Christian Criticisms, Islamic Proofs

Rashid Rida's Modernist Defence of Islam

Simon A. Wood

• Publisher: Oneworld Publications
• Year: 2012
• eBook ISBN: 9781780740980
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Islamic Theology

Muhammad Rashid Rida is among the most influential Muslim thinkers of the modern period and yet, until now, his writings on Christian-Muslim relations have remained unpublished in English. In this flagship English edition, Simon A. Wood rights this wrong by translating and analysing one of his most important works, The Criticisms of the Christians and the Proofs of Islam. Contending that Rida's work cannot be separated from the period of colonial humiliation from which it originated, he challenges the view that Rida was a fundamentalist and argues that his response to Christian criticisms was, in fact, distinctly modernist.

1

Muslim Interpretations of Christianity

The Qur’anic Foundation

Any discussion of Muslim attitudes towards Christianity and Christians must begin with the Qur’an, the foundation of the Islamic faith. The Qur’anic attitude towards Christians is ambivalent: they are both praised and condemned; religious pluralism is endorsed yet Islam is claimed to supersede all previous religions. There is no attempt to synthesize these inconsistencies or produce a comprehensive definition of the Christian religion.¹ Rather, as for certain other topics (notably the status of women), the Qur’an reflects a tension between an “ideal Christianity,” which is praised, and the Christianity encountered by Muḥammad and his followers in seventh-century Arabia, which gets a mixed reception. This was an environment in which issues were addressed in response to particular situations. As those situations changed, so the Qur’an’s attitude changed. Hence Qur’anic criticism of Christians is more prominent in later, Medinian, than early, Meccan, chapters.

The Qur’anic embrace of diversity is upheld most forcefully in verse forty-eight of chapter five, which reads in part:

For each [people] We have appointed a divine law (shir‘ah) and a traced-out way (minhāj). Had Allah willed He could have made you one community but that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works.²

Thus diversity is both providential and a sign of mercy. But is this is a specifically religious diversity? In this verse, the Qur’an comments that each community has its own divinely revealed law or shir‘ah, a word that might also be suggestive of “divinely revealed religion.” The verse is preceded by references to Jews and Christians, hence interpreting the diversity referred to as that distinguishing Jews, Christians, and Muslims appears reasonable and suggests a Qur’anic precedent for religious diversity. Elsewhere, the Qur’an specifically approves of a diversity of “languages,” “colors,” “nations,” and “tribes.”³ However, I must add an important qualification; the Qur’an does not use the word dīn, the normal word for “religion,” in such a connection.

We should also note that the Qur’an does not regard all other religions as equal. Religions that have revealed scriptures are distinguished from those that do not, as seen in the Qur’anic formulation “People of the Book,” which occurs fifty-four times and is reserved for Jews, Christians, and Sabeans.⁴ More importantly, from the Qur’anic perspective, monotheism is distinguished from polytheism, or the association of God with another – shirk – the dominant religion in pre-Islamic Arabia. While monotheism may be regarded favorably, the Qur’an emphatically denies the legitimacy of polytheism, considering it an unforgivable sin; repeatedly emphasizing the painful doom that awaits the polytheist.

This must be an exception to the argument for tolerance. It is notable that where the Qur’an criticizes Christians, it does so by conflating their religious practices with those of the pagan Arabs. Christians are chastised for “disbelief” (kufr), “association” (shirk) and other transgressions including deviation and blasphemy.⁵ However, the Qur’an maintains a subtle distinction: the terms for “disbelievers” (kāfirūn, kuffār) and “associators” (mushrikūn), while common, generally apply to polytheists, not Christians. From the perspective of Christian orthodoxy Arabia, and Arabic Christianity, was very much on the margins of the civilized world. The paradoxical Christological formulation adopted by the councils of Nicaea (325) and Chalcedon (451), and enforced in Rome and Byzantium, probably differed from that of Arabian Christians. It is also possible that some Monophysite and Nestorian Christians may have fled to Arabia to escape Byzantine persecution. Qur’anic Christianity, then, was not “normative,” a point some Orientalist scholars interpreted as reflective of Muḥammad’s deficiencies in understanding Christian doctrine. It has also been suggested that the Qur’anic Christology is Docetic, based on the text’s assertion “They slew him not nor crucified him but it was made to appear to them” (4:157).⁶ Significantly, as Zebiri notes, the Qur’an appears to understand the Trinity as a doctrine of tritheism – the three being Jesus, Mary and God – as opposed to the normal Christian understanding of it as three manifestations subsisting in a single essence.⁷

While the form of Christianity to which Muḥammad was exposed and the Qur’anic attitude towards it have been somewhat controversial, it is clear that, in the Qur’anic world-view, these issues fall within the discussion of the nature of prophecy, a major theme of the text. The Qur’an’s distinctive style – highly oracular and lacking any chronological or historical detail in its treatment of the topic – belies the Orientalist claim of dependence on Biblical texts. The Qur’an claims no originality for its message, but merely claims to confirm the messages of previous prophets that had become corrupted at the hands of their followers. It unites human prophecy – “We make no distinction between any of them” (2:285; 3:84) – and asserts that each prophet essentially brought the same message: a call to submit (aslama) to divine oneness. Thus, the Qur’an is able to describe Abraham (3:67), Jesus, and his disciples as “muslims,” that is, those who had submitted to the divine will. The Qur’anic vision reflects a tension between the primordial and evolutionary aspects of all human religions.⁸ With regard to primordial religion, the Qur’an stresses that all true religion is essentially islam, the lower case denoting the verbal noun with the generic meaning of “submitting.” With regard to evolutionary religion, it stresses that the islam of all previous religions culminates in Islam, the historical religion founded by Muḥammad and one particular form of “submitting:” the concrete Islam is the most perfect form of the generic islam. Qur’an 5:3 reads: “This day I have perfected your religion for you . . . and have chosen for you as religion Islam.”

This tension leads to the ambivalent treatment of Christians, an ambivalence the Qur’an candidly acknowledges: “they are not all alike” (3:113). The Qur’an never makes a definite statement, but prefaces its references to Christians – positive and negative alike – with comments such as “some of them” (2:146), “most of them” (3:110), “among them are those” (3:78), and “among them a portion” (3:113). Viewed positively, Qur’anic Christians exemplify islam, submission to God, piety and avoidance of evil. They bow down during the night in humble prayer and submission (3:113), and weep upon hearing scripture recited. Negative references to Christians are linked by the recurrent theme of excess or exaggeration (4:171; 5:77): Christians take priests as lords (9:31), just as Jews take rabbis.

The Qur’an considers the doctrines of the Trinity and divine incarnation particularly egregious examples of excess (4:171; 5:17, 72, 73, 116, 117). Jesus, named twenty-five times, is called “the messiah” (al-masīḥ) eleven times. However the Qur’an offers no explanation of this title’s meaning (and Jesus never refers to himself as the messiah). It is simply used as a name. The Qur’an emphasizes that “the Messiah is only a messenger” (4:171; 5:75). Significantly, this is the same description used for Muḥammad: “Muḥammad is only a messenger” (3:144). The connection between the two is emphasized by Jesus’ foretelling of the coming of “the praised one” (61:6). The Qur’an stresses the same points with regard to the miracles – evidences – of Jesus: he performs miracles only “by God’s leave” (3:49). As in the Qur’anic treatment of the birth of Jesus (interestingly, the teachings of Jesus are hardly discussed), his humanity is emphasized. It is in elevating Jesus to divine status that Christians are guilty of a grave sin.

The Qur’anic attitude towards Jewish and Christian scripture is also ambivalent. The text refers to the leaves of Abraham (87:19), the Psalms of David (4:163), and on numerous occasions to the Torah of Moses and Gospel of Jesus, but it is unclear exactly what they are. Christians are chastised for corrupting, suppressing, and misinterpreting their scriptures, for leading Muslims astray, and for not accepting the prophecy of Muḥammad when, according to the Qur’an, their own scriptures clearly dictate that they should. Similar accusations are made against Jews with regard to the Torah. It seems plain that the Qur’anic definitions of “Torah” and “Gospel” differ greatly from those of Jewish and Christian tradition. In the Qur’anic view they were originally pure, divine revelations which were distorted by human beings (2:75, 79; 3:78; 4:46; 5:13–15, 41). On the other hand, the Qur’an pointedly refers Jews and Christians back to their own scriptures – “let the people of the Gospel judge by the Gospel” (5:47) – which, logically, would indicate that an at least partially-sound Torah and Gospel must be available to Jews and Christians.

The problems inherent in the Qur’anic tension between praise and condemnation of Christians and between dismissal and partial validation of Christian scripture lack a clear solution, but raise enticing questions: can “good Christians” be identified and distinguished from their corrupt co-religionists? If there is an uncorrupted Torah or Gospel, where is it and where are Christians to find it? The Qur’an does not attempt to resolve these tensions or answer these questions but presents its audience with alternative paradigms that may be developed: the universalistic and accommodationist on the one hand and the supersessionist or rejectionist on the other.

The Medieval Period

Medieval Muslim interpretations of Christianity refer to a vast array of materials, including collections of prophetic tradition or hadith, Q...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title page
• Copyright page
• Dedication page
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Note on Transliteration
• Introduction
• 1. Muslim Interpretations of Christianity
• 2. Muhammad Rashīd Ridā and his Environment
• 3. Ridā’s View of Christianity in The Criticisms of the Christians and the Proofs of Islam
• 4. Rashīd Ridā and the Origins of Islamic Fundamentalism
• 5. A Translation of the Criticisms of the Christians and the Proofs of Islam
• Title Page and Preface
• Article Twelve: Muslim Faith and Practice
• Bibliography
• Index