Invitation to Islam [Electronic resources] : A Survival Guide نسخه متنی

Theological
Differences Between Christianity and Islam

The first need in
presenting Islam to people of a Christian background is to understand what
beliefs Christians have. The purpose of this essay is to present the beliefs of
the major sects of Christianity in terms of what they are and how they differ
from Islamic beliefs. An analysis of Christian and Islamic sources will form
the basis of the study.

On the face of it,
few notice how much Christianity and Islam are alike in basic beliefs. On the
five pillars of Islamic belief: the belief in God, angels, the prophets, the
sacred books, and the Day of Judgement, there is no basic disagreement.
Christians also believe in all of these, although they would define the one God
in three persons and take one prophet and one sacred book fewer than in Islam.
But all agree on the principles. Unfortunately, the reality is not that simple.
That extra book and prophet are most essential to Islam, to say nothing of the
absolute unity of God, whereas the five pillars, to the Christian, miss some of
the basic issues.

One of the
fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity is that while Islam has
a basic set of beliefs in common to nearly all who claim to be Muslims, there
is hardly anything that is common to all of Christianity. There are important
exceptions to all major Christian beliefs, and although most Christians are
members of the top ten, there are about twenty thousand Christian sects, some
of which are more visible in propagation than their number of adherents would
suggest. That is why it is necessary from the beginning to find out what the
individual in question believes. One cannot make assumptions.

In the following
study Christian belief is presented as a logical, historical development that
diversified in the face of precise historical challenges. This is the context
that explains the great diversity in Christian belief, and provides a coherent
way of perceiving it as a whole.

Although
Christianity should be seen historically as the product of a certain trend
among syncretic religious movements in the Roman Empire during the first three
centuries of the common era, the history of its beliefs can be studied as
beginning with Biblical roots. Almost all Christian groups still claim some
kind of adherence to the Bible. Furthermore, most groups also provide creeds,
statements of faith made at particular times ostensibly to proclaim absolute
truth, but in fact to defend faith from contemporary attacks upon it. The
variations in the creeds thus reflect the history of the crises in Christian
belief, as well as the differences between sects.

The purpose of this
study is not to provide a comprehensive, objective view of the development of
Christian belief. Rather, it is to provide a factual but selective view of
Christian doctrine as it can be related to Islamic belief, for the purpose of
helping Muslims to situate and understand Christian beliefs as a whole, as they
relate to Islamic beliefs, with minimal effort.

1. The Torah
(Tawrat) Sources

The first text in
many Christian catechisms, or manuals for teaching Christian doctrine, is the
Decalogue from Exodus 20:1-17. This is the text upon which all of the Christian
Creeds have been founded, each modifying the original for the specific purpose
of defending the Christian faith in times of doctrinal disagreement. A majority
of Christian catechisms suggest a development of religion through three
documents: the Decalogue, some portion of Matthew six or the Sermon on the
Mount, and the creed.

The text of the
Decalogue can be divided into two sections. In fact, the Decalogue is described
in the Exodus story as having been written on two stone tablets. There are
slight differences in the way the Decalogue is divided into two by the various
sects, but nearly all agree that the first part refers to how we should relate
to God, and the second part refers to how we should relate to other people.

The first part of
the Decalogue in the Authorised Version is as follows.

3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven
image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the
earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor
serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of
the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that
hate me;

6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them
that love me, and keep my commandments.

7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy
God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in
vain.

The text is
couched in negatives, but the first article is clearly the establishment of the
unicity of God. There is only one God. There is no god but God. This is
followed by logical corollaries, that is, that no images of God may be made and
worshiped, and that the name of God must be held in special esteem. Finally,
the implication is drawn that since there is only one God, He is sovereign and
must be loved and obeyed.

The basic
structure of positing God first and then several logical corollaries afterward
continues to be the format for nearly all Christian creeds and statements of
faith. A comparison of some of these with the Decalogue will reveal not only
the spread of Christian belief, but how it has developed from this beginning.

The rest of the
Decalogue is a logical development from the sovereignty of God as it implies a
certain kind of behaviour towards other people. The second part of the
Decalogue is as follows in the Authorised Version.

8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy
work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the
LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy
daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger
that is within thy gates:

11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and
earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore
the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy
days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

13 Thou shalt not kill.

14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

15 Thou shalt not steal.

16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against
thy neighbour.

17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house,
thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his
maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

The first article,
that on the Sabbath, establishes the authority of God based on creatorship and
limits human authority over subordinates, showing that children, workers, and
even animals have non-negotiable rights that must not be infringed upon. The
second positive command is to honour parents. Then there are the final
prohibitions of killing, adultery, stealing, giving false testimony, and
coveting.

About half of the
Decalogue deals with the unity of God and human responsibility towards God. The
other half deals with duties relating to other people in consideration of the
sovereignty of God as Creator of all things. The Christian Scriptures
consistently maintain the Decalogue as normative. It is the only extensive text
in the Bible which is portrayed as being revealed directly by God, without the
means of a prophet.

We shall see in
the sections to follow how Christian belief has departed from the principles of
the Decalogue and come into conflict with it. Islam does not conflict with it,
but has focused on new issues that have arisen over time. The former is
disastrous, while the latter is merely dangerous. The three popular traditions
can be caricaturised as follows. Jews have circumvented the obligations of the
Decalogue by focusing on the importance of belonging to the chosen people.
Christians have circumvented the obligations of the Decalogue by claiming that
belief in the death of Jesus (as) as a substitutionary sacrifice for sin makes
everything all right. In practice, Muslims often think that doing ones prayers
faithfully or going on pilgrimage atones for anything and everything they have
done, so why not live an unjust life, and at the end of it go to Mecca and set
it all right? All three traditions start out with the obligation of obedience
and an ethical imperative. All three provide a way to escape doing what God
says, but of the three, Islam at least is salvageable.

2. The
Christian Creeds as an Expression of Christian Belief

Two things will
become apparent as we examine the Christian Creeds. Firstly, they follow the
structure of the Decalogue, beginning with the doctrine of God and following
with its logical consequences. Secondly, the Christian Creeds, unlike Islamic
confessions of faith, conflict with the Decalogue, and thus put Christianity in
the position of having to explain why it has departed from a basic revelation
which it ostensibly accepts.

It is popular
among Christians to consider that there are three early creeds which are
accepted by many Christian establishments. These appear in modern times in a
number of versions, and an academic study of them would have to depend on the
most ancient manuscripts in the original language. Any of the popular versions
of today, however, will serve our purpose, and the three below are the versions
as published by Anglican sources.

2.1 The
Apostles' Creed

The briefest creed
is called The Apostles' Creed. I have divided it into the two basic parts
corresponding to the division of the Decalogue, the first dealing with the
belief in God, and the second with the logical additions to that.

1. I believe in
God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus
Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy
Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was
crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he
rose again. He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the
Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the
Holy Spirit,

2. the holy
catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the
resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

The Apostles'
Creed contrasts with the Decalogue in being a proclamation of what "I believe,"
Latin credo, from which comes the English word creed. The Decalogue is a divine
declaration rather than a human one, the I who is speaking claims to be God
Himself rather than a human being. This is the first great departure from true
faith, the rejection of what God says and its replacement with what I believe.
The results in Christianity are far-reaching and will be constantly met in any
given contact.

The second
contrast is the way in which the figure of God is dealt with. Instead of an
absolute unicity, there is the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. These are not
overtly defined as one God in three persons, but the implication is there. The
emphasis is rather on the narrative of Jesus from a cosmic point of view.

The importance of
not worshiping images and the centrality of the name of God in life and worship
are neglected in the Apostles' Creed, and this neglect is generally reflected
in the major historical manifestations of Christianity.

In the second
section, there is a complete ignoring of the Decalogue principles, which are
replaced with new values. The Decalogue makes the family, parents with limited
authority under God, the basic unit of society. In The Apostles' Creed, the
authority of the Church is the primary doctrine, the point of departure, here
called catholic or universal. In the light of that, the communion of the
saints, that is, the members of the Church, takes the place of the Sabbath
proclamation of non-negotiable rights for man and beast and the command to
honour parents. That is, basic human rights and the centrality of the family as
the basic unit of society are replaced by Church authority and community. This
explains the weakness of the family in Christian societies, as compared to
Jewish and Islamic ones. The commandments in the rest of the Decalogue are
accepted by Christianity, but in the creed they become the sins which God
forgives through the mediation of Church authority. Furthermore, those who
submit to the Church have the promise of the resurrection of the body and
everlasting life.

The resurrection
of the body and everlasting life are clear additions to the Decalogue. These
are not made by the early Christian Church, however. They are the result of a
post-exilic conflict in Judaism, where the sect of Pharisees adhered to the
belief in angels, judgment, and resurrection, while the sect of Saduccees did
not. The Pharisaical interpretation has been transmitted to Christianity, and
further, to Islam.

Although the
history of Christendom is more complex, and the Apostles' Creed does not
actually reflect with accuracy Christianity in its first centuries, the
Apostles' Creed can be used as a simple point of departure. The other Creeds
expand upon its various features and especially in the later ones even disagree
with it, little by little producing the various distinct sectarian doctrines.

2.2 The Nicene
Creed

1. We believe
in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that
is, seen and unseen. We believe in one
Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God
from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one
Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our
salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became
incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified
under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he
rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is
seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge
the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the
Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the
Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken
through the Prophets.

2. We believe
in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the
forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of
the world to come. Amen.

The Nicene Creed
is probably the first truly historical document, that is, there was probably a
real Creed produced at the Council of Nicea, and it is not a later fiction as
is The Apostles' Creed. However, the Nicene Creed as presented above is a
Western, Protestant view of it with a number of additions, including the
replacement of "I" with "we." The original manuscripts have not survived, and
there is good reason to think that the doctrine of the Trinity had not yet
taken so clear a form by the time of the Council of Nicea in the fourth
century. Nevertheless, this version gives us some notable expansions over The
Apostles' Creed.

The Apostles'
Creed is inadequate to impose the Trinity, the belief in one God eternally
existing in three distinct persons. Therefore, the Nicene Creed goes to some
length to define the three persons of the Trinity. Jesus is declared outright
to be God. In this version the Holy Ghost is said to proceed from the Father
and the Son, a point which was never accepted in the Orthodox Church. The Latin
filioque, and from the Son, remains a major point of doctrinal contention
between Western Christianity (Rome and Protestantism) and Orthodoxy. This
argument had not yet arisen at the time of Nicea, and its inclusion here is an
obvious anachronism.

The addition of
one baptism reflects a very complex history of the Christian institution. The
early historical practice of a purity system with ablutions is only partially
the origin of Christian baptism, which has antecedents in the oriental mysteries
which were so popular in the Roman Empire in the first centuries of the common
era. The expression "one baptism" effectively represses the remnants of
ablutions and the concept of purity in Christianity. Baptism takes on a heavy
load of meaning as an initiatory rite of entrance into the Church, the role it
had in the mystery cults.

The catholic or
universal Church, which was adequate in the Apostles' Creed, needs bolstering
here. Now the claim is put forward that the Church is Apostolic, that is, it
has the seal of approval of the direct disciples of Christ. The concept of an
authoritative Church was not easy to get across, and was not actually even
fully established when Constantine made it the religion of the empire. The
original concept of the ekklesia or "church" was a calling out of institutions,
as the etymology of the Greek word implies, and not a calling into an
authoritative establishment.

2.3 The
Athanasian Creed

1. Whosoever
will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except
everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish
everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in
Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of
the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead
of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. Such as the
Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate,
the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the
Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost
incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost
eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there
are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the
Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they
are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is
God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For
like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person
by himself to be both God and Lord, So
are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion, to say, There be three Gods, or
three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son
is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is
of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but
proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three
Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy
Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other; none is greater, or
less than another; But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal.
So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in
Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved is must think thus
of the Trinity. Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he
also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right
Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of
God, is God and Man; God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the
worlds; and Man of the Substance of his Mother, born in the world; Perfect God
and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the
Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching his
Manhood; Who, although he be God and Man, yet he is not two, but one Christ;
One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh but by taking of the Manhood
into God; One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh
is one man, so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation, descended
into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he
sitteth at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he will come

2. to judge the
quick and the dead. At whose coming all
men will rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own
works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they
that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which
except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

The first point
that appears in contrast with the Nicene Creed is the emphasis on the eternity
of the Son, which was overlooked in the briefer Creed. Any loophole in the
theological definition of God produced its followers in the early centuries of
Christianity. The attempt to define God theologically inexorably led to such a
situation.

At this point it
is clear that the Creed is the result of heated controversy. It was not easy to
impose the doctrine of the Trinity on early Christians. The Arian controversy was
long and bloody. Yet this version of the Athanasian Creed is a corrupted
Western, Protestant view. It contains the Roman filioque which is again an
interpolation never accepted by Orthodoxy. But besides that, it contains a hint
of the separate natures of Christ, the unmixed human and divine natures, which
is also the result of a later controversy, which divided the Eastern Orthodox
Churches (Syrian, Coptic, et al.) from Greek and Roman Christianity. The
Monophysite Churches in the Middle East accept only one nature in the Son, a
nature that is both human and divine in the incarnation.

The controversy
over the Trinity resulted in a strong expression of anathema. Those who did not
accept the Creed were stated to be lost, cast into Hell. Thus, the emphasis of
Christianity came to be adherence to a belief system set in creedal formula,
rather than a personal acceptance of God's sovereignty and consequent
obedience, as in Islam. The development of sectarianism in Christianity
reflects this emphasis on what you believe rather than what you do. Some
Christians criticize Islam as being a religion of works rather than faith or
belief. The Athanasian Creed is of such complexity that the ordinary person, at
least one not caught up in the intricacies of Christian theology, may have
difficulty seeing the importance of its statements, and even their meaning.
Once the Trinity is a full-blown doctrine, it by-passes some of the basic
reasoning processes, to a ponderous and authoritarian pronouncement of "truth"
rather than an illumination of it. This has a ramification in the theology of
the Church. The Church in Roman understanding holds the magisterium, or
authority to teach without submitting its arguments to the judgement of the
individual mind. This attitude is prevalent even among others that Roman
Catholics, one might say especially among Protestants. The authority of the
Church in maintaining the doctrine of the Trinity is generally of far greater
weight with the Christian than are the conclusions of his own reason and logic.

The polemic tone
of the Athanasian Creed above is removed from it as it appears in the actual
liturgy of the Coptic Orthodox Church. As published in English, the reference
to the Monophysite doctrine is missing, as well as the Latin filioque, which
would be entirely unacceptable in any Orthodox setting. Although taken from a
Coptic source, the following is essentially the same as that found among the
Greek Orthodox and its sister rites.

1. We believe
in one God, God the Father, the Pantocrator, who created heaven and earth, and
all things seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only‑Begotten
Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of light, true God of
true God, begotten not created, of one essence with the Father, by whom all
things were made; Who for us men and our salvation came down from heaven, and
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, and became Man. And he
was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried. And the third
day He rose from the dead, according to the scriptures, ascended into the
heavens; he sits at the right hand of his Father, and He is coming again in his
glory to judge the living and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. Yes,
we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Life‑Giver, who proceeds
from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified,
who spoke by the prophets.

2. And in one
holy, catholic and apostolic church. We confess one baptism for the remission
of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the coming
age. Amen.

Put very
succinctly, the variations on Christian belief turn on a very few points. The
whole of Western Christianity has come from the Roman Church and shares its
basic creed, which is distinct in its addition of the filioque, that is, that
the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Greek Orthodox
agree with the Western Church on all creedal points except this one, and
believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. The Eastern
Orthodox form a position over and against that of both Roman and Greek
Catholics. They hold the Monophysite doctrine that the incarnate Son has only
one nature, which is wholly divine and wholly human at one and the same time.
Roman and Greek Catholics maintain that the Son in incarnation has two natures
unmixed, one human and one divine.

From a creedal
standpoint, Protestantism agrees with Roman Catholicism in the issues of the
Trinity. Its point of creedal independence from Rome lies mainly in its concept
of the Church. Furthermore, Protestantism is broken into many sects based on
differing concepts of the Church on one hand, and additional points of doctrine
on the other.

Some of the major
Protestant concepts of the Church seem to be as follows. First of all, there is
a broad understanding that the Church is a spiritual rather than visible
institution, and that the universal Church of Christ is his mystical body, made
up of all true believers. This rather spiritualized concept was developed
apparently to facilitate Protestant rejection of Roman authority. However,
within that rarified concept, Protestants have developed particular visible
forms. Some of these maintain the system of bishops within a national
framework, as found among Anglicans and Lutherans. The Reformed or Calvinistic
concept retains the national Church under a system of presiding elders instead
of bishops. The congregational concept is often seen to be a body of believers
covenanted together, whose clergy draw their authority from the congregation,
which works in a democratic way. This visible church of believers rejects the
principle of a national Church. It should be noted that Protestantism is a
logical continuation of the replacing of the family with the Church. The loss
of family authority resulted in the elevation of the individual. The individual
in society became the basic unit of the theory of national government. The
concept of the Church thus evolved naturally in the direction it did. It must
be remembered that the breakdown of Roman structures in the Reformation did not
change the basic mind-set, even with the rejection of the magisterium. Although
Protestantism emphasizes the role of the mind in belief, the Church still retains
its hegemony over individual reason. The splintering into a plethora of sects,
each with its particular configuration of beliefs, was inevitable.

It is remarkable,
however, that the doctrine of atonement is not overtly explained in the creeds.
The death and resurrection of Jesus, as well as the forgiveness of sins, are
mentioned. But the connection between that vicarious sacrifice on the cross and
forgiveness is not made. The atonement is nevertheless central to Christian
belief. The creeds assume the belief that humankind is totally helpless and
lost in sinfulness, and completely dependent on the death and resurrection of
Jesus in order to escape condemnation on the Day of Judgement and punishment in
hell fire. But they do not express that belief clearly. It is probable that the
lack of controversy on the atonement as compared to the Trinity accounts for
this omission. The simplest creeds lack a complete exposition of the Trinity as
well.

It is in the
three great central doctrines of Christianity that it is most clearly
distinguished from Islamic teaching: the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine
of the Atonement, and the doctrine of the Church. These are issues that
separate the two faiths. Islam postulates one God, who is sovereign and
creedally undefined. Islam relies solely on divine grace in the judgement,
without any reference to atoning sacrifice. Finally, the relationship between
humankind and God is direct, without any institution mediating that grace. From
this point of view Islam is remarkably simple in theology, whereas Christianity
is convoluted and complex, with manifold variations on the themes of Trinity,
atonement, and authority.

The Creedal
doctrines which are similar to Islamic doctrine are belief in the return of
Jesus (AS), and the Day of Judgement.

3.
Extra-Creedal Developments

Many Christian
sects make a big issue of being non-creedal. In actuality, however, they have
belief systems which are just as binding as the creeds. To be non-creedal does not
mean that a sect has a different basis for its existence or its beliefs. It
merely means that the formal recitation of its beliefs do not form a part of
the liturgy. In fact, most of the sects actually conform to the belief systems
of the creeds. They depart from them in two ways: either by additional beliefs,
or by modification of one or more of the creedal doctrines. The rejection of
the creeds is therefore almost never total. It merely paves the way for
modification or addition. The basic, Roman Catholic doctrine is generally the
continuing foundation. For example, Baptists claim to be non-creedal, but
almost invariably accept the filioque theology, which is Roman as opposed to
Greek and Eastern. That is, to the extent which they have a clear idea of what
they believe, they believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and
the Son, and not from the Father alone.

3.1 European
Antecedents

In the history of
the Reformation in Europe, and in addition to the national churches, there are
two major tendencies of continuing
consequence. These are the Unitarian movement, and the Radical Reformation. The
early Unitarians, following such figures as Servetus, Socinius, Blandrata, and
Francis David, attacked the doctrine of the Trinity in favor of some form of
One God. At the same time, they tended to retain the other creedal issues, such
as that of the Church. The Radical Reformation, with such figures as Von
Carlstadt, Jan de Leyden, Andreas Fischer, and Hubmeier to mention only a few,
attacked the doctrine of the Church above all, but contained elements which
questioned other doctrines, although few of them went so far as to question all
of the creedal doctrines. These are the sources of the older Christian sects,
such as Unitarians, Baptists, Mennonites, and Congregationalists of various
types. Unless they have been influenced by liberalism, they retain a belief
much influenced by the creeds, with modifications on the Trinity and the
Church. Again, the doctrine of the Atonement was not an issue from which a
strong movement of dissent arose. The belief that Jesus died for our sins, and
without faith in that death salvation is impossible, remains central to the
traditional forms of these sects. There have been trends approaching Islam in
the rejection of the Christian doctrine that all people are born sinful, but
questioning the atonement itself is rare. Only liberalism has been able to make
inroad upon it, not contrasting religious faith.

There are two
trends which acted upon the national churches of Protestantism, and are logical
reactions to the emphasis on intellectual belief as the basis of religion.
These are spirituality or mysticism on one hand, and holiness or piety on the
other. Dry intellectualism is rarely satisfying to the human psyche, and many
people are attracted to matters with a more emotional appeal. Furthermore,
belief which does not have an effect on action is easily perceived as
hypocrisy. No wonder many Protestants began to consider actions important.
These two influences cut across all barriers in Protestantism, colouring all of
the Protestant churches well as giving birth to new ones. Spirituality gave rise to ecstatic behaviour, such as
speaking in tongues and popular singing, and sometimes even falling into
trances and healing exercises. This is the root of the diverse Pentecostal
movement. The Pietistic Movement had a similar effect, breaking Lutheranism,
for example, into sects advocating strict behaviour and strong conformity to
customs perceived as being devout. Having been so cut off from the Decalogue,
however, by creedalism, such movements have tended to descend into trivial
customs of piety, such as hairstyles and dress. The Methodist Church developed
from a combination of both factors in Anglicanism. It has been able to incorporate
both holiness and spirituality within the episcopal system and continue to use
the creed in its liturgy.

This is the
doctrinal backdrop from which sprout the thousands of Protestant and
ultra-protestant sects. It is now necessary to focus on some of these, since
they are vocal and fairly numerous in adherents throughout the world.

3.2 American
Movements

The new sects of
Christianity which appeared in America in the 19th century and
continue to be of extreme importance can be divided into the restoration sects
and the chiliastic sects. The former took the Protestant reevaluation of the
Church to new logical heights, claiming to restore the Church of Christ to its
primitive purity. This of course was a prime aspect of the Reformation as a
whole. The chiliastic sects saw themselves as the logical historical
development of Christianity for the end of the world, and they preached various
systems of beliefs concerning the second coming of Christ. The three most
visible of such American sects today are the Mormons or The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints among the most popular of the restorationists, the
Seventh-day Adventists and the Jehovah's Witnesses among the chiliasts.

These sects all
appeared and developed about the time of Darwinism and the Industrial
Revolution. They have a common foundation in literalism, pragmatism, and
materialism. Their organization is basically corporate, like the organizations
of the industrial and business world. These two factors have contributed to
their dynamic success in the 20th century as compared to older, more
traditional sects.

3.2.1 The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

In the beginning,
Mormonism did not strongly question the creedal doctrines other than the Church
and its restoration. It accepted the main Christian doctrines. But over time,
especially after the death of the founder Joseph Smith, the particular
situation of the 19th century contributed to a growing departure
from the creedal doctrines of Christianity, so that many Christians today would
not consider Mormons Christians at all.

Despite its
foundation on Christian doctrine, with only a restoration concept of the Church
and a new Scripture containing little or nothing doctrinally new, the Mormons
have departed from the Creedal faiths to a surprising extent. The doctrine of
the Trinity is completely replaced by an evolutionary scheme. Much of the
experience relates either to baptism for the dead or the necessary rites which
will ensure the peculiar Mormon eschatology, which is divine evolution for all
of those who participate in the necessary rites. Besides this there is an
emphasis on clean living and family values, and the community of church
activities.

Contact with Islam
is facilitated by the prohibition of alcohol as well as an inclination at least
formerly to avoid flesh foods including pork, at least except in winter and in
times of distress. A point of commonality is also in the former Mormon practice
of polygamy, which has long been discontinued by the main body.

3.2.2 The
Seventh-day Adventists

Seventh-day
Adventists represent precisely the opposite tendency as Mormonism. Although it
began as a movement proclaiming the imminent and visible return of Christ, from
the beginning it contained strong attacks on all three major creedal doctrines:
the Trinity, the Atonement, and the Church. Many of the early Adventist leaders
were unitarian, believing in one God, and that Jesus is subordinate. The
sanctuary doctrine, the distinctive doctrine of Adventism and a very complex
configuration of beliefs, in essence attacks the final atonement for sin made
on the cross, which is the generally accepted evangelical Protestant belief. In
the beginning, there was a strong anti-ecclesiastical tendency in Adventism. By
the beginning of the 1900s Adventism had essentially forsaken its
anti-ecclesiasticalism. It became a Christian Church. Anti-trinitarian beliefs
died harder, and there was even a widespread debate about the nature of Christ
in the 1970s, after which the Trinitarian doctrine was fully ratified, making
official a situation which had already been practically true for a long time.
Only in the matter of Atonement does Adventism still represent a mild criticism
of what is generally accepted among Christians. Adventism today can be said to
represent Western Christianity with some additional peculiarities.

Adventist belief
is set forth in an official document containing 27 articles. The first
maintains the Bible as the only source of doctrine, an addition which
identifies it as being a part of the Protestant Reformation. Catholic
formulations would accept tradition as well as Scripture. Section 2 is entitled the Trinity, and
sections 3-5 define the three persons. The Son is called the eternal Son of
God, identifying Adventism as a branch of Calvinism, but this is not the whole
story. The section on the Holy Spirit is clearly Roman Catholic, based on the
filioque doctrine and opposed to Greek Orthodoxy. The Atonement is described
with its ramifications up to section 10. This exposition accepts original sin,
but denies the radical Calvinist total depravity. Sections 11-13 give a
Protestant concept of the Church, accepting the spiritual universal Church.
This has so far followed the creedal format.

The rest of the
Adventist statement goes beyond the creedal format. However, it follows the
typical format of Protestant confessions of faith. The two Protestant
ordinances come next, baptism and the Lord's supper, going outside the matter
of belief to that of practice. Sections 16 and 17 justify the Adventist
distinctive of having their own prophet, Ellen White. Sections 18-22 show a
pietistic trend, referring to the Decalogue as a model of behaviour. Section 23
inserts the Adventist distinctive, the sanctuary service which is seen as a necessary
adjunct to Christ's death on the cross. Sections 24-27 present the second
coming of Christ. Adventism maintains conditional immortality, which is a
special and minority position on the creedal doctrine of resurrection of the
body.

There are hundreds
of Protestant sects that have similar statements in similar format. First of
all come the creedal doctrines, sometimes mixed with and followed by the
typically Protestant doctrines, followed by the specific, distinctive doctrines
of the sect. This structure is a very logical response to the feeling that the
creeds are top-heavy as compared to the Decalogue in emphasizing the definition
of God to the detriment of the second section. The additions to the statements
of belief that go beyond the creeds are halting attempts to redress the
imbalance which the creedal departures from the Decalogue represent. Rather
than going back to the original, however, they are continued developments in
the creedal tradition, tendencies toward solving the problem by additional
definitions.

3.2.3 The
Jehovah's Witnesses

The Jehovah's
Witnesses are a slippery breed. They produce a vast amount of literature, but
not a brief summary of doctrine. Furthermore, their doctrine continues to
change over time, so that old literature may not be an accurate expression of
their faith.

Jehovah's
Witnesses, as is typical of the radical reformation, question the doctrine of
the Trinity and the doctrine of the Church. They have replaced these with a
doctrine which gives God a higher position than Jesus and denies the
personality of the Holy Spirit. This is definitely a step towards Islam,
although their concept of Jesus as divine of a lower order is still
unacceptable, a fact they have been taught to conceal from their Muslim
contacts. As for the Church, they have replaced this with the concept of a
literal, physical kingdom of God, which is identical to the Jehovah's Witness
organization.

There are several
doctrines that seem to be fairly stable among Jehovah's Witnesses. The first is
the importance of the name Jehovah or any variant of it from the tetragram or
YHWH used in the Bible. Apparently God only responds to prayer addressed using
this particular word as a specific name, the only valid one. In its radical
manifestation, this doctrine considers prayer under any other formula to be
idolatry. They also make an issue of Jesus not dying on a cross but on a stake.
However, they do not deny the Atonement. They believe in a particular
eschatology that includes the state of death to be an unconscious one, and the
establishment of the earthly kingdom of Jesus (AS) upon his return.

Jehovah's
Witnesses, like Mormons and Adventists, emphasize clean living and family
values, but are surprising to Muslims in their openness to the use of alcohol. The
character of the religion is intransigent, and the degree of conformity is
high. Their liturgy consists to a great extent in reading books of questions
and answers. There is no discussion, and their missionary activities use
discussion only to the extent that they find necessary for contact. It is
difficult to have a discussion with them in which both sides accept the
criterion of reason. They tend to remain authoritarian even in the most open
situations.

3.3 British
Movements

Among many British
movements one might single out the Plymouth Brethren as the source of several
groups with which Muslims are likely to come into contact. Darbyism as it may
be called has since split into many groups. In the beginning there was some
similarity with the new American religions, but in the end British conservatism
determined the nature of the movement. The main attack on the creedal doctrines
was in the doctrine of the Church. Darbyism is extremely disestablishmentarian.
It rejects forms and formula, but in the end has produced a proliferation of is
own forms and dogmas, which tend to be conservative. A statement of beliefs
cannot be obtained, but the beliefs presented by adherents are not complex or
difficult to grasp, nor do they depart from traditional Christianity to the
extent of the new American movements.

They retain a
strongly critical attitude towards other groups, and it is precisely this stand
against the Christian establishment that forms the largest common ground with
Islam. Contact is usually not fruitful, however, as they too are generally more
interested in getting their own teaching across than in an exchange in
dialogue. People associated with the movement sometimes do street witnessing in
British cities, and this is the primary means of contact with Muslims.

The
extra-creedal doctrines are areas of opportunity for Islam. In that some of
them question and reverse the three central Christian doctrines of the Trinity,
Atonement, and the Church, parallels can be made which approach Islam. This is
especially true for the unity of God (which many Christians will accept) and
the reduction of ecclesiastical authority. The crucifixion generally remains
problematic. Furthermore, various sects add doctrines that are similar to
Islam, even when they retain the Creedal errors. Thus one finds here and there
prohibitions of alcohol or unclean flesh, for example, as among Adventists and
Mormons. All of these provide common areas of belief upon which to build a
relationship of trustful communication.

On the other
hand, some of the extra-creedal doctrines, such as the Mormon doctrine of the
evolution of God, raise even higher barriers than the creeds themselves. Such
issues can be best met if one is provided with a statement of beliefs that can
be evaluated. This is not always possible, in which case it is necessary to get
the Christian to express his beliefs clearly and accurately.

4. The
Decalogue and Islamic Belief


Islamic doctrine
is also a response to the development of the Christian creeds. The history of
the Christian creeds shows them to be very practical in origin. They often say
what people feel needs to be said at a particular time, and are only afterward
perceived as absolute expressions of truth. The two versions of the Athanasian
Creed above show that very well, where the first is particular and polemic and
the second universal and liturgical.

The structure of
Matthew six reflects the local preoccupations of the time by giving alms,
prayer, fasting, and probably pilgrimage as the basics of the religion of
Jesus. Although this does not replace or conflict with the Decalogue, it does
reveal a shift in issues. This shift in issues is valid for a vital faith,
because it addresses the practical life of the people. When this shift in
issues begins to conflict with the Decalogue, however, then we are faced with a
new and different faith, which is the case with the Christian creeds.

In the beginning
the Christian creeds reflected the burning issue of what to do with Jesus. As
this shift in interest away from the Decalogue continued, the Decalogue as a
source of doctrine was forgotten and the creeds began to define Jesus in terms
that were in literal conflict with the Decalogue, while preserving the
essential structure of that document. The structure of the Decalogue which is
the proclamation of God followed by a list of logically implied commands,
beliefs, and values, is evident from the Mosaic document down through Islam,
the Christian creeds, and finally to the latest versions of sectarian Christian
statements of beliefs.

The Decalogue, as
the name implies, has traditionally been seen to exist in ten sections,
although there is some variation in how these sections are divided.
Interestingly enough, the Islamic statement of the essentials of faith and
practice preserves this structure of ten. The Islamic presentation is in two
sections also, the roots and the branches. The roots or fundamentals of faith
are five: the Unity of God, Divine Justice, Apostleship, Divine Guidance, and
the Day of Judgement. The branches are ten: prayer in prostration, the month of
fasting, pilgrimage, zakat and khums (the two forms of charity), holy
endeavour, enjoining good, preventing evil, love of the godly, and avoidance of
the wicked.

It is quite clear
that these two groups correspond to the two sections of the Decalogue, and that
the latter group, the branches of faith, corresponds rather precisely to the
exposition of issues in Jesus' (AS) presentation in Matthew six. Islamic belief,
like Christian, is the product of taking the Decalogue as a point of departure
and defining faith in terms of contemporary issues. The difference is that
Islam does not conflict with the document of origin, but rather adds to it in
ways both consistent with the original and relevant to new problems.

This is seen in
the way the roots are expressed. The first principle is divine unity,
corresponding to the first commandment of the Decalogue. There are four
principles that are logically drawn from divine unity. If God is One, He is
thereby impartial and if impartial, then intrinsically just. Since He is just,
he reveals the basis for His judgement of humans, firstly in verbal revelation
through the prophets, and secondly through the practical application of divine
guidance. This implies finally human responsibility before God in a judgement.
All of these are logically implicit in the unity of God.

The consistent
development of Islamic doctrine is also seen in the way the branches are
portrayed. The second commandment prohibits prostration to false gods. The
implication is prostration to the One True God alone. It is at this point where
the defining of the branches of faith begins. The other nine branches of faith
are similarly logical sequences from the practice of prayer in prostration.
There is thus nothing inconsistent with the Decalogue. Islam is shown to be a
consistent transmission of the most ancient revelation, applied to new
situations with the shift in issues.

5. Theology
Christian and Islamic: an evaluation.

Among the more
important divisions of theology from a Christian standpoint of belief are
theology proper or the doctrine of God, soteriology or the doctrine of
salvation, ecclesiology or the doctrine of the Church, and eschatology or the
doctrine of last things. We have noted that in terms of eschatology, the
differences between Christianity and Islam are small. We have also seen that
throughout its history, Christianity has been able to discuss and re-evaluate
its thought in regard to the Church and in regard to God, producing a number of
mutually exclusive and conflicting alternatives, some of which approach Islam.
It is the doctrine of salvation where the lines are drawn most clearly and
abruptly between the two faiths. Christianity does not budge an inch on the
belief that Jesus died on the cross and that this death was necessary in order
for God to forgive sin. Thus a doctrinal path of dialogue can be envisioned,
beginning with what is common and ending with what is most divisive.

A discussion with
Christians on the matter of end time events, signs of the return of Christ, and
the importance of the Day of Judgement is a good opening. If some amount of
agreement can be found in those areas, it establishes a point of contact and
readiness to discuss more difficult issues.

The second most
fruitful area of discussion is that of the Church. Especially evangelical
Christians will respond favourably to the Islamic idea of direct responsibility
before God, without the vehicle of a priestly, ecclesiastical function. In this
matter Islam and evangelical Christianity have similar beliefs, in contrast to
the more authoritarian forms of Christianity. In contact with Catholics, the
point of commonality is the similarity between the authority of the Pope and
that of the Imam in Shi'ite practice.

In the matter of
the Trinity, Christians are historically accustomed to making this issue
complex and mysterious on one hand, and absolutely essential to faith on the
other. The prevailing Christian attitude, historically speaking, is that one's
destiny depends on having God defined properly. Muslims have traditionally
clung to the unity of God, which essentially implies refusal to define God and
recognition that God, being sovereign, is not definable in human terms. In some
cases it is possible to cut out the interminable discussions with Christians on
the Trinity by referring to the unity of God as an absolute, as the recognition
of the ineffable character of God.

If discussion of
the Trinity occurs, several things will become soon apparent. Firstly, the
Muslim has the upper hand in terms of both logic and in terms of Scripture. The
Christian Scriptures fail to provide a secure basis for the doctrine of the
Trinity, whereas a good foundation for the unity of God can be made on the
basis of the Bible. Secondly, in the face of reason and Scripture, the
Christian will fall back on tradition, the creed, or ecclesiastical authority,
covered by desperate quibbling on Scriptural interpretation. Either a Christian
will be easy or nearly impossible to convince on the matter of the unity of
God. There is no middle ground.

Nevertheless,
theological formulation on the doctrine of God has a common foundation in Islam
and Christianity, one largely based on Greek philosophy. The Western
formulation is still greatly dependent on Thomas Aquinas, whose theology owes
much to Al-Ghazali and others. There is a clear correspondence between the
divine attributes taught in Christian theology, and those taught in Islam. All
agree on the acceptance of negative and positive attributes. The positive
attributes in Shi'ite thought are 1) Eternity, 2) Omnipotence, 3) Omniscience,
4) All-Perception, 5) Self-existence, 6) Absolute Independence of will and
action, 7) Creation of Speech, 8) Absolute Truthfulness. The negative
attributes are rejection of 1) compounding, 2) accommodation, 3) incarnation,
4) visibility, 5) need, 6) association, 7) change, and 8) addition of
qualities. Sunnism seems to reject only the last of these.

Classical Western
theology appeals to many of the same attributes on the same basis. Only the
seventh positive attribute is generally unknown to Christians. All of the
others are not only acceptable, but more or less normative, especially the
first three. Among the negative attributes the fourth and seventh, visibility
and change, are most commonly admitted. This situation is logically
inconsistent with the Trinity. The influence of Al-Ghazali and other Islamic
scholars on Christian theology has been so extensive, that Christian
theological formulation nearly always includes vast areas of mixing
incompatible motifs, Islamic and Trinitarian, without achieving a rational
synthesis. One need only ask how is it possible to maintain the negative attributes
of visibility and change, and yet admit incarnation, which effects not only
change in the deity, but makes the deity visible, at least in first century
Palestine. Christian doctrine is at its most vulnerable precisely in its most
sophisticated formulations. Unfortunately, most Christians do not have the
resources for discussing matters on that level. On the other hand, if the
Muslim makes an issue of the unity of God to be a refusal to engage in
theological definition of God, the Christian may turn the argument against
Islam by noting that Greek-based theological formulation also exists in Islam,
in its acceptance of positive and negative attributes of God.

The matter of
soteriology, the doctrine of salvation, is even more difficult. Although there is
a variety of thought on why Jesus had to die, and on how his death makes
forgiveness for sin possible, there is little desire among Christians to
question the Atonement as such. Among the classical ideas are that the death of
Christ was redemptive, that is, it bought the sinful human being from Satan,
who was the lawful master because of sin, and that sin requires the death
sentence in order to satisfy the justice of God, and that Christ's death is the
substitute for everyone who claims it before God. A more modern thought is that
human beings are incapable of accepting forgiveness until they realize the love
of God in providing His Son as a sacrifice for them. Needless to say, many
Christians find these justifications lacking, without thereby rejecting the
doctrine of Atonement.

It is therefore of
little use for the Muslim to point out the weakness of these classical
justifications for the doctrine. The real difference between Islam and
Christianity on this matter is a difference in the understanding of what sin
is. For the Christian generally, sin is a cosmic evil in the world into which
every human is born, and which can be overcome only through a cosmic event
which does battle with that evil and overcomes it. The death of Christ is the
highpoint of that battle. For the Muslim, sin is failure to obey a divine
command. It needs only to be reversed and put right insofar as possible, to be
atoned by repentance and good faith shown in good deeds, and finally forgiven
simply by divine grace.

The general Islamic
approach to Atonement is just as intransigent as the Christian doctrine itself.
It generally consists in the outright denial of the dead of Jesus. This of
course puts an end to the discussion. However, what must be maintained in Islam
is that the death of Jesus (or anyone else) can have no objective influence on
God's ability or will to forgive sins. For Shi'ites, to admit the possibility
of the death of Jesus merely opens the possibility of seeing it in much the
same light as the death of Imam Husseyn (AS). There is no possibility of
discussion between Muslims and Christians on this issue without compromise on
one side or the other. Evangelical Christians, however, are left speechless
when confronted with the Islamic statement that God forgives by His infinite
grace alone, to which no human sacrifice can add anything.

6. Tying the
Knot

The areas of
contrast between Christian and Islamic belief can be charted simply as follows.

Although
Christians will balk at the thought that the death of Jesus on the cross in
Christian teaching is essentially a human sacrifice, and some will deny the
authority of the Church, this simple caricature of the differences between
Christianity and Islam should make the Christian stop and think. It may well be
that worship of one God alone, and the realization that he has direct access to
God without recourse to any institutions, and free forgiveness of sin through
the infinite grace of God, is what he really always thought was true and right.
After all, all are born Muslim.