The New Testament in Muslim Eyes

A review of Paul's Letter to the Galatians by Shabbir Akhtar

This book is an intelligent and interesting orthodox Sunni Muslim rejection of ‘the salvation offer of the Gospel of grace’ (269). I do not believe author Shabbir Akhtar would mind bringing his final evaluation to the front of this review. In any case, no close reader of the book could be surprised upon reaching the ‘hard statements’ set down in its closing pages. The New Testament in Muslim Eyes is an historic achievement in the long and bumpy journey of Muslim–Christian relations. In the words of its author, since the emergence of Islam it is the first publication of a Muslim translation of any Pauline epistle as well as the first full Muslim commentary on any book of the Bible. The book shows a knowledge of the Greek text of Galatians as well as of the Hebrew wording of key Old Testament verses used in the epistle. The achievement of this book, however, goes well beyond being the first of a genre. The book defines and illustrates a style of Muslim–Christian conversation that assumes a clash of crucial claims and seeks to understand the other without rushing to affirm the faith of the other. The book states Sunni Muslim confessions in a straightforward manner and does not hesitate to use those confessions as criteria by which to judge the truth or falsehood of the contents of Paul’s letter to the Galatians. The choice of Galatians for a Muslim commentary is very interesting, given the important discussion of the law at the centre of the epistle. Other themes that make it an intriguing choice are Paul’s discussion of Abraham, his focusing of the content of the true gospel, and his attempt to base human behaviour on the Spirit of God. The book’s explanations of the verses of Galatians and its extended reflections on the themes of the letter – likened by the author to pensées – raise a myriad of interesting issues that deserve much more discussion than this short review. The writing is engaging, informed, lively, creative and often insightful. It is truly fascinating, though not always comforting, to see the great themes of Galatians through Muslim eyes: law, sin, human nature, salvation, the ‘seed’ of Abraham, ethics as fruit of the Spirit, strong disagreement over matters of truth, etc. The author wisely repudiates the false stories about Paul famously related by ʿAbd al-Jabbār, Ibn Ḥazm and Sayyid Quṭb. In fact, the book expresses respect for Paul’s ‘uncompromising truthfulness’ and ‘discerning compassion’ (22). That respect does not remain unqualified, however: elsewhere the book characterizes the same quality of conviction as intolerance (80, 168, 229) and ‘triumphalist supersessionism’ (148, cf. 264), and even draws a direct line from Paul through John of Damascus and Aquinas to European colonialism (168–9)! Some readers may be surprised by some of the typically-direct declarations that pepper these pages. ‘Joy and love are not prominent in the Quran’ (202). Islam dismisses the believer’s faith in Christ as divine Saviour as ‘blasphemous mythology’ (89). ‘Quranic Islam rejects agapē as false and mawkish love, as irresponsible and vague’ (210). ‘Theology, as the study of God’s nature as opposed to his will, is anathema’ (40). Sin, sacrifice and atonement are ‘of marginal significance in Islam’ (64). ‘Devout Muslims would never offer the salām to non-Muslims’ (69). The Qur’an would see the promise to Abraham fulfilled not in Christ [Galatians 3.:16, 4.4–5, cf. Romans 10.4] but rather in Muhammad (133). ‘[I]t cannot be right to love ideological enemies’ (45). ‘The God of the Quran makes provision for the lusts of the flesh’ (252). Islam proclaims Christ’s death irrelevant (92). Scores of similar statements could be cited. The book frequently moves very quickly from the text of Galatians to elaborate claims for Muhammad, the Qur’an and Islam. Though the stated intent is to explain Paul fairly to the Muslim reader (1), one often finds the many pensées making a case for the superiority of Islam. The writing also seems to have a way of insulating Muslim truth claims from free investigation – or perhaps even of forbidding enquiry. The first sentence of the book states: ‘Exegesis of a rival scripture can be a concealed form of polemic.’ Drawing attention to that possibility at the very start, of course, inclines the reader to keep this in mind. The word ‘polemic’ bears a pejorative meaning in certain circles concerned with interfaith relations. As a term for a type of literature, however, polemic describes large parts of the Qur’an, and this commentary certainly endorses and does not attempt to conceal what it perceives to be the Qur’an’s attack on Christian faith. ‘Polemic’ as a style of discourse is absolutely normal in ordinary Muslim–Christian conversation. It seems quite legitimate for people to judge the truth claims of another faith by the accepted claims of their own, and this commentary rightly takes full freedom to do so. Where this exegesis seems to slide into distortion is where it compares apples with oranges and appears content to play on an uneven field. To give a few examples: The book declares that ‘we know reliably little or nothing’ about Jesus, while ‘Muhammad was a man who lived in the full light of history’ (18, 24, cf. 6). The author defines the Arabic īmān as ‘knowledge entertained with certainty’, but allows to the Greek pistis only the sense of mere conjecture or ‘speculation’ (134, cf. 89). He then uses this remarkable distinction to support what he understands to be the denial of ‘the Christian claim that Jesus was crucified’ in Q 4.157 (134, cf. 38). Several times the book transmits the traditional Muslim accusation of biblical falsification or corruption and allows it to stand unchallenged solely on the basis of alleged qur’anic support (25, 99, 240, 261). When one ventures beyond the confines of confessional conversation, one exposes not only the faith of the other, but also one’s own faith, to widely-acknowledged scholarly criteria. In the end, the book judges Paul to be ‘a sincere preacher who got many things wrong’, a self-deceived ‘lost prophet who missed the mark’ (269). The author questions the need to be cautious or diplomatic when declaring the error of Christianity. He asks this freely in Britain among Christian colleagues at the Oxford Centre for Muslim–Christian Studies. The book’s radical critique of Christianity, however, raises a question about the freedom of people to disagree with the claims that religions make for their revered figures. Some readers may have first become familiar with the author through his 1989 book Be Careful with Muhammad! The present work also declares that ‘radical criticism of the Prophet’ is ‘forever anathema’ (24, cf. 210, 246). Where is the sense of reciprocity? If Christians make certain high claims for Paul, and Paul himself claims that he received the gospel he preached ‘by revelation from Jesus Christ’ (Galatians 1.12), what separates these Christian claims categorically from Muslim claims for Muhammad and the Qur’an? This commentary openly and calmly rejects the redemptive death and divine glory of Jesus that are at the heart of the New Testament. Do non-Muslims similarly have the right and freedom, even in Muslim societies, to radically critique the high claims that Muslims make for their messenger and scripture? This first-ever example of a Muslim exegesis of a full book of the Bible according to its original text comes with a strong concept of truth and an unflinching commitment to an orthodox Sunni Islam. ‘Christians and Muslims are fighting a decisive battle for the true image of humanity’, writes the author (253). ‘The deadlock…is permanent’ (269). If the stakes are indeed this high, it is good to start – as does this book – with honesty about one’s own faith and a respectful attempt to take the rival seriously on its own terms.  

Gordon Nickel South Asia Institute of Advanced Christian Studies, Bangalore, India gordon.nickel@saiacs.org © 2019 Gordon Nickel https://doi.org/10.1080/09596410.2019.1573589 ISLAM AND CHRISTIAN–MUSLIM RELATIONS 3