Christian-Muslim relations
in the two centuries following Muḥammad's appearance

for Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN)
Seminar on Interreligious Relations
Abuja, 20 April 2010


The circumstances of Islam's origin

Islam arose in a climate of rejection. The location, the middle of Arabia, was far from mainstream world civilization.

The existing religions, starting with traditional religion, did not recognize it. Overtures to Jews resulted in a break. The same with overtures to Christians.

This break resulted from, and reinforced, Muḥammad's independence. He disavows, as the Qur'an states, learning anything from Christians or Jews. He learned everything directly from God, and could accept no correction. He understood Christianity, he understood Jesus, better than the Christians. All he expected was to believe in him, the definitive messenger of God.

Yet he recognized the need for diplomacy. Avoid wrangling and useless disputation, the Qur'an instructs. لا إكراه في الدين -"no compulsion in religion" (2:256), the Qur'an states. Later, the "verse of the sword" (9:69) commands fighting unbelievers. Some commentators say this verse abrogates the first, but Muslims today constantly preach "no compulsion".

The Qur'an has verses friendly to Christians, and others hostile. Islam has no Pope; private interpretation is the rule. So, for example, some support, others condemn suicide bombing.

In any case, Muḥammad died, leaving a community galvanized by opposition, ready to fight for survival and for expansion.

The four Meccan caliphs (632-661)

War characterized this period. Abū-Bakr had to put down an Arab rebellion. `Umar led the conquest Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Iran. Under `Uthmān and `Alī, stagnation set in, and civil war.

During this turbulent period, no Christian-Muslim conversations are recorded.

The Umayyads (661-749)

The winner of the civil war was Mu`āwiya, who set up government in Damascus.

The bulk of the conquered people, outside Iran, were Christian. They were free to practice their religion, provided they accepted Muslim rule, paid the jizya tax and refrained from converting Muslims or preventing their own people from joining Islam.

At this time, however, the Muslims discouraged conversions, because converts were exempt from the jizya, and that would mean loss of revenue for the Muslims.

The Muslims had no experience of governing; so they relied on Christians for the civil service.

The outstanding Christian figure of this time was St. John of Damascus. His grandfather had been governor under the Byzantines, and surrendered the city to the Muslim conquerors. St. John was finance minister of the Umayyad caliph, as his father had been. He resigned in 724, possibly because `Umar II insisted on Muslims for the top positions. He then became a monk, and died in 749.

St. John was fluent in Greek and Arabic. He wrote in Greek about Islam in two works. The first is Font of Wisdom (Πηγή γνώσεως), consisting of three parts. Part 1 is "Philosophical Chapters" (Κεφαλαία φιλοσόφικα), an exposition of Aristotelian philosophy, necessary to understand the next two parts. Part 2 is "Concerning Heresy" (Περὶ αἱρέσεως). Part 3 is "An exact exposition of the Orthodox Faith" (Ἔκδοσις ἀκριβὴς τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως). Part 2 takes a list of heresies drawn up by a previous author and add new ones. Among the new ones is that of the "Ishmaelites" or "Saracens" (n. 100).

The second work is the record of a debate between himself and a Muslim.

These two works reflect real exchanges between himself and Muslims he knew.

In them, he reviews how the Qur'an differs from the Biblical record, and challenges its claim to be revelation, for want of evidence. He also attacks polygamy, easy divorce, and some stories he sees as fictional.

He defends Christian belief against the accusation of associating partners with God (شرك), skillfully showing that the Word of God must be uncreated and divine. Here is a sample of what he says:

Πάλιν δέ φαμεν πρὸς αὐτούς· Ὑμῶν λεγόντων, ὅτι ὁ Χριστὸς λόγος ἐστὶ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πνεῦμα, πῶς λοιδορεῖτε ἡμᾶς ὡς ἑταιριαστάς; Ὁ γὰρ λόγος καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ἀχώριστόν ἐστι τοῦ ἐν ᾧ πέφυκεν· εἰ οὖν ἐν τῷ θεῷ ἐστιν ὡς λόγος αὐτοῦ, δῆλον, ὅτι καὶ θεός ἐστιν. Εἰ δὲ ἐκτός ἐστι τοῦ θεοῦ, ἄλογός ἐστι καθ' ὑμᾶς ὁ θεὸς καὶ ἄπνους. Οὐκοῦν φεύγοντες ἑταιριάζειν τὸν θεὸν ἐκόψατε αὐτόν. Κρεῖσσον γὰρ ἦν λέγειν ὑμᾶς, ὅτι ἑταῖρον ἔχει, ἢ κόπτειν αὐτὸν καὶ ὡς λίθον ἢ ξύλον ἤ τι τῶν ἀναισθήτων παρεισάγειν. Ὥστε ὑμεῖς μὲν ἡμᾶς ψευδηγοροῦντες ἑταιριαστὰς καλεῖτε· ἡμεῖς δὲ κόπτας ὑμᾶς προσαγορεύομεν τοῦ θεοῦ.

And again we say to them: 'As long as you say that Christ is the Word of God and Spirit, why do you accuse us of being Associators? For the word, and the spirit, is inseparable from that in which it naturally has existence. Therefore, if the Word of God is in God, then it is obvious that He is God. If, however, He is outside of God, then, according to you, God is without word and without spirit. Consequently, by avoiding the introduction of an associate with God you have mutilated Him. It would be far better for you to say that He has an associate than to mutilate Him, as if you were dealing with a stone or a piece of wood or some other inanimate object. Thus, you speak untruly when you call us Associators; we retort by calling you Mutilators of God.'

Apart from that, he offers a solution to the debate going on within Islam on qadar, i.e. does God's will embrace whatever happens, or only what he commands.

The style of the writings suggests a friendly debate, yet one in which John comes out as the decisive winner. Apart from some irrelevant factual errors, John is well enough informed about Islam and Christian teaching.

The major problem is the debate context of the exchange, where there must be a winner and a loser. This format was taken up by both Christian and Muslim writers up to our own time. The exchange can be bitter-just witness that raging between the Coptic Father Zakariya Butrus and his Muslim opponents.

Attacking the errors of the opponent is particularly unproductive. As for defending our own positions, we must remember that we are dealing with matters of faith, like the Trinity, which cannot be proven or demonstrated. On the other hand, we should not give the impression that our position is totally indefensible. We can give good reasons to refute arguments that the Incarnation and Trinity, for example, are impossible. We can also give persuasive arguments that do not prove, but show the advantage of Christian mysteries, as Thomas Aquinas did concerning wisdom of the redemptive death of Christ.

John of Damascus did just that in the third part of his Font of Wisdom, "An exact exposition of the Orthodox Faith". It is not a debate with anyone, but a dispassionate exposition of the Christian Faith. Here is a sample from chapter 8:

Διδάσκει οὖν ἡ ἁγία καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία ἅμα πατέρα καὶ ἅμα τὸν μονογενῆ αὐτοῦ υἱὸν ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγεννημένον ἀχρόνως καὶ ἀρρεύστως καὶ ἀπαθῶς καὶ ἀκαταλήπτως, ὡς μόνος ὁ τῶν ὅλων οἶδε θεός. Ὥσπερ ἅμα τὸ πῦρ καὶ ἅμα τὸ ἐξ αὐτοῦ φῶς, καὶ οὐ πρῶτον τὸ πῦρ καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα τὸ φῶς ἀλλ' ἅμα, καὶ ὥσπερ τὸ φῶς ἐκ τοῦ πυρὸς ἀεὶ γεννώμενον ἀεὶ ἐν αὐτῷ ἐστι μηδαμῶς αὐτοῦ χωριζόμενον, οὕτω καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννᾶται μηδαμῶς αὐτοῦ χωριζόμενος, ἀλλ' ἀεὶ ἐν αὐτῷ ἐστιν. Ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν φῶς ἐκ τοῦ πυρὸς γεννώμενον ἀχωρίστως, καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ ἀεὶ μένον οὐκ ἔχει ἰδίαν ὑπόστασιν παρὰ τὸ πῦρ, ποιότης γάρ ἐστι φυσικὴ τοῦ πυρός, ὁ δὲ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ μονογενὴς ἐκ πατρὸς γεννηθεὶς ἀχωρίστως καὶ ἀδιαστάτως καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ μένων ἀεὶ ἔχει ἰδίαν ὑπόστασιν παρὰ τὴν τοῦ πατρός.

The holy catholic and apostolic Church, then, teaches the existence at once of a Father: and of His Only-begotten Son, born of Him without time and flux and passion, in a manner incomprehensible and perceived by the God of the universe alone: just as we recognize the existence at once of fire and the light which proceeds from it: for there is not first fire and thereafter light, but they exist together. And just as light is ever the product of fire, and ever is in it and at no time is separate from it, so in like manner also the Son is begotten of the Father and is never in any way separate from Him, but ever is in Him. But whereas the light which is produced from fire without separation, and abides ever in it, has no proper subsistence of its own distinct from that of fire (for it is a natural quality of fire), the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father without separation and difference and ever abiding in Him, has a proper subsistence of its own distinct from that of the Father.

The `Abbāsid first century (750-850)

The `Abbāsids defeated the Umayyads, and moved the capital from Damascus to Baghdad. For a century they controlled most of the Muslim world (Spain retained its independence). During the rest of its existence (850-1248), the Muslim world was a conglomerate of independent states.

Al-Mahdī (ruled 775-785) and Timothy I (728-823)

Towards the end of his rule, al-Mahdī held a debate in his court with Timothy I, the Nestorian primate, who was the most prominent Christian leader in the Muslim world. In Timothy's record of this debate,[1] he covers all the major differences between Christianity and Islam. It seems that al-Mahdī chaired the debate and raised all the objections he could muster, while Timothy answered them as al-Mahdī brought them up. In this situation, Timothy is mostly on the defensive, but occasionally he fights back. The following passage is an example:[2]

فسألني: ومن ھو الفارقليط؟

Then he asked of me: "Who is the Paraclete?"

فجاوبته: انّ الفارقليط ھو روح لله.

So, I answered him: "The Paraclete is the Spirit of God."

فسألني الملك: وما ھو روح لله؟

Then the King asked me: "And what is the Spirit of God?"...

فجاوبته: إنّ المسيح قال لتلاميذه: لمّا أصعد إلى السماء، أرسل لكم الروح الفارقليط الذي ينبثق من الآب؛ الذي العالم لم يقدر أن يقبله، وھو عندَكم وفي وسطكم؛ الذي يعرف كلّ شيء، ويفحَص كلّ شيء، حتى أعماق لله. وھو يُذكّركم بجميع الحقّ الذي قلتُه لكم. ذاك يمجّدني، لأنّه يأخذ ممّا لي ويُخبركم.

I answered him: "Surely, Christ said to his disciples: 'When I ascend to heaven, I will send to you the Paraclete Spirit, who emanates from the Father, whom the world is not able to receive, and he will be with you and amongst you, he who knows everything and examines everything, even the profundities of God. And he will remind you of the truth, which I spoke to you. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.'"(Jn 14:16-17)

فملكنا قال لي: ھذه جميعھا تدُلّ عن مجيء محمّد (عليه السلام).

Then our King said to me: "All this designates the coming of Muḥammad (Peace be upon him)."

فجاوبته قائلًا: إنْ كان محمّد ھو الفارقليط، فالفارقليط ھو روح لله؛ فإذًا محمّد ھو روح لله.

I answered him: "If Muḥammad was the Paraclete, and the Paraclete is the Spirit of God, then, therefore, Muḥammad was the Spirit of God.

وروح لله ليس بمحدود كالله. فإذاً محمّد ھو غير محدود. والذي ھو غير محدود، لا يُدرك بالنظر؛ فاذًا محمّد لا يُدرك بالنظر. والذي ھو غير مدرك بالنظر، ھو غير مجسَّد؛ فاذًا محمّد ھو غير مجسَّد. والذي ھو غير مجسَّد، ھو غير مركَّ، فاذًا محمّد ھو غير مركّب.

And the Spirit of God is unlimited like God, so, therefore, Muḥammad is not limited; and that which is not defined is invisible, so, therefore, Muḥammad is invisible; and that which is invisible is not embodied, so, therefore, Muḥammad is not embodied; and that which is not embodied is not composed, so, therefore, Muḥammad is not composed.

وإن كان محمّد ھو مركّب ومُجسَّم ومنظور ومحدود، ليس ھو بروح لله. والذي ليس ھو بروح لله، ليس ھو الفارقليط، فاذًا محمّد ليس ھو الفارقليط.

And if Muḥammad was composed, embodied, visible, and defined, he is not the Spirit of God; and that which is not the Spirit of God is not the Paraclete, so, therefore, Muḥammad is not the Paraclete.

ثمّ انّ الفارقليط ھو من السماء ومن الآب، ومحمّد ھو من الأرض من طبيعة آدم؛ فاذا محمّد ليس بالفارقليط.

Subsequently, the Paraclete is from heaven and from the Father, whereas Muḥammad is from earth and from the nature of Adam; so, therefore, Muḥammad is not the Paraclete.

والفارقليط أيضاً يعرف أعماق لله، ولكن محمّد يعترف بأنّه يجھل أيضاً الأمور التي تقع به وبالذين يؤمنون به؛ فاذًا محمّد ليس ھو الفارقليط.

And the Paraclete also knows the depths of God, but Muḥammad acknowledged that he was ignorant of the things, which will happen to him as well as to those who believe in him; so, therefore, he is not the Paraclete.

ثمّ إنّ الفارقليط كان مع الحوّاريّين وفي وسطھم، كما قال المسيح إذ كان يخاطبُھم. ومحمّد لم يكن مع الحواريين ولا في وسطھم؛ فاذً ا ليس ھو بالفارقليط.

Moreover, surely the Paraclete manifested to the Apostles ten days after the ascension of Jesus (Peace be upon him) to heaven, whereas Muḥammad appeared more than six hundred years later; so, therefore, Muḥammad is not the Paraclete.

وأيضاً، إنّ الفارقليط، بعد عشرة أيّام لصعود عيسى (عليه السلام) الى السماء، تظاھر للحواريّين. ومحمّد بعد ستمائة سنة ونيّف ظھر؛ فاذًا محمّد ليس بالفارقليط.

Furthermore, surely the Paraclete taught the Apostles that God has three hypostases, whereas Muḥammad did not believe that; so, therefore, he is not the Paraclete.

وايضاً، إنّ الفارقليط علّم الحواريّين عن لله أنّه بثلاثة أقانيم، ومحمّد لا يعتقد بذلك؛ فاذًا ليس ھو الفارقليط.

Then the Paraclete performed many miracles and a number of signs by the hands of the Apostles, whereas Muḥammad did not produce one sign by the hands of his companions or his followers; so, therefore, he is not the Paraclete.

ثمّ إنّ الفارقليط قد صنع على أيادي الحواريّين معجزات كثيرة وآيات متعدّدة، ومحمّد لم يصنع آية واحدة على ايدي أصحابِه وتابعيه؛ فاذاً ليس ھو بالفارقليط.

Additionally, the Paraclete is equal to the Father and to the Son in nature. From that, one knows that he is also the creator of the celestial forces. As the Prophet David said regarding the Spirit of God: 'By his Spirit all the celestial and earthly forces were created.' And the fact is that Muḥammad was not a creator; so, therefore, he is not the Paraclete.

This, and Timothy's determined refusal to recognize Muḥammad as a prophet, did not prevent him from giving this answer to al-Mahdi's question "What do you say about Muḥammad?":[3]

فجاوبته قائلًا: إنّ محمّداً يستحقّ المدح من جميع الناطقين، وذلك لأجل سلوكه في طريق الأنبياء ومحبّي لله. لأن سائر الأنبياء قد علّموا عن وحدانيّة لله، ومحمّد علّم عن ذلك. فاذًا، ھو ايضاً سلك بطريق الأنبياء.

I answered him saying: "Surely, Muḥammad deserves the praise of all speakers, which is due to the fact that he followed in the path of the prophets and of the friends of God, because all of the prophets had taught about the unity of God and Muḥammad taught about that; so, therefore, he followed in path of the prophets as well.

ثمّ كما انّ جميع الأنبياء أبعدوا الناس عن الشرّ والسيّئات، وجذبوھم إلى الصلاح والفضيلة، ھكذا محمّد أبعد بني أمّته عن الشرّ، وجذبھم إلى الصلاح والفضائل. فاذًا، ھو ايضاً قد سلك في طريق الأنبياء.

Then, just as all the prophets distanced the people from evil and wicked things and attracted them toward goodness and virtue, in such a way, Muḥammad distanced the children of his nation from evil and attracted them toward goodness and virtues; so, therefore, he followed in the path of the prophets.

ثمّ إنّ جميع الأنبياء منعوا بني البشر من سجدة الشياطين وعبادة الأوثان، وحرّضوھم على عبادة لله (عزّ وجلّ)، والسجود لجلالته. ھكذا محمّد منع بني أمّ ته من عبادة الشياطين والسجدة للأوثان، وحرّضھم على معرفة لله والسجود له تعالى، الذي ھو وحده إله وليس بإله آخر سواه. فقد اتّضح اذا أنّ محمّداً قد سلك في طريق الأنبياء.

Next, all the prophets prohibited the children of mankind from worshipping devils and serving idols and they encouraged them toward serving God (May he be exalted and majestified) and toward worshipping his majesty.

ثم إن كان محمّد قد علّم عن لله وكلم تِه وروحه، فجميع الأنبياء تنبأوا عن ذلك. فمحمّد اذًا قد سلك في طريق الأنبياء.

Likewise, Muḥammad prohibited the children of his nation from serving the devils and worshipping idols and he exhorted them toward the knowledge of God and worshipping of the Most High, who is one God and there is no other god equal to him. It is, therefore, clear that Muḥammad followed in path of the prophets.

Timothy was rather good in questions about prophecy, authenticity and interpretation of Scripture, but somewhat handicapped in his discussion of the Incarnation and the Trinity, partly because of his Nestorian background.

Philosophy and science

The early years of the `Abbāsid rule saw intense cooperation between Muslims and Christians. The Christians already had schools offering the best education available at that time. They offered not only Sacred Doctrine, but also the philosophy and science of the ancient Greeks and subsequent luminaries.

The `Abbāsids were eager to tap into this knowledge, both for its practical advantages (e.g. medicine and engineering) and to counteract the constraining influence of fundamentalists. So the caliph al-Ma'mūn (813-833) established Bayt al-Ḥikma ("house of wisdom), a university and research centre.

One of its foremost projects was to translate all available Greek scientific works into Arabic. The principal translators were Christian scholars, such as Ḥunayn ibn-Isḥāq, his son Isḥāq, Abū-Bishr Mattā, Yaḥyā ibn-`Ādī, Abū-`Alū ibn as-Samḥ, Ab-`Alī ibn-Zur`a, Qusṭā ibn-Lūqā, etc.

Some of these, along with Muslim scholars, produced original works of research. This made Baghdad the foremost centre of learning in the world at that time.

Unfortunately, the Bayt al-Ḥikma and most of this inter-religious scientific cooperation died out under the caliph al-Mutawakkil (847-861). He followed the conservative religious leader, Aḥmad ibn-Ḥanbal, and instituted discriminatory provisions against Christians.

Al-Ma'mūn (ruled 813-833) and Theodore Abū-Qurra (740-825)

Before that happened, under the caliphate of al-Ma'mūn, Theodore Abū-Qurra, the Melkite (Orthodox-Catholic) bishop of Ḥarrān (in Iraq) took part in several debates and discussions with Muslims, which he recorded. Some of these are in Arabic, and others, meant for Christians, are in Greek.[4]

Because of the liberal atmosphere, Abū-Qurra was bolder than Timothy I in his defense of Christian teaching and in challenging Islamic teaching. Being Orthodox, he was also more accurate in presenting the Incarnation and Trinity.

The debates are combative after the manner of a game of chess. By a series of moves, Theodore corners his opponent and checkmates him. For that reason, it would not make sense to quote a short isolated passage, because it would make sense only in the context of the total game.

His Arabic treatises, however, are of a different style. Although directed mainly against Christian heretics, in a passage addressing Jews, he brings up one of his standard defenses of Christianity:[5]

ينبغي لك أن تعلم أن المسيح قد عمل هذه الأعاجيب التي ذكرنا من قبول الأمم إياه وحمله إياهم على كل ما يخالف عقولهم وأهواءهم وشهواتهم. ونقله إياهم من رخاء إلى شدة ومن همل إلى حصر ومن سعة إلى ضيق ومن الرخص إلى التشديد ومن الشهوات المباحة التي كانت لهم إلى هجران الدنيا بأسرها. في شأنه ورفض لذات الجسد وفخر الدنيا، وأن يقدموا على القتل أنفسهم بكل نوع من العذاب والمكاره على ألا يكفروا به. وقال لهم: من كفر بي بين أيدي الناس كفرت أنا به بين يدي أبي الذي في السموات. وقال: انظروا ما قلته لكم في السر فأعلنوه أنتم على الأجاجير ولا تخافوا من يقتل البدن ولا يستطيع أن يقتل النفس ولكن خافوا من يستطيع أن يقتل النفس والبدن جميعاً ويلقيهما في نار جهنم. وقال: من أهلك نفسه في شأني وجدها في حياة الأبد. وقال: من أتبعني ولم يبغض أباه وأمه وإخوته وأخواته وولده وأنسباءه فليس لي بأهل. وقال: إني مخليكم كالخراف بين الذئاب، وإن الدنيا تكون في سرور وأنتم في حزن. وإنها ستأتي أيام من يقتلكم يرى أنه يقرّب لله ذبيحة.

You should know that the Messiah worked these wonders which we mentioned, which attracted nations to him and drew him to them, in spite of all that went against their minds, whims and desires. For he drew them from relaxation to hardship, from non-involvement to pressure, from a wide to a narrow range of comforts, from permissiveness to harsh demands, from permitted pleasure to total flight from the world. He also urged them to reject bodily pleasures and worldly pride, and to offer themselves to be killed with all sorts of torture and opposition rather than deny him. For he told them: "He who denies me before men, I will deny him before my Father who is in heaven." And he said, "See that what I tell you in secret you broadcast on the housetops." "Do not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul, but fear him who can kill the body and soul together and throw them into hell fire." And he said, "He who lays down his life for my sake will find it for eternal life." And he said, "Whoever follows me and does not hate his father and his mother, his brothers and sisters, children and relatives, is not worthy of me." And he said, "I leave you as sheep among wolves." The world will be joyful, but you will be sad." And "the days will come when anyone who kills you will think he is making a sacrifice to God."

والشترع عليهم أن يباشروا هم قتل أنفسهم في المثل بقطع شهواتهم واستئصال أهوانهم. وقال: من أمك على خدك فحول له الآخر، ومن سلبك رداءك فزده ثوبك. وإن أنت نظرت إلى امرأة كي تشتهيها فقد زنيت بها في قلبك. وإن قلت لصاحبك راقا أو أحمق فقد وجبت عليك نار جهنم. وقال: سمعت أنه قيل للأولين أحبب محبك وأبغض عدوك فأنا أقول أحبوا أعداءكم واحسنوا الدعاء لهم، وما شاكل ذلك.

And he enjoined them to mortify themselves by things that would curtail their appetites and covetousness. He said: "If anyone slaps you on one cheek, turn to him the other." And "If anyone despoils you of our cloak, give him your tunic as well." And "if you look at a woman with lust for her, you have committed adultery with her in your heart." And "if you call your companion "Raqa" or "fool", you deserve hell fire." And he said: "You have heard that it was said to the ancients, 'Love those who love you and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, 'Love your enemies, and pray well for them.' And he said much else like this.

فأخبرني يا يهودي كيف تظن أن الأمم قبلت المسيح على هذه الشدة والموت الذي قد اشترعه عليهم ولا سيما مع شنع ما نسبه إلى نفسه من الصلب والأوجاع والفضيحة وأن أعداءه شتموه وسمّروا يديه ورجليه وعلقوه على خشبة وسقوه خلاً وأطعموه مراً حتى رشح منه عرق كالدم، وأنه قال وهو على الصليب: إلهي إلهي لمَ خذلتني. فإن هذا الأخر ينبغي أن ينفّر السامعين كلهم من إتباع المسيح ومن اتخاذه الإهاً كما قد اتخذته الأمم كلها. وهذا معروف أنه لم يكن يقبل أبداّ لو لا أن هذه الأعاجيب المذكورة في الإنجيل وفي كتب التلاميذ قد عملت حقاً. وهي التي كانت تقهر العقول وتضطرها إلى قبول المسيح والإيمان به لا محالة.

So tell me, O Jew, how you think the nations accepted the Messiah, in spite of this harshness and death which he enjoined on them, especially with the repulsive treatment he brought on himself, that is, the cross, the torture and shame. For his enemies insulted him, drove nails into his hands and feet, hung him on a plank, gave him vinegar to drink and fed him myrrh, so that sweat poured from him like blood. And he said on the cross: "My God, my God, why did you abandon me?" That should have driven all those who heard it from following the Messiah and from taking him as God, as all the nations did. [Note: Abū-Qurra elsewhere observes that 5 of every 6 persons in the Middle East in his time were Christian.]

ولوأن المسيح كانت همته الغرور لكان ينبغي له ولو كان لقي هذه الأمور التي ذكرنا أن يأمر تلاميذه بكتمانها الأمم وأن يعظموه عندهم ويجتملوا أمره، ولكان قوله أن يطمعهم في الرخص والشهوات ليكون ذلك يدعوهم إلى المسارعة إليه، ولكن لم يفعل هذا وحاشا له ذلك. بل شنّع نفسه عند من دعاهم إلى الإيمان به وكلفهم القتل والموت في شأنه.

If the Messiah had intended to deceive people, even if he met such hardships as we described, he would have had to order his disciples to conceal them from the nations, and to tell them how mighty and magnificent he was. And his preaching would have urged them to relax and enjoy themselves, so that he could attract them to rush to himself. But he did not do that-God forbid! But he debased himself before those he called to faith in himself, and he required them to accept murder and death for his sake.

In another Arabic work, ميمر في وجود الخالق والدين القويم,[6] he amplifies this argument and sharply contrasts it with Islam, to conclude that only the religion of the Gospel is the true religion.

`Ammār al-Baṣrī (in the time of al- Ma'mūn 813-833 and al-Mu`taṣim 833-842)

`Ammār al-Baṣrī (we are not sure if it is his real name) wrote two works in defense of Christianity: كتاب البرهان and كتاب المسائل والأوجبة.[7] They are in the form of questions and answers, and the second book is addressed to the caliph (al-Mu`taṣim), who evidently posed the questions.

`Ammār goes far beyond Timothy I and Abu-Qurra both in his command of Arabic style and his skill in philosophical dialectics. He is very good at answering practical questions, such as the accusation that Christians removed from the Bible prophesies of Muḥammad, but when it comes to the Trinity and Incarnation, like Timothy I, he takes a Nestorian position, denying that "God died on the cross" and that Mary is "Mother of God", positions condemned by both the Council of Ephesus in 431 and that of Chalcedon in 451.

`Ammār tries to avoid the logical consequences of his position. For he should have to conclude that Jesus is not God, but only a man in whom God dwells, just as we all are said to be temples of the Holy Spirit.

The orthodox position is that Jesus is the Word of God and is God, a divine person, who joined to himself a human nature. He died in his conjoined human nature, but never died in his divine nature.

Here is a passage from the second work which illustrates his sense of sociology of religion:[8]

المسألة الساديسة فإن قال: وكيف لنا بالفرق بين الائتلاف والاتفاق اللذين كانا عن الآيات والبرهان وبين الذين كان عن افتعال الناس بغير آيات وبرهان، وقد نرى أقواماً متشتتين يتدينون بأديان متفاوتة وفي أيديهم كتب مختلفة من أمر ونهي وشرائع وفرائض وذكر بعث ونشور وثواب وعقاب ويدعي كل حزب منهم أن كتابهم هو عهد الله إلى خلقه أتاهم به رسله وأظهر على أيديهم بذلك آياته وبرهانه.

The question may be raised about the difference between the concurrence or agreement coming from signs and evidence, and the persuasion of people without signs and evidence. For we observe different peoples following different religions. They have different scriptures, each with its own commands, prohibitions, laws and statutes, and with talk of resurrection, reward and punishment. And each party claims that its book is what God bequeathed to mankind through the intermediacy of prophets, confirmed by signs and evidence.

قلنا: إن عنيت بالبحث وناصحت في القيام والنظر، استبان لك الفرق بين الذي يكون عن افتعال الناس وبين ائتلاف الذي يكون عن الآيات والبرهان. وقد يحق لك أن تعلم أولاً أنه ليس من كتاب دين وشرائع افتعاله أهل الأرض فانقادت لقبوله طائفة من الناس، دون إحدى شت خصال نسميها لك:

We answer: If you investigate and observe carefully, you will see the difference between people being carried along, as opposed to being convinced by signs and evidence. The first thing you can be sure of is that no group of people is carried along to embrace a religion without one of six motives, which I will enumerate:

  1. إما الاستحسان بما جُمع فيه من زخرفة كلام المدعين في إثبات شرك أو توحيد أو غير ذلك، نحو ما اخترعته عقول اليونانية الأولين من اللطائف التي أبهرت العقول وافتنت القلوب، وكتوحيد المستدير باسم التوحيد، وكقول أهل الدهر الذين زعموا أن الأشياء لم تزل ولا تزول بل تنشؤ وتضمحل على ما نرى من حالاتها، وكقول زرادشت وماني وابن ديصان ومرقيون وأشباههم في إثبات الصانعَين القديمين والأصلين الممتزجين، فاستغفلوا بشهادات أقاويلهم المموهة كثيراً ممن نابهم به لفساد حججهم وردود دعواهم.

    (1) The first is fine-sounding speech, beautiful appeals whether to polytheism or monotheism or anything else. The ancient Greeks were good at that, composing speeches that would dazzle the mind and seduce the heart. For example, they could confuse the unity of a circle with the unity of God. Other people of old maintained that things have always existed and will always exist, only growing and passing away as we observe, [in an endless series of generations]. Zoroaster, Mani, Ibn-Dīṣān, Marcion and the like held for two co-eternal creators, and two mixed principles [light and darkness]. By the witnesses of their stupid statements, they treated as fools many of those who had joined their sect, for their arguments were corrupt their claims easily refuted.

  2. إنما الترخيص في الشرائع والتسهيل في الفرائض، على ما نرى من مسارعة ناس كثير إلى ما رخص فيه لنيل اللذات وركوب الشهوات، كالملة التي أسست على ايثار الأمهات والبنات والجواب مع إباحة كلما اشتهته الأنفس ولذته الأبدان.

    (2) Then there is permissiveness in legislation, with easy prescription. For we see that many people rush for what is easy, so as to enjoy life and indulge in pleasure, such as a sect which was founded with preference for mothers and daughters, with a response permitting all that souls crave and bodies enjoy.

  3. وإما لسيف قاتل أو لسلطان قاهر أُكره الناس به على ما كرهوا فانقادوا له خوفاً ورغباً.

    (3) Then there is the killing sword or oppressive power, by which people are forced into what they do not want, led by fear or desire.

  4. وإما المواهب وعطايا من رغائب الدنيا، فسارعت القلوب إلى ما دعيت إليه من خلاف الحق وخلاف ما لم تزل عليه من ضروب أديانها، رغبة في سعة المعيشة وهرباً من الضرورة والحاجة.

    (4) And there are gifts and presents of worldly attractions. These move the heart to accept a message contrary to the truth and contrary to whatever religion it held up to then.

  5. وإما لحمية وتعصب كن يتبع سيده وقومه ورئيس عشيرته، على ما يتقرر زوره وفساده تعصباً وحمية.

    (5) Then there is clannishness or tribalism, where each one follows his master and his group or the leader of his tribe in whatever lie or corrupt practice he proposes, out of clannishness and defensiveness.

  6. وإما لمعاينة خيال وتشابيه من السحر كالذي رأيت أو يبلغك من أعمال السحرة.

    (6) Or bewitchment by various sorts of magical tricks, as you may have seen or heard of.

فهذه الخصال الست في جميع حيل المبطلين في اجترار الناس إلى قبول ما افتعلوا من كتبهم وأنشأوا من أديانهم. وليست لأحد من الخلق في ذلك حيلة سوى ما ذكرنا. كما لو أن أمة من الأمم الضالة بارزت رجلاً واحداً من أهل الأديان فراودته على أن تنقله عن دينه إلى دينها دون إحدى الخلال التي ذكرناها، لما وصلت إلى ذلك منه أبداً.

All six of these methods are among all the strategies of subverters who try to draw people into accepting the books they composed and the religions they founded.

ولنا لنرى مملكات كثيرة وشعوباً مختلفة وأجناس أمم متشتتة وأهل لغات متفاوتة، أعني الروم وفرنجة وأدروا والبربر والحبشة والنوبة ومرار والديلم واللان وجيلان وجميع بلدان العرب والجزيرة والشام وغيرذلك من أفناء القبائل العرب وأبناء فارس وغيرهم من أصناف الناس يتدينون بهذا الكتاب ويطنبون في تعظيمه وتبجيله، فاستبن بهذا، يا هذا، وانظر لأية هذه الخصال ائتلفت عليه ودانت به.

But we can see many kingdoms, a variety of peoples, diverse nations and races, and people of different languages, such as the Romans, the Franks, the Greeks, the Berbers, the Ethiopians, the Nubians, the Medes, the Elamites, the Daylamites, the Lan, the Jilan, and the whole country of the Arabs, the peninsula and Syria, as well as other segments of Arabian tribes, Persians and other peoples, all of them following the religion of this book and dedicated to upholding it and bringing it honor. So consider this, my auditor, and see whether any of the six factors mentioned above fits this religion or is associated with it.

فإن وجدت ذلك يمكن أن يكون لخصلة من هذه الخصال الستة التي ذكرناها، فأيقن بلا شك أنه باطل من افتعال الناس. وإن وجدته منفياً عنها جميعها أصلاً، فاعلم علماً يقيناً أنه كتاب الله المنزل من عنده وعهده البالغ منه إلى خلقه المقبول من أيدي رسله بآياته وأعلامه. فمن جهة قبول هذه الشعوب القابلة له تستدل على الوجه الذي منه بدأ وظهر وعلى العلة التي من أجلهها ثبت وقبل.

If you do so, and find that [this religion succeeded] because of any of the factors mentioned, then there is no doubt that this religion is false and is a human product. But if you find that it is altogether untouched by any of them, then you can be sure that here is the book God sent down by God himself, and here is the covenant he promulgated to his creatures, transmitted through the hands of his apostles with signs and miracles. So the fact that these peoples accepted it points to the reason for its origin and appearance and to the cause which gave it solidity and acceptance.

The point of the argument, further elaborated after this passage, is that the Christian faith spread to over 30 countries with different languages, with no human help. Moreover, preaching Christ crucified, it ran counter to human yearning for pleasure, possessions and power. Its acceptance constitutes a moral miracle.

The three writers we have looked at outlined the basic arguments used by future Christian writers. They faced the following principal themes:

  1. Criteria for accepting a religion as coming from God
  2. Reasons showing that Christianity came from God
  3. Reasons why Islam cannot claim to have come from God to replace Christianity
  4. Rebuttal of the accusation that the Bible was tampered with, particularly by removing prophecies of the coming of Muḥammad
  5. Defense of the Trinity in the unity of God
  6. Defense of the Incarnation, mainly against the argument that Jesus was obviously a man; therefore he cannot be God.
  7. Defense of the crucifixion—the fact, the "death of God", the wisdom of it, and veneration of the cross

We can admire the dialectical skill of these writers. They used language and concepts that a Muslim or a Christian audience would readily understand. For instance, they explained the Trinity in terms of the divine names or attributes.

But they lacked the doctrinal precision about Christ and the Trinity that came with later Councils and theologians. Secondly, in propounding the Trinity and Incarnation, they did not distinguish between an argument defending their possibility and reasonableness and a probative argument. They give the impression that there are necessary reasons for these mysteries, whereas they can only be accepted by faith.

Muslim apologetics of this period

At first Muslims were at a disadvantage, because they did not have the training in philosophy that the Christians had. Soon, however, they remedied this defect and wrote their own "refutations of Christianity".

The first we know of is `Alī ibn-Rabbān aṭ-Ṭabarī (d. 855). He was a Nestorian Christian be became a Muslim at the age of 70. He wrote a "refutation of Christianity" -الرد على النصارى. He chiefly attacks the Incarnation by piling up evidence of Jesus' humanity. His whole avalanche is based on the non-distinction of the divine and human natures of Christ, i.e. he is either human or divine, not both.

Muslim apologists over the centuries have largely followed the same path, based on a misrepresentation of Christian teaching.

Another work of the same period, attributed to the same author, is كتاب الدين والدولة. The novelty of this work is to answer the Christian accusation that there are no miracles to support the claim that Islam is from God. It argues that there are many miracles:

These basic arguments for a divine origin of Islam have been repeated up to our own day. Only, with regard to the last argument, while many Muslims still cite Biblical texts as prophesies of Muḥammad, many others, in agreement with the Christian claim that there are no such texts, simply maintain that these texts were there, but have been removed.

What can we learn from the experience of this period?

First, inter-religious harmony, dialogue and cooperation can flourish only when both parties are free and have equal rights in society. In the period under discussion, this was not so, but the Muslims were the conquerors and the Christians were their subject population, with not the same rights. This imbalance, however was mitigated by the Christians' freedom to worship and hand on their faith to their children-provided they made no converts.

The social atmosphere permitted a relatively free exchange of ideas, as evidenced by the debates we reviewed. Yet the atmosphere varied, from the open society of al-Ma'mūn to the repression of al-Mutawakkil.

Our first conclusion is that a level playing field is required, where both sides play by the rules of mutual respect, and neither side has preferential treatment.

Secondly, we observe that the apologetic literature of both sides includes three headings:

Here we must examine the purpose of such literature and evaluate its effectiveness. In doing so, we must first determine the audience. Is he addressing his own people, or the opponent?

In the first case, such literature is necessary. Christians need to understand their faith and be able to answer Muslim objections to their own satisfaction. And they need to see what is wanting in Islam in comparison with Christianity.

I have one caution, which I learned from my teacher, Louis Gardet. He wrote a lot about Islam, and when he died in 1986, many Muslims praised him. He said that we cannot speak one way about Islam in private and another way in public, but must always be completely transparent. Islamic Mālikī law permits a Christian to explain why he does not believe in Muḥammad. It only forbids mocking him.

What about Christian literature addressing Muslims?

  1. Should this be provided? —Decidedly, yes. Why? Because of Christ's command to acknowledge him before men, if he is to acknowledge us before the Father (Mt 10:32), and because of the "great command" to make disciples of all nations (Mt 28:19).
  2. How? That is very simple now, with Internet.
  3. The content should be geared to Muslims' framework of thinking, taking into account what they have been taught.
  4. The most important content is the explanation of Christian beliefs. This should include answers to Muslim objections.
  5. Only secondarily, and to the extent that it is necessary, should a Muslim be directed to the reasons why we do not believe in Islam, or accept the credibility of the evidence offered for its divine origin. Here we have to avoid running down Islam with unwarranted criticism, and we should begin by acknowledging all the good we can recognize in Islam. See how far Timothy I went in describing Muḥammad.
  6. As for direct contact, when Muslims are ready to read or talk with us about our faith, we should respond. But never, never should we put pressure on them.
  7. Different people have different gifts. Some can be very direct with Muslims and get away with it. Others may try that approach and only provoke resistance; it is better they back off.
  8. If we have Muslim friends, that may mean speaking rarely about the beliefs that divide us. That is all right. They have not rejected us, and we need not shake the dust off our feet. We can talk about the things that unite us, work with them on common projects, and build up mutual trust. This is sorely needed between the Muslim and Christian communities of Nigeria. Christian-Muslim relations are far more encompassing than doctrinal discussions.
  9. The Holy Spirit breathes where he wills. We lay the groundwork, but the Holy Spirit confers the gift of faith to those he chooses at the time he chooses.

Conclusion

Islam began in an atmosphere of isolation, suspicion, and even hostility towards others. Between Islam and Christianity there have always been rivalry and competition. But there have always been times and places when members of the two communities lived and worked together in harmony and even friendship. The period we surveyed is one when relations were reasonably good.

Many Muslims long for free and open cooperation and exchange with Christians and others. This is a dream they see reflected in Qur'an 49:13 (الحجرات):

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنَّا خَلَقْنَاكُمْ مِنْ ذَكَرٍ وَأُنْثَى وَجَعَلْنَاكُمْ شُعُوبًا وَقَبَائِلَ لِتَعَارَفُوا إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ أَتْقَاكُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ خَبِيرٌ (١٣)

Ladies and gentlemen, we created you from male and female, and formed you into peoples and tribes, that you may know one another. The best among you before God is the one who fears him most. God is knowing and aware.

Christians, too, could well reflect on Matthew 25:37-40. Is there any Christian who does not know verse 40?:

ἐφ' ὅσον ἐποιήσατε ἑνὶ τούτων τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου τῶν ἐλαχίστων, ἐμοὶ ἐποιήσατε.

By doing [these things] for any of my least brothers, you did it for me.

Every Christian knows this verse, and on judgment day cannot claim ignorance. Who then are those who do claim ignorance, who did works of mercy without knowing they were doing them for Jesus?

37 τότε ἀποκριθήσονται αὐτῷ οἱ δίκαιοι λέγοντες, κύριε,
πότε σε εἴδομεν πεινῶντα καὶ ἐθρέψαμεν,
ἢ διψῶντα καὶ ἐποτίσαμεν;
38 πότε δέ σε εἴδομεν ξένον καὶ συνηγάγομεν,
ἢ γυμνὸν καὶ περιεβάλομεν;
39 πότε δέ σε εἴδομεν ἀσθενοῦντα ἢ ἐν φυλακῇ καὶ ἤλθομεν πρός σε;

Then the just will answer him: Lord,
when did we see you hungry and fed you,
or thirsty and gave you drink?
When did we see you a stranger and took you in,
or naked and clothed you?
When did we see you sick or in prison and came to you?

Such ignorance could not be found among Christians. These people could only be non-Christians of limited knowledge, who followed their consciences as best they could, and did works of mercy for the love of God.

[1] The text (Arabic and English) is found in Clint Hackenburg, An Arabic-to-English Translation of the Religious Debate between the Nestorian Patriarch Timothy I and the 'Abbāsid Caliph al-Mahdī, M.A. Thesis, Ohio State University, 1999.

[2] Numbers 104-105, 109-120. I have altered the translation.

[3] Numbers 169-171.

[4] The Greek text is found in Patrologia Graeca, vol 97, col. 1461-1600.

[5] Pp. 11-12 in C. Bacha, Un traité des oeuvres arabes de Théodor Abou-Kurra, évèque de Haran, Tripoli de Syrie, 1907. Practically the same text appears in C. Basha, ميمر في صحة الدين المسيحي. المشرق (1903), 633-643, 693-709, 800-809.

[6] Ed. Louis Cheikho, المشرق, vol. 15 (1912), 757-842. There is another edition, by I. Dick, Traité de l'existence du Créateur et de la vraie religion (Beirut-Rome: Patrimoine Arabe Chretien, 1982), which I did not have access to.

[7] Ed. Michael Hayek, Beirut, 1977. This was hastily edited while Beirut was under bombardment, and it has many obvious typographical errors.

[8] Part 2, question 6.