Download Griffith Paper

Chris Black
BIBH 651
12/3/12
Critical Reflection on Griffith
Religious dialogue within our own churches and with believers who share a common
faith often leads to debates, disagreements, and disparagements, so it takes little imagination to
consider how difficult a task peaceable communications must have presented to Christians and
Muslims in the near east during the rise of the Islamic faith. Up to this point in the history of
Christianity, Christians faced a number of oppositions and persecutions from both a theological
and a physical perspective, yet they also simultaneously experienced substantial periods of
growth until Muhammad and the beginning of the Islamic faith when Christianity saw its first
significant decline. Sidney H. Griffith writes with the purpose of entering this conflicted and
complicated era in Christian history from the perspective of those living under Muslim rule. As
he claims, the scholarship and study that has been done from this time period concerning
Christian-Muslim relations has largely come from the perspective of the western church (p. 176),
but a great deal of writings and evidence exists from those Christians who lived in the shadow of
the mosque concerning how they approached the rise of Islam and interfaith relations.
Prior to our class discussions and reading Griffith’s book, the expanse of my knowledge
of Muslim-Christian relations could be summed up in the Crusades as depicted by Ridley Scott
in the movie Kingdom of Heaven. Albeit a good movie with a great message about religious
violence, it does little justice to a genuine understanding of Christian’s reactions to the rise of
Islam save for the violence enacted on behalf of some conflicting and mixed motives, but this
hardly represents the universal response. While Christians plausibly did not welcome Muslim
domination, many, if not most, responded first and foremost with inquiry and discussion. In fact,
Christians found it quite difficult to keep their own from converting to Islam in addition to
engaging Muslims in religious dialogue (p. 105). Islam likely appealed to many Christians
because the Qur’an referred to them as “people of the book,” looked favorably upon them, and
even Muslims to converse with Christians saying, “If you are in doubt about what we have sent
down to you, ask those who were reading scripture before you (p. 160).”
Although Muslims looked favorably upon Christians, they also considered them to be
mistaken misinterpreters of the holy scriptures (the Torah and the Gospel). Muslims complained
about Christian excesses such as icons, church structures, and personal adornment, citing the
restraint of Abraham and Moses against them (p. 37). This charge against Christians and the
appeal to a more ascetic life likely influenced many Christians to convert to Islam in addition to
living under heavy influence in Islamic territory. Maintaining the Christian faith under such
circumstances undoubtedly proved no easy task, and Griffith cites the surge of Christian Arabic
literature as an attempt “to sustain and defend the Christian faith (p. 105).” For the previous two
or three centuries and even continuing in the church in the west, Christian apologetics at times
seemed monotonous and over-scrupulous, but now, in the east and under the rise of Islam,
apologists fought to keep their faith’s very existence alive.
Islam’s rise to power not only forced Christians to defend their religion, but upon
challenging Christian doctrines, such as that of the Trinity and the Incarnation, Islam changed the
very nature of Christian apologetics. From the rise of Constantine, Christianity found freedom
from persecution and the luxury of exploring their religion without the same pressures of
convincing others of its veracity, which inevitably led to certain debates and practices that stinted
its prosperity, at least in a non-numerical sense. Now, however, although Muslims did not
persecute Christians per se, Christians found themselves once again on the defensive side of
apologetics in a fight to survive. Save for Nestorius and those who sided with him on the
Christological debate, Christians had up to this time encountered little opposition to the
veneration of Mary, and no controversy existed, save with the pagans, concerning the divinity of
Christ, but now under the Muslim regime, Christians were questioned on their veneration of
Mary, along with other saints and martyrs, and their claim that Jesus is God (p. 30). The oneness
of God, or Allah to the Muslim, presented a sticking point in the debate which Muslims heavily
criticized and that also caused many Christians to become apostates.
It would seem then that the gradual decline of Near Eastern Christianity was threefold:
their veneration and apparent worship of icons and things not explicitly God, their claim to the
triune nature of God including the “birth” of God, and ultimately the socio-political pressure of
living as a minority under Islamic rule. As previously mentioned, Griffith cites this pressure and
decline in numbers as the reason for the surge in Christian writings, and while he may be correct,
the situation would appear more complicated than that. In addition to the fact that certain people
are simply stubborn and will stick to whatever premise they have received (which is arguably an
admirable act), some would claim that the nationalization of Christianity diluted its vivacity and
veracity. That is to say, upon the presentation of rational rebuttals to the foundations of the
Christian faith, something that had not been done in centuries, certain advocates rose to the
challenge to defend the Christian faith. True warriors and heroes (in a polemical sense) find no
place of esteem during peacetime. However, regardless of the true reason for the surge in
Christian Arabic apologetics, one may conclusively say that Islam brought out the strength of
Christianity and vice versa.
As already noted, the rise of Islam brought about a change and strengthening in Christian
theology, but Christians also contributed a great deal, although perhaps inadvertently, to Muslim
doctrine and to their various successes. Of particular interest is the legend of the Christian monk,
Bahira, who apparently conversed with and taught Muhammad himself, leading Christians to
posit that everything significant within the Qur’an and the Islamic faith came from Bahira’s
teachings to Muhammad on Christianity and that the Muslims were in fact the misinterpreters of
scripture and true religion (p. 80). This legend presents a direct counterargument to the purported
Muslim claim that Christians and Jews had incorrectly twisted the meaning of scripture, an
appeal of the Muslim faith (p. 167). Again, it would appear evident that this argument composed
a part of the Christian apologists’ attempt to sustain the religion under Muslim rule, yet the
Bahira legend undoubtedly holds some truth to it, for if Muslims indeed claim the Jewish and
Christian scriptures as preliminary writings to their faith, it would be arrogant at best and
imprudent at worst to assume that generations of religious faithful had all misinterpreted the
word of God until now.
Interpreting scripture and speaking the will of God embodies a difficult, dangerous path
which no one throughout the course of history has proven able to walk flawlessly. Some of
Islam’s critiques of Christianity find warrant such as their disdain for the worship of Mary,
saints, martyrs, and icons. Christians undoubtedly venerated too many objects that detracted
from the worship of God, and the Muslims thrived on this critique of the Christian religion.
While all of these items and people may receive admiration which would not detract from the
essence of faithful worship, sources make it obvious that certain Christians bowed down to,
prayed to, and kissed relics and icons such as these embodying an act of worship towards an
entity other than God. This Muslim critique forced Christianity to rethink its veneration of icons,
which led to a more well-rounded view, although not one with universal consent.
Muslim prominence and theology caused Christians to think seriously and critically in
regards to the oppositions which it brought about. The challenge of engaging the Muslim faith
polemically indubitably sharpened Christianity’s expression of its doctrine and forced them to
rethink some actions which they had previously taken up, but to say that this sharpening was
one-sided would be erroneous. Christians played a prominent role in the development of Islam in
ways other than simply providing the Gospel from which Islam claimed descent. Regardless of
the veracity of the Bahira legend, Christian apologists inspired and shaped the thinking of the
apologists and writers of the Islamic faith. Christians actively translated numerous documents
into the Arabic language including many of the works of Aristotle, and many Muslims even
hired Christians to translate Aristotle’s works along with other philosophical treatises (p. 115).
Griffith reports that this task provided a lucrative business for Christian scribes, citing Islam’s
interest for inter-religious dialogue as one cause for the abundance of the translation of
philosophical texts.
While Islam clearly became the prominent religion in the near east, a great deal of their
growth and prosperity must be attributed to Christian scholars and philosophers even if Islam
rejected many of the treatises and arguments of the translated texts. However, it appears that
Islam, for the most part, neglects to recognize Christianity’s impact on the prosperity of their
religion, and instead, they seem to view their rise to prominence as a divine blessing upon them
and Allah’s rejection of Christianity. Muslims questioned Christians as to how God would allow
them to control the territory if Christianity were the true religion (p. 39). This belief poses an
interesting theological position that assumes God causes those with the correct religion to rise to
power. The anonymous author of On the Triune Nature of God combats this claim writing, “If
this [Christian] religion were not truly from God it would not have stood so unshakably for seven
hundred and forty-six years (p.54).”
Griffith merely presents this subject in passing, but its inferences have infinitely profound
implications. Based on the Muslims’ argument that God allowed them power because he favored
their religion, Rome must have found the same favor on behalf of their polytheism, a view which
no Muslim would endorse. For all the abundant writings and discourses on theology and correct
interpretation of scripture, Christian authors oddly appear remain silent on this issue. Perhaps
this is because they too believe that God blesses the religion he favors with military conquests,
yet this seems unlikely, for if Christians had believed this, reason would follow that they would
not even engage the Muslims in religious debate at all and would have accepted their critiques
and converted to Islam. This clearly was not the case, meaning that either Griffith fails to
mention the existence of such an argument or that the Christians themselves overlooked it or
chose not to use it.
The relations between Islam and Christianity proved somewhat peaceable at least during
the early stages of Islam’s rise, but Griffith does mention a few early instances in which peace
and civil discourse was not the chosen response (p. 148). However, even though Griffith
mentions a few instances of violence, his overall presentation of the Christian response to Islam
appears entirely too peaceable. A couple of times, he cites works in which the Christian authors
at the end profess that if it were not for social pressures, they would convert to Christianity (p.
77; 82). This may be the case, but all the Christian works which Griffith presents shows an
unwavering optimism and dedication to Christianity without any hint of confusion or discontent
with their fall from prominence in the near east. It seems impossible that Christians merely
converted to Islam or held true to Christianity without any sense of doubt or questioning the
validity of their own faith. The authors which Griffith presents may have indeed maintained
unwavering devotion to Christianity, but I cannot believe this was the unanimous response.
Furthermore, Griffith only presents one side of the discussion. At one point, while noting
the abundance of Christian works translated into and written in Arabic, he appears to claims that
Muslim responses to Christian apologetics either did not exist or that Muslims rarely engaged in
responses to Christian apologists. Surely, and obviously, the Muslims did not merely surrender
their religion based on the well thought out argumentations of Christian writers. While the
disparities ultimately led to war and violence on a national scale, I would like to know more
about the early responses of Muslims to the counterarguments of Christians Islam’s rise in the
eighth and ninth centuries. I am greatly indebted to Griffith and his presentation of Muslim
theology and Christian interactions with it during this time period which has led to a greater
understanding of how Christians might peacefully engage other religions as well as how to
endure persecution. If nothing else, Griffith has given me hope that peaceful relations,
conversation, learning, and mutual understanding can come from interfaith relations, and I hope
to find myself in the midst of this discussion for years to come.