This article was downloaded by: [University of Calgary]On: 26 September 2013, At: 09:43Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Islam and Christian–Muslim RelationsPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cicm20

Islam and the Sermon on the MountJamal Malik aa Department of Religious Studies, University of Erfurt, GermanyPublished online: 31 Jan 2013.

To cite this article: Jamal Malik (2013) Islam and the Sermon on the Mount, Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, 24:1, 43-56, DOI: 10.1080/09596410.2013.746173

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09596410.2013.746173

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Islam and the Sermon on the Mount

Jamal Malik*

Department of Religious Studies, University of Erfurt, Germany

The theme of Islam and the Sermon on the Mount belongs to a lively, controversial field ofdiscourse, in which representatives of the major monotheistic religions conflict in theirclaims to truth, and it has formed a central point in their encounters. For example,representatives of the Salafiyya saw in the Sermon a barrier to the secular order. Throughtheir criticisms, they tended even to appropriate the Sermon for the purposes of Islam.However, the ethical message of the Sermon has usually not been interrogated as such.Form-critical, symbolic, structural and intentional similarities in Muslim remarks point tothis appreciation. Nevertheless, Muslims seem much more concerned with the specificcontextual meaning of the Sermon and its historicity rather than considering its principleof love for enemies or its legislative nature. Thus, positive receptions of the Sermon, suchas al-Ghazzālī’s or the recognition discourse of Sayyid Ahmad Khan, if notforgotten, have fallen into the background. In the atmosphere of Christian missionary andcolonial experience and the post-colonial aftermath, this reception history and itssemantic transformations are certainly understandable. However, they first offer a fertileground for inter-religious dialogue when the mutual understanding processes are revealedand the discursively produced internal and external allocations, so rich with meaning, areexposed.

Keywords: Sermon on the Mount; mission; conversion; colonialism; Salafiyya

The theme of Islam and the Sermon on the Mount belongs to a lively, controversial field ofdiscourse, in which representatives of Islam and Christianity, both major monotheisticreligions, conflict in their claims to truth. In contrast to the Christian exegetical tradition, thereis no Muslim commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, either in whole or in part, and thisabsence is particularly felt in Chapters 5–7, which contain the Sermon on the Mount;1 it isscattered remarks alone that more or less directly call to mind the sayings of the Sermon onthe Mount. Christian Troll, an authority on Indian Islam, and a long-time consultant on Islamwithin the Catholic Church, voices his opinion on the matter:

It is much to my chagrin that we do not have a Muslim Christology and a Muslim exegesis of theBible. Not a single solid Muslim study on the question of the ‘falsification’ of the Judeo-ChristianBible that would satisfy modern demands. This is actually a prerequisite for a meaningful Muslim–Christian theological dialogue.2

This article will first work out a few points of comparison between the Christian Sermon on theMount and Islamic religious texts. A brief outline of the Sermon on the Mount’s role inconversion and Christian missionary work among Muslims will follow. A third section isdevoted to the similarities supplied from separate documents, such as those of medievalmystics and modern and contemporary Muslim commentators.3

ISSN 0959-6410 print/ISSN 1469-9311 online© 2013 University of Birminghamhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09596410.2013.746173http://www.tandfonline.com

*Email: jamal.malik@uni-erurt.de

Islam and Christian–Muslim RelationsVol. 24, No. 1, January 2013, 43–56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

9:43

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

The Sermon on the Mount in the Qur’an and Sunna

In Christian discourse, the Bible is understood as a tool for a rational understanding of God’smercy, which, although written by men, was inspired by God.4 The Qur’an, however,according to Muslim tradition, is the direct word of God, revealed to Muhammad, the seal ofthe prophets who preceded him, through the mediation of the angel Gabriel (Jibrīl), in ‘a clearArabic language’. The Qur’an is therefore an inlibration, the manifestation of the divine wordas a book, and, according to the opinion of many theologians, is not translatable because of itsliturgical meaning and its linguistic perfection and beauty. This miraculous character of theQur’an (iʿjāz) is also said to confirm the prophethood of Muhammad. However, because of‘his penchant for formulaic repetitions and harmony, its incomplete sentences and strangemetaphors are difficult for us to access’ (Thyen 1989, x; my translation). The central meaningof Qur’an-centred logic for dialogue on the Sermon on the Mount is of considerableimportance, as will become clear below.

While in the Qur’an, as the deed of foundation of Islam, there is not a clear discussion of theSermon on the Mount, one can still find some similarities in it (see ibid., 190ff.). Q 2.271 clearlyalludes to Matthew 6.1–4 in establishing a link between bragging and the giving of alms, althoughconspicuously avoiding the imperative as formulated in the biblical text:

If you disclose your charitable expenditures, they are good; but if you conceal them and give them tothe poor, it is better for you, and He will remove from you some of your misdeeds [thereby]. AndAllah, with what you do, is [fully] acquainted.5

Again, in terms of a form-critical view and in certain features of the imagery, Q 2.264f. finds itselfin some agreement with Matthew 7.24–7:

O you who have believed, do not invalidate your charities with reminders or injury as does one whospends his wealth [only] to be seen by the people and does not believe in Allah and the Last Day. Hisexample is like that of a [large] smooth stone upon which is dust and is hit by a downpour that leaves itbare […] And the example of those who spend their wealth seeking means to the approval of Allahand assuring [reward for] themselves is like a garden on high ground which is hit by a downpour – soit yields its fruits in double. And [even] if it is not hit by a downpour, then a drizzle [is sufficient]. AndAllah, of what you do, is Seeing.

Likewise comes Q 29.60: ‘And how many a creature carries not its [own] provision. Allahprovides for it and for you. And He is the Hearing, the Knowing’, which is comparable to theSermon on the Mount: ‘Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away inbarns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?’(Matthew 6.26). However, these scattered corresponding texts in the Qur’an have in commonthe fact that they do not refer to Jesus.

As a coherent entity, the Sermon on the Mount – especially Matthew 5.17–48 – presentsitself as structurally and intentionally very similar to Q 2.178–85 (see Schreiner 1977, 241–56; on the qur’anic text, see Paret 1983, 27f.). Just as Jesus in Matthew 5 calls for self-determined action, even under the applicable law of the Torah (‘But I tell you …’), theQur’an, though admittedly attributing a further validity to the nomos, phrases it anew, as itwere. While Jesus calls to mind six antitheses,6 the Qur’an presents three explanations –

namely inheritance, fasting and retribution for killing. First, the pre-Islamic vendetta isreplaced by wergeld (qis.ās.) (Q 2.178), which amounts to an emancipation of naturalpersons. Second, after a divorce, the dowry (mahr) becomes the property of the wife, and aright of inheritance is even conceded to her. Q 4.176 thereby breaks through the agnaticprinciple. Third, there are considerable concessions on fasting, and even compensation in theform of feeding the poor is introduced, as, for example, in Q 2.184. Stefan Schreiner speaksin this context of a humanization and democratization of ancestral regulations. Each of the

44 J. Malik

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

9:43

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

three reminders begins with the words: ‘O ye who believe! Prescribed for you is…’ and thus Q2.178–84 proclaims:

O you who have believed, prescribed for you is legal retribution for those murdered – the free for thefree, the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. But whoever overlooks from his brotheranything, then there should be a suitable follow-up and payment to him with good conduct. This is analleviation from your Lord and a mercy. But whoever transgresses after that will have a painfulpunishment … Prescribed for you when death approaches [any] one of you if he leaves wealth [isthat he should make] a bequest for the parents and near relatives according to what is acceptable –a duty upon the righteous … O you who have believed, decreed upon you is fasting as it wasdecreed upon those before you that you may become righteous – [Fasting for] a limited number ofdays. So whoever among you is ill or on a journey [during them] – then an equal number of days[are to be made up]. And upon those who are able [to fast, but with hardship] – a ransom [assubstitute] of feeding a poor person [each day]. And whoever volunteers excess – it is better forhim. But to fast is best for you, if you only knew.

The Qur’an lacks the characteristic antithetical biblical words, ‘But I tell you …’. Nonetheless,this does not change the purpose, which is to prevent false interpretations (Schreiner 1977,245), but is rather a question of characteristic styles, as will be made clear below with regardto the transmission of the Prophetic tradition.

In the Sunna (Arab. sunna: ‘custom’, ‘rule’) of the Prophet, which, after the Qur’an, is takenby Muslims as the second source of Islamic law and piety, one can find a sermon whose approachis similar to that of the Sermon on the Mount: the so-called Khut.bat al-widāʿ, Muhammad’sFarewell Sermon in the Valley of Urana shortly before his death.7

From the perspective of religious studies, the mountain, a landform rising above itssurrounding area, is taken as a connection between the divine heavens, the human earth, andthe diabolical depths. It makes a superhuman and groundbreaking impression (see Eliade1952, 27ff.). This perspective would consider mountains to be on the one hand ‘closer toheaven’ and on the other ‘uninhabitable’, thus marking an axis in the ‘middle of the world’. Itis undeniable that, according to this symbolism in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount, Jesusdraws out of the world’s centre and thereby comes into contact with the numinous. It istherefore obviously interpreted as a ‘speech from above’ commuted down to earth: Jesus,whom some consider the Son of God and the Messiah, ascends a mountain, and from thatpoint, with a loud voice, speaks on ethics. This approach calls for more than mere legalisticobedience. It serves as much more than a moral guideline, and it ‘should be intellectuallyappropriated and internally processed so as then to develop it with further creativity and applyit in concrete situations’ (Betz 1985, 15; my translation). The dynamic and application-oriented character of the Qur’an and the Sunna is what many Muslim theologians postulate asindicating a capacity for reform.8

When Jesus has finished speaking, the attending crowd shows itself as ‘amazed at histeaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law’(Matthew 7.28–9; Mark 1.22). One can also see Jesus’ death and resurrection in light of thesame symbolism. Jesus is correspondingly the connection between heaven and earth.Christianity would later, under the influence of Hellenistic philosophy, authorize the churchhierarchy and (church-authorized) priestly actions with this connection, ensuring a continuingsacerdotal association (see Eliade 1952, 170).

In Islam, this topos of the mountain, and with it the associated hierarchy between sender andrecipient and the connection between heaven and earth, is expressed differently than inChristianity.9 Even if Muhammad sought and found guidance in a cave in Mount Hira, andalthough Muslims regard the mountain at Uhud as a memorial to an early defeat in the thirdyear of the Islamic era (625), the authority of a farewell message was still not evocative of amemorable proclamation from a mountain of revelation, but was instead something widespread

Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

9:43

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

among the Muslims in the valley. In this regard, only the frame of the so-called Sermon on thePlain in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 6.12–7.1) lends itself for comparison within the gospeltradition. Later, in the process of unfolding Sufi teachings, certain ideas were also developedthat speak of a mythical bird, the Simurgh, living at the end of the world on the fabled world-spanning Mount Qaf (Schimmel 1992, 369, 596). The Simurgh certainly stands as a symbolfor God.

In the Urana Valley, from the elevation of Arafat on Grace Hill (Jabal al-rah.ma) onwards –that is, from a prominent place of ritual – the Prophet, after his emigration (hijra) from Mecca toMedina in 622, is said to have called thousands of pilgrims10 to belief in the one God from theback of his camel during the pilgrimage season (h. ajj), declaring a call to the duty of the fivepillars and the equality of all people regardless of their skin colour and ancestry. Accordingto this, his Farewell Sermon, service to Islam (sābiqa), such as that exhibited by themuhājirūn, the flight companions of Muhammad, and the ans.ār, the Medinan ‘helpers’, wassaid to be alone the central criterion for godliness. Apart from this, the sābiqa principle alsocompleted in the following period with the principle of belonging to an influential clan ortribe, i.e. noble descent/standing (nasab), which was characteristic of many elite Meccanswho later converted to Islam.11 This genealogical principle of tribal tradition also overlaid tosome extent the equality principle of Islam postulated in the Farewell Sermon.12 A closerlook at Muhammad’s Farewell Sermon thus helps to illuminate the egalitarianism that is atleast theoretically postulated.

In the Farewell Sermon, some of the warnings listed are similar to those in the Sermon on theMount, without the religious founder of Islam understanding himself to be the Messiah or the Sonof God, speaking on his own authority. He appears as a will-less prophet who merely relays theauthentic word of God (Bouman 1972, 104). For this reason, Muhammad inquires in the sermon:‘O you believers, have I faithfully delivered the message to you?’ The crowd answers: ‘By Allah,yes.’ To this, Muhammad responds: ‘Be my witness, O God, that I have conveyed your messageto your people’ (see Kidway n.d.). In contrast to the Sermon on the Mount, the Farewell Sermonhad to be repeated aloud by Muhammad’s companions, so that the listeners could hear itproperly.13 In a society primarily dominated by an oral tradition, repetition of individualelements and recurrences freely served to provide the statement with coherence, and increasethe urgency of the message. Dramatic enactment produced solidarity-enhancing emotions, andthe Farewell Sermon could thus dig in deep as an identifying symbol with an appropriatebackdrop in the Muslim cultural memory. Much like Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, theFarewell Sermon continues to have a profound effect to this day, and it is sometimes extolledas an example of a charter for social justice.

Evidence fromMuslim theologians and numerous links on the Internet show that it is not onlyin the understanding of the laity that this sermon of Muhammad’s has an affinity with the Sermonon the Mount.14

Now scattered similarities between fundamental religious texts – content-related, form-critical, symbolic, structural, and intentional in nature – are not exceptional. Many moredifferences arise out of the functions and contexts that these texts are assigned over time. Thisraises the task of researching the history of reception, a topic to be addressed below in severalsections with respect to source material examples from the two religious traditions. Twobranches of the reception are to be visited: on the one hand, the Christian use of the Sermonon the Mount in a missionary context and, on the other, a Muslim interest in the biblical textand its commentary. Before the various Muslim voices are introduced, some relevantinformation regarding the role of the Sermon on the Mount in the context of interculturalencounter should be brought to the table. The activities of Christian missionaries here offer aninteresting background.

46 J. Malik

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

9:43

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Sermon on the Mount, mission, conversion

In the wake of colonial expansion in Muslim-dominated regions, Christian missionaries used theSermon on the Mount effectively as a tool in their conversion efforts (see Schirrmacher 1992;Powell 1993). An example of an early text is the 1864 report of the Indian Rev. Mawlawi DrImad al-Din Lahiz (d. 1900) on his conversion from Islam (see Imadeddin 1871, 397–412).15

He studied the Bible, and, as he wrote, ‘as I read the seventh chapter of the Gospel ofMatthew, doubts on the truth of Mohammedism began to arise in my soul’ (408; mytranslation). In this way, the Sermon on the Mount was the trigger to Imad al-Din’s conversionto Christianity.

Similarly, contemporary conversion experiences going back to the Sermon on the Mount arealso found on the Internet.16 A certain ‘Torsten’ from northern Germany reported on his three-year experience as a Muslim, which lasted until he turned ‘back to Jesus’ through his study ofthe Sermon on the Mount (http://deutsch.hcjb.org/content/view/63/80/, accessed 12 September2007). Also, a US American publicist on issues of religion undertook a sort of quasi-academicanalysis of Muhammad’s assertion that Islam was to be an improvement on the Christianmessage, and, as expected, came to the following conclusion:

Christians shall know prophets by their fruit [Mt 7:15–16]. Bluntly stated, Muhammad, the self-described human messenger and prophet (Sura 3:144), clearly fails the down-to-earth fruitinspection. On the other hand, Christ the Son of God (Mt 3:16–17) passes it with a perfect score.(Arlandson 2005)

On such websites, one can also find the ‘manuals’ of Christian missionaries, in which self-evidenttraps in the discussion over matters of faith with Muslims are revealed (see, for example, Madany1984, especially chap. 2; Christensen 1982, especially chaps 19 and 20). There, too, the Sermonon the Mount stands in a prominent position, because – according to some Christian authors –after hearing about it, the Muslims to be converted would ostensibly reach the outcome ‘that[the Christian] Lord taught salvation by works’ (Madany 1984, ch. 2). Above and beyond suchanecdotal evidence, the Sermon on the Mount plays an authoritative and authenticating role,and is ever and again referred to with respect to the picture of Islam that is deeply anchored inthe Christian cultural memory, especially at times when Islam as such is perceived as amonolithic, belligerent religion, all of whose believers perpetually declare holy war ( jihād);Islam is thus often set in contrast to the peaceful Christianity of the Sermon on the Mount(Malik 2005, 131). More recently, such tendentious images of othering have found their wayinto a Protestant handout from the year 2006, although several critical voices immediatelyspoke out against it (Miksch 2007). A similarly impassioned controversy was famouslysparked by the papal address at the University of Regensburg in September 2006 (http://www.zenit.org/article-16955?l=english, accessed 25 October 2012); see, for example the ‘Open letterto His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI’ (http://ammanmessage.com/media/openLetter/english.pdf,accessed 25 October 2012), dated 13 October 2006, or ‘A common word between us and you’(http://www.acommonword.com/the-acw-document/, accessed 25 October 2012) one year later.That is, the Sermon on the Mount has developed its own momentum as an expression ofrational, non-violent ethical principles and has been a constituent part of debates over culturalencounter that is increasing in popularity.

The Sermon on the Mount in Muslim commentary

How, then, have Muslims received and commented on the Sermon on the Mount? The search foranswers to this question brings us to the most important aspect of the subject of this article. Thereis not a consistent history of reception; rather, the comments vary according to region and era.

Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

9:43

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Early Islamic mysticism (Sufism)

First, we may consider the opinions of Islamic mystics. Given past standardization of Sufi ideasand the subsequent phase of training mystical orders in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, Muslimscholars gave the message of the Sermon on the Mount largely positive ratings. Thus the legalscholar, philosopher and mystic Abū H. āmid al-Ghazzālī (1058–1111) took the ethicalteachings of Jesus extremely seriously, and even used passages from the Sermon word forword when developing his own message of patience (s.abr) – one of many levels on themystical path to revelation – so as to give it more authority (see Zwemer 1920, 260, 273ff.):17

In the gospel, I found: ‘Jesus, the son of Mary, said: “Before it was said to you: a tooth for a tooth, anda nose for a nose. But I tell you: do not return evil for evil, but rather, if someone hits you on your rightcheek, then turn the other cheek to him! And if someone takes away your child, then give him yourapron (as well)! And if someone forces you to go a mile with him, then go two miles with him!”’ Allthis is a call to bear the added hardship patiently. The patient endurance of adversity inflicted bypeople is one of the highest levels of patience, because the joint driving forces of avidity andanger are mutually supportive against the driving force of religion. (Gramlich 1984, 160: mytranslation)

This quotation also suggests that ethical principles that emphasize showing mercy to the weakand the despised are a part of the Sufi discourse, and that the demanding ethics that it portraysChrist as having brought to the Sufis apparently found their way into Sufi literature, and,according to O.H. Schumann (1988, 79f.), could be said to be reminiscent of the Sermon onthe Mount. Christ could actually be considered a moral authority and model of God-fearingasceticism for Islamic mystics. Annemarie Schimmel (1992, 61) concludes:

It is the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount whose picture is mirrored in the sayings of the firstgeneration Sufis, and who also remained a favourite character in later Sufi poetry. He and hisvirgin mother became symbolic figures … sample images for a purely spiritual life. (My translation)

This moral authority of the biblical Jesus is still current in Sufi tradition and is especiallycelebrated by Christian converts to Islam, who find, among other things, a manifestation ofthis authority in the veneration of Mary the mother of Jesus expressed in giving a Sufi orderthe name ‘Miriamiyya’ and in immersing her new Islamic identity in the Christian tradition –

take for example the Swiss Frithjof Schuon (d. 1998).

Religious interaction in the colonialist era

In the colonial context, one finds that both delimiting and appreciative discourses have emerged,especially in connection with the Christian missionary application of the Sermon on the Mount.When commenting on the writings of Muslim intellectuals in the nineteenth century, we shouldconsider the rising Christian missionary movements in the context of colonial expansion,especially in British India. In connection with this, Sayyid Ahmad Khan (1817–98; see Troll1978/79; Lelyveld 1978), a prominent Indo-Muslim scholar, creatively attempted to respond toOrientalist-tainted British intellectualism, such as that of William Muir (d. 1905) (see Powell2000). For this purpose, he not only founded the famous Urdu periodical Tahdhīb al-Akhlāq(called in English The Muhammadan Social Reformer), reminiscent of the Persian philosopherand historian Ibn Miskawaih (d. 1030) and his work of the same title.18 Sayyid Ahmad Khanalso accomplished something especially meaningful in this context. He was one of the firstcontemporary Muslims to compose a modern Bible commentary, albeit in fragments: Tabyīnal-kalām. Only parts of the Urdu text survive, within a collection of Khan’s religious writingsthat he published himself (1887). The sections on the Old Testament were translated intoEnglish and published in two volumes in 1862 and 1865. Khan’s biographers are of theopinion that an enlightened Muslim perspective on the Bible seemed necessary to him so as to

48 J. Malik

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

9:43

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

protect India’s Muslim youth, socialized in English-speaking schools, from apostasy andconversion (see Schirrmacher 1992, 190, n. 819). Khan’s creed was in fact influenced by theoccurrences resulting from the so-called Sepoy Rebellion of 1857 that ushered in the era ofBritain’s political appropriation of Muslim Moghul India (see, for example, Metcalf 1964).From this time forward, he fought for the political and cultural recognition of Muslims,committing himself to the theme of reason in order to overthrow a ‘civilizing mission’, since alack of rationality had indeed been attributed to the Muslims after 1857.19 Khan postulatedfirst that Islam does not contradict the laws of nature and, second, that God’s work could notstand in contrast to God’s word. These ideas became expressions of his passionately conductedrecognition discourse.

Consequently, Khan, unlike many of his contemporaries, did not present himself as anuncompromising opponent of Christianity. Rather, he used parts of Christian doctrine to servethe purposes of his moral and didactic social criticism and modernist historiography.Intellectually, he wanted to compete with Christianity, and so assist Islam in regaining strengthas the fulfilment of the divine message. He saw Islam as climbing to that height via relevantrational evidence, whereas Christianity was to him based solely on irrational and blind faith inredemption alone, through the work of Christ and the Trinity:

If Christianity depends upon the acceptance of these two dogmas [i.e., unconditional belief inredemption through Christ and the Trinity], [Khan] does not see how its followers can ever claimto possess freedom of thought in the matter of religion […] In Islam, there are two basic creeds:existence of God and His Unity. The Qur’an does not demand the people to accept them blindly. Itgives innumerable arguments based on the study of natural phenomena to establish these two facts.It constantly appeals to the common sense of man, to his eyes, to his ears, to his heart; it demandsobservation, reflection, reasoning and not irrational acceptance. (Dar 1971, 123)

For Khan, as for the Sufis, the ethical authority of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount is withoutquestion when he rejects the criticism of many Muslims regarding the Christian commandment tolove one’s enemies (Matthew 5.44): ‘Since there are a lot of people who put his command intopractice, then how can this command be incompatible with the laws of Nature?’ (cited inBaljon 1958, 103). To prove this compatibility between application and implementation,practicality and natural law, the scientist and deist Khan contrasted the reminder of the Sermonon the Mount with numerous Muslim writings, to finally reach the conclusion that it dealt witha profound theological point of contact. His sympathetic assessment of the Sermon on theMount is rendered here in part:

This sermon is a very enlightening (nūrānī) and clear representation without the obscurity of [i.e.created by] proofs lacking in clarity (bilā-āmīzish dalīlôn kī tārīkī), and has a lasting effect on thehuman soul (ādamī kī rūh). If a well-meaning or a well-intentioned person (nīk dil ādamī) readsthis sermon (waʿz), then he reaches even unto the shining light (nūrānī raushanī), through whichhis heart is convinced that this is the very influence of the Holy Spirit (rūh al-quds), who animatesthese words. Argumentation from evidence for the purpose of substantiation only brings thelistener to silence (sākit kartā hai) and renders powerless his intellect (ʿaql ko maghlūb kartā hai).That statement, however, which has etched its influence (athr) onto the soul and sunk itself intothe human heart (dil main baithī jāwe), requires no evidence (mantāj dalīlôn se thābit karne kīnahīn). Such a statement is already a self-evident proof of its correctness (sachāʾī kī āp dalīl hai).For this reason, Jesus (peace be upon him) kept his sermon completely pure and free of dilutingevidence (dalīlôn kī āmīzish):

My incomplete love is fulfilled (mustaghnī) with the charm of my beloved ( jamāl-e yār), acomely countenance (rūh-e zībā) demands no water or colouring (āb o rang), no birthmarkand facial features (khāl o khat).

However, some people criticize (iʿtirāz) this sermon because Jesus (peace be upon him) is said to havetaken this exhortation out of previous books (aglī kitābôn sê), the largest parts being said to have comefrom the Zabur [Book of David = Psalter] and Ishʿaya Nabi [Book Isaiah]. They are of the opinion that,if Jesus (peace be upon him) had himself been God or had proceeded from the Holy Spirit (rūh

Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

9:43

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

al-quds), then he would not have represented the testimony of the ancient sources as his ownpreaching, but rather would have offered a new testimony of his own. However, this is a stupididea (be-hūdah khayāl). I for one am of the opinion that Jesus (peace be upon him) was not God,but to additionally think that he was not a pure soul sent from God is completely unjustified. Ihave always stated that all prophets (may they be lauded and greeted) have proclaimed theselfsame faith (aik dīn). The sermons and exhortations (waʿz awr nasīhat) of all prophets have hadonly one purpose (natījah, literally: result). In this situation Jesus (peace be upon him) uttered(bayān farmāʾe hain) these exceptionally good (aʿlā awr ʿumdah) exhortations (natīje; literally:results), for all the prophets (anbīyā) had come in order to proclaim the same things (nasīhat karterahe), and to call the same morality (akhlāq) to attention. Therefore, the exhortations of Jesus(peace be upon him) (masīh ki nasīhat) naturally corresponded to this purpose (us ke mutābiq).(Khan 1887, 99–100; my translation)

Sayyid Ahmad Khan’s reformist ideas were either too radically modernist or too capitulating forsome Muslim scholars,20 such that the above-mentioned Imad al-Din wrote a pamphlet againsthim before converting to Christianity (Schirrmacher 1992, 191). In this context, Khan was alsoreproached for not understanding the idea of the Trinity either reasonably or adequately – i.e.not allegorically (see Baljon 1958, 109).

Contemporary interpretations

During and after the time of the World Wars,21 theological discourses were in favour ofrecognizing the political discourse that was so distinct in the background. In the context ofnineteenth-century Egypt, although Christian missionary work was admittedly of far lesspolitical significance than in British India, the debates on Islamic reform and the politicizationof Islam nevertheless became prominent. One of the important leaders of the Muslim reformmovement, the Salafiyya,22 categorically rejected the message of the Sermon on the Mount.The publisher of the weekly pamphlet Al-Manār (published in Cairo from 1898), Muh. ammadRashīd Rid.ā (d. 1935), denounced the moral dictum of tolerance and love for enemies, asproclaimed in the gospels, as having a major influence on supporting injustice in the world(see Schumann 1988, 95; Jomier 1954, 315).23 Furthermore, Paul was criticized (also in laterMuslim commentaries on Christian morality and the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount) ashaving used his letters to turn the real teachings of Jesus on their head. While Jesus in theSermon on the Mount still insisted on respecting the pre-existing laws, Paul was said to haveproclaimed an essentially personal faith that harked back to his own Hellenistic-inspiredphilosophy (see Jomier 1954, 313; Muhsin 1991).24 The Salafiyya, under the influence ofRid.ā, were calling for a return to the piety of the ‘righteous ancestors’ (al-salaf al-s.ālih. ).

25

They based this appeal, which amounted to a call for the Islamization of society, on thedogmatics of early Islam – although they did so following a new way of reading the Qur’an,tasfīr ʿilmī (scientific interpretation), using modern scientific developments to understand thequr’anic text. This meant that the movement could not and would not involve itself with suchPauline and anti-legalistic interpretations (see Jomier 1954, 314).

A further (though shorter) commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, written during the inter-war period, came from the Indian Muslim theologian ʿAbd al-H. amīd al-Farāh. ī (d. 1930). In hisArabic work Imʿān fī aqsām al-Qurʾān (Studies on the qur’anic oaths) (1994; see also Azamin.d.), he assumes a critical position toward the Sermon on the Mount, doubting its authenticityand calling the consistency of the text into question.26 He considers Jesus as having spokennot to a crowd of people, but rather solely to his disciples, since ‘as he sat, his disciples cameto him. Then he began to speak to them … with the Sermon on the Mount’ (Farāh. ī 1994, 107f.).

Then al-Farāh. ī notes that some reminders in the Sermon on the Mount are only intended forthe destitute, such as the prohibition of taking the name of God in vain, or the exhortation to

50 J. Malik

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

9:43

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

renounce the principle of ‘an eye for eye, and a tooth for a tooth’ (Matthew 5.33–42), becausethese teachings would override the laws of the Torah, which Jesus never wished to do. Al-Farāh. ī concludes that the Sermon on the Mount did not constitute a code of law, and was onlydirected toward specific people. Further, he sees the text of the Sermon on the Mount asneeding to be understood in its historical context – namely, that the idea ‘turn to them theother cheek also’ is not intended to be taken seriously from a moral point of view. Rather, itwas much more a response to the need to pragmatically come to terms with one’scircumstances rather than coming into conflict with a powerful ruler (Farāh. ī 1994, 108, 110f.).

Al-Farāh. ī likewise takes a critical stance on the idea of the ‘kingdom of God’ (see Matthew5.3). In the verses: ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit’ (Matthew 5.3)27 and ‘Blessed are those whohunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled’ (Matthew 5.6),28 the words ‘inspirit’ and ‘for righteousness’ were added by later narrators. In the original, by contrast, thedialogue was to have referred to worldly riches and bodily needs (see al-Farāh. ī 1994, 128;Azami n.d.).29 His comparison with the Sermon in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 6.20–1) wasintended to show that the evangelical tradition has two different forms of expression at thispoint. With this reading, al-Farāh. ī triumphantly proclaimed the Christians as interpreting theSermon on the Mount wrongly. According to him, the above verses testify to the prophethoodof Muhammad; he thought that the audience actually consisted of Arabs patiently living inpoverty.

Hence, whatever Jesus (sws) proclaimed about the true conditions of Christians, turned out to beabsolutely true. One group within them [the Arabs] remained content with their impoverishedlives, but the other [the Christians] forgot the admonition of Jesus (sws) and immersed themselvesin the pleasures of worldly life. Subsequently, exactly what Jesus had prophesized in the beginningof his sermon (regarding the materialist scorn for the ascetic’s destitution, despising contact withthem) eventually transpired. (Farāh. ī 1994, 133; English trans. in Azami n.d.)

Yet only the Prophet Muhammad had ended the waiting period of poverty and ushered in the‘kingdom of God’, according to al-Farā

_hī. With this millenarian interpretation, the Sermon on

the Mount is taken out of the context of the Christian message and, just like Muhammad’sinterpretation of the figure of Abraham,30 appropriated for Islam with the intent of stylizingIslam as the religion of fulfilment, with Muhammad as its executor.

This critical interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount is not peculiar to al-Farāh. ī, but iscommonly found in the Muslim world of the twentieth century. For example, the theologianAli Muhsin of Zanzibar (1919–2006), who took advantage of his 10 years of imprisonment inEgypt to pursue endeavours such as Bible study, came to the conclusion that Islam andChristianity would hardly have been distinguishable had Paul not reinterpreted the Christianmessage (cf. Muhsin 1991; de Young 2002, 5f.).31 ‘The Sermon on the Mount consists of themost important teachings of Jesus Christ. We can say that here lies true Christianity; that is ifwe believe that it is Jesus who is the founder of Christianity and not St. Paul’ (Muhsin 1991, 37).

The idea that Paul be assigned the role of usurper apparently serves to highlight thosepassages of the New Testament that are understood as announcing the arrival of the HolySpirit – for example, on the occasion of the farewell discourse in John 16.5–14, as Jesus wasprophesying his imminent death, after which an ‘Advocate’32 might come, who would speaknot on his own authority, but with the authority of God. Contemporary Muslim Biblecommentators such as Muhsin and al-Farāh. ī relate this eschatological statement not to theHoly Spirit but to Muhammad (see Muhsin 1991, 50; Dawud 1992, 177ff.).33

The former Iranian bishop of Mosul, David Benjamin Keldani (d. 1940), who after hisconversion to Islam became known as Abdu l-Ahad Dawud, likewise relates the Gospel ofJohn’s terms ‘kingdom of God’ and ‘Advocate’ to Islam and its prophet. Furthermore, he relatesthe word ‘peacemaker’ (Matthew 5.9) to the triliteral Arabic root s-l-m, from which are derived

Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

9:43

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

the words Islam and Muslim, among others. Thus Jesus’ statement ‘Blessed are the peacemakers’did not mean peacemakers in general, but the entire Muslim community (Dawud 1992, 130).

Finally, for the philosopher and literary critic ʿAbbās Mah.mūd al-ʿAqqād (1889–1964), theSermon on the Mount is not conclusive, because he takes the Christian concept of the‘kingdom of God’ in the caesaropapist context of the Roman Empire and Byzantinedomination, and therefore conceives of it in a physical sense (Schumann 1988, 151). It seemslikely that al-ʿAqqād thereby projected the terms Dār al-Islām and Dār al-h. arb (legal andspatial concepts later introduced in Islam, denoting ‘kingdom of Islam/peace’ and ‘kingdom ofunbelief/war’) onto the biblical text. According to Olaf Schumann, it seems that for al-ʿAqqādit was ‘ultimately impossible to employ other standards than the geopolitical or the “historical”in evaluating the message of Christ, its impact, and its goals’ (154; my translation).34 A sensealien to Christian theology was thereby attributed to the Beatitudes, for example. However, theSermon on the Mount’s demands for tolerance and non-violence may not have beencomprehensible for the Egyptian al-ʿAqqād, since they could neither be used for politicalpurposes nor be seen to agree with the orientation of the Christian colonial rulers.

In addition to these arguments, which were etymologically and historically based and/orpointed against the person of Paul, the Holy Scriptures serve as a passionately contested fieldfor both traditions (see, for example, Thyen 1989; Muhsin 1991; de Young 2002). While inChristian theology the Bible is interpreted as a tool for the exploration of religious mystery, inIslam the Qur’an is the revealed word of God, conveyed through the Prophet Muhammad. It isprecisely this difference – between the Bible as a means and the Qur’an as an essence – thatallows exegetes like Muhsin and Dawud academically to substantiate their views in relation tothe Qur’an and rationally support them (see de Young 2002, 25ff.). Muhsin’s text uses myriadextra-biblical sources so that he can engage himself extensively against Christianity with‘scientifically demonstrable’ arguments. The main arguments here, in reference to Christianity,tend toward a rejection of dogmatic infallibility, and, in reference to Islam, toward the claim ofultimate validity postulated in the Qur’an as a result of the definitively fulfilling message ofMuhammad and the consequent inimitability of the qur’anic word of God (see Muhsin 1991,51; ‘wissenschaftlich nachvollziehbaren’). Accordingly, only text-critical and historico-criticalmethods – that is, source criticism – would make such interpretations of the Sermon on theMount possible.

In short, both sides of the debate have as their purpose to highlight the primacy of their ownreligion, using whatever kind of rational arguments are possible. The potential for suchsupremacist dialogue can therefore be doubtful. Time- and place-oriented contextualization ofChristian missionary work and the Muslim criticism of the Sermon on the Mount nonethelessmake it clear that the situation is one that deals with very specific voices that sought in certainhistorical contexts to make their arguments plausible by utilizing the weapons of theiropponents. The experience of the biblical foundation of missionary work on the one hand, andthe critique of Christianity founded on the biblical tradition on the other, can both be regardedas a challenge that requires further consideration.

Concluding remarks

First, the above-mentioned Orientalist image of the nineteenth century has a long historicalbackground and, through a steady process of translation and projection, has led to far-reachingconsequences, amounting to the shaping of the West’s dominant picture of the ‘Orient’ and ofIslam to this very day. Second, in the course of mutual perception processes among localeducational elites, it has had a major influence on the self-understanding of the ‘Orient’ andhas concretely changed non-Western societal behaviour and thinking (see Breckenridge and

52 J. Malik

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

9:43

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

van der Veer 1993, 11 and passim). Muslim discourses on recognition and demarcation thatdeveloped along these lines led to the criticism of Christianity and thereby also of the Sermonon the Mount. This criticism formed a central point in the encounters of representatives fromboth religions. For example, representatives of the Salafiyya saw in the Sermon on the Mounta barrier to the secular order. Through their criticisms, Dawud and al-Farāh. ī tended even toappropriate the Sermon on the Mount for the purposes of Islam.

Still, the ethical message of the Sermon on the Mount has usually not been put into question assuch. Form-critical, symbolic, structural, and intentional similarities inMuslim remarks point to this.The Muslim demarcation discourse seems much more concerned with the specific contextualmeaning of the Sermon on the Mount and its historicity. Muslim authors seem much lessconcerned with calling into question the Sermon on the Mount’s principle of love for enemies orits interpretation of laws. Rather, the resulting Christian discourse and the text itself are consideredfalsified (mukharraf), and the primacy of the Islamic message thereby proclaimed. While theSermon on the Mount often serves in the Christian discourse as a counterpart to a legalistic Islam,for Muslims it serves to point out the incongruities of Christianity. In this way, positive receptionsof the Sermon on the Mount, such as al-Ghazzālī’s or the recognition discourse of Ahmad Khan,if not forgotten, fall into the background. In the atmosphere of Christian missionary and colonialexperience and the post-colonial aftermath, this reception history and its semantic transformationsare certainly understandable. However, they first offer a fertile ground for inter-religious dialoguewhen the mutual understanding processes are revealed and the internal and external allocationsproduced through discourse, so rich with meaning, are exposed. There is no doubt that the ethicalmessage of such an essential text as the Sermon on theMount would have a place in Islamic theology.

Acknowledgements

I thank Sebastian Rimestad, Dr Muhammad Akram, Michael Winkels and especially Prof.Dr Christoph Bultmann for their comments on the earlier versions of this article.

Notes

1. For the best current Protestant commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, and one in which theindividual aspects of the interpretative history are included, see Luz (2002). Reinhard Feldmeier(1998, 15–107) also provides a thorough introduction. For a Catholic interpretation, see Ratzinger(2007, vol. 1, 93–160, and passim).

2. Prof. Dr Chr. W. Troll in an email addressed to me on 21 April 2007 (my translation).3. Unless otherwise noted, biblical texts are quoted from the New International Version, http://www.

biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/ (accessed 14 January 2012).4. In contrast to this perspective, see the official Catholic view of what the Bible and biblical revelation are:

The Vatican II Dogmatic ‘Constitution on Divine Revelation’, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html (accessed 25October 2012); and Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 81, http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/81.htm (accessed 25 October 2012).

5. All qur’anic quotations are taken from The Qur’an, Sahih International Version, http://quran.com/(accessed 13 January 2012).

6. It would require separate investigation to determine for how long these deepening explanations havebeen recorded as ‘antitheses’ in the Christian repertoire. Georg Strecker (1985, 2) considers thefollowing ‘antitheses’: killing, adultery, divorce, oaths, revenge, love of enemies.

7. The Farewell Sermon is handed down in nearly all the canonical Hadith collections – albeit in differentversions. Q 5.3 (‘This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you andhave approved for you Islam as religion’) was, according to the Islamic tradition, disclosed during thispilgrimage in 632.

8. This is why the Pakistani Islamic thinker Fazlur Rahman (d. 1988) asked whether the Prophet actuallywanted to determine an Islamic normative action in all its details, or whether his Sunna – handed down

Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

9:43

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

in the form of Hadith as situation-specific interpretation and verbalized reflection of the prophetic act –was rather meant to provide a general direction that is to be responsibly, consensually and contextuallyinterpreted (Rahman 1965). In another innovation, the Ankara school does not understand the Qur’an asa timeless revelation, but as the actual word of God to a particular group of people at a certain time(Körner 2004). The Iranian Abdolkarim Soroush radicalized the argumentation when he read theQur’an as the word of Muhammad, or as the expression of his revelatory experience (Soroush 2009).This is an Islamic reform theology, based on a neo-rationalist, hermeneutic perspective extending farbeyond the conventional attempts at selectively interpreting Shariʿa or the Qur’an. Compare this withnew approaches to hermeneutics in contemporary Islam, such as the numerous contributions inAmirpur and Ammann (2006).

9. These remarks refer mainly to Sunni Islam. A ‘religious’ hierarchy exists in Shiʿite Islam, though it isgenerally not as pronounced as in Catholic Christianity.

10. The accounts of the numbers vary considerably, going up to 140,000.11. The clashes between Sunnis and Shiʿites harkj back to these very tensions.12. Q 49.13 expressly says: ‘O mankind, indeed We have created [in that we took] you from male and

female and made you peoples and tribes that [due to your genealogical relations] you may know oneanother. [But do not make too much of your noble ancestry!] Indeed, the most noble of you in thesight of Allah is the most righteous of you.’

13. The voice of the Prophet can hardly have been loud enough for more than a few hundred people to hear.How the message actually came to the addressees is unclear; a plausible explanation for this practicalaspect does not yet exist, to my knowledge.

14. See, for example, the links between http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mount and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Farewell_Sermon.

15. Imad al-Din wrote this text in Urdu in 1866. The pamphlet was translated into English in 1870 andprinted in several editions, most recently in 1957 (see also Powell 2000; Hahn 1978).

16. For example http://www.ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2005b/060305/060305a.php (accessed12 September 2007) and http://www.mykath.de/index.php?showtopic=12534&st=25 (accessed 12September 2007); these sites complain about the absence of a Sermon on the Mount in Islam.

17. Since Al-Ghazzālī’s notorious plagiarism is no secret, it does not need to be further elaboratedupon.

18. Ibn Miskawayh granted reason a central position in the search for morality and knowledge of God.Khan’s The Muhammadan Social Reformer was inspired on the one hand by Ibn Miskawayh, and onthe other by the English weekly journals of social comment, The Tatler and The Spectator. Themagazine soon became the promoter of Urdu as a language of science, and also stood for the Sufieffort, via purgativa, and for a rationally based approach to the moral content of the Prophetic tradition.

19. On the colonialization process, see also Malik (2008b, chap. 9).20. Among others, one may especially include the representatives of the traditionalist school of Deoband

(see Ahmad and Grunebaum 1970, 66ff; cf. also Malik 2008b, 304f., 350, 444ff.).21. For Christian interpretations in this decade, see the accounts of L. Ragaz, E. Thurneysen, K. Barth and

D. Bonhoeffer in Stiewe, Martin and Vouga. Die Bergpredigt und ihre Rezeption als kurze Darstellungdes Christentums, A. Francke: Tübingen.

22. On the history and definition of this colourful term, see, for example Ende and Shinar (1995).23. For Jomier, the word choice ‘douceur et pardon’ is something like ‘gentleness and grace’. On Rid.ā and

Al-Manār, see works such as Hamzah (2008).24. See also Kümmel (1987), 121ff. for the role of Paul in early Christianity, 155ff. for a Christian

theological dispute on this aspect of Pauline teaching.25. Not only are the first three vindicated generations of Muslims included in this category, but also later

traditionalists.26. This corresponds to the current research on the Sermon on the Mount; the vast majority of biblical

scholars consider it incorrect to assume that the Sermon on the Mount was actually spoken by Jesus.It is said not to be a cohesive sermon from an oral tradition. Rather, the evangelist Matthew is said tohave constructed it from a series of separate statements of Jesus so as to give the message of theprophet a homogenous and cohesive form. The sermon is supposed to be a programmatic guide to amission that ‘places the disciple in a position to pursue theology on his own in a way admittedlyoriented toward the theology of his master’ (Betz 1985, 15; my translation).

27. This version is found, for example, in the translations of Luther, the Zurich Bible, Fritz Tillmann, theNew International Version, and the Revised Standard English Version, but the addition ‘in spirit’ islacking in the Catholic Standard Version and the New English Bible (cf. Tetrapla 1964).

54 J. Malik

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

9:43

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

28. This wording is nearly identical in all commonly used Bible translations. Here according to the NIVtranslation.

29. The latter takes this as proof that the Bible has been falsified in several places.30. Muhammad considered Islam to be the original, pure, monotheistic religion of Abraham, and thereby

held Judaism and Christianity to be falsified versions of the original revelation. The Qur’an showsthis sort of personification of the Arab in Q 2.129, considering him to be the possessor of the purereligion of his forefather Abraham in such a way as to postulate dominance over Jews and Christians(see Q 22.78; 6.157; 35.42; see also Malik 2008a).

31. Muhsin cites, for example, the Epistle to the Romans: ‘So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to thelaw through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead,in order that we might bear fruit for God […] But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have beenreleased from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the writtencode’ (Romans 7.4 and 6).

32. In Luther’s translation, ‘Tröster’. In the English Bible, ‘Comforter’, ‘Advocate’, ‘Helper’ or‘Counsellor’.

33. The American missionary Samuel M. Zwemer described this as a widespread theory among the Arabs(see Zwemer 1912, chap. 5; http://answering-islam.org.uk/Books/Zwemer/Christ/chap5.htm, accessed 1October 2007).

34. One may speculate about the reasons: perhaps of necessity or because of intellectual limitation and/orthe inability to arrive at a hermeneutics that interprets the given text in the context of the text’s timeand surrounding society and in the context of the mental world in which the earliest believers in theMessage of Christ (both those shaped by the Jewish and those shaped by the Hellenistic culture) infact lived.

References

Ahmad, A., and G. E. von Grunebaum, eds. 1970. Muslim Selfstatement in India and Pakistan 1857–1968.Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Amirpur, Katajun, and Ludwig Ammann, eds. 2006. Der Islam am Wendepunkt. Freiburg: Herder.Arlandson, James. 2005. Does Islam Improve on Christianity? http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/04/

does_islam_improve_on_christia.html (accessed September 12, 2007).Azami, Altaf Ahmad. n.d. “The Injil (Gospel): Imam Farahi’s Viewpoint.” http://www.renaissance.com.pk/

janrefl2y3.html (accessed June 7, 2007).Baljon, J. M. S. 1958. The Reforms and Religious Ideas of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan. 2nd ed. Lahore: Sh.

Muhammad Ashraf.Betz, Hans Dieter. 1985. Studien zur Bergpredigt. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr.Bouman, Johan. 1972. “Wollte Muhammad eine ‘Gegenmoral’ zum Christentum schaffen?” In Moral –

wozu? Ein Symposium, edited by Rolf Italiaander, 104–113. München: Delp.Breckenridge, C., and P. van der Veer, eds. 1993. Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament.

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Christensen, Jens. 1982. Christuszeugnis für Muslime. http://www.answering-islam.de/buecher/jens-

christensen/christuszeugnis_fuer_muslime.html (accessed September 12, 2007).Dar, Bashir Ahmad. 1971. Religious Thought of Sayyid Ahmad Khan. 2nd ed. Lahore: Institute of Islamic

Culture.Dawud, Abdu l-Ahad (alias David Benjamin Keldani). 1992. Mohammed in der Bibel. Munich: SKD

Bavaria Verlag.De Young, James B. 2002. The Resurging Challenge of the Crescent to the Cross. http://www.

westernseminary.edu/papers/Faculty/ETSpaperfall2002Islamrev.pdf (accessed June 7, 2007).Eliade, Mircea. 1952. Images and Symbols: Studies in Religious Symbolism. New York: Sheed & Ward.Ende, Werner, and P. Shinar. 1995. art. Salafiyya, in The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New ed. Vol. 8, 900–909.

Leiden: Brill.Farāh. ī, ʿAbd al-H. amīd al-. 1994. Imʿān fī aqsām al-Qurʾān. Beirut: Al-Dār al-Shāmiyya.Feldmeier, Reinhard, ed. 1998. Salz der Erde. Zugänge zur Bergpredigt. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht.Gramlich, Richard. 1984. Muhammad al-Gazzalis Lehre von den Stufen zur Gottesliebe. Wiesbaden: Franz

Steiner Verlag.Hahn, Ernest. 1978. The Life of the Rev. Mawlawi Dr Imad ud-Din Lahiz. http://www.answering-islam.org/

Testimonies/mawlawi.html (accessed January 29, 2011).

Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

9:43

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Hamzah, Dyala. 2008. “Muhammad Rashid Ridâ (1865–1935) or: The Importance of Being (a) Journalist.”In Religion and Its Other. Secular and Sacral Concepts and Practices in Interaction, edited by HeikeBock, Jörg Feuchter and Michi Knecht, 40–63. Frankfurt: Campus. http://answering-islam.org.uk/Books/Zwemer/Christ/chap5.htm (accessed October 1, 2007).

Imadeddin. 1871. Ein bekehrter Muhammedaner. Evangelisches Missionsmagazin 14: 397–412.Jomier, Jacques. 1954. Le Commentaire coranique du Manâr: tendances modernes de l’exégèse coranique

en Égypte. Paris: Éditions G.-P. Maissonneuve.Khan, Sayyid Ahmad. 1862–65. The Mohamedan Commentary on the Holy Bible. Ghazipur: published

privately by the author (Vol. 1 1862; Vol. 2 1865).Khan, Sayyid Ahmad. 1887. Tasānif-e Ahmadiyyah, kutub wa rasāʾil madhhābī. Vol. 1, Pt 1. Aligarh:

Aligarh Institute Press.Kidway, Abdur Raheem. n.d. “The Farewell Pilgrimage: Prophet Muhammad’s Sermon. Charter for Social

Justice.” http://www.quraan.com/index.aspx?&tabid=32&artid=109 (accessed February 27, 2011).Körner, Felix, 2004. Revisionist Koran Hermeneutics in Contemporary Turkish Theology: Rethinking Islam.

Würzburg: Ergon-Verlag.Kümmel, Werner Georg. 1987. Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments nach seinen Hauptzeigen. Göttingen:

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Lelyveld, David. 1978. Aligarh’s First Generation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Luz, Ulrich. 2002. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Mt 1–7). 5th ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benzinger/

Neukirchener.Madany, Bassam Michael. 1984. Sharing God’s Word with a Muslim. http://www.levant.info/BAI-0.html

(accessed September 12, 2007).Malik, Jamal. 2005. “Islamic–Christian Dialogue.” Journal of Oriental Studies 15: 129–137.Malik, Jamal. 2008a. “Abraham im Islam.” Zur Debatte. Themen der Katholischen Kirche in Bayern 6:

17–19.Malik, Jamal. 2008b. Islam in South Asia: A Short History. Leiden: Brill.Metcalf, Thomas R. 1964. The Aftermath of Revolt. India 1857-1870. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press.Miksch, Jürgen, ed. 2007. Evangelisch aus fundamentalem Grund: Wie sich die EKD gegen den Islam

profiliert. Frankfurt a.M.: Lembeck.Muhsin, Ali. 1991. “Let the Bible Speak.” Ibs International. http://islamicstudies.islammessage.com/panel/

media/file/let_the_bible%20speak.pdf (accessed March 4, 2011).Paret, Rudi, trans. 1983. Der Koran. 3rd ed. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Powell, Avril A. 1993. Muslims and Missionaries in Pre-Mutiny India. London: Curzon Press.Powell, Avril A. 2000. “Reciprocities and Divergences concerning Religious Traditions in Two Families of

Scholars in North India.” In Perspectives of Mutual Encounters in South Asian History 1760–1860,edited by Jamal Malik, 188–222. Leiden: Brill.

Rahman, Fazlur. 1965. Islamic Methodology in History. Karachi: Institute of Islamic Research.Ratzinger, Joseph [Benedikt XVI]. 2007. Jesus von Nazareth. Freiburg: Herder.Schimmel, Annemarie. 1992. Mystische Dimensionen des Islam: Die Geschichte des Sufismus. Munich:

Beck.Schirrmacher, Christine. 1992. Mit den Waffen des Gegners. Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag.Schreiner, Stefan. 1977. “Muhammads Bergpredigt.” Kairos 4: 241–256.Schumann, Olaf H. 1988. Der Christus der Muslime. Cologne: Böhlau Verlag.Soroush, Abdolkarim. 2009. “The Expansion of Prophetic Experience.” Chap. 1 in, The Expansion of

Prophetic Experience: Essays on Historicity, Contingency and Plurality in Religion, translated byNilou Mobasser, edited by Forough Jahanbakhsh, 3–23. Leiden: Brill.

Strecker, Georg. 1985. Die Bergpredigt. Ein exegetischer Kommentar. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck undRuprecht.

Tetrapla. 1964.Das Neue Testament in der Übersetzung –Martin Luthers, der Zürcher Bibel, Fritz Tillmannsund der New English Bible. Leipzig: Bohn & Sohn Verlag.

Thyen, Johann-Dietrich. 1989. Bibel und Koran: Eine Synopse gemeinsamer Überlieferungen. Cologne:Böhlau Verlag.

Troll, C. W. 1978/79. Sayyid Ahmad Khan: A Reinterpretation of Muslim Theology. New Delhi: OxfordUniversity Press.

Zwemer, Samuel M. 1912. The Moslem Christ. Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier.Zwemer, Samuel M. 1920. A Muslim Seeker after God. New York: Fleming H. Revell.

56 J. Malik

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

9:43

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13