by the Rt Revd Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester

I remember an interview on the radio some time ago and the interviewer said, “Bishop, are you a backward looking person or a forward looking person?” and in true Anglican fashion I said, “Both, you have to look backwards if you are going to understand the present situation and also plan the future.” So what I am going to do this morning is to look at some of the history of Muslim-Christian relations and also some of the leading theological themes which emerge from that history and their relevance for today. I will begin with the origins of Islam as an historical religion. We know that Muslims claim that Islam is the eternal religion, the religion of all those who have truly believed throughout history, including the prophets of the Bible, Jesus himself and the disciples. But if we take an historical point of reference, which is 6th and 7th century Arabia, then we can locate the origins of historical Islam round about there and at that time.

We discover when we do this that the origins of Islam are surrounded by Christian and Jewish presence. Peninsular Arabia was surrounded by predominantly Christian countries: Syria; Egypt; Palestine; Mesopotamia; and the great Ethiopian or Abyssinian Empire, which at that time stretched much further than modern Ethiopia. Not only was the peninsula of Arabia surrounded by a Jewish and Christian presence but there were many active Christian and Jewish communities within Arabia itself and we know, from the earliest times, the prophet of Islam had contacts with such communities. On a training mission to Syria, for example, on behalf of his then employer, later his wife, Khadija - so much for the place of women in Islam! She was considerably older than he was. But on this mission he came across Syrian Christianity, and Muslim tradition tells us that he met with monks who were very significantly named Bahira and Nestur who appeared to validate the mission that he was to have. In the course of his original work he was supported by the advice of some leading Christians who appeared to have been related to this first wife, a man who was named Waraqa bin Naufal, for instance, who was very probably a Christian priest and it is thought that Khadija herself had been a Christian because Muhammed’s marriage to her was monogamous as long as she lived.

When Muhammed began his preaching in Mecca - he was of course vigorously opposed by the citizens of Mecca - they were engaged at the time in the promotion of the cult of the so called Daughters of Allah. Like St Paul and the Ephesians, they realised that his preaching was jeopardising their trade because their trade depended on the cult. At one point he decided to send his closest followers for refuge in Abyssinia, particularly because Abyssinia was a Christian country. He himself stayed back when his closest followers went to Ethiopia and the immigration officers met them, though the style of the interrogation, I think, was somewhat different from the ones that take place these days! The Muslim refugees were interrogated by the Negus himself, who asked them very theological questions, “What did they believe about the person of Christ?” for example. The Muslims said that the prophet had taught them that he was the Word of God and a spirit from him. What did they believe about the blessed Virgin Mary? They said that they believed in the virginal conception and birth of Christ and on the basis of this theological dialogue they were given refuge. Many of them stayed there. Some became Christians. Some did not. Some came back when Muhammed moved to Medina and through negotiation acquired temporal power in Medina.

When he came to Medina, Muhammed found himself engaged with Jewish and Christian communities, amongst others, within Arabia itself. He first arrived at the treaty with the Jewish community in the Khaibar, where he demanded tribute of them and received it but allowed them to continue practising their faith and continue to worship in their traditional way. He then opened negotiations with the Christian community of the Najran. We know from Muslim sources themselves that these negotiations opened with theological dialogue. Once again the Christians of Najran asked Muhammed what he believed about Jesus and Muhammed said that he believed Jesus to be Word and Spirit of God. The Christians then said, “But is he the Son of God?” Now you will remember that Muhammed had opened his preaching by denying that Allah could have daughters. It was very difficult for him now to say that he could have a son so he said, “No, he’s not the Son of God.” Then the Christians said, “But whose son is he then?” Now you have to appreciate, of course, Arab culture and the Arabic language to understand the significance of this question: “Whose son is he?” Because people are defined by being somebody’s son or daughter. Whose son is Jesus if he’s born of the Virgin? Now Muhammed gave them two answers which are actually preserved for us in the Koran itself and the first answer is that Jesus is the son of Mary. He is Isa Ibn Maryam. Here Islam changes what has been a term of abuse in Jewish-Christian polemic into a term of honour. I think we must be eternally grateful to Islam for this service. The second answer that the Koran gives, and which Muhammed gave the Christians of Najran at the time, is that God created Jesus in Mary’s womb just as he had created Adam out of nothing. He said “kun fa-yakunu”. This is a Koranic formula for speaking of God creating ex-nihilo (K3:59). He did conclude a treaty on this basis with the Christians of the Najran. On a more equal basis than he had with the Jewish community.

Now two points have to be made here: First of all that there has been Christian-Muslim, and indeed Christian-Muslim-Jewish interaction, from the very beginning. There has been no time in Islamic history that Muslims have not been living together, talking to and arriving at agreements with Christians. Secondly, there has been theological dialogue between Christians and Muslims with a view to arriving at good relations. I know the Archbishop of Canterbury will talk about his work in relation to Al-Azhar and I see also members of staff here who have been concerned for developing the dialogue that is concerned with Shica Islam. This dialogue today is deeply rooted in the history of Christian-Muslim relations that go back indeed to the very beginning. Muhammed, when he became the temporal ruler of Medina, also came into conflict, particularly with Jewish tribes, and some of them came to a very sticky end indeed. I won’t go into detail, but eventually he promulgated something that is called The Constitution of Medina in which Christians and Jews were given equal rights with Muslims. This development of Islamic polity is extremely important for our discussions with Islamic states today. The Constitution of Medina is the most primitive, the most original, way there is of being an Islamic state and certainly people of other faiths, particularly Christians and Jews, had a place in that polity from the very beginning.

Very soon after Muhammed’s death, Islam moved out into the then Christian world extremely rapidly. One by one the great cities of Eastern Christianity were reduced and some of them in fact capitulated peacefully. Damascus was handed over to the Muslims by the family of Mansur, the family of St John of Damascus himself who later on served the Muslims with great distinction. Egypt was handed over to the Muslims by the Melkite Governor and of course when Umar, the Second Caliph, arrived in Jerusalem he was greeted by the patriarch Sophronius who asked him to pray in the Holy Temple. Umar declined saying “If I do so the Muslims would use it as a pretext to turn the church into a Mosque”. So he prayed outside. In the course of history many churches were converted into Mosques, as were some Mosques into churches in other parts. The spread of Islam throughout these countries of the Christian East and then further into the Persian Empire and also eventually Spain and even Southern France, brought a whole lot of very different people within the fold of the emerging Islamic empire. Many of them were Christians and Jews but then there were also Zororastians and others. The Persian Empire crumbled very quickly indeed and when the Islamic army in the 8th century arrived in India, the Hindus came within the orbit of Islam. Many of these communities for a long time constituted the majority. It is only by the 13th century that the majority in Syria and Egypt and some of the other countries became a Christian minority.

How did they change from being a majority to being a minority? There are many different answers but let’s just detail a few: After the death of Muhammed it was decreed that he had said that Arabia should be a country with only one faith and so all the Christians and Jews of Peninsula Arabia were expelled. The tradition is quite dubious and Muhammed certainly never actually expelled these communities himself. Many people were dispersed, particularly in Jewish tribes, and then some structural discrimination was put in place which, by a process of attrition, reduced these majorities to minorities. Rules about marriage, for instance, where a Muslim man could marry a Jewish or a Christian woman but a Christian or a Jewish man could not marry a Muslim woman. This gave rise to a legal development in Islam which is that of the dhimma. The word dhimma means the responsibility of Muslims to protect particular religious minorities. First Jews and Christians, later on others. The whole point about the dhimma is that it is both an advance and a problem. It is an advance because if you look at it in the context of the world of the 7th, 8th or 9th centuries, there were very few civilisations that provided such protection for minorities and so it is to Islam’s credit that it had a structured way of providing for communities. This, however, was done at great cost to these communities. I think that is a point which we must not forget. They had to pay special taxes, for example, Jizya and Kharaj. They could not serve in the armed forces or in the higher echelons of the civil service. They had to wear special dress. They could not ride the same animals as Muslims. Their houses could not be at the same level as Muslim houses. Basically those who were Christians and Jews and other religious communities could not claim equality with Muslims. Their churches could be maintained but new churches could not be built and there were all other sorts of disabilities. If you ever want to understand the true situation of dhimma I recommend the books by the Egyptian Jewess, Bat Ye’or, who has documented how the dhimma was actually practised in a series of books. The reason I mention the dhimma is that it is very relevant today when some Islamist states are attempting, once again, to return to this way of treatment for religious minorities.

One must mention here the great Islamic civilisation that arose, not under the first dynasty of Ummayads, but under the second dynasty of Abbasids and people have often asked, “How did the Arabs from the desert suddenly come up with such a wonderful civilisation?” There are many answers to this, one of course being that they wanted to be a great civilisation. But they were helped in it by the recovery of hellenistic learning - scientific, philosophical, medical - which they were very keen to learn. The plain fact is that this learning came to them through the translation of mainly Christian priests. If you look at the names of the translators of Aristotle, Galen or Plato, they were mainly Christian priests. Christians also played a great role in the development of medicine and the sciences. In fact, the typical physicians of the Muslim world for many centuries were the Christian priests. This learning was then brought to Western Europe mainly by Jewish traders.

While this civilisation was developing there was also catastrophe and declaration of war between the Christian West and the Islamic World, I mean of course the Crusades. Quite a lot is said about the Crusades. One or two things that need to be remembered, in light of present circumstances, are that the Crusades began because the Seljuk Turks, not the Arabs, a new group of Turks who had recently been converted to Islam were blocking the way of Pilgrims to the Holy Land and were also making incursions into Byzantium. That does not justify all that was later done in the name of Christ and of His church by the Crusaders. But that is how it began so it is important to remember that the Crusades were not just directed against Muslims. There were crusades against heretics, there were crusades against the Jews and the Eastern Christians. There were specific crusades against Constantinople. By the 18th and 19th centuries the Turks had almost completely replaced the Arabs as rulers of the Islamic world and certainly by the 19th century Western powers, which had close trading, and sometimes even military relationships with the Ottomans, were pressing for an end to the dhimmi system and to give equal rights to all citizens of the Empire. So a series of edicts were issued by the Caliph in the middle of the 19th century which formally ended the system.

That is the beginning of the modern period in the Islamic world because the ending of dhimma encouraged the emergence of, firstly, an Arab nationalism and to this emergence Christians were able to contribute in a very significant way. The main ideologues of Arab nationalism, as we look at the lists, there are many Christians represented among them and out of proportion to their number. The founder, for instance, of the Baath party of Syria and Iraq, MichaelAflak lived in Iraq and took precedence over Sadaam Hussein. But not only in the Arab world was there emergence of Arab Nationalism based on equal citizenship but also in Turkey and indeed in undivided India. The movement for Pakistan was not at all a movement for an ideological Islamic state. It was a movement for a nationalist state where Muslims could develop their culture and live in peace and not find discrimination. One of the reasons why the Christians, in what was to become Pakistan, actually backed the Muslims was that they felt one minority which had an experience of oppression would not oppress another minority!

However, the emergence of Nationalism was followed by a return to what I can only call fundamentalism in that there was a desire to return to the sources of the faith and to a literal understanding of them without adequate attention to the contexts in which people found themselves. This return to fundamentalism had both conservative and revolutionary forms: conservative in the oil rich states to preserve the status quo, revolutionary like in Iran and Lebanon. There seemed to be several causes which triggered this. There was the experience of colonialism which made Muslims ask what their roots were and whether they could organise their own polity and their own economy in ways that were congenial to Islam. This is a cyclical thing in Islamic history: a constant seeking of roots and those who began the movement of the 18th century were looking back to the 13th and those who are engaged in it now are looking back to the 18th. A certain experience of colonialism was one trigger. Not just colonialism in its classical form but the Islamic world has particularly suffered from Neo-colonialism. In 1953 when there was a revolution in Iran and the Shah was replaced by Prime Minister Mossadegh, who was not very friendly to the west, and so the Shah was brought back. But would it have been better for the Irani people if Mossedegh had stayed? The intervention in Afghanistan, which our chairman has mentioned already, is not a recent event. It goes back to 1980 when it was decided that Afghanistan should become the Vietnam of the Soviet Union and it did become that but at what cost? It actually was at the price of destroying the country and encouraging the emergence of international terrorism trained on the killing fields of Afghanistan. Another reason for fundamentalism is the corruption of the Islamic elite and many fundamentalist reformers throughout the course of Muslim history have directed their wrath, not at the colonial powers, but at the corrupt elite and if you look at the city of Tehran itself: where did the revolution start? It started in South Tehran in the slums, and it moved to North Tehran. Then the final trigger for the movement was the failure of both capitalism and command economies in the Muslim world. Both failed to deliver and so people then said, “What is the alternative? Can we look to Islam to find an alternative for politics and for our economy?”

Given that this is the situation there are four or five areas which I just want to mention as part of the agenda for the Communion. The most important has to do with the development of Sharia or Islamic law. It has been made out by some of these fundamentalist movements that the Sharia cannot change. It was given by God, it has a form which cannot change, and yet we find principles of movement in three of the four major schools of law in Sunni Islam and we find a principle of movement also in Shiite Islam. I well remember our dialogue with some senior Ulema of Iran about 18 months ago when they said that Shicism is committed to the interaction between revelation and reason. This should be on the agenda for our dialogue with Muslims at all times. Secondly, the need for civil society to flourish in the Islamic world. David Ford mentioned this in the bible study this morning. Islam has never been theocratic. Those who claim that it is don’t know their history. The strictly theocratic movements in Islam has always been heretical. There have always been intermediate institutions, political, economic and social, in Islam and today we should be encouraging the Muslim community to develop these institutions for the sake of civil society itself. Thirdly, the whole question of the dhimma: after the renaissance of Nationalism in different parts of the world the religious minorities, whoever they may be, are not willing to be dhimmis, they want to be citizens and while the history of dhimma may provide some inspiration it cannot be the model for the future. Fourthly, we need some conversations between the Muslim world and the rest on situations when conflict may be justifiable. One of the ways in which that can happen is some vigorous dialogue of the notion of the just war as it has developed in Christian thinking and on the notion of Jihad as it has developed in Muslim thinking. I say this because it is important now for Christians to reflect on the just war idea and not simply to appeal to it because in our changing world it needs further reflection. But I say this also because Muslims need to look particularly at their view of Jihad. The word has come from the root verb jahada, which means to make an effort, and was used in many other contexts. It was used, for example, by jurists whose first concern was to innovate in terms of law. But in the narrower sense it has been used as a term to justify armed conflict when Islam is in danger. In the 19th century, for instance, many Muslim reformers, like Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, in India, decided that Jihad could not be waged against the British colonial power because Islam was not in danger. So some further thinking about Jihad and just war is needed.

Finally, we need a commitment to reciprocity. This does not mean ‘tit for tat’. It is not that rights for Muslims in the West depend on the freedom of others in the Muslim world. It is rather working towards a common commitment to fundamental rights and responsibilities everywhere.

These are some of the issues facing Christians and Muslims in the context of a new global situation created by September 11 and its aftermath.