Christian Criticisms, Islamic Proofs: Rashid Rida's Modernist Defence of Islam

Christian Criticisms, Islamic Proofs

A Oneworld Book

Published by Oneworld Publications 2008

Copyright © Simon A. Wood 2008

Reprinted 2010

This paperback edition first published 2012

This ebook edition published in 2012

All rights reserved

Copyright under Berne Convention

A CIP record for this title is available

from the British Library

ISBN 978–1–85168–671–1

Ebook ISBN 978–1–78074–098–0

Typeset by Jayvee, Trivandrum, India

Cover design by Liz Powell

Oneworld Publications

185 Banbury Road

Oxford

OX2 7AR

England

Learn more about Oneworld. Join our mailing list to find out about our latest titles and special offers at:

www.oneworld-publications.com

For

Professor Frederick Lloyd Whitfeld Wood (1903–1989)

Contents

Preface

Acknowledgements

Note on Transliteration

Introduction

1. Muslim Interpretations of Christianity

The Qur’anic Foundation

The Medieval Period

The Modern Period

2. Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā and his Environment

The Impact of Colonialism and Muslim Responses

A Sketch of Rashīd Riḍā’s Life and Works

3. Riḍā’s View of Christianity in The Criticisms of the Christians and the Proofs of Islam

Calling to the Good: Islamic Da‘wah and the Religion of the Other Missionary Criticisms

Responding to Criticisms: Dialogue or Polemics?

The Religion of Innate Disposition (dīn al-fiṭrah)

Christian Scripture and Doctrine

4. Rashīd Riḍā and the Origins of Islamic Fundamentalism

Non-Equivalence between English and Arabic Terminology

Uṣūl al-Dīn

The Fundamentals of Fundamentalism

Resistance to Rationalism

Literalism or Scripturalist Fundamentalism

The Uncreated Qur’an

Prophetic Tradition

The Consensus of the Companions (ijmā‘ al-ṣaḥābah)

The Enclave Culture

5. A Translation of the Criticisms of the Christians and the Proofs of Islam

Preliminary Note on Translation Theory

Title Page and Preface

Article One: On the Need to Respond and Clarify the Muslim View of the Torah and Gospel

Article Two: Historical Doubts about Judaism and Christianity; Comparison of the Three Prophets

Article Three: Comparison between Islam and Christianity in Terms of the Three Goals of Religion

Article Four: On Judaism and Christianity Being Derived from Paganism

Article Five: In Response to the Book Researches of the Mujtahids’ Qur’anic Evidence for the Veracity of the Torah and Gospel

Article Six: On the Verses on the Character of the Torah and Gospel

Article Seven: On Responding to the Periodical Bashā’ir al Salām (The Glad Tidings of Peace); Comparison between Jews and Muslims; Muḥammad’s Superiority over Moses and the Rest of the Prophets

The First Part: The Blessed Family Tree

That Periodical’s Second Part: On Ishmael

The Third Part: New Testament Authors and the Call to Religion

Article Eight: On the Books of the New Testament

Article Nine: Also on the Books of the Two Testaments

Article Ten: The Sinlessness of the Prophets and Salvation

Article Eleven: The Muslim View of Fear and Hope; Defamation of the Companions and Successors on the Basis of this View

Article Twelve: Muslim Faith and Practice

Article Thirteen: The Glad Tidings of Peace’s Absurd Treatment of Islam and the Jāhiliyyah

Article Fourteen: Response to the Periodical Al-Jāmi‘ah’s Attacks on Islam

Causes or God Almighty’s Ways in Creation (and Imam al-Ghazālī’s Proof of them)

Reconciling this with what Al-Ghazālī States in The Incoherence of the Philosophers

Agreement of Al-Ghazālī’s Two Statements with Bacon’s Teaching

Article Fifteen: Response to Al-Jāmi‘ah’s Denial that Islam is the Religion of Reason

Contradictions between Rational Evidence and Transmitted Evidence

Doubts about the Issue

The Development of Religions and their Culmination in Islam

The Similarity of Religious Education and Education in Schools

Article Sixteen: Civil and Religious Authority – In Response to Al-Jāmi‘ah’s Denial of Civil Authority and the Shari‘ah in Islam

A Testimony on the Subject from al-Manār’s First Year

Summary of the Evidence for Denying Religious Authority in Islam

The Shari‘ah and the Religion in Islam

The Doubts of the Instiller of Doubts

Religious and National Unity

Bibliography

Index

Preface

Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā (1865–1935) was one of the foremost Muslim authors of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. He played a major role in the propagation of a modernist interpretation of Islam; his work has an abiding influence. Between 1901 and 1903, Riḍā wrote a series of sixteen articles on Muslim–Christian relations, published in his journal Al-Manār al-Islāmī (The Islamic Lighthouse). The articles were prompted by the activities and publications of Christian missionaries in Egypt and the wider Muslim world. Riḍā felt that missionary criticisms of Islam were leading some Muslims to entertain doubts about the basis of their own religion. As required by the dictates of Islamic law, Riḍā felt impelled to address these criticisms and uphold the integrity of his religion. In so doing, he presented a modernist defense of Islam.

In 1905, Riḍā published the articles in a book, Shubuhāt al-Naṣārā wa Ḥujaj al-Islām (The Criticisms of the Christians and the Proofs of Islam). Second and third editions were published after Riḍā’s death, in 1947 and 1956. In general, this work has received less scholarly attention than many of Riḍā’s other works. As far as works on religion are concerned, Shubuhāt has been overshadowed by Al-Waḥy al-Muḥammadī (The Muhammadan Revelation, 1934), which has been translated into numerous languages; into English twice. To my knowledge, Shubuhāt has yet to be translated into English or analyzed in full; in this translation and analysis, I am attempting to rectify this situation

Chapters One through Four provide a background for the translation, setting the work in its historic and thematic context. A brief note on translation theory follows. The rest of the book is a complete English translation of Riḍā’s book. Footnotes provide factual details and information on technical terms, and draw attention to significant themes in the text.

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to are due to Mahmoud Ayoub, Khalid Blankinship, Angie Kenna, Hew McLeod, and Jane Smith. I am especially grateful to professors Ayoub and Blankinship for the time they devoted to reviewing the manuscript. Finally, thanks to my parents.

Note on Transliteration

Arabic transliteration generally follows the Library of Congress system. ‘Ayn is rendered (‘) and thus distinguished from hamzah (’). The two-letter combination yā’-tā’ marbūṭah is rendered "iyyah, not īyah, hence jāhiliyyah." Tā’ marbūṭah is rendered as h unless it appears in the first word in a genitive construct, in which case it is rendered t. Arabic and other foreign words are italicized, with diacritical marks included for Arabic words. Exceptions are made for all Arabic words that have been incorporated into standard modern English. Examples of such words include Islam (instead of Islām), Shi‘ah (instead of Shī‘ah), Sufi (instead of Ṣūfī), hadith (instead of ḥadīth) and ulama (instead of ‘ulamā’).

Introduction

This book is a translation and analysis of Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā’s The Criticisms of the Christians and the Proofs of Islam (1905), a collection of sixteen articles originally serialized in the journal, Al-Manār al-Islāmī, between 1901 and 1903 in response to a variety of Christian missionary publications on Christianity and Islam. These include Niqūlā Ghibrīl’s book The Researches of the Mujtahids (1901), the Protestant missionary magazines The Glad Tidings of Peace and The Standard of Zion, and the humanist journal Al-Jāmi‘ah, published by Faraḥ Anṭūn.

Riḍā is among the most influential Muslim thinkers of the modern period. Yet, with the significant exception of his late work Al-Waḥy al-Muḥammadī (The Muhammadan Revelation), his writings on religious reform are unavailable in English. I hope this translation and analysis will make a contribution to our understanding of Riḍā’s thought.

Riḍā addresses a wide variety of topics in these articles, including scripture and exegesis, doctrine, historical themes, philosophical discussions, and the nature of religious authority. I have not attempted to analyze comprehensively all these topics in the introductory chapters or footnotes to the translation. Rather, I have chosen to focus on two specific themes: Muslim–Christian relations and Islamic fundamentalism. At the present time, both topics are highly relevant to wider issues of the role of religion in the public and private domains. I hope this translation and analysis will make a useful contribution to the discourse.

Chapter One provides a thematic context, setting Riḍā’s work against the background of classical and modern Muslim discourse on Christianity. Chapter Two provides a historical context, examining the emergence of the major trends in modern Islam and the labels that scholars have used to label them – notably traditionalist, secularist, modernist, and fundamentalist – and suggests a framework within which Riḍā’s work may be analyzed. It also provides a brief summary of Riḍā’s life and major publications. Chapter Three analyzes Riḍā’s interpretation of Islam and Christianity in the articles, as he responds to the claims of his missionary opponents, addressing both his general posture towards Muslim–Christian relations and his treatment of specific issues. These include Islamic da‘wah, the notion of an innate religion of natural disposition, and Christian scripture and doctrine. Chapter Four critiques and rejects the claim that Riḍā articulated a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam; I advance the different claim that Riḍā was a modernist.

The translation is preceded by a note on translation theory. Although brief, this is important, as it explains my approach to translation, which is quantitatively the greater part of this book.

In the footnotes, I have attempted to add the factual information and commentary necessary to explain the articles in terms of the stated thematic focus.

I based my translation on the second edition of Riḍā’s book. Page numbers of the Arabic text are shown in the translation in square brackets. The pagination differs from the first edition, although the text does not.

  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, Qur’anic exegesis (tafsīr), and historical and apologetic works. Accordingly, I shall address only the most prominent themes and salient features of this literature in this summary (specifically Shi‘i works will not be discussed).⁹

Turning to the hadith, the secondary Islamic scripture, perhaps the most immediately notable feature of the treatment of Christians and Christianity therein is that it is not a matter of primary concern. The nine major collections, the most significant of which are those of al-Bukhārī (died 870) and Muslim (died 875), do not include separate sections on Jesus, Christianity or Christians; instead, various traditions are scattered throughout books and chapters organized under different topic headings.¹⁰ The numerous traditions of Jesus’ appearance, behavior, and teaching do not address the Christian religion itself, but recast the Christian Christ in Islamic terms. This is seen especially in relation to the descent of Jesus, which is distinctly seen in terms of Muslim belief.¹¹

In a recent study of approximately five hundred traditions concerning Christians, Marston Speight corroborates the prevailing view that the hadith reflects a general mistrust of Christians. However, he notes that the collections are not without statements that show touches of human warmth towards Christians. A notable example is the prophet’s affirmation of affinity between the monotheistic religions, all prophets are brothers; their mothers are different, but their religion is one.¹² None the less, negative sentiments predominate. These include declarations of Christian errors, unfavorable comparisons between Christians and Muslims, eschatological judgments, and strictures against Christians. In relation to Christianity, the hadith is more concerned with community than with religion. They give voice to Muslim religious identity relative to non-Muslims more than they engage questions of non-Muslim religious doctrine.¹³ Theologically, the hadith diverges from the Qur’an in being more unambiguously exclusivistic, laying the foundation for a religious separation between Muslims and Christians.¹⁴

While the enormous diversity of other medieval materials makes generalization difficult, a notable difference from the Qur’anic foundation emerges. Whereas the Qur’an offers both universalist and supersessionist paradigms, post-Qur’anic tradition, following the hadith, is generally supersessionist, downplaying or entirely ignoring Qur’anic universalism.¹⁵ In legal, exegetical, and apologetic discourse, there is an emphasis on definition, which involves a shift away from a vision of religious pluralism towards one of binary opposition. The privileged status indicated by the expressions people of the book and "people of the pact (dhimmah)¹⁶ loses its distinction as Christians dissolve into the generalized categories of unbelievers" (kuffār) and associators (mushrikūn).¹⁷ Christianity becomes but one form of unbelief or paganism.

The turn from Qur’anic pluralism is clearly apparent in classical exegesis, of which Muḥammad ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (died 923), Abū Qāsim al-Zamaksharī (died 1144), Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (died 1209) and ‘Imād al-Dīn ibn Kathīr (died 1373) are pre-eminent representatives.¹⁸ Qur’anic phrases explicitly or implicitly praising Christians are down-played, if not passed over, by these exegetes, although they show little reticence in elaborating Qur’anic condemnation of Christians. Al-Ṭabarī and others, foreshadowing ‘Abduh and Riḍā, interpreted Qur’anic references to Jesus as the son of God metaphorically while chastising Christians for their overly literal understanding. As Mahmoud Ayoub has noted, the Qur’anic use of the terms ibn (son) and walad (son) presented a difficult challenge, less easily reconciled with the Islamic doctrine of divine transcendence. Qur’anic references to the power of Jesus to create (3:49; 5:110) – Jesus apart, the Qur’an uses the positive sense of the verb khalaqa (he created) only of God – were down-played as exegetes sought to limit the creative aspect of this verb.¹⁹ Overall, we can note a general exegetical shift away from accommodationism and pluralism.

Classical historical and apologetic works cover a vast corpus of materials and articulate a range of views of Christianity, from the accommodationist to the unabashedly rejectionist and polemical. While rejectionist views predominate, there are some significant examples of accommodationist views. Perhaps the most explicit is found in the works of the Isma‘ili missionary Nāṣir Khusraw (died around 1075), who argued for Biblical authenticity and its identity with the Qur’an.²⁰ More commonly, however, Muslims argued for the invalidity of Christianity, generally stressing its corrupt character and/or its irrationality.

A prominent critique of Christian corruption is found in Al-Radd ‘alā al-Naṣārā (Response to the Christians) by ‘Amr al-Jāḥiẓ (died 869), which launches a scathing attack on Christianity and the Bible.²¹ The works of ‘Alī ibn Aḥmad ibn Ḥazm (died 1064), a Ẓāhirī scholar from Islamic Spain, possibly represent the peak of Muslim hostility towards Christianity. The first section of his Kitāb al-Faṣl fī al-Milal wa al-Aḥwā’ wa al-Niḥal (The Book on the Religious Communities and Sects) is entitled Iẓhār Tabdīl al-Yahūd wa al-Naṣārā (Demonstration of Jewish and Christian Corruptions) and meticulously mines the Bible for internal contradictions and inconsistencies. As with Ibn Ḥazm’s literalistic interpretation of the Qur’an, few followed him to this level of anti-Christian enmity.²²

The works of Taqī al-Dīn ibn Taymiyyah (died 1328) were more influential. Although some scholars have observed that Ibn Taymiyyah adopted a more moderate tone than his Andalusian predecessor, he was, none the less, harshly critical of Christianity. Malise Ruthven deems him to be the preeminent classical representative of Muslim rejectionism, and places him at the opposite end of the spectrum from Nāṣir Khusraw.²³ Ibn Taymiyyah’s Kitāb Iqtiḍā’ al-Ṣirāṭ al-Mustaqīm identifies several un-Islamic Christian borrowings that have infiltrated Islam, leading to practices such as the celebration of the Prophet’s birthday and pilgrimages to the graves of Sufi saints. Hence, he seeks perfect dissimilarity between Muslims and Christians. Ibn Taymiyyah’s al-Jawāb al-Ṣaḥīḥ liman Baddala Dīn al-Masīḥ (The Correct Response to those who Change the Religion of Christ), was a particularly influential work, which became the standard for all subsequent Muslim works on Christianity. Hugh Goddard finds in it an intermediate position on Biblical corruption: Ibn Taymiyyah considers the text reliable in essence but corrupt in practice.²⁴

Classical scholars also emphasized the irrationality of the Christian religion, as in