The Thomist74 (2010): 85-104
IN OCTOBER 2007, a group of Muslim intellectuals, scholars, and clerics issued a statement that has come to be known as A Common Word between Us and You. The title comes from a phrase from the Qur’ān exhorting Christians and Muslims to find agreement in their worship of the one God. According to the official website of the group who formulated and endorsed the statement, it was written in direct response to Pope Benedict XVI's address to the faculty at the University of Regensburg in September of the previous year, and is the result of Muslims who have "unanimously come together for the first time since the days of the Prophet r[sic] to declare the common ground between Christianity and Islam."(1) This is a very bold statement, and may signal the beginning of a new era in relations between Muslims and Christians.
But what exactly is new about this endeavor, and how ought Christian theologians to respond to it? It is true that such a joint effort of this kind among Muslims is revolutionary and may ultimately serve the same purpose in articulating traditional views in contemporary language for like-minded Muslims that Nostra Aetate has for Roman Catholics. For this its drafters are to be highly commended. It has taken great courage to make this public statement at a time when the Islamic ummah is roiled by internal
In particular, the Common Word statement stresses that Christians and Muslims agree that central to their religions is love of God and love of neighbor, and that this is expressed in worship of the one God. Indeed, this crucial doctrine can provide a firm foundation upon which to build a more stable and peaceful society. In support, the Common Word quotes a key passage from the Qur’ān, found in Sūra 3 (Āl-cImrān):64:
The idea that monotheism is the common ground on which Muslims and Christians can build better global relationships has been at the center of many modern efforts to find social unity. For this reason, the Islamic concepts of the ahl al-kit āb ("People of the Book/Scripture") and "Abrahamic Religions" have been employed by a multitude of theologians (as well as politicians) and become popular ways of conceptually integrating Muslims into communities of Christians and Jews. In the same vein, A Common Word has elicited the call from many well-intentioned Christians and others (some perhaps not so well-intentioned), to act in the spirit of cooperation and desire for world peace, leaving aside complex theological discussion. Whether out of fear it will lead to compromise, discouragement over the dialogue process so far, or lack of confidence that doctrinal formulations are meaningful, the point is made on all sides that such conversation is bound to be unproductive, and is therefore useless.
I would argue, though, that many Christians, whether they have ignored or endorsed and promoted the statement, have not fully grasped its radical call to abandon "heretical" Trinitarian monotheism, and the implications of such a move. Yet this is exactly where the rubber hits the road, so to speak, and has done
Although the information we have of the first encounters between Muslims and Christians is scant, it is apparent that Christians recognized the central challenge of the Qur’ān to their faith as being focused on the nature of God and the relationship between Creator and creation. This, of course, had been at the heart of the struggle in the early centuries of Christianity that had come to a head especially in the Christological councils of Nicaea (325) and Chalcedon (451). Islamic thought seemed to many to be a continuation of this debate but from a new angle. More specifically, Christian thinkers recognized that the question raised by Islam was: is the God of Israel's prophets, the Creator of all who has revealed himself to humanity, the same triune God of Christian confession who became incarnated? Or is this God
For Muslims, the problem is summarized in Sūra 4 (al-Nisā'):171:
While the current debate as to whether the Christians of the Qur’ān are an identifiable group who held views quite different from accepted orthodoxy, and what the significance of this is for qur’ānic exegesis, may be of interest to scholars, it can cause us to
Lest we miss the point, the verses cited above and a multitude of others draw an explicit connection between Christian belief in the Trinity and conviction that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, and shirk, identifying those who hold such beliefs as mushrikūn (associators/polytheists) and kâfirūn (unbelievers).(8) Over the centuries, Muslim and Christian scholars have debated the truth and implications of this correlation. Parallel to the Christological disputes, one can see struggles among Islamic scholars to understand the divine attributes, the sifāt Allāh and especially to articulate the relationship between God's Word, the Qur’ān, and God's being.(9) In this paper, I will look more carefully at how some Christians who first encountered the qur’ānic critique of the Trinity understood it and more specifically how they responded to it. It should be of interest to the modern theologian that records of the earliest conversations between Muslims and Christians do not focus on the qur’ānic characterization of specific aspects of Christian beliefs (for example, whether or not Christians worship Mary as a god); rather, they take on the general concern that belief in the Trinity and Incarnation are shirk--associating others with God and not giving God the absolute worship and honor that is his due.
The first Christian writer of interest here is St. John of Damascus (d. 749), who needs little introduction. His inclusion of Islam in his De Haeresibus was perhaps the Christian commentary on Islam that was most widely read in the West until modern times. John has been accused, unjustly I believe, of many things because of this. His critique of Islam, and especially of Muhammad, is quite harsh. But the few short pages in which he summarizes the beliefs of the followers of Muhammad are surprisingly accurate. John's synopsis of the Muslim version of Jesus' conception, birth, his being taken up to heaven instead of suffering crucifixion, and Jesus' own teaching that he was not God, reveal a good knowledge of the Qur’ān on these topics.
John's approach had wide-reaching influence among Christians living under Muslim rule through a number of his later disciples, notably Theodore Aūb Qurrah in the Melkite Church and the Syrian Orthodox Archdeacon Nonnus of Nisibis in Armenia.(15) Those who read their writings in Arabic, Greek, and Armenian recognized the usefulness of John's insights for apologetical and catechetical purposes as they carried on their engagement with Muslims. As we shall see below, in different ways, most Christian apologists from the first centuries of Islam made a defense of the Trinity central to their theology, only turning to other topics after they had established this doctrine.
This brings us to our second unknown writer, who was probably active around the same time as John of Damascus but takes a rather different approach. Over a century ago, Margaret Dunlop Gibson edited and translated part of a seventh- or eighth-century codex from the Monastery of St. Catherine in the Sinai desert containing an Arabic version of the Acts of the Apostles, the seven Catholic Epistles, and an anonymous treatise that one might call "Against the Muslims."(16) The treatise, which still awaits careful scholarly analysis, likely represents one of the very earliest
At first glance "Against the Muslims" appears to be a long chain of biblical quotes reminiscent of testamonia lists, which demonstrated the truth of the Christian claim that Jesus Christ has fulfilled the prophecies of the Jewish Scriptures, evidence that might be useful for convincing a Jewish reader that Jesus is the Messiah. J. Rendel Harris has pointed out that the treatise draws heavily on previous apologetical writings directed against the Jews (for example, Justin's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Pseudo-Gregory of Nyssa's Adversus Judaeos, and the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila). He even suggests that its main value consists in its preservation of excerpts of some previously unknown anti-Judaic and apocryphal texts.(17) In conclusion, Harris claims it simply reveals "that the eastern church stood toward the Moslem in much the same position that they had occupied from the beginning toward the men of the synagogue."(18) In his opinion, the text is of little use for scholars of Islam.
I would argue that he has been too quick to dismiss efforts of the author as simply throwing Jews and Muslims into the same basket, for "Against the Muslims" points us in the right direction for understanding the earliest perceptions of Islam by Christians. In several places the author informs us that his intention is to counter charges of polytheism, particularly the belief that there are multiple "lords." He admonishes his reader: "Say not that we believe in two Gods (allāhayn), or that we say there are two Lords (rabbayn). God forbid! Verily God is one God and one Lord in His Word and His Spirit."(19) This is certainly intended to call to mind the charge of Sūra 3 (Āl-cImrān):64 quoted above. Read through the lens of this Christian apologetical goal, it becomes clear that "Against the Muslims" identifies the most significant point of contention with the Muslim rejection of the triune nature of God revealed through the Incarnation. For this reason, the
"Against the Muslims" moves beyond mere reformulation, though, pointing out the continuity between what Muslims and Christians believe, and directing the reader's attention to the logical implications of accepting past prophecy and revelation. In one passage, the author confronts his reader directly, stating: "The prophets and saints of God have shewn that God and His Word (kalimatuhu) and His Spirit (rūhuhu) established all things and gave life to all things, and it is not fitting for anyone who knows what God hath sent down to His prophets, that he should disdain to worship God and His Word and His Spirit, one God."(20) Those familiar with the Qur’an would recognize this as an allusion to any number of verses, such as Sūra 4 (al-Nisā'):171 quoted above, denying the possibility of multiplicity in God. Here, the qurānic verses are not disputed, but rather used in support of Trinitarian monotheism: if one believes that by his Word and his Spirit God has created and sustains all things, then it is not shirk to worship that Word and Spirit. On the contrary, anyone who believes what God has sent down to the prophets is required to acknowledge that the Word and Spirit are God, else they attribute God's creative power or life-giving spirit to something other than God.
This type of argumentation is repeated throughout the treatise. In one particularly interesting passage, the Christian author writes:
Near the end of "Against the Muslims" the author offers a brief profession of faith addressed to God, summarizing his point: "I believe in You and Your Word and Your Holy Spirit, one God and one Lord, as You have sent down and demonstrated to human beings in Your Books. . . ."(22) The statement is thoroughly Christian--three Persons, one God, one Lord--yet appealing to Muslim sensibilities--a revelation sent down and found in the Books, one God, his Word and his Spirit. At this point, the text turns immediately to the necessity of baptism for the forgiveness of sins, taught by Christ.(23) If one accepts part of what has been given in revelation through the prophets, the writer argues, then one is obligated to follow it in its totality.
It is noteworthy that the author of this text takes for granted a common belief with Muslims in the one God of the Prophets--what remains to be demonstrated is the truth of the Trinity revealed through the Incarnation. He does not attempt to discredit the Qur’ān, but instead uses what he sees as further evidence of the Trinity overlooked by Muslims in their own sacred text. In other words, he identifies an opening to Trinitarian monotheism in the Qur’ān's description of Allāh as a creating and revealing God, an opening for authentic theological exchange.
The typical challenge presented to the Christian respondent in this context is how to express the relationships among the persons of the Trinity without succumbing to tritheism. Like others, Mar Timothy draws on the work of previous writers to develop formulae useful for Christians living with Muslims and needing to defend themselves against efforts to convert them to Islam. But although he sees that the "new Jews," that is, the Muslims, present a challenge for discerning truth from falsehood just as in previous times, and many useful parallels can be drawn with the past, Timothy recognizes it is not enough simply to translate old arguments. Rather, the situation requires Christians to return to the very foundations of their faith in order to meet the questions and articulate the fullness of Christian faith.(26)
Later in the dialogue, after Timothy praises Muhammad for leading his people away from polytheism to tawhīd (the belief that God is one), the Caliph states that it is obvious that Timothy should "accept the words of the Prophet" that "God is one and that there is no other one besides Him."(28) Mar Timothy answers, "This belief in one God, O my sovereign, I have learned from the Torah, from the Prophets and from the Gospel."(29) But the God revealed is one triune God. In the ensuing discussion, Timothy marshals a wide variety of arguments from Scripture and Pythagorean number theory to build on his previous point about the unity of God and the nature of the relationships between the divine persons so that they remain coequal, coeternal, unmixed, unconfused, and uncircumscribed.(30)
The account concludes with Mar Timothy's amicable departure from the Caliph's presence, leaving his reader to ponder several points. First, it is clear that he identifies a common belief with his Muslim interlocutor in the unity of God, and that this has been revealed through the Old and New Testaments. To the extent that Muhammad preached this, Timothy acknowledges that it is true. One does not find in Mar Timothy's discussion any disparaging
Timothy's conversation with the Caliph continues in the vein of John of Damascus--he recognizes theological agreement with his Muslim questioner in tawhīd, but does not shy away from arguing for the authority of Jewish and Christian Scripture as proof of for the Incarnation and Trinity. He continues to maintain that it is Trinitarian monotheism that has been revealed in the Scriptures. What is different about Mar Timothy is the respect he shows the Caliph, and his apparent decision to steer clear of criticizing the practices of Muslims (likely in order to avoid direct confrontation with someone who holds his life in his hands!). This approach would come to be incorporated in later writings and accounts of such discussions in Arabic, which were readily accessible to Muslims, unlike Greek and Syriac texts.
Habīb ibn Khidma Abū Rā'ita al-Takrītī, the Jacobite (Syrian Orthodox) Christian who died sometime around 835 in Takrīt near Baghdad, carries on this apologetical tradition, but adds a new dimension by emphasizing philosophical, rather than scriptural, proofs. Abū Rā'ita belongs to those who came to be known as mutakallim ūn, "the ones who make arguments about religion," and was apparently well known in his day as a controversialist as far away as Armenia.(32) I have argued elsewhere that Abū Rā'ita's signal contribution to Arabic Christian theology
The charge of tahrīf is found in several places in the Qur’ān and is usually associated with an affirmation that Muhammad is a true prophet and his message is from God. The initial function of the charge was probably that of a defense against Jews and Christians who did not accept Muhammad as a prophet like those of the Old Testament. In response, the Qur’ān states that first the Jews and then the followers of Jesus have hidden the true revelation predicting the coming of another final prophet. By the end of Muhammad's life the concept is used to account for any discrepancy between the Torah and the Gospels, and the messages he received. As a consequence, all verses interpreted by Christians as pointing to a triune God who became incarnate in Jesus Christ are deemed by Muslims as rooted in error.(34)
The distortion of true revelation is identified in the Qur’ān in a number of ways: as kitmān or labs ("hiding and concealing" or "disguising" the true revelation), layy ("to twist" the pronunciation of the text so its true meaning is obscured), nisyān ("forgetting, overlooking" part of the text), or most seriously, tabdīl, the substitution of a word for another word. Understandably, the gravity of the offense of altering the Scripture or its meaning lies in intentionality--verses may be accidentally
For our purposes, it is enough to note that Muslim thinkers begin to employ the charge of tahrīf against Christians more systematically as Islamic theological thought developed in the eighth and ninth centuries. As a result, whereas earlier Christians such as the writer of the tract "Against the Muslims" and Mar Timothy relied heavily on scriptural arguments and spent a great deal of their apologetical energy demonstrating that scriptural evidence was on their side, by the beginning of the ninth century argumentation shifts away from Scripture to metaphysics. This change strongly suggests that Muslims were using a more developed notion of tahrīf in oral debates.
Extant Christian texts reveal a move from emphasis on Scripture to argumentation drawn from philosophical sources, and in this Abū Rā'ita leads the way. In his most influential work, On the Holy Trinity, Abū Rā'ita again takes up the Muslim demand that Christians recognize their common belief in the one all-powerful Creator God of the prophets, and abandon a belief in the Trinity that leads to shirk. In response, Abū Rā'ita takes advantage of the Hellenistic ideas that were beginning to be translated into Arabic in his day, beginning a systematic response to Muslim objections by demonstrating that it is not contradictory to say God is one and three, drawing on Aristotelian and Pythagorean arguments that would have been familiar to his readers. Abū Rā'ita then makes a novel move, adopting one of the Arabic terms being employed by translators for ijdiwvthς (individual property) to explain how to understand the three hypostases.(36)
Throughout the entire treatise Abū Rā'ita demonstrates that if Muslims accept the basic principles of logic put forth by the philosophers, they should accept the Trinity as well. The Old and New Testaments have not been distorted; rather, Muslims have not followed out the full implications of belief in one God who creates and communicates with his creation. Christians know this truth because they have received and accepted God's perfect revelation in the Incarnation.
Abū Rā'ita's remaining works in response to Islam on the Incarnation and proof of the truth of Christianity place the Trinity at the center. For him, since God's power to create and communicate flow directly from the triune nature, a foundation exists with Muslims on which to build a conversation. Like many other writers answering the challenge of Islam, he assumes a commonality with Muslims in their belief in one God and in the prophets, and treats it as "seeds of the word."
One could go on to multiply evidence, but I think it is possible to make some general observations based on the texts we have looked at here.First, the consensus that arises out of the earliest encounters between Muslims and Christians--be they Chalcedonian,
The Christian response in the texts presented here is that when Muslims follow out the full implications of monotheistic belief in a God who creates and communicates with his creation they will see that Trinitarian monotheism is necessary. Without it, God is neither creator nor revealer; he has no personal relationship to creation and remains remote. As John of Damascus said, Muslims may call Christians "Associators," but according to Christian doctrine, the Muslims are "Mutilators." For this reason, Christian writers responding to Islam emphasize the necessity and logical consistency of Trinitarian doctrine.
Second, although accounts of the discussions between a Muslim and a Christian end with one or the other "winning" the debate, the impasse remains. One rarely hears that the arguments result in the conversion of an individual to the opposing religion. Even Abū Rā'ita's move away from scriptural evidence to philosophical proofs was apparently more successful for strengthening Christians than altering Muslim allegiance. Not much has changed since those earliest debates. In the end, we may not be able to overcome the impasse, but it is critical to know where it lies. Knowing where our difference lies has enormous implications for how one regards the way in which to proceed in contemporary relations, dialogue, and the goals of evangelization and mission, preaching and teaching, even the theological enterprise.
In keeping with the Islamic traditions of Sharīca, A Common Word emphasizes the human obligations to God and one another. God's commands, according to the Qur’ān, make clear how we are to live as creatures and servants of God (cf. Sūra 51 [Dhāriyāt]:56). For the most part, Christians and Jews can agree
We do well to remember the insights of the first Christians who encountered Muslims as Islam was being formulated and codified. They saw that the most important belief that united them was also what divided them most deeply--not doing good works, not a common claim to a spiritual father in Abraham or that God communicates to human beings, not even a common belief in love of God and love of neighbor. All of these may be of great value in finding common ground on which to promote peaceful communities, and in this sense the Common Word initiative is an important step in the right direction. But A Common Word also reminds us of what the early Christian apologists recognized in their engagement with Muslims: the significance of the radical teaching of the Trinity. The confession that there is one God is what we have in common, but what makes Christian faith unique (and true) is the recognition that Christ reveals to us the triune nature of God--that God is in his very nature relational, and so God's self-sacrificial love for us is possible. That makes all the difference.(37)
1. "Introduction to 'A Common Word between Us and You,'" the official website of A Common Word (http://www.acommonword.com), accessed 14 May 2010.
2. Translations of the Qur’ān, unless otherwise noted, are mine. This verse is quoted in A Common Word, 13-14.
3. This also forms the basis for the Islamic rejection of any notion that human beings are made in the image of God, a teaching that has important theological and practical implications. See, for example, the work of David Burrell, Freedom and Creation in Three Traditions (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1993), especially 128-39 on the relationship between God and creation.
4. See, for example, Tafsīr al-Jalālayn on Sūras 3:64, 80; 9:31; 18:102; Tanwīr al-Miqbās min Tafsīr Ibn cAbbās on Sūras 3:64; 9:31; Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr on Sūra 3:64; etc.
5. For example, Sūras 4:171-72; 5:116-17; 43:59, 63-64, among others have been important for Muslims apologists from the earliest centuries. A Common Word quotes or refers to these verses throughout.
6. Ismā'īl Ibn cUmar Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-cazīm (Cairo: Matbacah Mustaf Muhammad, 1356/1937).
7. An excellent study of some of these issues and attendant scholarly view is found in Jane Damen McAuliffe, Qur’ānic Christians: An Analysis of Classical and Modern Exegesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), esp. 13-36.
8. For an overview of this problem see Gerald Hawting, "Širk and 'Idolatry' in Monotheist Polemic," in Dhimmis and Others: Jews and Christians and the World of Classical Islam, Israel Oriental Studies 17, ed. Uri Rubin and David J. Wasserstein (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, Inc., 1997), 107-26.
9. This is well-traveled ground. Some of the most informative studies of the various aspects of the questions can be found in Richard M. Frank, "The Neoplatonism of Gahm ibn Safwān," Le Muséon 78 (1965): 395-424; Morris S. Seale, Muslim Theology: A Study of Origins with Reference to the Church Fathers (London: Luzac and Co., Ltd, 1964); and Harry Austryn Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Kalam (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976), as well as my forthcoming article: "Some Reflections on the Early Discussion concerning the Sifāt Allāh."
10. An overview of these themes and authors is found in Rachid Haddad, La Trinité divine chez les théologiens arabes 750-1050, Coll. Beauchesne Religions 15 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1985).
11. Daniel Sahas, John of Damascus on Islam: The "Heresy of the Ishmaelites" (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972), 137.
12. John puts forward the qur’ānic accusation that the Jews have deceived Christians by adding prophets to the Scriptures to mislead them. This charge is made in several verses, such as Sūra 5:13, 41; 2:75; and 4:46, where the Jews are said to have altered (yuharrifūna) or forgotten (nasū) words of the original revelation. In the later eighth and ninth centuries the Muslim principle of tahrīf (alteration) became more developed as theologians sought to give an account of the variations between the Qur’ān and the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, which the Qur’ān teaches have the same origin in the heavenly Preserved Tablet (al-lawh al-mahfūz [Sūra 85:22]). For a fuller account of this principle, see Sandra Toenies Keating, "Refuting the Charge of Tahrīf: Abū Rā'ita (d. ca. 835) and His 'First Risāla on the Holy Trinity,'" in Ideas, Images and Methods of Portrayal: Insights into Classical Arabic Literature and Islam, ed. Sebastian Günther (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005), 41-57.
13. Kovpta" (Sahas, John of Damascus on Islam, 36).
14. Ibid., 137.
15. See Sidney H. Griffith, Theodore Abū Qurrah, the Intellectual Profile of an Arab Christian Writer of the First Abbasid Century, The Dr. Irene Halmos Chair of Arabic Literature Annual Lecture (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1992); and A. Van Roey, Nonnus de Nisibi, Traité Apologétique, etude, texte et traduction, Bibliothèque du Muséon, vol. 21 (Louvain: Bureaux du Muséon, 1948).
16. Gibson gave the title "On the Triune Nature of God" to the text, although this is somewhat misleading. See An Arabic Version of the Acts of the Apostles and the Seven Catholic Epistles from an Eighth or Ninth Century Ms. in the Convent of St Catherine on Mount Sinai with a Treatise on the Triune Nature of God, ed. and trans. Margaret Dunlop Gibson, Studia Sinaitica 7 (London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1899), 74-101 (Arabic), 2-61 (English); and J. Rendel Harris, "A Tract on the Triune Nature of God," The American Journal of Theology 5 (1901): 75-86.
17. Harris, "A Tract on the Triune Nature of God," 76-77.
18. Ibid., 86.
19. Gibson, A Treatise on the Triune Nature of God, 16 (English) and 88 (Arabic).
20. Ibid., 24 (English) and 95 (Arabic).
21. Ibid., 12 (English) and 84 (Arabic); Harris, "A Tract on the Triune Nature of God," 85.
22. My translation. Gibson, A Treatise on the Triune Nature of God, 32 (English) and 103 (Arabic).
23. Gibson, A Treatise on the Triune Nature of God, 32-36 (English) and 103-7 (Arabic).
24. Alphonse Mingana, "The Apology of Timothy the Patriarch before the Caliph Mahdi," in Woodbrooke Studies: Christian Documents in Syriac, Arabic, and Garshuni, Edited and Translated with a Critical Apparatus, vol. 2 (Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons Ltd., 1928), 1-162. See also Hans Putman, L'église et l'islam sous Timothée I (780-823) (Beyrouth: Dar al-Machreq éditeurs, 1975).
25. See for example Sidney H. Griffith, Syriac Writers on Muslims and the Religious Challenge of Islam (Kottaym: St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, 1995); "Disputes with Muslims in Syriac Christian Texts: from Patriarch John III (d. 648) to Bar Hebraeus (d. 1286)," in 25th Wolfenbüttler Symposion "Religionsgespräche im Mittelalter," 11-15 June 1989, ed. Bernard Lewis and Friedrich Niewöhner (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992), 251-73; and "The Prophet Muhammad: His Scripture and His Message according to the Christian Apologies in Arabic and Syriac from the First Abbasid Century," in La vie du Prophète Mahomet, Colloque de Strasbourg (octobre 1980) (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1983), 99-146.
26. Griffith, "Disputes," 264. Reference to the "new Jews" is found in Timothy's Letter 40. See Thomas R. Hurst, "Letter 40 of the Nestorian Patriarch Timothy I (727-823): An Edition and Translation" (M.A. Thesis, The Catholic University of America, 1981), 48.
27. Mingana, "The Apology of Timothy," 22-23.
28. Ibid., 62.
29. Ibid.
30. Ibid., 24-27, 63-90.
31. This, in spite of the fact that it was written in Syriac. This may be evidence for the historicity of this conversation, since if this text reflects an actual conversation, Timothy would have been careful in the presence of the Caliph to avoid inflammatory remarks. Other texts in Syraic, Greek, and Coptic commonly show less restraint, especially if the author believes they will not be accessible to arabophone Muslims. See the excellent overview by Griffith, "The Prophet Muhammad."
32. Sandra Toenies Keating, Defending the "People of Truth" in the Early Islamic Period: The Christian Apologies of Abū Rā'ita, HCMR 4 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), esp. 1-65.
33. For a complete survey of this problem in Abū Rā'ita's writings, see Keating, "Refuting the Charge of Tahrīf."
34. Ibid., 41-44.
35. One should also note that this is the period in which extensive criteria were being developed to determine the authenticity of the isnād (chain of transmission) of a hadīth (oral tradition concerning Muhammad). Neither Christians nor Jews could produce a reliable chain of transmission for their own Scriptures, casting doubt on their reliability in Muslim eyes.
36. Keating, Defending the "People of Truth," 147-215.
37. An earlier version of this article was given at the annual meeting of the Academy of Catholic Theology, May 2009.
"SAY NOT THREE":
SOME EARLY CHRISTIAN RESPONSES TO MUSLIM
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TRINITY
SOME EARLY CHRISTIAN RESPONSES TO MUSLIM
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TRINITY
Sandra Toenies Keating
Providence College
Providence, Rhode Island
Providence, Rhode Island
IN OCTOBER 2007, a group of Muslim intellectuals, scholars, and clerics issued a statement that has come to be known as A Common Word between Us and You. The title comes from a phrase from the Qur’ān exhorting Christians and Muslims to find agreement in their worship of the one God. According to the official website of the group who formulated and endorsed the statement, it was written in direct response to Pope Benedict XVI's address to the faculty at the University of Regensburg in September of the previous year, and is the result of Muslims who have "unanimously come together for the first time since the days of the Prophet r[sic] to declare the common ground between Christianity and Islam."(1) This is a very bold statement, and may signal the beginning of a new era in relations between Muslims and Christians.
But what exactly is new about this endeavor, and how ought Christian theologians to respond to it? It is true that such a joint effort of this kind among Muslims is revolutionary and may ultimately serve the same purpose in articulating traditional views in contemporary language for like-minded Muslims that Nostra Aetate has for Roman Catholics. For this its drafters are to be highly commended. It has taken great courage to make this public statement at a time when the Islamic ummah is roiled by internal
page 86
divisions and large parts of it are deeply suspicious of what it perceives as the Christian West. From the longer perspective of history, the initiative itself is unique, and the drafters of the text have taken full advantage of modern technology to spread their message, making it possible that it will influence Muslims worldwide. What is not new is the content of the statement. A careful reading of the text reveals that it very closely follows the approach past Muslim apologists have taken, namely, it emphasizes the call to a common understanding between Muslims and Christians based on what is similar between the Qur’ān and the Holy Bible, while clearly rejecting the Christian doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation. It seeks to formulate concord upon a common monotheism while calling upon Christians to reject their own "heretical" distortion of that monotheism.In particular, the Common Word statement stresses that Christians and Muslims agree that central to their religions is love of God and love of neighbor, and that this is expressed in worship of the one God. Indeed, this crucial doctrine can provide a firm foundation upon which to build a more stable and peaceful society. In support, the Common Word quotes a key passage from the Qur’ān, found in Sūra 3 (Āl-cImrān):64:
Say: "O People of the Scripture! Come to a common word between us and you: worshipping only God, and not associating any partners with Him, and not taking one another as lords apart from God." And if they turn away, then say: "Bear witness that we are the ones who have surrendered (to God)."(2)
The Muslim confession of belief in one God, in Arabic tawhīd, is identified here as a common point of agreement between Muslims and Christians. In this verse, tawh īd is defined as a monotheism that does not allow any other being to be associated with God,(3) nor to be addressed as "lord"; that is, it prohibits giving to anyone page 87
or anything else the sovereignty that properly belongs to God. Traditionally, this has been interpreted by Muslim thinkers as a clear condemnation of polytheism. Read together with other verses of the Qur’ān, it is also understood to preclude the Christian profession of the Trinity and the Incarnation as formally defined by the early Church councils.(4) More will be said about this below. It has long been recognized that what unites Muslims and Christians is monotheism, what divides us is Trinitarian monotheism. A Common Word, in keeping with many earlier Muslim apologetical texts, reiterates this point, exhorting Christians to recognize the truth of the Qur’ān and to abandon any false beliefs that compromise tawhīd.(5)The idea that monotheism is the common ground on which Muslims and Christians can build better global relationships has been at the center of many modern efforts to find social unity. For this reason, the Islamic concepts of the ahl al-kit āb ("People of the Book/Scripture") and "Abrahamic Religions" have been employed by a multitude of theologians (as well as politicians) and become popular ways of conceptually integrating Muslims into communities of Christians and Jews. In the same vein, A Common Word has elicited the call from many well-intentioned Christians and others (some perhaps not so well-intentioned), to act in the spirit of cooperation and desire for world peace, leaving aside complex theological discussion. Whether out of fear it will lead to compromise, discouragement over the dialogue process so far, or lack of confidence that doctrinal formulations are meaningful, the point is made on all sides that such conversation is bound to be unproductive, and is therefore useless.
I would argue, though, that many Christians, whether they have ignored or endorsed and promoted the statement, have not fully grasped its radical call to abandon "heretical" Trinitarian monotheism, and the implications of such a move. Yet this is exactly where the rubber hits the road, so to speak, and has done
page 88
so from the beginning. For centuries Christians living in close proximity to Muslims have recognized that we share a great deal in common principles and values, and at times this has even been enough to build a common society, as was found in Cordoba, Baghdad, and elsewhere. This is not a new insight. What remains at the heart of the disagreement between the two religious communities is how we speak about God's oneness and what does and does not violate the grammar of monotheism. The Common Word statement offers us a renewed opportunity to take up the Christian doctrine of Trinitarian monotheism in light of the Muslim challenge that it is a kind of "monotheistic heresy." As a contribution to this question, I will offer some observations about a few of the earliest written testimonies reflecting on the crux of the issues, in order to provide a foundation for the present-day discussion. I am convinced that attention to these early thinkers, men who first encountered Islam and sought to make sense of it, will prevent contemporary theologians from "reinventing the wheel" and even help us to avoid falling into some of the traps set by modern sensibilities and sensitivities.I. "Believe in AllĀh and His Messengers and
Say Not 'Three'" (Sūra 4 [al-Nisā']:171)
Say Not 'Three'" (Sūra 4 [al-Nisā']:171)
page 89
rather the Absolute One who is unlike any creature and has spoken his divine word in the last days through Muhammad?For Muslims, the problem is summarized in Sūra 4 (al-Nisā'):171:
O People of the Scripture, do not exaggerate in your religion, nor say [anything] about Allāh except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, is [only] Allāh's Messenger and His Word [kalimatuhu], which He cast into her, and a Spirit from Him [rūhun minhu]. So believe in Allāh and His Messengers and say not "Three." Refrain, it is better for you. Allāh is truly One God, glory be to Him! How is it He could have a son? To Him belongs what is in the heavens and on the earth.
Traditional Muslim commentators on this verse, such as Ibn Kathīr (d. 1373),(6) connect it closely to Sūra 5 (al-Mā'ida):72-73:For they are unbelievers (kafara) who say that Allāh is the Messiah, the Son of Mary. And the Messiah said: O, Children of Israel, worship Allāh, my Lord and your Lord. Surely the one who associates (yushrika) other gods with Allāh, Allāh will forbid him [entrance into] Paradise and his dwelling is the Fire. . . . For they are unbelievers who say that Allāh is the third of three, And there is no god except the One God; and if they do not refrain from what they say then those who are unbelievers among them will be severely punished.
Elsewhere the Qur’ān states that on the Day of Judgment Jesus will be asked by God: "O cIsa, son of Maryam, did you say to the people: 'Take me and my Mother as gods apart from Allāh?'", to which he will reply that it has not been given to him to say what is false" (5:116). This and other verses have led some to conclude that the Qur’ān is concerned with a group of Christians who acknowledged a trinity of a Father, Mother (Mary), and Son (Jesus), and is therefore not a critique of orthodox Christians.(7)While the current debate as to whether the Christians of the Qur’ān are an identifiable group who held views quite different from accepted orthodoxy, and what the significance of this is for qur’ānic exegesis, may be of interest to scholars, it can cause us to
page 90
overlook the deeper intention of the text. At its heart, the Qur’ān is a critique of any notion that God is, much less chooses to become, like anything in creation. This is the truest meaning of lā ilāh illa Allāh--"there is no god but God." Conversely, nothing in creation bears any resemblance to God, including human beings. To say otherwise is the worst of all sins--shirk.Lest we miss the point, the verses cited above and a multitude of others draw an explicit connection between Christian belief in the Trinity and conviction that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, and shirk, identifying those who hold such beliefs as mushrikūn (associators/polytheists) and kâfirūn (unbelievers).(8) Over the centuries, Muslim and Christian scholars have debated the truth and implications of this correlation. Parallel to the Christological disputes, one can see struggles among Islamic scholars to understand the divine attributes, the sifāt Allāh and especially to articulate the relationship between God's Word, the Qur’ān, and God's being.(9) In this paper, I will look more carefully at how some Christians who first encountered the qur’ānic critique of the Trinity understood it and more specifically how they responded to it. It should be of interest to the modern theologian that records of the earliest conversations between Muslims and Christians do not focus on the qur’ānic characterization of specific aspects of Christian beliefs (for example, whether or not Christians worship Mary as a god); rather, they take on the general concern that belief in the Trinity and Incarnation are shirk--associating others with God and not giving God the absolute worship and honor that is his due.
page 91
This consideration gives us a further insight as to why many Christian theologians in the first centuries of Islam regarded Muslims as adhering to another heretical Christian sect, probably related to Arianism, and, as far as we have documentation, engaged them on the level of theology, rather than on legal and practical issues such as polygamy, inheritance, governance, war, etc. It was well understood by these writers of the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries that the real point of contention was how to speak of the one God who is Creator and who has been revealed to humanity, in ways that uphold the singularity of his deity; from this concern all other practical applications flowed.(10) I would argue that they "got it right," and we would do well to take another look at the insights that they gained from these encounters as we continue the project of articulating Christian faith in the context of a diversity of religions and, in particular, a diversity of monotheisms. This issue is all the more urgent since one of these monotheisms is vocally and emphatically anti-Trinitarian.II. St. John of Damascus and the Heresy of the Ishmaelites
The first Christian writer of interest here is St. John of Damascus (d. 749), who needs little introduction. His inclusion of Islam in his De Haeresibus was perhaps the Christian commentary on Islam that was most widely read in the West until modern times. John has been accused, unjustly I believe, of many things because of this. His critique of Islam, and especially of Muhammad, is quite harsh. But the few short pages in which he summarizes the beliefs of the followers of Muhammad are surprisingly accurate. John's synopsis of the Muslim version of Jesus' conception, birth, his being taken up to heaven instead of suffering crucifixion, and Jesus' own teaching that he was not God, reveal a good knowledge of the Qur’ān on these topics.
page 92
John follows his summary with a response to the "Ishmaelites" who say that Christians are "associators" ( JEtairiastal) when they claim that "Christ is the Son of God and God."(11) They maintain, he says, that this false teaching is the result of Christians having added to the Scriptures through the use of allegory, as well as through deception by the Jews.(12) The Damascene's famous response is that the Word and the Spirit must be inseparable from the one in whom they have their origin, soif, therefore, the Word is in God it is obvious that he is God as well. If, on the other hand, th[e Word] is outside of God, then God, according to you, is without word and without spirit. Thus, trying to avoid making associates to God you have mutilated Him. For it would be better if you were saying that he has an associate than to mutilate him and introduce him as if he were a stone, or wood, or any of the inanimate objects. Therefore, by accusing us falsely, you call us Associators; we, however, call you Mutilators [Coptas](13) of God.(14)
In a few strokes John goes to the heart the problem: what does it mean to deny the possibility of the Trinitarian relationship in God? He answers that to strip God of life and word is to make the divine being more akin to a stone, and this is much worse than to say God is like human beings in trying to explain the relationship between God's life, word, and being. John's obvious point here is that if God is who Christians believe he is, one, living, and communicating to creation, then the Spirit and the Word must be God. The problem is not whether God is one, but the inner nature page 93
of the one God as it has been communicated to human beings. This, of course, the Damascene lays out in great detail in his De Fide Orthodoxa.John's approach had wide-reaching influence among Christians living under Muslim rule through a number of his later disciples, notably Theodore Aūb Qurrah in the Melkite Church and the Syrian Orthodox Archdeacon Nonnus of Nisibis in Armenia.(15) Those who read their writings in Arabic, Greek, and Armenian recognized the usefulness of John's insights for apologetical and catechetical purposes as they carried on their engagement with Muslims. As we shall see below, in different ways, most Christian apologists from the first centuries of Islam made a defense of the Trinity central to their theology, only turning to other topics after they had established this doctrine.
III. A Tract on the Triune Nature of God: "Against the Muslims"
This brings us to our second unknown writer, who was probably active around the same time as John of Damascus but takes a rather different approach. Over a century ago, Margaret Dunlop Gibson edited and translated part of a seventh- or eighth-century codex from the Monastery of St. Catherine in the Sinai desert containing an Arabic version of the Acts of the Apostles, the seven Catholic Epistles, and an anonymous treatise that one might call "Against the Muslims."(16) The treatise, which still awaits careful scholarly analysis, likely represents one of the very earliest
page 94
attempts in Arabic to counter the claims of the Qur’ān discussed above that Christians are mushrikūn--those who associate others with God.At first glance "Against the Muslims" appears to be a long chain of biblical quotes reminiscent of testamonia lists, which demonstrated the truth of the Christian claim that Jesus Christ has fulfilled the prophecies of the Jewish Scriptures, evidence that might be useful for convincing a Jewish reader that Jesus is the Messiah. J. Rendel Harris has pointed out that the treatise draws heavily on previous apologetical writings directed against the Jews (for example, Justin's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Pseudo-Gregory of Nyssa's Adversus Judaeos, and the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila). He even suggests that its main value consists in its preservation of excerpts of some previously unknown anti-Judaic and apocryphal texts.(17) In conclusion, Harris claims it simply reveals "that the eastern church stood toward the Moslem in much the same position that they had occupied from the beginning toward the men of the synagogue."(18) In his opinion, the text is of little use for scholars of Islam.
I would argue that he has been too quick to dismiss efforts of the author as simply throwing Jews and Muslims into the same basket, for "Against the Muslims" points us in the right direction for understanding the earliest perceptions of Islam by Christians. In several places the author informs us that his intention is to counter charges of polytheism, particularly the belief that there are multiple "lords." He admonishes his reader: "Say not that we believe in two Gods (allāhayn), or that we say there are two Lords (rabbayn). God forbid! Verily God is one God and one Lord in His Word and His Spirit."(19) This is certainly intended to call to mind the charge of Sūra 3 (Āl-cImrān):64 quoted above. Read through the lens of this Christian apologetical goal, it becomes clear that "Against the Muslims" identifies the most significant point of contention with the Muslim rejection of the triune nature of God revealed through the Incarnation. For this reason, the
page 95
author was apparently confident that he could respond to the new challenge Islam presented by reformulating in Arabic many arguments defending the Trinity that had been used previously against another community who questioned its coherence, the Jews."Against the Muslims" moves beyond mere reformulation, though, pointing out the continuity between what Muslims and Christians believe, and directing the reader's attention to the logical implications of accepting past prophecy and revelation. In one passage, the author confronts his reader directly, stating: "The prophets and saints of God have shewn that God and His Word (kalimatuhu) and His Spirit (rūhuhu) established all things and gave life to all things, and it is not fitting for anyone who knows what God hath sent down to His prophets, that he should disdain to worship God and His Word and His Spirit, one God."(20) Those familiar with the Qur’an would recognize this as an allusion to any number of verses, such as Sūra 4 (al-Nisā'):171 quoted above, denying the possibility of multiplicity in God. Here, the qurānic verses are not disputed, but rather used in support of Trinitarian monotheism: if one believes that by his Word and his Spirit God has created and sustains all things, then it is not shirk to worship that Word and Spirit. On the contrary, anyone who believes what God has sent down to the prophets is required to acknowledge that the Word and Spirit are God, else they attribute God's creative power or life-giving spirit to something other than God.
This type of argumentation is repeated throughout the treatise. In one particularly interesting passage, the Christian author writes:
The Christ said to the children of Israel : If ye believe not in me, believe in my work which I do [John10:38]. The Christ created, and no one can create but God. You will find in the Koran: "And he spake and created (khalaqa) from clay like the form of a bird, and breathed (nafakha) into it, and lo! It became a bird by the permission of God."(21)
page 96
This is a reference to Sūra 3 (Āl-cImrān):49 in which Mary is told that her child will be a messenger (rasūl) performing signs (ayāt) to confirm the revelation to previous prophets. Although the Qur’ān emphasizes that Jesus only creates "with God's per-mission," our writer uses the text to draw a direct line from Jesus, the Messiah, to God who creates the birds of the air through his Word and Breath. If only God creates and give life, then the Qur’ān itself is a witness to Jesus' divinity.Near the end of "Against the Muslims" the author offers a brief profession of faith addressed to God, summarizing his point: "I believe in You and Your Word and Your Holy Spirit, one God and one Lord, as You have sent down and demonstrated to human beings in Your Books. . . ."(22) The statement is thoroughly Christian--three Persons, one God, one Lord--yet appealing to Muslim sensibilities--a revelation sent down and found in the Books, one God, his Word and his Spirit. At this point, the text turns immediately to the necessity of baptism for the forgiveness of sins, taught by Christ.(23) If one accepts part of what has been given in revelation through the prophets, the writer argues, then one is obligated to follow it in its totality.
It is noteworthy that the author of this text takes for granted a common belief with Muslims in the one God of the Prophets--what remains to be demonstrated is the truth of the Trinity revealed through the Incarnation. He does not attempt to discredit the Qur’ān, but instead uses what he sees as further evidence of the Trinity overlooked by Muslims in their own sacred text. In other words, he identifies an opening to Trinitarian monotheism in the Qur’ān's description of Allāh as a creating and revealing God, an opening for authentic theological exchange.
IV. Mar Timothy and the Caliph al-MahdĪ
Perhaps the first account of an extensive discussion between a Muslim and a Christian is the well-known conversation between the Nestorian Catholicos, Mar Timothy, and the Caliph al-Mahdī page 97
(775-85) dated in the year 781.(24) The original text is in Syriac (although later Arabic translations exist) and has long been recognized as containing the major themes and the earliest answers given by Christians to Muslims who were asking them to clarify their faith. This is well-trodden ground, and it is not necessary for us to examine Timothy's responses in detail here.(25) It is enough to note that the Caliph's questions begin with the Incarnation and how God can beget a son without genitals or sexual intercourse (which implies that God has a body like creatures), moving to the question of the relationships between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.The typical challenge presented to the Christian respondent in this context is how to express the relationships among the persons of the Trinity without succumbing to tritheism. Like others, Mar Timothy draws on the work of previous writers to develop formulae useful for Christians living with Muslims and needing to defend themselves against efforts to convert them to Islam. But although he sees that the "new Jews," that is, the Muslims, present a challenge for discerning truth from falsehood just as in previous times, and many useful parallels can be drawn with the past, Timothy recognizes it is not enough simply to translate old arguments. Rather, the situation requires Christians to return to the very foundations of their faith in order to meet the questions and articulate the fullness of Christian faith.(26)
page 98
Central to the argument Timothy develops in the discussion with al-Mahdī is that it is not contradictory to describe God as one and three, but is rather necessary for truthful belief about God. He begins by arguing that just as the Caliph is physically one, always existing along with his word (or knowledge) and his spirit, so God also is one, existing eternally with his Word and his Spirit. A further comparison can be made with the sun, its light, and its heat. This analogy has its limitations, Timothy notes, as do all comparisons between God and the created world. Yet what the analogy illustrates is that blasphemy lies not in claiming three persons in God, but rather in saying that there was a time when God was without his Word and his Spirit, that is, without knowledge and life. In fact, he argues, Scripture makes clear that God cannot be Creator without his Word and his Spirit.(27)Later in the dialogue, after Timothy praises Muhammad for leading his people away from polytheism to tawhīd (the belief that God is one), the Caliph states that it is obvious that Timothy should "accept the words of the Prophet" that "God is one and that there is no other one besides Him."(28) Mar Timothy answers, "This belief in one God, O my sovereign, I have learned from the Torah, from the Prophets and from the Gospel."(29) But the God revealed is one triune God. In the ensuing discussion, Timothy marshals a wide variety of arguments from Scripture and Pythagorean number theory to build on his previous point about the unity of God and the nature of the relationships between the divine persons so that they remain coequal, coeternal, unmixed, unconfused, and uncircumscribed.(30)
The account concludes with Mar Timothy's amicable departure from the Caliph's presence, leaving his reader to ponder several points. First, it is clear that he identifies a common belief with his Muslim interlocutor in the unity of God, and that this has been revealed through the Old and New Testaments. To the extent that Muhammad preached this, Timothy acknowledges that it is true. One does not find in Mar Timothy's discussion any disparaging
page 99
remarks about Muslim practices or Muhammad.(31) He further leaves aside the question of the authorship of the Qur’ān and its relationship to Muhammad, focusing instead on what he sees as the central issue: the necessity of professing the triune God revealed in the Incarnation.Timothy's conversation with the Caliph continues in the vein of John of Damascus--he recognizes theological agreement with his Muslim questioner in tawhīd, but does not shy away from arguing for the authority of Jewish and Christian Scripture as proof of for the Incarnation and Trinity. He continues to maintain that it is Trinitarian monotheism that has been revealed in the Scriptures. What is different about Mar Timothy is the respect he shows the Caliph, and his apparent decision to steer clear of criticizing the practices of Muslims (likely in order to avoid direct confrontation with someone who holds his life in his hands!). This approach would come to be incorporated in later writings and accounts of such discussions in Arabic, which were readily accessible to Muslims, unlike Greek and Syriac texts.
V. AbŪ RĀ'ita al-TakrĪtĪ and tahrĪf
Habīb ibn Khidma Abū Rā'ita al-Takrītī, the Jacobite (Syrian Orthodox) Christian who died sometime around 835 in Takrīt near Baghdad, carries on this apologetical tradition, but adds a new dimension by emphasizing philosophical, rather than scriptural, proofs. Abū Rā'ita belongs to those who came to be known as mutakallim ūn, "the ones who make arguments about religion," and was apparently well known in his day as a controversialist as far away as Armenia.(32) I have argued elsewhere that Abū Rā'ita's signal contribution to Arabic Christian theology
page 100
is his introduction of certain philosophical terminology in Arabic into discussions on the Trinity precisely in response to some apparently intractable problems in theological debates with Muslims. One particularly difficult issue involved the use of Scripture in defense of Christian doctrine. At the root of the problem is the qur’ānic charge of tahrīf, the claim that Christians and Jews have changed (ghayyara) and altered (harrafa) their Scriptures, making them unreliable.(33) Judging by the literature that begins to appear in the time between John of Damascus and Abū Rā'ita, Muslim thinkers were continuing to develop the idea of tahrīf and using it in their apologetics as an answer to the claim that the Jewish and Christian Scriptures in fact support Trinitarian doctrine.The charge of tahrīf is found in several places in the Qur’ān and is usually associated with an affirmation that Muhammad is a true prophet and his message is from God. The initial function of the charge was probably that of a defense against Jews and Christians who did not accept Muhammad as a prophet like those of the Old Testament. In response, the Qur’ān states that first the Jews and then the followers of Jesus have hidden the true revelation predicting the coming of another final prophet. By the end of Muhammad's life the concept is used to account for any discrepancy between the Torah and the Gospels, and the messages he received. As a consequence, all verses interpreted by Christians as pointing to a triune God who became incarnate in Jesus Christ are deemed by Muslims as rooted in error.(34)
The distortion of true revelation is identified in the Qur’ān in a number of ways: as kitmān or labs ("hiding and concealing" or "disguising" the true revelation), layy ("to twist" the pronunciation of the text so its true meaning is obscured), nisyān ("forgetting, overlooking" part of the text), or most seriously, tabdīl, the substitution of a word for another word. Understandably, the gravity of the offense of altering the Scripture or its meaning lies in intentionality--verses may be accidentally
page 101
forgotten, but God will punish the deliberate concealment of revelation. In the effort to account for discrepancies among the "Books," many Muslim scholars reached the same conclusion: any scriptural text that compromises tawhīd is the result of some form of tahrīf and should be rejected as unsound. (35) Thus it became impossible for Christians to refer to scriptural evidence in support of their doctrines, even though the Qur’ān acknowledged them as "People of the Book/Scripture."For our purposes, it is enough to note that Muslim thinkers begin to employ the charge of tahrīf against Christians more systematically as Islamic theological thought developed in the eighth and ninth centuries. As a result, whereas earlier Christians such as the writer of the tract "Against the Muslims" and Mar Timothy relied heavily on scriptural arguments and spent a great deal of their apologetical energy demonstrating that scriptural evidence was on their side, by the beginning of the ninth century argumentation shifts away from Scripture to metaphysics. This change strongly suggests that Muslims were using a more developed notion of tahrīf in oral debates.
Extant Christian texts reveal a move from emphasis on Scripture to argumentation drawn from philosophical sources, and in this Abū Rā'ita leads the way. In his most influential work, On the Holy Trinity, Abū Rā'ita again takes up the Muslim demand that Christians recognize their common belief in the one all-powerful Creator God of the prophets, and abandon a belief in the Trinity that leads to shirk. In response, Abū Rā'ita takes advantage of the Hellenistic ideas that were beginning to be translated into Arabic in his day, beginning a systematic response to Muslim objections by demonstrating that it is not contradictory to say God is one and three, drawing on Aristotelian and Pythagorean arguments that would have been familiar to his readers. Abū Rā'ita then makes a novel move, adopting one of the Arabic terms being employed by translators for ijdiwvthς (individual property) to explain how to understand the three hypostases.(36)
page 102
The term he uses is sifa, also commonly translated as 'attribute'. In a nutshell, Abū Rā'ita argues that just as Muslims speak of the divine attributes (the sifāt Allāh) of living, knowing, and wise, Christians recognize that these attributes are persons (aqānīm)--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Further, it is only because of these attributes that God lives, creates, communicates, sends prophets, etc., as even the Muslim sacred book states. Without the sift God is lacking. Thus, rather than being contradictory in saying that God is both one and three, Christians recognize the true necessity of the Trinity.Throughout the entire treatise Abū Rā'ita demonstrates that if Muslims accept the basic principles of logic put forth by the philosophers, they should accept the Trinity as well. The Old and New Testaments have not been distorted; rather, Muslims have not followed out the full implications of belief in one God who creates and communicates with his creation. Christians know this truth because they have received and accepted God's perfect revelation in the Incarnation.
Abū Rā'ita's remaining works in response to Islam on the Incarnation and proof of the truth of Christianity place the Trinity at the center. For him, since God's power to create and communicate flow directly from the triune nature, a foundation exists with Muslims on which to build a conversation. Like many other writers answering the challenge of Islam, he assumes a commonality with Muslims in their belief in one God and in the prophets, and treats it as "seeds of the word."
Conclusion
One could go on to multiply evidence, but I think it is possible to make some general observations based on the texts we have looked at here.
page 103
Nestorian, Miaphysite/Jacobite, speakers of Arabic, Greek or Syriac--is that the dividing line between the two communities is Trinitarian monotheism. For Muslims, belief in the Trinity compromises tawhīd and leads one to gravest of all sins, shirk, in associating what is not God with God. This is the result of a distortion of previous Scriptures that has now been corrected by the Qur’ān. The only solution for Christians is to recognize this and abandon the doctrine of the Trinity.The Christian response in the texts presented here is that when Muslims follow out the full implications of monotheistic belief in a God who creates and communicates with his creation they will see that Trinitarian monotheism is necessary. Without it, God is neither creator nor revealer; he has no personal relationship to creation and remains remote. As John of Damascus said, Muslims may call Christians "Associators," but according to Christian doctrine, the Muslims are "Mutilators." For this reason, Christian writers responding to Islam emphasize the necessity and logical consistency of Trinitarian doctrine.
Second, although accounts of the discussions between a Muslim and a Christian end with one or the other "winning" the debate, the impasse remains. One rarely hears that the arguments result in the conversion of an individual to the opposing religion. Even Abū Rā'ita's move away from scriptural evidence to philosophical proofs was apparently more successful for strengthening Christians than altering Muslim allegiance. Not much has changed since those earliest debates. In the end, we may not be able to overcome the impasse, but it is critical to know where it lies. Knowing where our difference lies has enormous implications for how one regards the way in which to proceed in contemporary relations, dialogue, and the goals of evangelization and mission, preaching and teaching, even the theological enterprise.
In keeping with the Islamic traditions of Sharīca, A Common Word emphasizes the human obligations to God and one another. God's commands, according to the Qur’ān, make clear how we are to live as creatures and servants of God (cf. Sūra 51 [Dhāriyāt]:56). For the most part, Christians and Jews can agree
page 104
with these requirements. But the Christian response must be that in the Incarnation, God has revealed the perfection of human beings and human community--that God's very self is made known as a loving triune community who has healed the broken relationship with humanity through divine self-sacrifice. God is not simply the omnipotent, omniscient Lord of all creation, the merciful and just judge; God is the triune Lord who loves and calls those who bear within themselves the divine image.We do well to remember the insights of the first Christians who encountered Muslims as Islam was being formulated and codified. They saw that the most important belief that united them was also what divided them most deeply--not doing good works, not a common claim to a spiritual father in Abraham or that God communicates to human beings, not even a common belief in love of God and love of neighbor. All of these may be of great value in finding common ground on which to promote peaceful communities, and in this sense the Common Word initiative is an important step in the right direction. But A Common Word also reminds us of what the early Christian apologists recognized in their engagement with Muslims: the significance of the radical teaching of the Trinity. The confession that there is one God is what we have in common, but what makes Christian faith unique (and true) is the recognition that Christ reveals to us the triune nature of God--that God is in his very nature relational, and so God's self-sacrificial love for us is possible. That makes all the difference.(37)
1. "Introduction to 'A Common Word between Us and You,'" the official website of A Common Word (http://www.acommonword.com), accessed 14 May 2010.
2. Translations of the Qur’ān, unless otherwise noted, are mine. This verse is quoted in A Common Word, 13-14.
3. This also forms the basis for the Islamic rejection of any notion that human beings are made in the image of God, a teaching that has important theological and practical implications. See, for example, the work of David Burrell, Freedom and Creation in Three Traditions (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1993), especially 128-39 on the relationship between God and creation.
4. See, for example, Tafsīr al-Jalālayn on Sūras 3:64, 80; 9:31; 18:102; Tanwīr al-Miqbās min Tafsīr Ibn cAbbās on Sūras 3:64; 9:31; Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr on Sūra 3:64; etc.
5. For example, Sūras 4:171-72; 5:116-17; 43:59, 63-64, among others have been important for Muslims apologists from the earliest centuries. A Common Word quotes or refers to these verses throughout.
6. Ismā'īl Ibn cUmar Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-cazīm (Cairo: Matbacah Mustaf Muhammad, 1356/1937).
7. An excellent study of some of these issues and attendant scholarly view is found in Jane Damen McAuliffe, Qur’ānic Christians: An Analysis of Classical and Modern Exegesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), esp. 13-36.
8. For an overview of this problem see Gerald Hawting, "Širk and 'Idolatry' in Monotheist Polemic," in Dhimmis and Others: Jews and Christians and the World of Classical Islam, Israel Oriental Studies 17, ed. Uri Rubin and David J. Wasserstein (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, Inc., 1997), 107-26.
9. This is well-traveled ground. Some of the most informative studies of the various aspects of the questions can be found in Richard M. Frank, "The Neoplatonism of Gahm ibn Safwān," Le Muséon 78 (1965): 395-424; Morris S. Seale, Muslim Theology: A Study of Origins with Reference to the Church Fathers (London: Luzac and Co., Ltd, 1964); and Harry Austryn Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Kalam (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976), as well as my forthcoming article: "Some Reflections on the Early Discussion concerning the Sifāt Allāh."
10. An overview of these themes and authors is found in Rachid Haddad, La Trinité divine chez les théologiens arabes 750-1050, Coll. Beauchesne Religions 15 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1985).
11. Daniel Sahas, John of Damascus on Islam: The "Heresy of the Ishmaelites" (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972), 137.
12. John puts forward the qur’ānic accusation that the Jews have deceived Christians by adding prophets to the Scriptures to mislead them. This charge is made in several verses, such as Sūra 5:13, 41; 2:75; and 4:46, where the Jews are said to have altered (yuharrifūna) or forgotten (nasū) words of the original revelation. In the later eighth and ninth centuries the Muslim principle of tahrīf (alteration) became more developed as theologians sought to give an account of the variations between the Qur’ān and the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, which the Qur’ān teaches have the same origin in the heavenly Preserved Tablet (al-lawh al-mahfūz [Sūra 85:22]). For a fuller account of this principle, see Sandra Toenies Keating, "Refuting the Charge of Tahrīf: Abū Rā'ita (d. ca. 835) and His 'First Risāla on the Holy Trinity,'" in Ideas, Images and Methods of Portrayal: Insights into Classical Arabic Literature and Islam, ed. Sebastian Günther (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005), 41-57.
13. Kovpta" (Sahas, John of Damascus on Islam, 36).
14. Ibid., 137.
15. See Sidney H. Griffith, Theodore Abū Qurrah, the Intellectual Profile of an Arab Christian Writer of the First Abbasid Century, The Dr. Irene Halmos Chair of Arabic Literature Annual Lecture (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1992); and A. Van Roey, Nonnus de Nisibi, Traité Apologétique, etude, texte et traduction, Bibliothèque du Muséon, vol. 21 (Louvain: Bureaux du Muséon, 1948).
16. Gibson gave the title "On the Triune Nature of God" to the text, although this is somewhat misleading. See An Arabic Version of the Acts of the Apostles and the Seven Catholic Epistles from an Eighth or Ninth Century Ms. in the Convent of St Catherine on Mount Sinai with a Treatise on the Triune Nature of God, ed. and trans. Margaret Dunlop Gibson, Studia Sinaitica 7 (London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1899), 74-101 (Arabic), 2-61 (English); and J. Rendel Harris, "A Tract on the Triune Nature of God," The American Journal of Theology 5 (1901): 75-86.
17. Harris, "A Tract on the Triune Nature of God," 76-77.
18. Ibid., 86.
19. Gibson, A Treatise on the Triune Nature of God, 16 (English) and 88 (Arabic).
20. Ibid., 24 (English) and 95 (Arabic).
21. Ibid., 12 (English) and 84 (Arabic); Harris, "A Tract on the Triune Nature of God," 85.
22. My translation. Gibson, A Treatise on the Triune Nature of God, 32 (English) and 103 (Arabic).
23. Gibson, A Treatise on the Triune Nature of God, 32-36 (English) and 103-7 (Arabic).
24. Alphonse Mingana, "The Apology of Timothy the Patriarch before the Caliph Mahdi," in Woodbrooke Studies: Christian Documents in Syriac, Arabic, and Garshuni, Edited and Translated with a Critical Apparatus, vol. 2 (Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons Ltd., 1928), 1-162. See also Hans Putman, L'église et l'islam sous Timothée I (780-823) (Beyrouth: Dar al-Machreq éditeurs, 1975).
25. See for example Sidney H. Griffith, Syriac Writers on Muslims and the Religious Challenge of Islam (Kottaym: St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, 1995); "Disputes with Muslims in Syriac Christian Texts: from Patriarch John III (d. 648) to Bar Hebraeus (d. 1286)," in 25th Wolfenbüttler Symposion "Religionsgespräche im Mittelalter," 11-15 June 1989, ed. Bernard Lewis and Friedrich Niewöhner (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992), 251-73; and "The Prophet Muhammad: His Scripture and His Message according to the Christian Apologies in Arabic and Syriac from the First Abbasid Century," in La vie du Prophète Mahomet, Colloque de Strasbourg (octobre 1980) (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1983), 99-146.
26. Griffith, "Disputes," 264. Reference to the "new Jews" is found in Timothy's Letter 40. See Thomas R. Hurst, "Letter 40 of the Nestorian Patriarch Timothy I (727-823): An Edition and Translation" (M.A. Thesis, The Catholic University of America, 1981), 48.
27. Mingana, "The Apology of Timothy," 22-23.
28. Ibid., 62.
29. Ibid.
30. Ibid., 24-27, 63-90.
31. This, in spite of the fact that it was written in Syriac. This may be evidence for the historicity of this conversation, since if this text reflects an actual conversation, Timothy would have been careful in the presence of the Caliph to avoid inflammatory remarks. Other texts in Syraic, Greek, and Coptic commonly show less restraint, especially if the author believes they will not be accessible to arabophone Muslims. See the excellent overview by Griffith, "The Prophet Muhammad."
32. Sandra Toenies Keating, Defending the "People of Truth" in the Early Islamic Period: The Christian Apologies of Abū Rā'ita, HCMR 4 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), esp. 1-65.
33. For a complete survey of this problem in Abū Rā'ita's writings, see Keating, "Refuting the Charge of Tahrīf."
34. Ibid., 41-44.
35. One should also note that this is the period in which extensive criteria were being developed to determine the authenticity of the isnād (chain of transmission) of a hadīth (oral tradition concerning Muhammad). Neither Christians nor Jews could produce a reliable chain of transmission for their own Scriptures, casting doubt on their reliability in Muslim eyes.
36. Keating, Defending the "People of Truth," 147-215.
37. An earlier version of this article was given at the annual meeting of the Academy of Catholic Theology, May 2009.
No comments:
Post a Comment