“For” and “Against”

I greatly appreciated several aspects of the Common Word document as well as the Yale theologians’ response thereto. I found its emphasis on the practical dimensions (and necessity) of the common ground between Islam and Christianity bracing and astute: the double love commandment certainly should constitute the foundation of a Christian attitude toward Muslims and vice-versa. The derivation from this double commandment of a mutual obligation to advance the cause of religious liberty is insightful and challenging. Challenging, because to varying degrees different Muslim- and Christian-majority countries often fail to prioritize precisely this goal; insightful, because sound relationships between people have their basis in common pursuits, and the issue of religious freedom constitutes exactly such a common pursuit. In the face of evils as divergent as the secularism of certain continental European countries and the ongoing mass detention and “re-education” by the P.R.C. of Muslim Uyghurs, Muslim-Christian agreement and cooperation on this issue is essential for the good of both, and often productive of better relationships. In respects such as this, it is easy to see how Christians can be “for” Muslims and vice-versa.

But on issues which are less political and more theological, it is hard to conceive of what it means for Christianity to be “for” Islam and Muslims to be “for” Christians. The Common Word documents handling of this issue does not really clarify the matter; it claims — in what seems an exegetical stretch — that the Gospel straightforwardly suggests that those of other religions who do not oppose Christianity are on the side of Christians. In developing this claim, it argues that Muslims affirm that Jesus is the Messiah, but in a different way from Christians — analogous to the diversity of positions on Christ’s nature which are held by a range of Christian denominations. This seems like a misrepresentation; for one thing, it proposes a fundamental unity between different Christian denominations which is considerably weaker than it might at first appear; and for another, various Christian denominations must reckon with considerable scriptural predicates about Jesus which the document does not engage (e.g., John 1). Those places where the unity between Christians is most profound — e.g., the acknowledgment of the first 7 ecumenical councils between Catholic and Orthodox — do not apply to Islam. What does it mean then to affirm that Christians can be “for” or “with” Muslims in connection with the figure of Jesus?