J ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

ページ 129

Islamic-Christian Dialogue

Jamal MalikD

IALOGUE (Arabic hiwâr: Discussion; analysis; of: hâra: discuss
III) generally refers to mutual respectful listening and discussing
between two equal partners in order to attain an understanding and balance while acknowledging existing differences.
The interreligious dialogue between Islam and Christianity is basedon related, theologically founded positions. It is specifically connectedwith the topos of the common Abrahamic roots; i.e., the belief in one
God. The dialogue between both religions is to be seen simultaneously
in the context of geographic proximity and continuous historic encounters. Representatives from both sides have stood opposed to each otherin various constellations during the course of history, from armed conflicts to peaceful coexistence and even alliances.
As Islam regards itself in comparison to both other monotheistic religions as being in a continuity of development, its writings and upholders
are also accepted, even if only to a certain degree. Jews and Christians(ahl al-kitâb), the “People of the Book” thoroughly accord to the Godly
plan of a pluralistic religious world in which the religions compete with
one another (5:48), and they have the opportunity of being rewarded fortheir actions (2:62; 5:69). Peaceful coexistence is emphasized (49:13;
106:1-4). Violent conversion, however, is rejected (2:256), a state ofaffairs completely conform to the lack of missionary thinking. But, thecreed of the trinity is criticized, as it puts the commitment to unitarianism into question (5:72-75; 5:117; 112:3). Furthermore, the relationshipof the Muslims to the Christians was generally determined by the societal situation: The Christians were wards (dhimmî) under the Islamic
reign. Interreligiosity therefore stood under the portent of political andlegal power.
The rapid expansion of Islam had far-reaching consequences for the
Christian world. Although a relatively peaceful coexistence between
Christians and Muslims was the general rule at the time of the Umayyad
caliphs, Christian theologians saw a Christian heresy in Islam, for example the Byzantine Church Father, John of Damascus (d. ca. 750). The
129

J ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

130

ページ 130

ISLAMIC-CHRISTIAN DIALOGUE

Christian reception of Islam at the time of commencement was thus not
aimed at impartially getting familiar with Islam. Rather it was a matterof discrediting the competing new teaching.
Yet, a lively intellectual and material interchange took place between
the Christians and Muslims at different levels. Just as the cultural assets
and methods were transported over the distant transcontinental traderoutes between the Yellow Sea in the East and the Atlantic in the West,material and intangible goods were now exchanged between the Muslims and the members of other religious communities, mainly the Christians. Above all, intellectual impulses radiated from the Nile valley andthe Maghreb, which also had a determining significance for the Christian-occidental culture: the Greek-Arabic and the Arabic-Latin translation endeavors. The former started in the Aristotetalian reception of theneo-platonic school of Alexandria through which the Arabs encounteredclassical thinking. The second movement started with the Arabic translations of classical philosophy and the scientific texts and Arabic commentaries, but finally also from original Arabic-Islamic texts based on
the reception of classical philosophy. This movement led to the emergence of translation schools in Europe, founded by Christian monks,
and found its heyday around the turn of the century in the Toledo translation school. Up through the 16th century, in Europe, natural sciencessuch as medicine were based on the work of Ibn Sina (980–1037), andthe astronomic achievements of Nicolas Copernicus (1473–1543) would
hardly have been thinkable without his reception of the earlier work
done by Ulug Bek (1393–1449).
Apparently, the Arabic-Latin translation movement was one-dimensional throughout the entire Mediterranean, whereby one can conclude
that a reception of European-Christian history of thought hardly existed
that would have precipitated into Latin-Arabic translations. The question
is: why was this not of interest to the Arabian Muslims? Was it culturalchauvinism or did an ignorance exist or was there even erasure of thetrails of the Muslim reception?
There was certainly a long tradition of munâzara, debate and dispute,which even received patronage by the ruling houses, such as by theAbbasid caliph al-Ma′mun (reigned 813–833) and the Mogul emperor
Akbar the Great (reigned 1556–1605). However, our current knowledge
only allows the realization that Arabic-Islamic sources on Christianity—beyond dialogue—were predominantly polemic, such as the writingsof the Hanbalite religious and legal scholar Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328) (e.g.
al-Jawâb al-sahîh li-man baddala dîn al-Masîh), (the correct responseto those who changed the religion of the Messiah), a detailed responseJ ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

ページ 131

ISLAMIC-CHRISTIAN DIALOGUE

131

to a work against Islam written by Paul, Bishop of Sidon andAntioch, in which the Christians were especially reproached by Ibn
Taymiyya of having falsified the original revelations (tahrîf).
Against the background of the crusades, when the aristocracy wasbored and the bourgeoisie sought trade expansion opportunities, thelatent fear of the Arabs was turned into a willingness to go into battle bymany Christians. The so-called “Saracens” were, in part, considered tobe idol worshippers, Muhammad appeared to be a magician and an antiprophet smitten by promiscuity; a scene that established itself not only
due to distorted Koranic verses. Islam was now made to appear, as also
consolidated in Dante’s Inferno, as a religion of the sword: a religion of
the devil and the Antichrist. An ideological demarcation evolved; Islam
became the image of the foe par excellence. Even though there were a
few sympathetic utterances, such as from Francis of Assisi (d. 1226), thepopular opinion that Islam must be excluded, remained. Thus, thereformer Martin Luther (d. 1546) took the view that Islam was a false
religion per se; i.e. an incarnation of evil. This point of view additionally
took the experiences of the Ottoman expansion into consideration.
This distorted picture of Islam was rejuvenated during the colonial
age as the European powers started projecting their ideas onto foreigncultures and “orientalized” Islam in the imagined manner (cp. Edward
Said, Orientalism). The heterogeneous Islamic world was reduced to a
monotheistic, inherently anti-modern and anti-rational world and thus
excluded the Orient from world-history. European powers now madeclear how far they wanted to push the Europeanization, point-blank.
While doing so, they became preaching or “instruction cultures” (W.
Lepenies) and immunized themselves against non-European criticism toa large extent. Various scientifically based cultural and historical science
contributions legitimized the colonial and eventually epistemologicaldominance. The other, the outer, objective world, was mainly seen in thereligious, but not at other levels of identification in a time when one’s
own religious-cultural identity was being put to the test. The polemics
established in the Christian tradition retorted in the same vein. Even if
the disputes between the scholars were initially of a peaceful nature,even if polemic (cp. the disputes between Karl G. Pfander—Rahmatullah Kairanawi in India), the aggressive tendency of the apparent incompatibility of both systems increased, particularly when Islam continued
to be seen as a monolithic warlike religion, proclaiming Jihad against all
infidels and thus opposing the peaceful Christianity of the Sermon on
the Mount.
The antagonistic scenario continues into the 20th century (cp. S.

J ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

132

ページ 132

ISLAMIC-CHRISTIAN DIALOGUE

Huntington, Kampf der Kulturen), blurs the Abrahamic legend-of-origin,equally shared by both religions. Instead, the relatively trivial doctrinal
differences, which separate the Abrahamic religions, are overemphasized and the respectively dividing aspects made excessive.
On the other hand, the multifarious interaction processes between thecultures created new opportunities for dialogue. Especially during thetime between the World Wars, the churches undertook efforts throughvarious missionary movements to come closer to the Muslims in theirplurality and to simultaneously rethink their own positions and put
things into perspective. An example of this is the three World Missionary Conferences at Edinburgh (1910), Jerusalem (1928) and in Tambaram (1938), which paved the path for the foundation of the WorldCouncil of Churches, borne by the protestant and orthodox churches(World Council of Churches in Geneva) in 1948.
The dialogue between followers of various religions has become
strongly differentiated since the middle of the 20th century at various
levels (national, institutional, everyday life). That involves patronage,carriers, content, and locations where dialogue activities are to takeplace.
At the institutional level, the dialogue movement arose in the 1950s as
the Vatican and the World Council of Churches organized a series of
events between Christian leaders and representatives of other religions.
New institutional structures developed from that. In 1964, Pope Paul VI
had a “Secretariat for Non-Christian Religions” established, to deliberately promote interreligious dialogue at various levels. Positive words
about Islam could be found in article 16 of the “Dogmatic Constitution
on the Church” for the first time. This can be evaluated as the first stepby the Catholic Church toward serious discussions with Islam. The“Nostra Aetate” declaration on the relationship of the church to the nonChristian religions in 1965 finally demanded a mutual willingness forunderstanding and openness to communication by both Christians andMuslims: Article 3 of the declaration underlined the common interestsof Islam and Christianity. The monotheism of both sides, the belief inresurrection, in the Last Judgment, and in the progenitor Abraham wereto serve as the basis for a dialogue. In 1989, the “Secretariat for NonChristians” was restructured as the “Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue.”In 1971 the World Council of Churches in Geneva established its own
organizational unit for interreligious dialogue (Unit for the Dialogue
with People of Living Faiths and Ideologies), which was devoted especially to the relationship between Muslims and Christians, and which

J ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

ページ 133

ISLAMIC-CHRISTIAN DIALOGUE

133

held numerous events with various Muslim partners in the 1970s and1980s in Europe, Asian, and Africa (Chambesy 1976; Colombo 1982).
In its wake, international Islamic organizations have also championed
dialogue, for instance the Islamic World League (Mekka) and the Muslim World Congress (Karachi), even if the interests here were often
rather of a diplomatic-political nature.
In the meantime, there are numerous dialogue programs and promotional institutions at the local level, whereby their respective sphere ofaction varies greatly from one another. In the South and Southeast Asian
Muslim Diaspora, a whole series of Christian institutions exists, studying the various manifestations of Islam and seeking or initiating dialogue in this manner. This also has a positive effect on the local Muslim
Organizations so that a thoroughly fruitful exchange has arisen, which isshown in numerous initiatives.
In the Muslim Diaspora in the West, e.g., in Great Britain, Muslim
organizations are active and through contact with the Church at the levelof social services and education seek to establish dialogue (Centre for
the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, Birmingham; Islamic Foundation, Leicester).
In Lebanon, tormented by the civil war (1975–1992), religious leaders were able to continually negotiate a kind of armistice with otherimportant public figures, who lay beyond confessional borders and thus
occasionally contributed to a constructive dialogue process. In particular, the Middle Eastern Council of Churches resident in Beirut emerged
as a contact there.
Additional dialogue programs and initiatives exist, among others, inthe USA and Canada, in North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. Here, theemphasis of commonalities is in the foreground, the respect and theequality of various religions is sought.
This appears to be contrary to Muslim organizations such as “Nationof Islam” in the USA, which, in the past due to the objective experiencesof the black inhabitants, leaned more towards separation and continuallyswore the superiority of—ethnic black—Islam. Larger interfaith events
are also being held in the form of “Parliamentary dialogues” such as theWorld’s Parliament of Religions in Chicago 1893. This form of dialogue
has increased in the 1980s and 1990s—for example under the leadershipof various multifaith organizations.
From a structural point of view, “institutional dialogues” are organized meetings to deliberately bring representatives of various religious
institutions into contact with each other. “Theological dialogue” on theother hand refers to structured meetings that deal above all with theolog-

J ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

134

ページ 134

ISLAMIC-CHRISTIAN DIALOGUE

ical and philosophical aspects, such as the concept of God, the meaningof the revelation, humanity and the society, etc. in the context of a religious pluralistic environment, namely both inter- as also intra-religious.
“Dialogue in Society” and “Dialogue of Life” concentrate on the problems in everyday life and therefore have practical concerns in the centerof their treatise, for example the relationship of Church and State, religious minorities and their rights, problems in interreligious marriages,
education and religion. Often, the goal is to develop mutual action programs to improve the local, rather also informal interaction, for instancethrough getting to know one another. Among others, the ChristianIslamic Association in Cologne has emerged as a contact partner for thisin Germany. More recent face-to-face-initiatives, with their encountering concepts, are finding a culmination in Germany for instance in theOpen Mosque project in Mannheim. The goal of the Mannheim initiative is the establishment of interreligious dialogue among the faithful ofboth sides and the practical implementation at the personal level, similar
to a variety of “Islam-Forum,” or the recently (2004) established “Muslimische Akademie” in Berlin. The “Multi-Faith Centre” project by the
University of Derby in England is currently attempting something similar. However, problems arise when Muslim nations meddle in internal
dialogue processes, such as can be seen in the case of Turkey. One must
recognize that the Muslims in Europe have not been “outposts” of Muslim nations for a long time; rather they are an integral part of the European society.
One should consider the fact that the participant groups are often
restricted, these generally originate from liberal and ecclesiasticallyengaged “educated classes,” and that few female participants are present
at such events.
Periodical meetings and discussion groups to get to know each otherand to gain knowledge about the faith and daily lives of others shouldtake place alternatively in parishes and mosques, whereby the opening
and concluding prayer could each be said by a Muslim and a Christian.
The objective is to have an effect on daily lives and the local districts
and thus develop an interculturalism lying beyond religious essentialism. For it is not the religions that meet; rather it is the people anchoredin differing religious systems. The bearers of these systems are contextually dependent and consequently flexible in the interpretation of thereligious repertoire available to them. For, dialogue presupposes religious pluralism which is more than mere diversity; religious pluralism
implies active engagement with plurality. It is not a given, but has to becreated. It therefore requires participation, and it is more than mere tol-J ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

ページ 135

ISLAMIC-CHRISTIAN DIALOGUE

135

erance, because of its inherent active attempt to understand each other.
And, it does not displace or eliminate deep religious commitments, but
it is the encounter of commitments.
Hence, the “spiritual dialogue” is to make the spiritual lives of thevarious religious communities comprehensible and tangible such as
expressed in the participating observation of other religious rituals oreven in the form of a mutual interreligious prayer experience. Practiced
inter-religious interchange takes place, among others, in Islamic mysticism, in Sufism—a special kind of dialogue. This is because it was theSufis who have found their way into foreign cultures since the 12th century and, by absorbing local elements, contributed to a fruitful interaction. In this way, the integrating potential of Sufism can be utilized
today once again to promote mutual familiarization and integration ofMuslims.
The organized dialogue movement is a new chapter in the long history of the encounters between Christianity and Islam. This is of particularsignificance against the background of mutual mistrust and mutual fear.
Dialogue successes are therefore to be noted especially at the interpersonal level.
Considering the long hostile history and the experiences of colonialism as well as the political meddling into the politics of Muslim nations
by influential western industrial nations, Muslims continue to be skeptical towards dialogue initiated by the Christians. They occasionally perceive a continuation of Christian-missionary activities here. Likewise, astereotyped picture of Islam persists among many Christians, as a militant religion standing in the way of a peaceful Christendom. These prejudices must be overcome.
New opportunities for dialogue lead to the eagerness to experiment,
meaning new strategies must be continually developed on the path oftrial and error, in turn fostering and promoting mutual respect andcooperation.
Fundamentally, dialogue itself is a benefit in intercultural communication and decisive for understanding the others and even oneself. For,in the dynamic process of construction and reconstruction of the other—through projection and introjections—one’s self-perception changes atthe same time, resulting in the constant modification of one’s own perception as well as that of the others. Imagined ideas about subjects likeessentialism, purity, homogeneity, and national cultures are therefore
subject to permanent change. Consequently, on and above all, between
both sides, a whole series of societal transitions can be perceived that
can have quite a positive effect as they offer social space for the mostJ ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

136

ページ 136

ISLAMIC-CHRISTIAN DIALOGUE

varied—including religious—identity and discourse levels.
Above all, breaking taboos is necessary to prevent remaining in old
cognitive structures. Dialogue especially demands criticism of one’s
own system. This is because those who join in dialogue without thewillingness to emerge changed are incapable of dialogue. Here, making
an effort toward hermeneutic re-thinking is helpful. An exclusively
western value-based orientation as a prerequisite proves to be counterproductive in dialogue. After all is said and done, an intra-Muslim dialogue is also needed to face up to the stereotypes and indoctrination
attempts of various groups within the Islamic spectrum. Above all, theexclusion of missionary thinking, in return respect of the others and of
their self-portrayal as well as the willingness of having a personal learning process are, as experiences at various local levels show, guarantees
for constructive and sustained dialogue.
After September 11, 2001, there is once more a new thrust and reinforced search for dialogue, especially by Christian institutions. Even
political foundations now feel called on to deliberately build-up
dialogue with Muslims and thus search corresponding strategies. Thisdialogue is, however, not very prominent yet. It is based on the “Jihadcrusade rhetoric” as well as endangered by it.
Literary references
Hartmut BOBZIN. Islam und Christentum, 7.–19. Jh.: Theologische Realenzyklopädie, Vol. XVI.
Heribert BUSSE. 1988. Die theologischen Beziehungen des Islams zu Judentum und
Christentum. Darmstadt.
CIBEDO-BEITRÄGE (journal). published by the Christian-Islamic Meeting andDocumentation Centre. Frankfurt/Main.
Ludwig HAGEMANN, Rainer ALBERT (publ.). 1998. Dialog in der Sackgasse?
Christen und Muslime zwischen Annäherung und Abschottung. Würzburg-Altenberge.
Albert HOURANI. 1994. Der Islam im Europäischen Denken. Frankfurt/Main.
Adel-Theodor KHOURY, Ludwig HAGEMANN. 1986. Christentum und Christen im
Denken zeitgenössischer Muslime. Altenberge.
ISLAM AND CHRISTIAN-MUSLIM RELATIONS (journal). publ. by the Centerfor the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations. Birmingham.
ISLAMOCHRISTIANA (journal). publ. by the Pontifical Institute for Arabic andIslamic Studies. Rome.
Jamal MALIK & Helmut REIFELD (eds.). 2004. Religious Pluralism in South Asia
and Europe. New Delhi.
Ekkehard RUDOLPH. 1993. Islamisch-Christliche Dialoge 1950–1993. Lausanne.
Christine SCHIRRMACHER. 1992. Mit den Waffen des Gegners. Christlich-muslimische Kontroversen im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Berlin.
Jutta SPERBER. 1999. Dialog mit dem Islam. Göttingen.
Ataullah SIDDIQUI. 1997. Christian-Muslim Dialogue in the Twentieth Century.

J ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

ページ 137

ISLAMIC-CHRISTIAN DIALOGUE

137

London.
Jacques WAARDENBURG. 1992. Christlich-muslimische Beziehungen. WürzburgAltenberge.