The Battle Between Islamic Reform and Islamic Radicalism

With up to 25% of the Muslim population worldwide living in non-Islamic countries today, many Muslims have been led to look afresh at shari’a teaching. Reformers have come to the conclusion that Islamic law, including its penal code, needs to be revisited and possibly updated to fit modern societies. They are aware that Islam has often been used and abused by Muslim politicians and religious leaders to reinforce their own positions. They point out that the Qur’an commands Muslims to conduct their affairs by “mutual consultation” (42:38), in the same way the Prophet dealt with his community (3:159). They see in these texts and others the seeds for Islamic reform and democracy. In Mecca, they observe, Muhammad was primarily a prophet. In Medina he took on political leadership coincidentally because he happened to be the best man for the job at the time. In other words, Islam does not have to be closely associated with political power and public life.

Reformist Muslims also highlight that the Qur’an promotes religious freedom: “Let there be no coercion in religion” (2:256; cf. 5:102; 10:99).³⁸ They understand jihad in terms of religious, social, and political struggle intended to implement necessary reforms and to address the ills of Muslim societies (illiteracy, corruption, unemployment, etc.). Their reading of Islamic sources (Qur’an and Hadith) is contextual and rational.

Islamic radicalism has also witnessed a revival in recent years. Muslim radicals follow a literal understanding of Islamic foundational texts. They want to see shari’a fully implemented in Muslim societies. Their popularity seems to increase when the Muslim community experiences some form of injustice (economic exploitation, social deprivation, political oppression). Muslim extremists go one step further. They use and often misuse Islamic Scriptures to justify terrorist acts against their fellow Muslims (seen as nominal, heretical, or hypocritical Muslims) and against western countries (accused of supporting corrupt Islamic regimes). The battle to win the hearts and minds of Muslims is relentless between reformist and radical Muslims. How this will play out over time cannot be gauged with any degree of confidence. But certainly the history of the church in Europe and elsewhere should humble us and prevent us from being judgmental as we consider how Muslim societies are struggling with the role of religion in politics.

7. Concluding Reflections

Transparently, Christians and Muslims share some common commitments. Together with Jews, we share a deep commitment to monotheism—though admittedly Christians invoke a complex monotheism (trinitarianism) that Jews and Muslims alike disavow. The best of the three traditions hungers for a God-centeredness that stands over against endless self-seeking or mere consumerism. The first responsibility of sentient creatures is to recognize their creatureliness, and this, too, the three traditions share. Out of this matrix springs a nest of other common values (though they are often worked out in different ways): a high valuation of family, a commitment to fellow believers, and a concern for fellow human beings.

Yet Christians and Muslims will be less than candid with each other if they do not acknowledge their profound differences. While both believe that the kingdom of God has dawned and will one day be consummated, the time of that dawning and the nature of the kingdom are both contested. The one side sees the kingdom coming in the person, death, resurrection, and exaltation of Christ, working out now in the powerful transformation of individuals by the gospel of Christ, constituting a people, a church, that longs for the consummation of resurrection existence when Jesus returns; the other side sees the kingdom coming in the triumphant successes of Islam, including military ones, especially during its first century, with people learning to submit to God as he is disclosed through Muhammad, God’s will made known in shari’a. The imitation of Christ leads to one sort of religion; the imitation of Muhammad, who was a mighty warrior as well as a powerful preacher, leads to another.

Above all, the means by which fallen human beings may be reconciled to God are fundamentally at odds in the two traditions. In biblically-faithful Christianity, the grace of God crowns everything, as guilty human beings are reconciled to their Maker by the sacrifice that God himself has provided in Jesus’ death on the cross. Christians are empowered by the Holy Spirit to live repentant and obedient lives that they would not otherwise choose. In Islam, while appeal is made to the mercy of God, the hope of paradise rests fundamentally on personal obedience to God, repentance, scrupulous avoidance of major sins, and confidence that one’s good deeds will in some way atone for one’s bad deeds.

At the heart of the polarization between Christianity and Islam lies the divergent historical assessments of Jesus and of Muhammad. The claims of the two religions cannot both be true: they are, as we have seen, intrinsically exclusive. Such recognition never warrants hate or malice: surely both sides are obligated to tell the truth as they understand it, yet such truth-telling should be undertaken with courtesy, respect, attentive listening. When the truth claims are mutually contradictory, and the issues of such transcendental importance, faithful witness equally demands honest and respectful confrontation, frank and courteous debate. The issues will be not only theological but historical. For instance, if it be established, so far as history can establish anything, that Jesus rose from the dead,³⁹ the implications are sweeping not only for understanding who Jesus is and for what he accomplished on the cross, but also for any system of thought that depends, in whole or in part, on the denial of this claim.