Book Review: Why Can't They Get Along? A Conversation Between a Muslim, a Jew and a Christian By Dawoud El-Alami, Dan Cohn-Sherbok, George D. Chryssides

Why Can't They Get Along? A Conversation Between a Muslim, a Jew and a Christian
By Dawoud El-Alami, Dan Cohn-Sherbok, George D. Chryssides
ISBN: 074595605X
Price: £9.99 (Amazon UK)

My wife have often scolded me for referring to some theological texts as objectively 'bad,' stating that my opinion on the book is not authoritative and simply an opinion. However, having now read this book I can say that there are some books which are objectively bad and this is one of them.

I picked up 'Why Can't They get Along?' a few weeks ago whilst away at a conference to give me something interesting to read on the train home. The premise of the book was an interesting one, with respected thinkers from the three Abrahamic Faiths giving overviews of their community's positions on certain areas of contention and then having a civilised discussion of the issue. Though ultimately doomed to produce agreement (since acceptance of something contrary is arguably rejection of the others) I felt was it as an interesting book to help me understand how to discuss matters with friends of other faiths and the book certainly makes for an interesting read on Islamic and Jewish approaches to matters of faith.

The text itself is split into four parts which are labelled Teachings, Practices, Ethics and Societal Issues. These themselves are split into four chapters on specifics which are discussed by the three authors. The structure of the writing is that it is introduced by one author from his community and then the other will state theirs, which then leads to the three each having an opportunity to comment on the issues raised. This makes a fair discussion between the authors and allows for them to touch on the issues as well as introducing their position with adequate space.

The discussion concept is however the biggest issue with the book, and there are many issues to discuss. Firstly, the concept of a text designed to allow some form of interfaith dialogue does not work in the way it intended. The book often seems to collapse into off topic attacks on one or two of the authors. This tends to start from an offhand comment by an author, for example bringing the Palestine conflict up when discussing the nature of God, to try and score cheap kicks. Considering that the book is supposed to be an academic text, this is disappointing.

As well as this, the caliber of the Christian discussion is quite simply dire. Having met both Dawoud El-Alami and Dan Cohn-Sherbok whilst studying is South Wales I know them to be reputable scholars of their respected faiths, something they demonstrate in the book by giving faith acknowledgement of the varying positions taken on matters. George Chryssides, on the other hand, does a poor job of representing Christianity and comes off as an extremely liberal and somewhat theologically inept clergyman.

Two examples of this are him being corrected in his Trinitarian Theology when he suggested that the sabellian approach to the trinity is the correct one, amusingly leading to Dan Cohn-Sherbok explaining that Sabellius was anathematised, and also his suggestion that very few Christians see anything in the Bible (including the virgin birth) as more than mythological devices with little regard to the doctrinal positions of communities such as the Orthodox Church or even that of the Creed, in which it is made clear that it is anathema to oppose that Christ was born of a Virgin. Both of these demonstrate either an unbearably liberal approach to the faith (where doctrinal positions are non-existent) or a very poor understanding of these matters and make the book almost unreadable to anyone who takes the Christian faith serious.

On a positive note, the book gives some amazing insight into the life and faith of Islam and Judaism and the conflicts that exist within these communities on matters of belief and practice. Put simply, the book would be marvellous if it were called 'Why Can't They Get Along? A Conversation Between a Muslim and a Jew' and the Christianity section was simply cut out. Both Dawoud El-Alami and Dan Cohn-Sherbok equally sell the premise of the book and do not pull punches when getting into controversial topics such as views on historical genocides, apostasy and the Israel-Palestine conflict.

For the reasons covered above, I would sadly not recommend this book to anyone unless they simply wanted to know more about Judaism and Islam. As someone that enjoys Theological texts (and reviewing them) I almost refused to finish this book due to the awfully misrepresented character and theology of Christianity portrayed in the book. I would go as far as to recommend it be renamed ‘Why Can't They Get Along? A Muslim and a Jew demonstrate why Christians need to learn Theology before they open their mouths about it. ’ Because of this, I found the book dishonest and lacking in any theological discussion of value to the Christian so there is no way I could recommend it to others who seek a genuine text of this nature.

Book Review: "Islam and the Future of Tolerance" by Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz

"Islam and the Future of Tolerance" by Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz
Harvard University press (2015)
ISBN: 9780674088702
Price: £9.77 (Amazon UK)

I picked up this book after watching a number of debates in this matter by both writers. With a keen interest in both current affairs and Islamic Theology and Exegesis, I decided to give the book a read, not having any real presumptions as to the depth of content. On this matter, I was presently surprised, with the book portraying a fair and balanced discussion of the question of the links between exegesis and faith, as well as the social issues.

The book itself is a short read, at 128 pages, and can be easily read over a few days. It is formatted as a dialogue between the two thinkers, with Sam Harris often portraying the student and stating the issues, with Maajid Nawaz filling in the  details from the Islamic perspective, followed up by Sam Harris' response of 'I agree but..." to move the conversation on. In some areas it is split into sections, however this is only where there is a significant shift in the conversation.

The topics discussed in the book mainly focus on the question of how to tackle Islamic extremism and its source. it starts this by looking at the problem of identifying the exact issue, doing this by clarifying the names of the different forms of extremism faced (Specifically the difference between types of Islamism and Jihadism) and illustrating the difficulties caused by misattributing thinkers and  events to a different school of thought. The discussion then moves on the failure to tackle the problem in the west and how this is exacerbated by the ‘regressive left’ and rise of the far right across Europe. This finishes on the more controversial question on whether this strain of thought is inherent in Islam, to which there is a fascinating discussion of schools of Exegesis and the variety of thought in medieval Islam, along with some harsh condemnations of the illusory ‘Islamic Utopia’ sold to us by many modern popular historians.

Some of the key points I enjoyed about the book were the honesty, the candid nature of the discussion and the fact that it opened up a topic for discussion which is shied away from by many for fear of being branded as a bigot or islamophobe. The early discussion on the issue of the ‘Liberal Betrayal’ opened the book up for this honest discussion of the topic in a way which is rarely seen, something which is not possible in many academic texts, which demonstrates an advantage of the format and the open-mindedness of Nawaz with regards to his willingness to critique the ideas rather than attack a strawman. As well as this, the discussion of the exegetical schools and Nawaz’s readable yet sufficiently academic explanations of such concepts as Taqqiyah allowed for the reader not to be drawn into any of the traditional polemical ideas which we see on the side for the far right. 

In the same way, Sam Harris’ role as the skeptic worked well in the text, an example of this being his assault on the mythical ‘Utopia’ view of the Ottoman Empire. This position allowed for the more balanced approach, instead of the book becoming the ‘Maajid Nawaz show,’ with some very frank statements on attempts to put the concept islamic extremism down to purely political grievance allowing the book to tackle the issue of islamic Extremism straight and in a way which maintains the interest of the readers, many of whom would have picked this book up with the intention of seeking a fair discussion of the question of the link between Islam and Extremism.

The format, as well as being what stabilizes the book, is also the cause of my one criticism. Due to the conversational format of the text it is prone to the occasional glossed over and unclarified statement, in some cases leading to factual error. One of these points which caught my attention was Nawaz’s claim comment on the Council of Nicaea being the point at which Rome accepted Christianity. This point is clearly a factual error, but due to the book being in a dialogue, the point is one simply glanced over as an example of ‘Dominant Doctrines’ and their power rather than clarified or linked to another point. The happens on a few occasions in the book and at times can hit the reader with a reminder that the book is not a piece on religious thought specifically but a dialogue between two academics discussing a socio-political issue developing in the realm of religion. 

So would I recommend the book? Yes. It is a very good short read into this complex and often misappropriated topic of Islam and Extremism, and sufficiently covers and clarifies the more complex points of it to make the reader satisfied that the text delivers on its promise of a reasonable and fair dialogue which does not avoid controversy or sell itself as a polemic. Overall, an excellent starting point for some truthful and honest discussion on a matter which is avoided far too often.

Review of The Orthodox Church in the Arab World, 700 - 1700: An Anthology of Sources by Samuel Noble & Alexander Treiger

Review of The Orthodox Church in the Arab World, 700 - 1700: An Anthology of Sources

By Samuel Noble & Alexander Treiger

ISBN: 0875807011

Price: £24.50

There are many introductions to Orthodox Christianity available in the English language today, covering the vast history of the Church and quoting various saints and sources to support their position. The most famous of these is Metropolitan Kallistos’ The Orthodox Church, which covers both the history of beliefs of the Church in a way which covers all key elements. Though even his books has a flaw, which Samuel Nobel addresses in the Introduction to The Orthodox Church in the Arab World. As Noble states, “The Chapter Entitled ‘The Church under Islam’ begins with the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453, with not the slightest hint that three Patriarchates had been under Islamic domination for more than eight centuries prior to that date.” And Noble highlights the same issue with various other texts.

It is in this respect that Noble and Trieger’s text comes as a breath of fresh air to any reader with an interest in reading about the experience of Christians in the Arab world before the 16^th century. Noble has been able to collect and translate a collection of texts spanning the 1000 years between 700 and 1700, giving a sense of a diverse experience and collection of genres of writing produced by Christians in the Arab world during this time.

In my view the book is a great stride in out understanding of the experience of Arab Christians in the Middle Ages, with such texts as The Disputation of the Monk Abraham of Tiberius and Paul of Antioch’s Letter to a Muslim Friend demonstrating the interaction between the Christians and Muslims of the time, as well as other texts showing the forms of Apologetic technique being used, including the use of the Qur’an by Christian clergy to debate Muslims and explain the Orthodox faith in terms which they could understand. Noble’s translation of these texts allows for this experience to come to light for the first time and, in doing this, opens up a field of analysis of this intercultural dialogue at a time when Christian-Muslim relations are a heated topic in the context of the MENA region.

A weaker point of the book is the lack of analysis of relations in areas such as Egypt and the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox tradition, largely due to the author’s area of study being based around the Chalcedonian Orthodox community. This means that the book does not allow for a study of relationships between the two Orthodox communities in the Middle East at the time, though the stud of the Coptic Community in the context of the various caliphates has been an object of study by Medievalists and Egyptologists over the years already. 

In conclusion, Noble’s text provides a rare and wonderful glance into the Orthodox Church in the Arab World and fills a long neglected void in Scholarship regarding the Christians of the Middle East and the Arabic Christian community. The translation of these texts also allows for a peek into the various interactions between Christian and Muslim in these areas and the fascinating apologetic tradition which emerged from this. Noble has done a great service to Christian Scholarship in producing this text, which will hopefully open the eyes of others to this untapped area of study.

The Copts of Medieval Dhimmitude

What is most interesting when looking at the differece between the treatment of Christians in the Middle East now and in the Medieval Era, it is important to note that a tolerant leader is not so unique as expected.

There is the obvious, Salah-ud-Din. Salah-ud-din’s life is a testament to how Coptic Christians should be treated in their home lands. Over half his court were Copts and they respected him as their ruler. There was none of this discrimination and mistrust that we see today towards them by the Muslims.

He also restored the Coptic, Greek, Syriac and Maronite heirarchs and clergy of Jerusalem in 1187. From 1099-1187 they were expelled from the city by the Crusaders after they butchered most of the inhabitants, christian and otherwise. (See john of Joinville’s account of the entry into the city)

 Later, Salah-ad-din’s successor al-Kamel Naser al-Din in fact met Francis of Assisi and invited him to preach in his court whilst the Armies of the 5th Crusade besieged one of his fortresses a few hundred miles away. historical records show this meeting in a lot of detail, explaining how Francis even tried to convert the Sultan. This very event is something which we would expect to preceed his execution by today’s stereotypes, yet Francis left as a guest and friend of the Sultan, whose court was majority Coptic Christian.

Also, previously, when Caliph Umar I took jerusalem from the Byzantines he showed great respect (though upheld the Jizya.), He was even invited to pray in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre by patriarch Sophronius but declines saying that if he prayed there, other Muslims would want to and it would endanger its status as a Christian site. He also allowed the Jews to freely worship, something which the Byzantines had not done in the city for close to 500 years.

Another classic is how the Syrian and Coptic Christian communities both supported the Caliphate on their invasions, as they faced persecution by the Byzantines for their acceptence of Cyrillian Miaphysitism as their Christology. The Syrian patriatch of the time even famously announced “Praise be to God, who delivered us from the unjust Byzantines and who put us under the rule of the just Muslim Arabs.”

The Copts, also under persecution by the Byzantines, accepted the Muslim invasion asa positive. Pope Benjamin I was still in hiding from Persecution by the Byzantines and was promised “safety and fearlessness.” By the Muslims who reported that they were impressed with his dignity as a ‘man of God’, Amr Ibn-Al-As, who led the invasion allowed him to “freely administer the affairs of his Church and people” which he could not under the Byzantines. By comparison with the last years of Byzantine rule, it was amazingly free. They could build Churches and hold liturgies without fear of persecution.

There are loads of examples of Muslim leaders accepting the Eastern Christians, especially Syrian and Egyptian as they were at war with the Greeks, so feared Byzantine Sympathies. The problem now is that history has polarised the situation. ‘Christian = West = Crusaders’ is the formula followed by uneducated members of the Muslim community in the middle east and ‘Muslim=Arab=Terrorist’ is what Christians see in the west. This leaves native communities being targetted by both for being middle eastern yet Christian.

Tragically there are also many examples of cruelty, such as the imprisonment of Patriarchs and public humiliation of Christians, so it is not all sunshine and loving. Either way, if the rulers of middle eastern nations understood how to deal with a religiously mixed community like the better of their medieval predecessors the world would be a better place.