God\u2019s transcendence limits the Islamic imagination\u2019s frame of reference to the domain of power more than the domain of grace.\u00a0 This means Muhammad was a great teacher of law and morals, but not, from a Christian perspective, a messenger of the deeper truths of grace.<\/p>\n

As David Marshall notes, although it seems that Cragg does affirm Muhammad as a prophet (at least with a small \u201cp\u201d), Cragg\u2019s characterization is in fact ambiguous.\u00a0 (Marshall, p. 167.)\u00a0 Reading through all of Cragg\u2019s Muhammad and the Christian<\/em>, the sense conveyed is one of sympathetic engagement, a degree of perplexity, and some reservation, with a hope that Muslim interlocutors might come to see more of what Christians<\/em> think about Christ.<\/em><\/p>\n

Hans K\u00fcng\u2019s work on Islam provides an interesting comparison to Cragg\u2019s.\u00a0 (K\u00fcng.)\u00a0 K\u00fcng notes that, \u201c[i]n the Qur\u2019an Muhammad is presented as a prophet in the strict sense:\u00a0 he is not just a nabi<\/em>, not just a usual kind of prophet, but a rasul<\/em>, a messenger of God who \u2013 like Moses, David (the Psalms) and Jesus \u2013 has brought his people a book.\u201d\u00a0 (Ibid.<\/em>, p. 94.)\u00a0 And yet, K\u00fcng suggests, \u201c[a]t the same time the Qur\u2019an emphasis that Muhammad is no more than a prophet, no more than a human being.\u201d\u00a0 (Ibid.<\/em>)\u00a0 K\u00fcng suggests that this emphasis on Muhammad\u2019s humanity, and correspondingly on the absolute ontological distance between God and the Prophet, can help Christians overcome the fear that Muhammad supplants Jesus, even while acknowledging the Islamic claim to Muhammad\u2019s prophetic finality.<\/p>\n

In many ways K\u00fcng here makes arguments that are similar to Cragg\u2019s, but K\u00fcng departs from Cragg in his assessment of Muhammad\u2019s role as a warrior.\u00a0 Cragg sees the violent aspects of Muhammad\u2019s life, compared to the life of Jesus, as a real difference between a faith rooted in law and a faith rooted in grace.\u00a0 K\u00fcng, in contrast, portrays Muhammad as a defender of justice for his marginalized community, in line with the tradition of the Hebrew prophets.\u00a0 (K\u00fcng, p. 98-100; 119-120.)\u00a0 K\u00fcng thinks it is appropriate for Christians to inquire critically into Muhammad\u2019s actions, but he notes that we must remember how we contextualize the actions of our<\/em> prophets. \u00a0As K\u00fcng asks, \u201cisn\u2019t it perhaps simply a dogmatic prejudice for Christians to recognize Amos and Hosea, Isaiah and Jeremiah and the extremely violent Elijah as prophets, but not Muhammad?\u201d\u00a0 (K\u00fcng, p. 123.)<\/p>\n

K\u00fcng then, like Cragg, suggests Christians should appreciate the Qur\u2019an\u2019s ethical imperatives and, beyond Cragg, clears away some underbrush concerning comparisons between Muhammad and prophets in the Jewish-Christian pantheon regarding violence.\u00a0 But this does not yet reach the central issue of how Christians, committed to Christ<\/em> the suffering servant, can appropriate Muhammad, which is really Cragg\u2019s central reservation.\u00a0 Here, K\u00fcng makes some moves that distance him further from Cragg.<\/p>\n

K\u00fcng notes that, in the Qur\u2019an, Jesus (\u201c\u2018Isa\u201d) is portrayed, like Muhammad, as an entirely human messenger of God.\u00a0 (K\u00fcng, p. 489.)\u00a0 But \u2018Isa is not just any human:\u00a0 he is also called \u201cthe Messiah\u201d (al-masih<\/em>), \u201cword of God\u201d (kalimah min Allah<\/em>), \u201cspirit of God\u201d (ruh min Allah<\/em>), and \u201cservant of God\u201d (\u2018abd Allah<\/em>).\u00a0 (K\u00fcng, p. 490; Ali, Qur\u2019an, Sura 3:39, 45; 4:171; 19:16-37; 19:88-93; 43:57-65; 3:39.)\u00a0 Yet, as K\u00fcng acknowledges, the Qur\u2019an clearly warns against teaching that Jesus is God\u2019s Son or that God is Triune.\u00a0 (K\u00fcng, p. 491; cf.<\/em> Ali, Qur\u2019an, Sura 5:72.)\u00a0 K\u00fcng tries to connect these exalted Qur\u2019anic titles for Jesus, together with the Qur\u2019anic rejection of Jesus\u2019 divinity, with contemporary Biblical scholarship about the title \u201cSon of God\u201d in the Gospels.\u00a0 (K\u00fcng, pp. 491-493.)<\/p>\n

K\u00fcng here draws on a strand of historical-critical scholarship, rooted in von Harnack and others, that takes the later Christian creedal Christological formulations as unwelcomed \u201cHellenistic\u201d or \u201cGreek\u201d glosses on the more reticent original Hebraic understanding of the Gospels.\u00a0 He suggests that, \u201c[a]s a pious Jew, Jesus himself preached strict monotheism.\u00a0 He never called himself God. . . .\u201d\u00a0 (Ibid<\/em>, p. 492.)\u00a0 In the Gospels, K\u00fcng suggests, Jesus is portrayed as God\u2019s messenger and God\u2019s Messiah, but this is short of a clear claim to divinity.\u00a0 This more limited Christology, according to K\u00fcng, was adopted by some kinds of \u201csectarian Jewish Christianity\u201d that persisted from the Apostolic era through the age of creedal orthodoxy, which unnecessarily squelched the \u201csectarian Jewish Christian\u201d stream of Christianity.\u00a0 (Ibid.<\/em>, p. 496.)<\/p>\n

K\u00fcng does not argue, like some modern neo-Gnostics, that the only authentic Jesus is one who is reduced to a non-divine soothsayer-prophet.\u00a0 But he suggests that the high Christology of the creeds can exist in dialogue with the lower Christology of the Gospels and that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam can then engage in a \u201ctrialogue\u201d about God, Jesus, and Muhammad.\u00a0 (Ibid.<\/em>, pp. 501-502.)\u00a0 If it is at least an option for Christian thought that Jesus\u2019 role and mission might be much more ambiguous than the high Christology suggests, then perhaps there is more room for discussion about Jesus and Muhammad among Jews, Christians, and Muslims.<\/p>\n

There is much to commend in K\u00fcng\u2019s approach, but much to criticize.\u00a0 It can be helpful and important to clarify carefully what Christians mean or do not mean by ascribing divinity to Jesus.\u00a0 Orthodox Chalcedonian Christology is nuanced and difficult, offering at best limited analogies drawn from Platonist thought forms (which, contrary to Harnack, are helpful if we recognize their limitations as analogies).\u00a0 Even Christians who want to adhere to a high Christology have to admit that we really have very little idea what \u201cfully God and fully man\u201d means<\/em>.\u00a0 It is also helpful to engage the full range of Biblical scholarship on the historical setting and claims of the New Testament.\u00a0 Any claim to find an exalted Chalcedonian Christology in Mark\u2019s Gospel, for example, is likely not a fair, critical look at the text.\u00a0 This kind of careful, nuanced scholarship, in conversation with careful, nuanced Jewish and Islamic scholarship on the foundational scriptures of those communities, encourages mutual understanding and perhaps even produces new insights about common themes.<\/p>\n

On Biblical scholarship grounds alone, however, K\u00fcng\u2019s argument is pinched at best.\u00a0 Scholars such as Richard Hays, Richard Bauckham, N.T. Wright, and others, situate Jesus squarely within Second-Temple Judaism without adopting the radical Harnackian thesis that the Gospels never in any way assert Jesus\u2019 divinity.\u00a0 (Bauckham; Hays; Wright.)\u00a0 There is, of course, lively debate over the work of these scholars, but they cannot simply be ignored.\u00a0 Further, K\u00fcng\u2019s dismissal of creedal development, consistent with overly reductive forms of historical-critical scholarship, ignores the function<\/em> of the Bible within the Christian community.\u00a0 The Biblical text never properly stands alone as a merely historical witness to its own setting, but lives and breathes in the life of the Church as it experiences the presence of Christ and the Spirit.\u00a0 (Gorman; Green.)\u00a0 This is also true, of course, for the Hebrew Scriptures within the varieties of Judaism, and, albeit with a different tonality, for the Qur\u2019an within the varieties of Islam.<\/p>\n

Beyond the issue of K\u00fcng\u2019s selective Biblical scholarship, it does not seem helpful to suggest a fundamental limitation on the central historic Christian confession that Jesus is Lord.\u00a0 Reading K\u00fcng charitably, perhaps he suggests only admission of a variety of Christologies that in different ways elucidate the meaning of Jesus\u2019 Lordship.\u00a0 Even so, if we would not ask Muslims simply to abandon their central confession that Muhammad is Allah\u2019s Prophet, we should not ask ourselves to limit our central confession that Jesus is Lord.<\/p>\n

Other Christian thinkers, perhaps falling somewhere between Cragg and K\u00fcng in the spectrum of \u201cmainstream\u201d contemporary Christian-Muslim dialogue, suggest that Christianity and Islam could be understood as differing modes of God\u2019s revelation.\u00a0 (See <\/em>Beaumont, pp. 157-160.)\u00a0 In this view, Muhammad could be understood as authentically a \u201cProphet\u201d by Christians, even if perhaps not with the same sense of finality required by Islamic orthodoxy.\u00a0 One of the most interesting thinkers in this vein is David Kerr, who suggests that Muhammad could be conceptualized in a liberation theology framework as a prophet sent particularly to the Arab peoples. (Kerr.)\u00a0 Kerr argues that notions of \u201cprophecy\u201d in Islam and Christianity can be understood as compatible when viewed through liberation theology.\u00a0 (Kerr, p. 166.)\u00a0 If the Hebrew prophets came to liberate the Jewish people, and Jesus continued that mission, extended by St. Paul to the Greek-Gentile world, Muhammad furthers the mission to the Arab peoples.<\/p>\n

Since the prompt for this paper uses the personal pronoun \u201cI,\u201d I will break scholarly convention a bit and speak in the first person.\u00a0 Kerr\u2019s proposal is very attractive to me as a legal scholar who is interested in political theology.\u00a0 It offers the benefit of moving the conversation back from the specifics of doctrine to the universal concerns of human beings regardless of creed.\u00a0 This move is consistent with broader conversations about the rule of law and human rights that are so much the focus of \u201claw and religion\u201d scholarship.\u00a0 However, ultimately Kerr\u2019s proposal embodies an eschatological frame that is unsatisfactory to me as a Christian theologian.\u00a0 I appreciate Christian liberation theology, but it can be criticized for rendering the Kingdom of God into an entirely immanent political key that elides anything distinctive about Christ and the future fulfillment of the Kingdom.\u00a0 As John Milbank has noted, particularist conceptions of justice underlie any authentic call for liberation, and those concepts as we usually express them in the West have deep roots in the philosophical tradition running from Greek thought through Christianity. \u00a0Christianity\u2019s particular frame of reference therefore is implicated by any meaningful discussion of \u201cjustice.\u201d\u00a0 (Milbank.)[2]<\/a>\u00a0 And, in the end, much of liberation theology is inconsistent<\/em> with what I as a lawyer want to say about the rule of law, particularly to the extent the more radical versions of liberation theology are rooted in Marxism, anarchism or even violence.\u00a0 (See, e.g, <\/em>Cone.)[3]<\/a><\/p>\n

In Kerr\u2019s summary of other possible middle ground views, he refers to Orthodox theologian George Khodr, who discusses the presence of the Holy Spirit everywhere in the world.\u00a0 (Kerr, p. 159.)\u00a0 Khodr wrote some of the materials quoted by Kerr in the context of ecumenical dialogue with other Christian churches.\u00a0 Consistent with his Eastern Orthodox perspective, Khodr emphasizes the Eastern view of the filioque<\/em> and the process of the Spirit and the Son directly from the Father.\u00a0 (Khodr, p. 305-307.)\u00a0 For Khodr, this means the Spirit \u2013 and therefore the Father and the Son \u2013 are present even where the Church is not fully present.\u00a0 This means that, not only in non-Orthodox Christian communions, but also in Judaism and Islam, the Father and Son also can be present, even if not fully recognized, through the Spirit.\u00a0 Khodr argues that, at Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was poured out on all people, so that \u201c[t]he Spirit is present everywhere and fills everything by virtue of an economy distinct from that of the Son.\u201d\u00a0 (Ibid.<\/em>, p. 305.)\u00a0 For Khodr, this means that the Spirit \u201cappears through the scriptures of the non-Christian religions\u201d and that Christians should approach an adherent of another religion \u201cas someone who has something to teach us and something to manifest to us of God.\u201d\u00a0 (Ibid, <\/em>p. 306.)<\/p>\n

I appreciate Khodr\u2019s approach, but I do not want to make the East-West distinction regarding on the filioque<\/em> is as important as he suggests.\u00a0 If the Church is sent within the economy of the missio Dei<\/em>, and the Church is the body of Christ, and the Church prays for the salvation of the world, then in and through the presence of the Church\u2019s prayers and emanating from the center of the Church\u2019s Eucharistic practice, Christ is present to the whole world.\u00a0 (See <\/em>Guder; Newbigin; Milbank.) I do not think a robust Christian response to Muhammad can elide either an essentially \u201corthodox\u201d Christology or a robust ecclesiology.\u00a0 All of the nodes of Christian theological reasoning hang together and cannot be dramatically sundered without grave damage to the whole web.<\/p>\n

At the conclusion of his essay The End of Dialogue<\/em>, John Milbank suggests that Christian dialogue with other faiths should \u201cpursue further the project of securing harmony through difference and a continuous historical conversation not bound by the modern constraints of dialogue around a neutral common topic.\u201d\u00a0 (Milbank, p. 300.)\u00a0 Within this project, Milbank notes, \u201cwe should indeed expect to constantly receive Christ again, from the unique spiritual responses of other cultures.\u201d\u00a0 (Ibid.<\/em>)\u00a0 This seems to me a sound instinct.\u00a0 It is in fact in returning <\/em>to a deeply \u201corthodox\u201d Christology and a truly robust ecclesiology that we can recover the universal vision of the Gospels, of St. Paul, and of the entire New Testament.<\/p>\n

We can understand, then, that the truth of Islam does not arise in a vacuum.\u00a0 The truth of Islam is truth about God\u2019s tawhid<\/em>, about creation, about the value of human life and endeavor, about justice and moral life, because God has sent that truth within the economy of the missio Dei<\/em>.\u00a0 I would offer a qualified agreement with Kerr that we Christians can affirm Muhammad as a \u201cprophet\u201d sent to the Arab peoples and others within a context that was not prepared to receive Christ in the direct, material presence of the Church.\u00a0 I would go a bit further than I think Cragg does in suggesting more consonance between the redemptive themes in Islam \u2013 indeed even the elements of \u201cgrace\u201d in Islam \u2013 with the Christian Gospel.\u00a0 I can understand Muhammad at least <\/em>as the Church Fathers understood Plato and other Greek thinkers, as the logos spermatikos<\/em>, the seeds of the Word. (Justin Martyr, Ch. 10.)\u00a0 But, at the same time, I would not go nearly as far as K\u00fcng.\u00a0 The central Christian confession is that Jesus is Lord, and this does mean that at points, at least for the present, Muslims and Christians will need to disagree on at least some of the implications of the Islamic claim that Muhammad is \u201cthe Seal of the Prophets.\u201d<\/p>\n

Milbank also notes in The End of Dialogue <\/em>that he does \u201cnot pretend that [his] proposal means anything other than continuing the work of conversion.\u201d\u00a0 (Milbank, p. 300.)\u00a0 The title of that essay itself is a play on words:\u00a0 not that dialogue should cease, but that the end, the goal, of dialogue ultimately is conversion.\u00a0 If Milbank here means our own<\/em> continual conversion, the continual conversion of the Church<\/em>, as well as<\/em> the continual conversion of people of other faiths, I agree wholeheartedly.\u00a0 If Milbank\u2019s notion of \u201cconversion\u201d runs only in one direction (I do not think it does, but the traffic for him might be thicker in one direction than another!), then I would strongly demur on that point.[4]<\/a>\u00a0 I hope we can yet look forward to a day, ultimately an eschatological day but perhaps an eschatological day that breaks into hidden spaces of the present, in which Muslims and Christians can understand each other better under the providential care of the one God \u2013 even as, or because<\/em>, I continue to hope and believe that this will include Muslims better coming to know Jesus in ways that exceed the traditional Islamic understanding of the limits on Jesus\u2019 divinity set by the revelation received by Muhammad and recorded in the Qur\u2019an.<\/p>\n

Notes<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> See <\/em>Christian Book Expo sales awards, 2008, available at http:\/\/christianbookexpo.com\/salesawards\/.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> I am aware here that I refer to \u201cthe West,\u201d which raises numerous questions about dialogue between Christians and Muslims.\u00a0 Space precludes me from dealing with the ways in which I would want to nuance and limit Milbank\u2019s fixation on \u201cthe West.\u201d\u00a0 (Milbank deals with this distinction somewhat in the cited essay at pages 294-295.)\u00a0 Nevertheless, Milbank is correct to point out that the values of liberation theology are drawn either from classical liberalism or Marxism (which contends with classical liberalism) and that, therefore, liberation theology exists as a phenomenon in relation to Western modernity, which only exists in historical relation to Christian and Greek thought.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> I do not want to suggest an easy dismissal of liberation theology or of Cone\u2019s work.\u00a0 For a review I wrote on A Black Theology of Liberation, see https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/2017\/08\/29\/james-cone-a-black-theology-of-liberation\/.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Again, space limits a full consideration of Milbank\u2019s various, often inconsistent, and in recent years increasingly polemical writings on Islam.\u00a0 I appreciate his general instinct that Christian theology and practice should proceed from unapologetically Christian<\/em> grounds in our consideration of and relations with other faiths.\u00a0 I disagree with some of what he thinks that means, particularly in relation to Islam.<\/p>\n

Bibliography<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Ali, A. Yusuf, An English Interpretation of the Holy Qur\u2019\u0101n<\/em> (Lahore:\u00a0 Sh. Muhammad Asfraf 2010).<\/p>\n

Bauckham, Richard, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses:\u00a0 The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony<\/em> (Grand Rapids:\u00a0 Eerdmans 2008).<\/p>\n

Beaumont, Mark, \u201cChristian Views of Muhammad Since the Publication of Kenneth Cragg\u2019s Muhammad and the Christian A Question of Response in 1984,\u201d Transformation 32(3), 145-162 (2015).<\/p>\n

Cone, James H., A Black Theology of Liberation<\/em> (Maryknoll, NY:\u00a0 Orbis 2011).<\/p>\n

Cragg, Kenneth, Muhammad and the Christian:\u00a0 A Question of Response<\/em> (Oxford:\u00a0 Oneworld Publications 1999).<\/p>\n

Esposito, John L., Islam:\u00a0 The Straight Path, Fourth Ed.<\/em> (Oxford:\u00a0 OUP 2011).<\/p>\n

Forward, Martin, Muhammad:<\/em>\u00a0 A Short Biography<\/em> (Oxford:\u00a0 Oneworld Publications 1997).<\/p>\n

Gorman, Michael J., Scripture:\u00a0 An Ecumenical Introduction to the Bible and its Interpretation<\/em> (Grand Rapids:\u00a0 Baker Academic 2005).<\/p>\n

Green, Joel, Seized by Truth:\u00a0 Reading the Bible as Scripture<\/em> (Nashville:\u00a0 Abingdon Press 2010).<\/p>\n

Guder, Darrell L., ed., Missional Church:\u00a0 A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America <\/em>(Grand Rapids:\u00a0 Eerdmans 1998).<\/p>\n

Hagee, John, Jerusalem Countdown:\u00a0 A Prelude to War<\/em> (Frontline 2013.)<\/p>\n

Hays, Richard B., Reading Backwards:\u00a0 Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness<\/em> (Waco: Baylor University Press 2016).<\/p>\n

Hillenbrand, Carole, Introduction to Islam:\u00a0 Beliefs and Practices in Historical Perspective<\/em> (London:\u00a0 Thames & Hudson 2015).<\/p>\n

Justin Martyr, \u201cSecond Apology,\u201d Trans. by Marcus Dods and George Reith, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1<\/em>. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885), available at http:\/\/www.newadvent.org\/fathers\/0127.htm.<\/p>\n

Kerr, David A., Muhammad:\u00a0 Prophet of Liberation \u2013 A Christian Perspective from Political Theology<\/em>, Studies in World Christianity 6, No. 2, 139-174 (2000).<\/p>\n

Kohdr, Metropolitan Georges, \u201cChristianity in a Pluralistic World \u2013 the Economy of the Holy Spirit,\u201d in The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement<\/em> (Geneva:\u00a0 World Council of Churches 1978).<\/p>\n

K\u00fcng, Hans (trans. John Bowden), Islam:\u00a0 Past, Present, Future<\/em> (Oxford:\u00a0 Oneworld 2007).<\/p>\n

Marshall, David, \u201cMuhammad in Contemporary Christian Theological Reflection,\u201d Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, 24:2, 161,172 (2013).<\/p>\n

Mathias, Christopher, \u201cAnti-Muslim Hate Group Brags About Influence in Trump\u2019s White House,\u201d Huffington Post, December 14, 2016, available at http:\/\/www.huffingtonpost.com\/entry\/act-for-america-trump-influence_us_58508f98e4b092f086861e1c<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Milbank, John, \u201cThe End of Dialogue,\u201d in The Future of Love:\u00a0 Essays in Political Theology<\/em> (Eugene:\u00a0 Wipf and Stock 2009).<\/p>\n

Newbigin, Lesslie, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society<\/em> (Eerdmans:\u00a0 Grand Rapids 1989).<\/p>\n

Tieszen, Charles, A Textual History of Christian-Muslim Relations, Seventh-Fifteenth Centuries<\/em> (Minneapolis:\u00a0 Fortress Press 2015).<\/p>\n

Wright, N.T., The Resurrection of the Son of God, Volume 3:\u00a0 Christian Origins and the Question of God <\/em>(Minneapolis:\u00a0 Fortress Press 2003).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here is the text of a paper I had to write for a class I took this summer through Fuller Seminary on “understanding Islam.” \u00a0It was a really interesting class, and as you can see from this paper, there was lots of material to wrestle over. \u00a0The prompt for the paper was “Who is Muhammad […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[15,89],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3267","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ecclesiology","category-islam"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p824rZ-QH","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3267","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3267"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3267\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3269,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3267\/revisions\/3269"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3267"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3267"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3267"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}