Not long after the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople, George Amiroutzes, an eminent theologian and last Grand Logothete of the Empire of Trebizond, offered proposals for merging Christianity and Islam.
He presented to the Sultan a study which showed that they had much in common. It might be possible to devise a synthesis; or at least each faith could recognize the other as a sister. The difference between the Bible and the Koran has always been exaggerated by bad translations, he maintained; and the Jews were to blamed for having deliberately encouraged misunderstandings. [Sir Steven Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity, p. 183]
In many respects hopeful views of relations between the Church and Mecca have not advanced much since Amiroutzes’ day. John Paul the Great was a strong proponent of Christian-Moslem dialogue, and the New York Times reports that it is a controversial topic within the College of Cardinals as it meets to elect a new Pope. Many of the prelates are not too enthusiastic about the project, while others see Islam as a useful special purpose ally.
Like John Paul, [Francis Cardinal Arinze of Nigeria] has often spoken of one specific rationale for reaching out to other faiths, Islam included: that believers, of whatever faith, have a duty to fight against a secularism that he says has sapped Christians of their spiritual strength.
“God can speak to us through other believers,” he told an interviewer several years ago. “From sincere Muslims, Christians can learn, for example, the courage of sincere prayer. They pray five times a day, and no matter where they are – be it the railway station or the airport – they will do it.
“Whereas many Christians are ashamed of making the sign of the cross in a restaurant or pulling out a rosary on a train,” he said.
Very much in the opposite camp is Queen Margrethe II of Denmark. Today’s Daily Telegraph quotes from her just published official biography:
We are being challenged by Islam these years – globally as well as locally. It is a challenge we have to take seriously. We have let this issue float about for too long because we are tolerant and lazy.
We have to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance.
And when we are tolerant, we must know whether it is because of convenience or conviction.
Somewhere in the middle is Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels, who, according to the Times “has spoken of the need for the Muslim world to undergo the same political and religious changes that reshaped Europe, in particular the separation of church and state, and therefore become more secular”.
In contrast to his colleagues who would like to ally with Islam against secularism, Cardinal Danneels sees secularism as an ally against Islam. He and Queen Margrethe have, I think, more sensible approach. We should never be impolite the followers of other religions, but it is not rude to recognize that there is an immense gulf between our Faith and that of the Moslems. The seeming points of agreement are coincidences, not corollaries of concord on deeper matters.
Moslems are monotheists, but their religion is in all other significant ways a form of paganism. Like the gods of the polytheists, their One God is essentially indifferent to mankind. He demands obedience instead of offering love. John Ashcroft made an astute though much berated comparison: “Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him. Christianity is a faith in which God sends his son to die for you.” Moslems universally deny that God could or would give a son as a sacrifice to save sinners. They almost as universally (a handful of modernizers excepted) honor those who die making war on the infidel. In the words of a leading expert,
The notion of martyrdom is common to Christianity and Islam. Indeed, the same word is used – “martyr” is from a Greek word meaning “witness”, and the Arabic shahid has the same meaning. But in Sunni Islam, the shahid is one who is killed in battle; he achieves martyrdom by dying in the holy war. This is very different from the Jewish and later also Christian notion of martyrs as those who voluntarily endure torture and death rather than renounce their beliefs. [Bernard Lewis, Islam and the West, p. 163]
Despite the fact that Moslems recognize the Old Testament as a sacred text and invoke blessings on a figure whom they call “Jesus” (but who is utterly unlike the Christ of the New Testament), there is no genuine common ground for religious dialogue. There might be if Islam underwent a reformation. Some of its suppressed mystical strains may have a concept of God that is nearer to the Judaeo-Christian “Father in Heaven”, which could be the starting point for useful dialogue. As Islam is now, however, the honest course of action is Her Majesty of Denmark’s: “to show our opposition” – with rational argument, of course, not with distortion or persecution – to doctrines that we believe to be radically false.
Update (4/15/05): In the comments KK takes me to task for “ compar[ing] Christianity with the media-image of Islam” rather than with its actual theology. He is disappointed that I wrote a “polemic” when it would have been better to “discuss the real theological differences of two religions both purporting to be a sort of advancement upon the original religion of Abraham”.
In fact, discussion of “the real theological differences” was my intention. I wished to say to my fellow Christians that Islam and Christianity are more alien to one another than is usually recognized and that dialogue that adopts George Amiroutzes’ vision of two fundamentally compatible faiths is founded on a false premise. That does not mean that relations cannot or should not be more cordial than they are, only that cordiality won’t be achieved by pretending to agree on irreconcilable doctrines.
KK unwittingly illustrates my point when he writes,
Islam does indeed revere Jesus, as the author notes, but not in a disingenuous way as is suggested. Although not considered the son of God, he was considered by the Prophet Muhammad to be the most perfect human being to have lived – an example for all mankind.
The most important Christian belief about Jesus is that He is the Son of God, “begotten of the Father before all ages”, not “an example for all mankind”. I do not think it polemical, but simply accurate, to write that the Moslem image of Him, as summarized by KK, is “is utterly unlike the Christ of the New Testament”. Similarly, the Christian and Moslem conceptions of God’s relationship with mankind and of man’s salvation differ toto caelo. Though I don’t fancy myself a peritus in Islamic theology, I have never seen so much as a hint in any Moslem writer that man has been redeemed from enslavement to sin and death through a sacrifice on the part of God. My strong impression is that Moslem theologians regard the Christian doctrine of atonement, in any of its forms, as impossible and absurd.
I agree with KK that the Moslem use of the term “martyr” for soldiers who die while fighting for Islam (a usage with no parallel in Christian terminology) does not entail sympathy for terrorism. I also agree that Islam places heavy stress on the duty of charity. Nothing that I wrote suggested otherwise.
I've made it a habit to read this blog daily for though I rarely agree with the opinions stated, I always find the arguments cogent, well-informed and intellectually inspired and inspiring. This post does not meet the admirable standards I have come to expect from this blog.
Rather than exploring the actual theology of Islam, the author has chosen to compare Christianity with the media-image of Islam. He therefore creates and "our God" versus "their god" (disparate capitalisation intended) dichotomy that does not exist in theological reality. Islam does indeeed revere Jesus, as the author notes, but not in a disengenuous way as is suggested. Although not considered the son of God, he was considered by the Prophet Muhammad to be the most perfect human being to have lived - an example for all mankind. Furthermore, the Muslim belief that God could have no son does not stem from a "paganistic" hateful deity, but rather one who "has not begot, nor was he begotten," a tenet of the religion that speaks more to difference between God and man than it does to any kind of lack in "love" from Creator. Also, like Christianity, Islam stresses charity and charitable works far more than martyrdom, and indeed it is only the vociferous, minority Muslim communities who practice international terrorism (Who the auther orientalises as a "mainstream" example of the faith) who would argue otherwise, or attempt to conflate the few.
Given the heretofore admirable intellectual curiousity and earnestness of this blog I would have expected a post with today's opening to discuss the real theological differences of two religions both purporting to be a sort of advancement upon the original religion of Abraham. I would have expected an enlightening and interesting approach, one though not neccesarily reconciliatory between the two faiths, would engage with both on an honest and distanced manner. Rather I read a polemic based more on intellectual laziness than openness. I have come to expect much from Stromata, and am seriously dissapointed.
Posted by: KK | Friday, April 15, 2005 at 06:37 AM