Lessons from Islamic Awareness Week

I have been listening carefully to my Muslim brothers and sisters during their Islamic Awareness Week in the University. I think there has been more debate than dialogue and the form which the debate takes has crystallised very clearly for me. For those Muslims who want to debate with Christians (and for many Christians who want to debate with Muslims) the very core of the argument is about consistency. The Judaeo-Christian scriptures are argued to be inconsistent – there are textual variations, inconsistencies of thought, and disagreements about the extent of the canon. All of this is evidence that these scriptures are therefore corrupted by numerous human influences. The Qur’an by contrast is a unified text with no variations which can be securely traced to the revelation received by the Prophet Mohammed; no human hands have shaped it. The message of God must be pure, consistent and eternal, so the Judaeo-Christian form of it must therefore be inferior and incomplete.

This line of argument inevitably leads to a debate (rather than a dialogue) and one which proceeds by swopping texts from scriptures. I’m bored by this. Bored and a little frustrated by the inability to see the prior philosophical and theological presumption on which all of it rests. There is a presumption that truth must be, clear, consistent and unitary. But it isn’t. Truth often proves to be elusive, frequently both-and rather than either-or, and limited by human capacities for knowledge. Even if God is speaking to us (and I believe s/he is!) our ability to hear is determined by our humanity, bounded in space, time and intelligence. It is impossible for a revelation not to be passed through human hands, heads, hearts and voices how else could we receive it?

The Qur’an was received within the prophetic ministry of one man, through one language, in one culture at a single place and time. It is a prophetic proclamation with comparatively little narrative and does not offer witness accounts of historical events or even of the Prophet’s life. I would expect it to be largely consistent. The Bible was received over many centuries in at least two languages, located in several cultures and a number of different places. It includes witness accounts of events and experiences. Yes I can see an underlying consistency – but only if I accept that this is a developing revelation. What collection of historical documents or of witness statements spread over so much time and space would be completely consistent? Too much consistency here would be robust evidence that the documents had indeed been corrupted by an editing hand.

The whole consistency argument doesn’t work for me, not because I am anxious to “prove” Muslims wrong, but because it lacks the one real condition necessary for a dialogue rather than a debate. The argument sees and measures the value of one tradition against the underlying presumptions of another rather than attending carefully to the “other” and hearing how they understand themselves.

Please can we move on?