1

Book Review of Islam and Christianity on the Edge:

Talking Points in Christian-Muslim Relations into the 21st Century

Eds. John Azumah & Peter Riddell

by Adam Dodds

Senior Pastor of Elim Church in Dunedin, New Zealand

http://www.elimdunedin.com/adam-dodds

2

The goal of Islam and Christianity on the Edge: Talking Points in

Christian-Muslim Relations into the 21st Century edited by John Azumah

and Peter Riddell (Brunswick East, Australia: Acorn Press, 2013) is to

present Christian authors offering varied viewpoints on foundational

Christian-Islamic themes, Islam and the West, and issues pertaining to

Christian-Muslim relations. This work directly discusses contentious

subjects including holy war in Christianity and Islam, a comparison of

early textual history of the Bible and the Qur’an, Islamophobia and

Westophobia, and conversion and apostasy. It particularly highlights the

dangers of miscommunication between followers of Christianity and

Islam.

Islam and Christianity on the Edge is an edited work, comprising

predominantly of a series of occasional papers presented over a ten year

period, and presupposes deep and abiding differences between Islam and

Christianity and their adherents. While the theological differences

between the faiths are well known to students of this subject, this book

shows that the differences are yet more extensive.

Christian thought in the West, and Christian thought in the global south

that has been influenced by the West, operates in what Caroline Cox and

John Marks (in chapter 6) call the ‘academic mode’. This comprises a

shared search for truth, applying the rules of logic and scientific inference,

an open discussion of alternatives, openness to refute currently held

beliefs and practices, and a commitment to test hypotheses with all

available relevant evidence. (83-84) Academies are relatively

autonomous, free from political, moral and religious pressure, and this

freedom is prized as necessary for the pursuit of truth. This ‘academic

mode’, originating in Europe, arises from the unique blend of Judeo-

Christian heritage with Greco-Roman thought; it is both Christian and

cultural. Cox and Marks contrast this with Islam and Marxism – principal

examples of ideological societies, which “exhibit a direct, close and

continuous interaction between politics, religion, and all social and

3

educational activities.” (87) In ideological societies what is deemed to be

true is derived from an ideology that is not open to question. Evidence

and arguments that appear to be contrary to the official ideology are

suppressed and academic freedom is resisted. Cox and Marks’ account is

both revealing and disturbing, but is it possible to so generalise about

“traditional Islam” (87) with its 1400 year history encompassing diverse

cultures and approximately 1.5 billion adherents today, even if we

acknowledge that traditional Islam advocates a religious-political

synthesis1? What of Muslim reformers? And has Christianity never fallen

prey to the ideological mode, especially but not only in the church-state

alliance of the Christendom era? Cox and Marks’ important argument

would benefit from further substantiation and more careful qualification.

To the degree that Christians and Muslims are shaped by the academic

mode and ideological mode respectively, they will have profound

differences in mind-set and worldview. For example, in the academic

mode censorship is a vice, in the ideological mode it is a virtue.2 Cox and

Marks cite instances of where the two modes of thought overlap, and thus

clash. Though not specifically mentioned, this raises the question of a

serious conflict of interest concerning the funding, from Islamic-majority

countries, of professorships and centres for Islamic studies in Western

universities including Oxford, Cambridge, SOAS, Durham and Edinburgh

in the UK, and Harvard and Georgetown in the US.3 Such universities are

embodiments of the academic mode whereas these professors and

centres of study are governed by people operating within the ideological

mode. Is it ethical for Western universities to receive such funding if

1 As argued by Bernard Lewis, Islam and the West (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 135-6. 2 A recent example of the ideological mode enforcing censorship in Malaysia is reported in “Sabah bans Hizbut Tahrir, Shiah, Ahmadiyya… also liberalism, pluralism”, Malay Mail Online, 8 August 2017. http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/sabah-bans-hizbut-tahrir-shiah-ahmadiyya-also-liberalism-pluralism#Q1vheig2hAAWmMPP.97. 3 Peter Riddell, “The Call to Islam: Diverse Methods and Varied Reponses”, Stuttgarter Theologische Themen Vol IV (2009), 42-44.

4

complete academic freedom cannot be guaranteed? To the degree that

Christian and Islamic scholars represent these two modes of thought,

their dialogue is conducted not only with different goal posts but on

different playing fields. Cox and Marks suggest lessons from Western-

Marxist dialogue could be a source of assistance in mutual Christian-

Muslim understanding.

The following chapter (chapter 7) examines this tension vis-à-vis human

rights. Barrister Charlotte Thorneycroft contends that comparing the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) with Sharia finds three

areas of incompatibility: the principle of equality, freedom of religion, and

the prohibition of slavery. For the UDHR equality of people is absolute and

without qualification. For Sharia, in the words of Ann Elizabeth Mayer

(quoted on page 103), “Islam treats as equal all those who should be so

treated”. Among the diverse schools of Islamic thought this typically does

not include women, non-Muslims, or slaves. Thus she concludes there is

an “irreconcilable divide between the UDHR and traditional interpretations

of Islamic law.” (111) Thorneycroft laments “there is a failure in much of

the Muslim world to acknowledge that there is a fundamental conflict

between traditional Islamic law and international human rights standards

such as the UDHR.” (110) The lack of acknowledgement of such

incompatibilities appears to be also present in the West.4

Peter Cotterell (in chapter 15) highlights one specific aspect of human

rights: the right for a Muslim to change his/her faith. Surveying the

Qur’an, the doctrine of abrogation, the hadith, Islamic jurisprudence, Ibn

4 For example, the advice of the British Law Society given for solicitors to draw up sharia-compliant wills that are discriminatory [“Islamic Law is Adopted by British Legal Chiefs”, The Telegraph, 22 March 2014. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10716844/Islamic-law-is-adopted-by-British-legal-chiefs.html], and the argument by the former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams for the partial adoption of sharia law in the UK [“Sharia Law in UK is ‘unavoidable’”, BBC News, 7 February 2008 [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7232661.stm]. Note also Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali’s criticism of any official recognition or adoption of sharia law into British law [http://michaelnazirali.com/articles/app/archive/07-2016/title/in-response-to-the-government-s-independent-review-into-sharia-law, 4 July 2016].

5

Ishaq’s sira, and recent history, he concludes “Islam’s apostasy laws are

in clear breach of the UDHR: Muslims do not have freedom to change

their religion.” (231) This fact, combined with the missionary nature of

Christian faith,5 generates numerous challenges. John Azumah examines

one such challenge on the subject of Islam and contextualisation (chapter

1). He surveys six levels of contextualisation and focuses on ‘Insider

Movements’ (IM), that is, “popular movements [of Muslims] to Christ that

bypass formal and explicit expression of the Christian religion”. (9) Such

insiders are encouraged to remain within the Muslim community and

retain their socio-religious identity as Muslims, while being Jesus-

followers. Azumah raises the question of whether insider movements are

an appropriate contextualisation or veer towards illegitimate syncretism.

He asks “Is the IM a new way of Muslims coming to faith in Christ or

localised manifestations of Islamic spirituality?” (22)

A further challenge to Christian-Muslim communication is the danger of

generalisation. Is a suicide bomber, motivated by claiming obedience to

Islam, a true representative of Islam? More fundamentally, what is ‘true

Islam’? Peter Riddell in chapter 5 surveys different perspectives on true

Islam, showing the falsity of treating Muslims as a monolithic block.

Instead, he concludes, “there is a titanic struggle taking place between

moderates and radicals for the hearts and minds of the Muslim masses in

the middle.” (78) The diversity within the house of Islam has a parallel in

the Christian Church. In chapter 12 Riddell discusses different ways in

which the World Council of Churches, the Roman Catholic Church, and the

World Evangelical Alliance interact with Muslim modernisers, Muslim

traditionalists, and radical Islamists. In all the forms of Christian-Muslim

engagement reviewed Riddell concludes that there are four principal

5 See Adam Dodds, “The Centrality of the Church’s Missionary Nature: Theological Reflections and Practical Implications”, Missiology: An International Review Vol. XL No. 4 (October 2012: 393-407), where I argue for the inherently missionary nature of Christian faith.

6

goals: the importance of mutual understanding, understanding God,

witnessing, and cooperation in relevant areas.

The most famous recent example of Christian-Muslim dialogue, ‘A

Common Word’ (chapter 16), is itself, argues Gordon Nickel, an instance

of da’wa. A Common Word is an invitation by leading Islamic scholars to

the leaders of the Church based on shared principles foundational to both

faiths: love of God and love of neighbour. This invitation is grounded in

Quran 3:64. Nickel examines the history of interpretation of this verse,

itself central to ‘A Common Word’, arguing that it is classically understood

as part of a polemical challenge to non-Muslims who have a false concept

of deity to come to a true (Islamic) concept of deity. This meaning

appears directly contrary to the spirit of the ‘A Common Word’. Nickel

describes the diversity of some of the Christian responses to ‘A Common

Word’ thus revealing the ambiguities and challenges surrounding

Christian-Muslim dialogue.

In two chapters on Islamophobia and Westophobia (chapters 8 and 9

respectively) John Azumah and Gerry Redman describe the danger of

mischaracterising ‘the other’ based on generalisation and prejudice. In his

chapter on Islamophobia, meaning “anti-Muslim racism” (113), Azumah

demonstrates the reality of anti-Muslim racism in the West and is

particularly concerned that criticism of Islam is made to serve a far right

racist agenda. Azumah aims to offer a nuanced navigation of

Islamophobia. For example: “There is a critical need of finding a balance

in speaking honestly about the threats from some Muslim groups without

causing fear of Islam or inspiring hatred towards Muslims in general.”

(122)

However, as Azumah’s working definition of Islamophobia implies, he

rejects an approach which distinguishes between Muslims and Islam.

Citing Patrick Sookhdeo: “The Church must preach love for all Muslims…

But it must also distinguish between Muslim and the religious-political

7

system of Islam…” (118) Following the example of Mark Durie6 I have

made this distinction in order to intellectually critique Islamic ideology

while simultaneously loving Muslims as people. Azumah claims this

distinction “is as futile as saying one can distinguish between British

people and British culture, values and heritage. It is false because these

are the very markers of British identity.” (118) But against Azumah it is

perfectly possible to criticise cultural practices and values, such as the

caste system, female genital mutilation, or the gender pay gap7, without

criticising people in those cultures. Furthermore, Azumah says this is a

false distinction “many evangelicals use as a ruse over their Islamophobic

inclinations.” (118) Despite numerous strengths there are problems with

Azumah’s treatment of Islamophobia.

First, based on the New Testament, Jesus-followers are instructed to love

all people (neighbour and enemy) and to wage war on certain ideas (2

Cor 10:3-5), most notably arguments that convey “false teaching about

Jesus”.8 Second, the interrelationship between Islam the religious

ideology and Muslims as people, which is not simple and involves both

continuity and discontinuity, is insufficiently clarified. Third, Azumah fails

to mention to the problematic nature of the term Islamophobia, which

was acknowledged by the original authors of the Runnymede Trust’s

Report,9 from where Azumah locates the term’s origin. British political

commentator and author Nick Cohen acknowledges the necessity of

6 I have heard Mark Durie make this comment as part of his introductory comments on more than one occasion, including speaking at St. Matthews Church, Dunedin, on 19 June 2015. 7 “Female stars call on BBC 'to sort gender pay gap now’”, BBC News, 23 July 2017, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40696402. 8 Arnold argues this is the original context of 2 Corinthians 10:3-5. Clinton Arnold, Spiritual Warfare (London: Harper Collins, 1997), 62; see also 48. Critical argument against perceived false teaching has a long and rich history within Christian literature, including the second chapter of John of Damascus’ book The Fount of Wisdom entitled “Concerning Heresies”, Irenaeus’ multi-volume work Against Heresies, and arguably the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Galatians. 9 They write “Critics of it consider that its use panders to what they call political correctness, that it stifles legitimate criticism of Islam, and that it demonises and stigmatises anyone who wishes to engage in such criticism.” Quoted in Rumy Hasan, Multiculturalism: Some Inconvenient Truths (London: Politico, 2009), 143.

8

fighting anti-Muslim bigotry and racism. “But fighting Islamophobia has

come to mean banning criticism of religious beliefs and myths, including

those myths that incite oppression and murder.”10 In seeking to fight anti-

Muslim racism, Cohen argues that Islamophobia is the wrong word. Rumy

Hasan concurs, observing the term Islamophobia is “a defence shield to

ward off criticisms of Islam and Muslims.”11 He argues this has led to a

“de facto censorship, especially a self-censorship in the media, press,

academia, and the arts.”12 This is achieved by conflating any criticism of

Islam with racism against Muslims, which Hasan argues is both sleight of

hand and incorrect. There are echoes of this in Azumah’s reference to

evangelicals disguising their Islamophobic intentions within a paragraph

discussing the European far right. Azumah is concerned about the very

real problem of criticism of Islam being co-opted to serve a racist agenda,

but his argument is insufficiently detailed and could have the effect of

shielding Islamic ideology from criticism. This chapter is helpful but would

have benefitted from greater attention to the significant complexities

surrounding this prickly subject.

In what functions as a concluding chapter (17) Azumah seeks to draw

many of the disparate strands of the book together. He avers “it is more

appropriate to speak of ‘approaches’ or ‘responses’ rather than give the

impression there can only be one Christian approach or response to

Islam.” (253) Azumah then identifies four faces of Islam – militant Islam,

ideological Islamism, anti-Christian polemic, and da’wa – that each

require distinct Christian responses. He discusses the challenge and

10 Nick Cohen, “Shame on the Liberals Who Rationalise Terror,” Standpoint Magazine, Jan/Feb 2016, http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/6361/full. Similarly, Australian professor Clive Kessler writes: “So, please, no more using — or putting up with — the catchcry of ‘Islamophobia’ as a specially protected moral bludgeon to silence all serious, responsible discussion of the Islamic tradition and history.” “Islam Cannot Disown Jihadists Driven By Rage Against History”, The Australian, 17 January 2015. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/islam-cannot-disown-jihadists-driven-by-rage-against-history/story-e6frg6z6-1227187604372 11 Hasan, Multiculturalism, 144. While acknowledging the reality of anti-Muslim racism he also argues that Islamophobia as a phenomenon (in the UK) is evidentially flawed. 12 Hasan, Multiculturalism, 122.

9

complexity of each and warns of dangers to avoid as well as offering

outlines of constructive responses. Azumah’s conclusion, an

encouragement for Christians to embody and incarnate the gospel, is an

important reminder of the enfleshed nature of the communication of ideas

and of the incarnational nature of mission.

Overall the book’s strengths are numerous: its breadth in author, subject

and perspective, the appropriate expertise offered by each author, the

detailed referencing throughout, and the index. However, the nature of a

work that covers so many subjects is the respective authors are

necessarily limited in the depth they are able to discuss. The book

successfully discusses key talking points in Christian-Muslim relations but

more could be added on theological subjects such as the Trinity, and the

deity of Jesus; moral subjects such as truth-telling and taqiyya, and

female genital mutilation; or legal subjects such as dhimmitude, and

sharia courts in the West. This book will be enjoyed by anyone interested

Christian-Muslim relations and will benefit readers seeking a greater

understanding in this area. Thoroughly researched, this work is relevant

and useful for a wide readership, though it does assume some knowledge

of Islam. The subtitle is apt, for the book’s meta-theme is indeed talking

points in Christian-Muslim relations. It makes clear that the dangers of

miscommunication are plethora, the differences are real and multifaceted,

and the points of tension numerous. Perhaps the subtitle should have

included Listening Points as well as Talking Points. In sum Islam and

Christianity on the Edge is an important guide for continuing Christian-

Muslim relations in the twenty-first century.