Facing other faiths

Recently I've been in discussion email-ly with someone about how we should tackle Muslims about some of the things that we are concerned about in Islam, in particular thsoe passages in Qur'an and parts of Sunna that clearly seem to advocate killing hostages and lying if one feels that the advantage of Islam lies with that course of action. I reproduce here some of what I wrote about how we go about it, particualrly starting with the dangers of assuming that no reply from our 'dialogue partners' means that we have 'touched a spot'.

'touching a spot' may be as much a result of reacting in kind to perceived aggression as to guilty conscience, 'bad faith' or a 'gotcha'. In fact it could be that the lack of reaction is simply dismissal of the possibly 'shrill' tone. I know that if I get something similar from an atheist or other faith-member [and I have], I would react that way; life's too short to engage with the people who come across as if they won't listen and are just waiting to say 'gotcha' and are only going to miss the point of what you say because they are too concerned to pick holes in the peripheral minutiae. [Cf. Jesus: don't cast your pearl before swine ...] So we need to come
across engagingly, winsomely.

Only if we can get past the aggressive stuff into the kinds of things that mark conflict resolution will we be able to make big hits for the kingdom. Upping the ante in terms of aggressiveness and lack of sympathy for those who oppose us only hardens opposition for the most
part. How do we practically love our enemy in this case? I would suggest that by treating them humanely, as capable of seeing a reasonable argument and by giving them the same -or better- respect as we expect or desire for ourselves. Most of life is not lived in set-piece debate situations and respect is vital from a Christian point of view.

I think that we are in parable territory here not in denouncing the scribes and pharisees, for the most part. I agree that we should be pressing the issue of why there are no fatwas [assuming that we've not missed them] against Osama bin Laden and his ilk, but that will only really work if there is a perception on the part of most Muslims that we are genuinely wanting them to be the best rather than waiting to do them down.

I think that perhaps what I am saying is that we really need to consider tactics and that I reckon that 'shrill', aggressive and disrespectful is counterproductive and probably unChristlike. I am concerned that you may have been heard in that way and written-off or ignored as not worth engaging with; which would be a shame because I think that you have a good
couple of points and I for one would like to know the answers and the responses. But it's only when we get those answers that we can go to work or at least probe a bit more. But to probe a bit more we will need not to have alienated our interlocutors.

One of the points I made earlier in the discussion, regarding the spirit in which we approach dialogue, needs to be mentioned too:
I have no difficulty understanding the 'commands' as given; I do have difficulty knowing/anticipating how they are handled with in a living tradition [fiqh] which is not my own. It will not do to say "The issue here isn't "ways of reading Christian Scriptures and history,"" since that was written in the context of alluding to an example of how an apprently open and shut case of how Christian scriptures pretty near the heart of our scriptural centre could be face-value read as supporting slavery. If we don't now read them that way then I would like to give Muslim conversation partners the same courtesy as I would want myself of it being assumed that I may have ways of dealing with apparent barbarisms in my faith traditions. In fact I consider it a Christian duty to do so. By all means be robust in pressing the points but don't assume that there may be nothing further to say.

Now I know that I have reporduced parts of one side of a conversation [to protect the identity of my conversation partner/s] but I'd be interested to have any feedback on or off blog about this kind of approach and the issues it raises ....

What's the fuss about? Well here are [some of]the concerning passages:
Qur'anic injunctions such as contained in: Surahs 8:12-17 and 47:4 .
Have a look at them using the on-line Qur'an giving English translations, together with transliterated Arabic, at:-http://www.quranbrowser.com
On one occasion, Muhammad had up to 900 Jewish Men of the Bani Qurayzah tribe beheaded, and on another occasion, around 400 were beheaded. http://www.muhammadanism.org/Islam/islam_beheading.pdf
this the "model for all mankind" (sic) who in the last sermon he preached (632 AD in
Medina) said: I leave behind me two things, the Qur'an and my example, the Sunnah, and
if you follow these, you will never go astray."
Whilst the Qur'an says:- "Ye have indeed in the apostle of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct)
for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah." Surah 33:21

And lastly, a point of view from someone else -again I don't want to out them and trust that this view is okay expressed here:
"we need to know why moderate Muslims feel their stance is not incompatible with Islam, indeed why they feel Osama et al are not true Muslims - it can't only be because they fear being jailed if they publicly support O bin L surely? And to do that we can't approach them with the attitude that any Muslim who doesn't support O bin L isn't a true Muslim so has no authority to give us their opinion anyhow."