Full Text for Luther, Lutheranism, and the Challenge of Islam (Text)

Volume 71:3/4 JuIy/October 2007 Table of Contents The Metamorphosis of Confessional Lutheranism David P. Scaer ........................................................................... 203 Confessional Lutheranism in an Ecumenical World Carl E. Braatrn .......................................................................... 219 Confessional Lutheranism in an Ecumenical World: A Missouri Synod Challenge Samuel H. Nafzger ............................................................. 233 Crossing Old Line Boundaries: Works of Lutheran Charity Matthew C. Harrison .............................................................. 251 Sola Fide: Luther and Calvin Phillip Cary ............................................................................... 265 Luther, Lutheranism, and the Challenges of Islam Adam S. Francisco .................................................................... 283 "The Noblest Skill in the Christian Church: Luther's Sermons on the Proper Distinction of Law and Gospel Robert Kolb .............................................................................. 301 The Argument over Women's Ordination in Lutheranism as a Paradigmatic Conflict of Dogma Armin Wenz .................... .. ............................................... 319 Contemporary Spirituality and the Emerging Church .............................................................................. John T . Pless 347 .......................................................................... Theological Observer 364 The Consecration of the Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Siberia The Reception of the Lutlzeran Seruice Book "The God Squad": Towards a Common Religion Book Reviews .................................................................................. 374 Books Received ..................................................................................... 382 ......................................................................... Indices for Volume 7l 391 Luther, Lutheranism, and the Challenge of Islam Adam S. Francisco 1Iichael Scheuer, former head of the unit charged with hunting down Osama bin Laden at the Central Intelligence Agency and now analyst for CBS Nelz-s and Jamestown Foundation's Global Terroris171 Anrzly.sis, is not knocvn for pulling punches. Still, it is interesting to find in his analysis of the n.ar on terror a jab at contemporay Christianity and its attempts to reach \Iuslims in the heartlands of Islam. They will never "trade \\-hat the \I-est caiIs their harsh and medieval Islamic theolog for the Pillsbury Doughbov-1-ersion of Christianity now on offer from the Vatican and Canterbur!-," he \$-rites. "The gentle refrain of 'kumbaya' tvill never replace the full-throated 'Allahu Akbar.'"' Scheuer, a Roman Catholic well acquainted \rlth missionary endeavors and how they are perceived by Lluslims in the Middle East,2 seems to have concluded that much of modern Rornan Cathollc and Anglican theology is ton impotent and incapable or unwilling to respond to the challenge of Islam. Scheuer's curt criticism of Roman Catholic and Anglican theologes is not unsl-arranted. Both traditions have, in the past, had extensive and relati\rel!- faithful dealings with Islam. However, recent attempts to address Islam from influential scholars in these two traditions haxre been soft. For example, in the D'Arcv Memorial Lectures at Campion Hall in Chford (20001, Thomas Michel, a renowned Jesuit scholar of IsIam and Secretan- for Interreligious Dialogue in Rome, addressing the divisive theological issues in Christian-Muslim dialogue, has suggested -naming .;r\.eraI other prominent theologians in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican traditions who virtually agree-that Christians might be able to recognize the prophethood of Muhammad, in some sense, as legitimate.' The Anglican Keith Ward has articulated in the first tome of his multi-volume tvork of systematic theology that, while there is ' Liichaei Schruer, ir!l~wial HliEnc: I-tlly the hkst is Losing the Mi~r o!z Terror ~Dulles, [-.I: Potornac. Books. 2171!1), 46. 1 I\lichaci Srl~ruer, Frrc-iigh Oilr E~temie.s' Eyes: Osnw hi71 Laden, Rnrlicnl islnrn, n~zii tllc F:- Memorial Lectures, 27 January2 March 2000, Campion Hall, &ford, ,:,!on: 5. F~t~t~i;ic~ is Gliest Professor of Hlrtoricizl Tlreolog!~ nt Concordia ?I:tl~l~~~lii71 SCIIIIIIC(T!I, Fort niryize, Indiana. something peculiar to the Christian revelation, the Quran-' could be considered to contain divine revelation.Qe days are long past when you could count on a Christian scholar to refer to the Quran's teachings as a collection of ancient heresies vomited up through Muhammad, as one medieval scholar and missionan1 to the Muslim world described it." One might wonder where Lutherans fit into the mix of Christian responses to Islam. While the subject is rarely covered, it should be known that we, too, have a long history in dealing with the challenge of Islam, dating all the way back to the sixteenth-century Reformation and Martin Luther. We also have our share of contemporary scholars on Islam,' but most of them are approaching or are already in retirement. This presents an enormous challenge for us, for Islam will continue to grow, if not through prosel>-tization, then through demographic growth. Since 1945, the number of Muslims across the world has quadrupled, and it shows no sign of dec1ine.n~ phenomenon is particularly worrisome xvhen one considers the shape of western Europe. Recent analyses suggest that by 2023 one-third of all children will be born to Muslim families, and, according to Mark Steyn's A?nericn Alone: The End of fllc IVorld as LVe Knoi~l It, bv 2030 the urban centers of Europe will be predominated b\- Muslims, which will be followed shortly thereafter by radical changes not just in demographics but political and legal ~tructures.~ Whether these gloomy predictions pan out remains to be seen. k'rlat is clear, however, is that Islam as a religious ideology is on the rise and will continue to grow as it is proliferated on the Internet and propagated by Muslim apologists, activists, and academics. The question is: Are we ready a I have opted, for ease of reading, not to use diacritical marks with transliterated Arabic words. 7 Keith \Yard, Reli@orl and Rm-elation: A 771eology of Re;,elati~711 !II the Ilbrlii's Religioli- (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 337. "ern-Marie Merigoux, "L'ouvrage d'un frere prkheur florentin en Orient a la tin du XlIIe sikle. Le Contru leg en^ Sarracenorunr de RiccoIdo da Monte di Croce," ,Wv~o~ie Domenicnne (IIUOZ'U serie) 15 (1986): 63. 7 For example, see James P. Dretke, A Cl~ristinn Approacl~ to &fl~ili?t~s: Rqflectio11.i .,~LvI: West Afiicn (Pasadena: William Carev Library, 1979); Roland E. %filler, rV11lsliril Frier~d;: The ~niti~ rind Feeling (St. Louis: ~oncbrdia Publishing House, 1995); and Miller, Musliir;~ nt~d the Goypel: Bridging the Gap (Minneapolis: Lutheran UniversiF Press, 2005). See C. George Fry, "The Witness of the Cross and the Islamic Crescent," in 771~ T71eologw of the Cross for the 21st Century: Signposts far a ~\fulticultrtrnl Witrrecs, ed. Alberto L. Garcia and A. R. Victor Raj (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2002), 83-102. " hlark Steyn, Attlerica Alone: 77~ End of the World a. LVe Klloi~, It (Il'ashington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2006). Francisco: Luther, Lutheranism and the Challenge of Islam 285 for the challenge of Islam? And, do we have the means to respond to this seenungly new challenge? Now, more than ever, we need to prepare ourselves to respond to this challenge not by borrowing trom the "Pillsbury Doughboy" mush of contemporary theology, but rather from the \.antage point of the timeless confession of the Christian church. This may not make us popular; certainly it will not be easy, but it is necessary. The intention for this essay is merely to describe Lutheranism's early tangle t\.ith Islam and then to make a giant leap fom-ard to consider the challenge that a~,aits Lutherans today. I. The Expansion of Islam Presumably fetr readers of this journal need to be convinced that IsIam poses a s~gnificant challenge to Christianity. It is true that, early in his career, Muhammad dissuaded his followers in hlecca from debating with Christians under the pretense that they and Muslims believed in the same prophets, scriptures, and God (Quran 29:46). After the prophet of Islam fled persecution and established political and religious hegemony in lledina, holyever, this early message of ambivalence toward other fa~ths xras abrogated and hluhammad was ordered, allegedly b! God, to cause Islam to prevail over all other religions (9:33). Shortly before lus death in AD 632, Muhammad reiterated this in a sermon when he recounted, "I ha\,e been commanded to fight against all people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) 1 am the messenger (from the Lord [i.e., AIIah]) and in all that I have brought."1Vollo~-ing their prophet's instructions, the burgeoning Muslim state perpetrated this mission throughout the Middle Ages. Thev did this not necessarily through forced conversion but political and the consequent legal mastery of non-3luslims. This tvas precisely what happened along the shores of the hlediterranean as much of Christian Byzantium suddenlv found itself dominated by Arab rulers and Islamic law. Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and most of North Africa all fell to Muslim conquerors by the early decades of the eighth century. And despite the best efforts of apologists such as John of Damascus (ca. 676-749), Theodore Abu Qurrah (ca. 750-820), and .? Si~iriir Mi~ilijr~, trans. Abdul Hamid Siddiqi (Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf. 1971- 19/5), 1:9.29-35; cf. Sniliil A/-Buklzari, trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan (Ri~adh: Darussalam, 1997, 1:2.24; and Muhammad ibn Cmar al-Waqidi, Kifilb $11-,\li;.~iin;i iOuiord: Odord Universicv Press, 1966), 3113. It should he noted that this mission to bring (through social, political, and military struggle [jihad]) the world unto submission (Islam) is ~e~etual, a~cording to Islamic law. See Mohammad Hashim Kamali, J)r;~lr;;lles c(15:iis,ii< J~iri$pr:idenie (Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 2003),2(37. others, the lands and people surrounding the Mediterranean were quickl!- Islamized. The first Fvave of Islamic expansion out of the Arabian Peninsula into the Levant and North Africa (as well as Spain in 711) was followed by a long period of imperial consolidation. It was also during this period that Islanlic law and theology were refined and formalized. One development in particular ~vith far-reaching consequences was the bifurcation of the c\~orld into two spheres - the house of Islam (dar al-lslanl) and the house of war (dar nl-l~ar-h). According to Ef~aim Karsh, As a universal religion, Islam envisages a global political order in ~chich all humankind will live under Muslim rule as either believers or subject communities. In order to achieve this goal it is incumbent on all free, male, adult hluslims to carry out an uncompromising struggle 'in the pat11 of Allah,' or jihad. This in turn makes those parts of the world that have not !et been conquered by the House of Islam an abode of permanent conflict . . . which will only end with Islam's triumph." The tr\-o greatest medieval Islamic empires-the Umayyads who ruled from Damascus between 661 and 750 and the Abbasids who ruled from Baghdad up until 1258-failed to realize fully the goal of global political hegemony. In fact, it seemed as if Muhammad's mission and the mission of Islam rvere forever lost when descendents of Ghengis Khan made their wav into Muslim heartlands in the thirteenth centur).. This caused a fundamental restructuring of the seemingly monolithic Islantic Middle East, as various dynasties vied for power in the lands formerly ruled b>- the Abbasids. fie most sign~ficant dynasty to emerge from the chaos of the hlongolian onslaught was the house of the Turkish warlord named Osman (1258- 1326). Osman and his tribe had settled in the eastern parts of modem day Turkey, strategically positioning themselves between the house of Islam and \vhat was left of Byzantium. This was intentional, for Osman and his descendents - known as the Ottomans - were gaxs - that is, Islamic warriors-charged with expanding the house of Islam. From the earl!- 1300s, after experiencing initial success in their expansion through Asla Minor, the Ottoman Turks saw themselves as a people specially "chosen to " Efraim Karsh, 1.slamic Ti~~per~nli~~r~: A Histoy (New Haven: Yale Cniversity Press. 2006), 62. Francisco: Luther, Lutheranism and the Challenge of Islam 287 act as Allah's sword 'blazing forth the way of Islam from the East to the M'est.'"l' The Ottoman Turks first made their way into Europe across the Dardanelles onto the GaIIipoli Peninsula in 1348 and from there began their conquest of the Balkans. While they had estabIished hegemony in Asia Minor, and were beginning to do so in southeastern Europe, they had yet to conquer Constantinople Protected by the enormous Theodosian walls, the ancient Roman capital still remained in the hands of Christianity, and would remain so for nearly a century until the descendent of Osman and Turkish sultan Mehmet I1 (1431-1481), who $,led himself as the "leader of Holy War against Christianity,"lj extinguished the Byzantine Empire once and for all in 1453. While Mehmet continued to push the borders of the Turkish Empire further into the Balkans towards central Europe, and even into Italy, he was most responsible for laying the foundations for what Bernard Lewis calls the "great iilrid par excellnzce" on Europe.14 The Ottoman Turkish jihad on Europe reached a head three months after the conclusion of the diet of Worms when the Serbian city of Belgrade was besieged and occupied by Muslim forces in the summer of 1521. Nicknamed the gate to the domain of jihad-or, according to the Turks, dariilcikatl7-the Muslims continued to launch their assaults into the eastern horizon of western Europe under the leadership of sultan Siilevman (1320-1366) and his descendents over the next 150 years until, afte; a centuq- of gradual decline, they were definitively defeated at I'ienna, for a second time, on September 11-12,1683. 11. Luther and Islam It was the dawn of the first siege on Vienna, in 1529, that provided the impetus for Martin Luther (1483-1546) and the early Lutherans to begin to respond to the challenge of Islam. While their context was much different -- :: Halil Inalcik, "The Rse of the Ottoman Empire," in A History of the Otto~nn?r Etr!pire r:, 1730. ed. M. A. Cook (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 17; cf. Kiirsh, Islnvzi I7nperiaii2--1~1, 88; and Norman Itzkowitz, Ottonmn Empire and Islnrnic TraliLticln (yew York: -4lfred A. Knopf, 1972), 38. 3 Stanford J. Shaw, Etnpire of the Guzis: T~E Rig nnd Decline of the Ottottinn Et71pire Histuq, 1280-1 808 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 60-61. '4 Bernard Lewib, lslnrn ~rrld the West (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 10. Allen Hertz, ".VusIirns, Christians and Jews in Sixteenth-Cent? Belgrade," in Tire b11rt:lni Effecrs c?f tile Islamic and ludeo-Christian Worlds: n~e East Europenn Pattert~, ed. .kbraharn Asche~, Tibor Halasi-Kun, and &la Kirdy (New York: Brooklyn College Press, 1979),149. than ours, there is much that is relevant in the early Lutheran response to the expansion of Islam. They faced similar issues to ~vhat we are facing today: the rise of ideologically inspired violence, an unprecedented level of awareness and contact between Christians and Muslims, and a breakdo\\-n in the unity of Judeo-Christian civilization while facing a resurgent Islanilc civilization. So a sun7ey of Luther's response to the challenge of Islam \\-ill hopefully be not only interesting but also instructive.'" Martin Luther was keenly aware of the expansion of lslam into central Europe, particularly as Muslim armies appeared, as he put it, on the doorstep of Germany.17 Martin Brecht has even suggested that lus n-ritings are a "treasure chest" of information on how the Turks and Islam lvere perceived in the first half of the sixteenth century.lC The first \cork in which he assessed the affront lslam posed to Europe and Christianity \\-as his 011 Ltbr agaitrst the Turk.19 The chief purpose for this little book \\.as to explain his position on whether or not German Christians could endorse a military response to Turkish encroachment in central Europe. Xpparentl!. many within the nascent protestant movement were advocating pacifism and appeasement as word spread that the Ottomans \\-ere more tolerant of religious diversity than the Catholic Habsburgs. Luther nevertl~eless responded by arguing that, first, Christian Europe should stand up to Turkish imperialism in a defensive war led by secular officials, and, second, Germans should not be duped by alleged reports of tolerance amongst the Turks. It was true, he wrote, that Christians Icere not physically coerced into conversion; but restrictions on external expressions of Christianie as well as the subjugation of non-Muslims as second-class citizens or dhi!nvri would gradually lead to the extinction of Christianity.:- In the middle of his argument for a resolute w-ar against the Turks, Luther also offered a brief but penetrating analysis and crit~yue of Islam. Based on excerpts of the Quran that he found in medieval polen~ical l@ An extensive analysis can be found in Adam S. Francisco, .\lnrtiir 1.1if11~r I~II!~ Jdii?~;' .A Sfriiiu irl S;xf~erlBl-Cetltury POI~IIII'CF rind Apvlvgetic~ (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 20071. " \VX 30.11:207. 1' Ilartin Brecht, "Luther und die Turken," in Europa rtrld die Tiirkcli ill ,it,r R~7)1;7issn!i;~. ed. Bodo Guthrniiller and Wilhelm Kuhlman (Tiibingen: XIay Xiemeyer Verlag, ZClOill, 9-27. 1' See L1V46:137-205. 2'- On dhimmitude, see Bat Ye'or's 77ze Dl~i?rlnzi: ]CL.~L>.; 17rlil CI1~i+fi;7115 lii~:ler k1171!! (Rutheriord: Fairleigh Dickenson University Press, 1983) and Jslnir: n11~f D/li~ilf!it:iii~': It71er~ Cii~iliintiails Collide (Madison/Teaneck: Fairleigh Dickinson L:ni\.ersie Press, 2002). Francisco: Luther, Lutheranism and the Challenge of Islam 289 narks, he focused on the basic theolop of the Quran as it related to Christianitx-. Interestingly, he began positively, noting that the Quran spoke highly of Christ and Mary, but he quickly explained that this \\-as no real point of theologcal convergence, for according to Luther, Islam totally re-enxrisions the person and work of Christ. It views Christ as a mere human prophet n7ho was sent to reiterate the revelation first delivered to Adam, through all the prophets after him (especially Moses), until the aborignal message of Islam was definitively reasserted hy Muhammad and \-ouchsafed in the Quran. Thus, for a Muslim, whle "the office of Christ has come to an end," Luther noted, "Muhammad's office is still in force.''-' In short, Luther argued that the mission of Islam xvas chiefly to supplant all other religions." rhe universal message of Islam was not just theological, though, Luther argued. It 11-as also political, and, as was the case with virtually all historical empires, was often expressed \,iolently. The difference with "Islamic imperialism," as Efraim Karsh has termed it,'? was that these religiously-motivated expansionistic designs \\.ere clearly endorsed in the Quran. Unlike Christianity, which expanded "by preachng and the irorking of miracles," Islam had grown chiefly "by the sword and bv m~rder."'~ To top his analysis off, Luther also described the domestic relationships of \IusIims, particularly between men and women, and characterized them as unchaste, unstable, and repressive. After reading passages from Quran 2 hepnning at verse 223 where wives are described as fields for their husbands plou-ing and ending at the rather loose Quranic divorce larvs (228-237), he argued that the Quran held marriage and women ~vith little regard. Because a woman never has any certainty or stahilit?. in her marital relation ~vith her husband-for men can divorce their wives by simply declaring it to be so-he called Islamic marriage non-marriage (Llueile). Such a lax attitude toward divorce and lack of commitment to their M omen resembled, he wrote, the "chaste life soldiers lead with their harlots 'I3 Summarizing what he considered to be the essence of Islam, Ll1~46:17i; \YA 30.11:122. '1 %e ill. 46:176-178; \%'A 30.11:122-123. Cf. Robert Spencer, Die Trlttli 87bo1it .\Ililzn~r!~r:nd: F~liilrdrr of tjre C%'orldri. Most lntolemllt Religior! (Lanham, hlD: Regnerl; Press, 200tr). '3 The phrase appear. as the title of his book, Efraim Karsh, IsIot11;r In~perii~;:c~ri: A H:rti (Sex\- Ha\-en: Yale University Press, 2006). 2J LL1-46:17S-181; 11-A 30.11:123-126, " L1IT46:151-132; M-A 30.11:126-127. Luther then concluded that Muslims were destroyers, enemies, and blasphemers of our Lord Jesus Christ, men who instead of the gospel and faith set up their shameful Muhammad and all kinds of lies, ruining all temporal government and home life or mamage.26 What Luther disclosed from the Quran about Islam in On War izgainsf the Turk was seemingly verified shortly after its publication when the Turks finally reached the gates of Vienna. Although the siege ultimately failed, shockwaves were sent throughout Europe as news of the execution, enslavement, and conscription of Christians circulated in broadsheets and through word of mouth. This, coupled with numerous reports of conversions to Islam, increased the sense of urgency, thereby prompting Luther to write his second work relative to Islamic expansion entitled Ant~y Sernlon against the Turk.2; While the first half of this work has received scholarly attention in order to illuminate Luther's conviction that the rise of the Ottomans was prophesied by Danie1,Z ~vhat has not been thoroughly investigated is the second part. In it Luther offers pastoral instruction to Christians who might, in the future, find themselves living among Muslin~s in dar al-Islam or, as he called it, Mnlzometiscl~ Reiiil. The first bit of advice Luther gave was catechetical. Because one could not expect to have a pastor, the Scriptures, or evangelical literature, he urged all Christians, especially those who risked being caught behind enemy lines (such as soldiers and those living in the Habsburg frontier), to learn at least the basics of the faith-the Apostles' Creed, Ten Commandments, and Lord's Prayer. Wlat was particularly essential, though, especiallv if one was living among Muslims, was the Second Article of the Creed. Not only would this article of the Creed serve to nurture one's faith, but its historical data also provided all that was needed to defend one's faith. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this work is Luther's advice that Christians finding themselves in Ottoman lands should not attempt to flee, but rather they should accept their fate and, while constantly reminding themselves of their righteousness before God in Christ, should strive to do their best to love and serve the Turks and seek ways to bear witness to Christ as a missionary sent to the Muslim not by the church but through historical circumstances by God himself.29 20 Llt746:19S; WA 30.11:139. 1- See \VA 30_II:160-197. 2:: See John T. Baldwin, "Luther's Eschatological Appraisal of the Turkish Threat in Eine Heerpredigt rt~ider den Tiirken," Andrms Unizrersily Semiiln~ Studies 33 (1995): 185- 202. 2' \I'A 30.11:185-195. Francisco: Luther, Lutheranism and the Challenge of Islam 291 It is clear from the Anny Sermon uguillst the Turk that Luther thought Christian interaction ~rith Islam was ins-itable. Thus, he and hs colleagues sought to keep on top of Ottoman affairs. In 1330, he published a fifteenth-centun- account of the life and customs of the Turks (which modem hstorians consider to be the most important record of affairs in late rnediel~al Turkey).30 His colleagues translated, from Italian, a history of the Turk~sh sultans from Osman until Siileyman.31 Other than this, the republications of the Anny Sermon agai~zst the Turk and On Mhr agrrlr~st the Tzcrk, and the drafting of some appeals for prayer, Luther failed to offer any further responses to Islam. This was due to two factors. First, although there %\.ere a few episodes of Turkish aggression in the 13305, for most of the decade Siileyman and the Sunni Ottomans had to deal with the Shia Safavid empire in Persia. Second, Luther M-as, for the times, unusually careful with hat he said about Islam, and wanted to wait until he could get his hands on a copy of the Quran before he dealt with Islam again." Much to Luther's expressed delight, the University of Wittenberg's library received a copy of the Quran in Latin translation on Shrove ~uesda? (21 Februay) of 1542.33 The occasion afforded him the opportunity finally to engage Islam at its source. He did so not by composing a new polemic or apologetic from scratch, but by translating, paraphrasing, and assimilating the work of a Dominican missionan named Riccoldo da hlonte di Croce (1243-1320) in his coarse German under the title Refictntion of the Q~ran.~ He did so for practical and apologetic reasons, to equip Christians faced with Islam. "M'hat I have I\-ritten, I do for this reason," Luther wrote, "whether ths little book arrives through print or the mouth of preachers struggIing against the Turk, I n-rite that those who are now or in the future under the Turk might protect themselves against Muhammad's faith, even if they are not able to protect themselves against his sword."3i By exposing the errors of the Quran, and thus Islam, in a negative apologetic, Luther was convinced that -, - i:i.d/ii; ,lr R:trr et ?.Icribris Turcor~tm, ed. Marhn Luther (Wittenberg: Ham Luiit, 15301. See Gecrgius dr Hungaria, Tmctntus de itloribu5, Condiitiot~ibul; e! .\-p?riicicr 7 1 ;~.rcor~irfl-Tnrkt.~f ~iber dfe S;tte?~, Jie Lebensz3erhnltnisie lrrril die Arglist der EirXef: (1481 i, ed. and tran;. Reinhard Klockow (Koln: BohIau Verlag, 1993). - See Paolo Giovio, Ur.sprung des Turkisclwn Reichs bis nuffden itzige~i Soly~nnti, trans. Justue. Jonas (Augsburg: Steiner, 1538), and Turcicnr~rln rerum iomvre~~tarir~s, trans. Francisco Xegri ({Gttenberg: Klug. 1537). ?: 11-A 30.11:205, :> \$--a 53272, See \\-A 53:2;2-396. - - -.: \\-A 53:392, German Christians would find their faith strengthened. He also hoped, confessing the difficulty, that through a positive apologetic those who had been "led astrav .. bv this law [the Quran] might return back to God.";" The methodology of Luther's Refutation of the Qwm~ 1s remarkable for several reasons. First, the Reformer adopted and employed a similar methodology as proposed by Thomas Aquinas and the Dominican scholastic school of apologetics, briefly summarized bs John Tolan as. expose and destroy error first before arguing for the truth.:- In Luther's words, "One must not deal with them [that is, Xiuslims] at first bj asserting and defending the high articles of our faith . . . but adopt this way and manner: take and diligently work ~vith their Quran, demonstrating their law to be false and unsubstantiated."'~ Once this l\.as accomplished, then the Christian could begin to offer evidence for the truth of the Christian religion. It is this aspect of Luther's me tho do lo^ that is even more noteworthv, for the Reformer based his defense of the gospel on key passages of the Quran and by appealing to common sense. To destroy the foundation upon which Islam stands, Luther started his refutation by launching a full frontal assault on the Quran. Muhamn~ad, he began, did not provide any evidence-either by performing a verifiable miracle or pointing to a legtimate prophecy-to vindicate his status of a prophet, unlike Christianity r~~hich was "established with veritiable and significant miraculous signs."'9 The Quran likewise Lvas full of internal contradictions. Passages inciting Muslims to treat non-hluslims kindly (29:46) are contrasted with those that incite them to make il-ar upon them (9:29), just as are passages that claim Christians and Jews Ivill be saved (2:62) and others that claim the opposite (3:19). Follo\\~ing on, Luther also charged that Islam was not just irrational, as the Latin text from which he paraphrased read, but "beastly and swinish,"4" dran-ing attention primarily to Muhammad's condoning of violence, his open adulten, and especially the Quran's licentious description of paradise." In addition to its -- + \$-A ;3:278. ,- On the Dominican apologetic strategy, see John V. Tulan, Scin7i?rz.;: Idi71~i it? !T!E .\?E~~!E;II[ EIIIUPCAII Iiiznginatio~l (Nexj- York: Columbia U~uversit!- Press, 20021, 237-135. -'5 IYA 33:2&. '" \.\'A 33312. 4' \VA 33:312; cf. WA 53:311. 4: One sixteenth-century Quranic commentator went so far as to describe paradise for men as follo~vs: "Each time we sleep with a houri [a young t\.oman] I\-e find her \ irgin. Resides, the penis of the Elected never soitens. The erection is eternal; the sensation that you ieel each time you make love is utterly delicious and out of this xvorld and \\-ere you Francisco: Luther, Lutheranism and the Challenge of Islam 293 contradictions and irrationality, the Quran also contained several factual errors such as its insinuation that Christ's mother Mary was the sister of Moses' brother Aaron (19:29). The sigruficance of tlus error was not simply that it \\-as so obviously untrue, but, according to Luther, it was placed there purposely, through some sort of dil~ine intervention, to make it easy for anyone reading the Quran to be convinced that it was not from God.42 After berating Muhammad and the Quran even further for its endorsement of the violent propagation of the faith and unjust description of God's nature, Luther rounded out hs attack by exposing the spurious history of the Quranic text, drawing particular attention to missing portions of it still referenced by modern scholars as well as the curious history behind the con~pilation of the authorized version under Uthman ibn Affan (380-656) the third caliph of I~lam.~' After finishing what Philipp Melanchthon referred to as a "useful and pious dispute against the insane Muhammadans,"& Luther continued his apologetic even further, challenging Muslims to "recopze and convert to the truth."Ai Interestingly, and seemingly counter-intuitive, he based his case upon \\-hat he thought was prima fficie evidence derived from the Quran itself, for Luther was convinced that it expressed, although unwittingly, the doctrines of the deity of Christ and tri-unitv of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Even more surprisingly, Luther - making his own theological additions to the medieval text he was working from- suggested that the Holy Spirit had "driven Muhammad to express the highest articles of our faith."% Although Luther often asserted that the Spirit's work was only objectively knowable through the external means of ~vord and sacrament, the conservative Reformer did not restrict his activity. The eminent Luther scholar Bernard Lohse remarked that, apart from soteriology, Luther maintained that the "Spirit is present and at work to experience it in this world you would faint. Each chosen one marry seventy houris, besides the women he married on earth, and all >\.ill have appetising vagnas." See Ibn IVarraq, "Virgins? \\%at \.'irgins?" The Guardian, January 12,2002. -2 kV.4 533% 43 See, for example, lane Damrnen McAuliffe, ed., S71e Catnbridge Corrlpi~r~ioti tile (2zir'irl (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 23-39,41-37,J9-73. Phlipp >lelanchthc.n, Opera quw supersurlt onznia, ed. Carolus Gottlieb Bretschneider, 28 vols. (Halis Saxonurn: C. A. Schwetschke, 1841-1860), 480;. For 4lelanchthon's attitude tolrards and work on Islam, see .Manfred Kohler, Melarlclttllot~ ii~id tr Isia??l: E:'n Beifrag zur Klarung ties Verhalhisses ZU?itten over a thousand years the message remained the same from Genesis 335 through the prophets up until its fulfillment in Christ and proclamation in the epistles. lloreo\.er, the testimon?, of the prophets, Christ himself, the apostles, and even the church fathers, he argued, was backed by the testirnon!. of miracles. Lastlt , if one just compared the life of Christ to that of hluhamnlad the!. ~vould certainl!, see the superiority of Christianity. T uther's polemical apologetic against Islam is quite different than \\vhat one might expect from the man who, two decades earlier, had ~vritten, "Hot17 should rz7e present our case if a Turk were to ask us to gi~ e reason for our faith? . . . We would have to be silent . . . and drect him to the Holv 4' Bernard Lohe, Martill lltfller's 7'J~eol~)gy: Its Hi.iforiclr1 ~71ic: S!~it~~~r!~it:: DL-;.t~ic:~rl:L?it, trans. Roy Harrisville (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), 23i. Francisco: Luther, Lutheranism and the Challenge of Islam 295 Scriptures as the basis for our faith."% M"ni1e it appears as if he mav have abandoned hs earlier convictions, what seems to ha~~e happened is that he soon realized that, as far as Muslims are concerned, one rvas not engaged in inter-Christian polemics, but as he suggested in his Galatians commentan, "another area" -an area in rvhich the Christian did not share the same common ground as the Muslim. One must therefore "use all . . . cleverness and effort and be as profound and subtle a controversialist as pos~ible."'~ Perhaps the greatest legacy that Luther left behind with regard to Islam r\.as his involvement in a controversy over the publication of the Quran in Base1 in 1542 and 1543.'Wespite attempts to suppress its printing br- the citv counsel, Luther argued that, in folloiving the example of the church fathers and so that Christians in his day would be prepared to be "lion hearts" in the~r defense of the gospel, the Quran had to be published so that everyone could read it for thern~elves.~l Publication of the Quran was essential for the apologetic task. Therefore, in addition to his letter of support, wherein he warned that if Base1 continued to censor the work he would find a press in Wittenberg for its publication, Luther (as nrell as Xfelanchthon) drafted a preface for the forthcoming book. Finally, in early 1543, the Quran-along with several traditional Islamic texts, historical rt-orks, and polemical treatises-left the press." For the first time Christian scholars had easy access to it, as Luther envisioned, so that further study could take place In order to prepare for engagement with Islam, whether it be in the studv of a scholar in Turkey where "perhaps God r\.ould call some of the irks out of their darkness through their trained Christian caphvcs," or at the \ ery least to strengthen Christians experiencing doubts (A?~.feii~fung) tvhile living amongst Muslims.'' Much more could be said about Luther and Islam. One thing is clear, nonetheless, even though he was relatively removed from Islam-in tact, he never once met a hluslim, although he did decline an opportunitv for an audience rvith sultan Siileyman-Luther found time, amidst his numerous other activities, to study Islam. He had no choice. He knew from '5 Lit'32:lO; L1-A 7315. i' Llt'26:29-30; \VA -10.1:78. -. -. On the control-ers!-, see Harry Clark, "The Publication of the Koran in Latin: A Reformation Dilemma," Sisteel~th Cerltlrry Journnl 15 (19Plj: 3-13. ': \\.AB: lO:162, See Hartmut Bobzin, Der Koran irn Zpitirlter dcr Rqt;7r)1~iltion (Beirut: Franz Steiner \-erlag, 1993), 153-275. 3 \\-.A J3:571. its history and ideology hotv aggressive it was, and so he did xx-hat he could to disperse information and prepare those t~~honi he called his "dear Germans" to respond to the challenge of Islam. 111. Lutheranism and Islam Today \$-hat about us? illat sort of conclusions might 1X.e arrlve at concerning Islam? Does it reall!. present as big of a challenge to Christianlti- as Luther thought7 It might be helpful to cover its basic motifs relative to the faith Ive proie55 so as to get a taste for a theology that we \\-ill inevital.1~- tace. Naturally, anv assessment of Islam should begin rvith thc Quran. -4s many of us no doubt knorv, 3luslims consider the Quran to be the \\-ord of God. -4 felt. passages from its rather esoteric text suggest that it has existed for all eternity, but to lead human beings "out of the depths ~i darkness into light" (14:l) it entered the world, descended upon, and tias deli\-erec? orall\- though from 610 to 632 (13139, 97:l-5). Thus, devout Muslims toda!- take the Quran to be the perfectly preserved, untreated, !-et inscripturated. word of God. The central theological motif of the Quran is the unicit~- of God - this ii. knon~n as the doctrine of taiclrici. In a passage said to encapsulate one-third of all Islamic doctrine, the Quran instructs hIuslinis to coidess that, in addition to being one, God is also the eternal, incomparable, sustainer nf all humankind (112:l--1). Mlile this may at first seein compatible Lvith Christian teachings about the nature of God, ths passage goes one step further and forever divorces Islam from Cluistian theism b!- asserting that he "begets not." Elsekvhere and more yoignantly it addresses Cluistian theology specifically ~vhen it commands: "Do not say lor cont'ess the] 'Trinitv' . . . for Allah is one God" (4:171), for the teaching that three persons comprise the one divine essence of God is i-ietved. at best, as a subtle form of polytheism-known as sltirk or associating partners to God - in the Quran. No~vhere is the Quran's challenge to Christianity clearer tlian its treatment of the person and tvork of Christ. hlile it iilaintains that Cluist \\.as born of n virgin (19:20-21), it flatly denies that he tvas the son oi God, and claims that it is not fitting for God to have a son (19:35, 91), describing the doctrine of the incarnation as a "monstrous" assertion (19:P9). Explaining the logic of this, it rhetorically asks, "Hotv can He have a son t~yhen He has no consort" (6:lOO-101)? "Exalted is the $lajest\- of: our Lord: He has taken neither a wife nor a son" (723). To be sure, as man!- note, Christ is rexlered in the Quran, but it is the Christ ot the Quran-tvho is Francisco: Luther, Lutheranism and the Challenge of Islam 297 onlv a messenger of God (1:171, 575)-not the historic Christ revealed in the Scriptures. If this Icere not troubling enough, the Quran even denies that Christ ivas crucified. Instead, it claims that someone who looked like him took his place while he ascended into heaven to await his return on the Day of judgment (1:137-159). Despite the contradiction with both the biblical and extra-biblical historical record, that Christ was not crucified is of no consequence to a SIuslim, for the Quran denies that human beings are inherentlv sinful and, furthermore, that sins need to be expiated. IYhile &\darn and Eve did fall prey to temptation in the Quran, they were inunediatel! absolved and forpven (2:36-38, 7:23-24). Neither the!- nor their descendents fell under the curse of sin and the law-." Rather, God simply and capriciously forgives sins as he ~vills (11:90; 3953-56), and humans earn their salvation by submitting themselves to God and doing good (4:125,11:33). Complimenting this rather low view of sin, or at least of the consequences of sin, the Quran has a very high view of humankind. All human beings are born in a state of righteousness, and, according to their nature (fitra!, predisposed to worship the god of Islam (30:30). Therefore, according to Islamic anthropology, every human being brought into the ~vorld is a Muslim. It is only the misguided nurturing of their parents (and other influences) that turn them from it.55 This motif that Islam is the aboriginal religion of humanity and histon is prominent in the Quran. All the prophets beginning with Adam through Sloses unto Jesus, Muslims allege, proclaimed essentially the same message that Muhammad preached. "God sent down to you (step bv step), in truth, the Quran, confirming what went before it; and He sent d;ivn the Torah (of 3Ioses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion [the Quran]" (3:3, 9:111). Despite the obvious contradictions, however, Muhammad did not start a new religion, the @ran claims. Instead, he revived the relipon of Sioses and Jesus, \xrl~ose messages had been corrupted (tahrifl by Jexvs and Christians 1%-ho purposelv altered the biblical text and skewed the message of Sloses and esus. -rhLs, God sent Muhammad to reiterate what truth \\-as left in - -- 'A See George Anal%-ati, "La Notion de "Phche Originel" Existe-t-elle dans I'Islam?," 5t:i'iiil 1~iar~iic~1 31 (19701, 2940, and Johan Bouman, Gott rcn~i \le?lsiii in Kor:r?l i Dam~stadt: I\-issenschaftliche Buchgesellxhaft, 19771. ::<.r.. ,,B -.~ri:ii .?!- 1:. ;li7ri, 6:61l.298. the Judeo-Christian tradition and to secure the full revelation of God once and for all in the Quran. This, obviously, is a polarizing view of Islam, but it is also a necessaq one, for theologically speaking there are very few commonalities -and certainly no meaningful ones-between Christianity and Islam. The debate that seems to be taking place among Evangelicals of eve? strlpe over whether Christians and Muslims worship the same God- because thev are both monotheistic-is sorely misguided.56 Those Lutherans who ~~ould attribute such a view to Luther, based on an erroneously translated tett,s- seem to be revealing more about their own theology rather than Luther's. In fact, in On Wkr againsf fhe Turk, Luther idenidies Allah as the devil.=Vt must be recalled that the god in the Quran has not and, in tact, cannot beget a son whereas the God of Christianity is the God who did beget a Son and it is only this Son who reveals the one true God. Clearly IsIam presents a significant theological challenge to Christianitx- (not to mention the political and demographic challenges). So how should we respond? First, we must not underestimate or misunderstand what we now face. Make no mistake, Islam is expanding, even into the \Vest. Sl'hile much of its growth is due to high birth rates and immigration, conversions are occurring as well. The reasons behind this phenomenon are plentiful. Certainly attacks on the authority of the Scriptures, disregard-if not contempt-for orthodox doctrine (especially concerning the Trinit!,, Christology, and the depravity of humanity), and others waged by those who are often regarded as the intellectual elite (for example, Bart Ehrman and Elaine Pagels) coupled with similar assaults launched by Islam (especially the corruption of the Bible [tahrifl, rejection of the deity of Christ, denial of the Trinity) resonate well with those whose faith has already been weakened or those who have lapsed into cynicism. Regardless of the causes, the best we can do is to circumvent this by, one, exposing the errors of Islam and, two, rigorously defending the veracity of 3 See Timothy George, IS tl~ Fnther of Jesus the God of Mulmi~unnd: Uililerstnr~dii~g tlrc Differences betrrleeiz Clln'stinnify and Islntn (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002); Mateen Elass, LIilderstnilding the Koran: A Quick Clln'stinrl Guide to t/le Muslirtl Holy Book (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2W); Colin Chapman, Cross and Crescent: Respondiilg to the Chnllenge qf lslaiir (Do~vners Grove. IL: Intervarsity Ress, 2003); and Norman L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb. Atzs;c.ering Islnui: 172e Crescent in Light oftlze Cross (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2002). -- 2, See the exhaustive work of Edward Engelbrecht, One Trlie God: U~:~ierstn~i~iilig Lilrge Cntechism 11. 66 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2007). 3 See, for example, LW46:184 (WA 30.11:129) and LW121:102 (M'A 32.384). Francisco: Luther, Lutheranism and the Challenge of Islam 299 Christianitx-. Luther himself expressed this in his preface to the 13-13 edition of the Quran: All this should not be thought of lightly especially by those of us lvho teach in the church. We ought to fight everywhere with the armies of the devil. Horv many varieties of enemies have w7e seen in this age of ours? . . . \Ye must prepare ourselves now against Muhammad. But M-hat are 15-e able to say about things of which we are ignorant? Hence, it is useful for those rvho are experienced to read the scriptures of the enemy in order to accurately refute, damage, and destroy them so that the!- might be capable to correct anyone, or surely to strengthen our people x%-ith solid arguments.-'" Moreover, Luther argued that those Christians who were caught behind enemy lines - in Maltornetisc~~ Reich - were not to run or separate themseh.es from the 15uslims; rather, he instructed them to accept their fate as subjects (and neighbors) of the Turks, and, in doing so, to lox-e and 5erx.e them in the same way that they ~~~ould their neighbors back in German\-. In the tlventy-first century, Muslims are now- found anlong us, many coimi~~g here to escape Middle Eastern despotism and liolence. True, some have revolutionary and evil designs," and they must be dealt with even as the violent and rebellious peasants had to be dealt with during Luther's dal- (1324-1525). We are also, howexw, to be ready, \\*illing, and able to approach our hluslim neighbors, colleagues, and iriends as neighbors, colleagues, and friends. We are, moreover, to approach them as those r\-ho, like all others, desperately need to hear God's rvord of la~v and gospel so that, as Luther hoped, God will call some from their darkness through Christians rrho have been instructed to respond to the challenge of Islam.": Luther himself had hopes of this. In a conversation he had with his successors at his home, he expressed, "I hope dearlv to see the day xrhen the gospel will come to the Muslims, as is now a real possibility. It is not likely that I will see the day. But you might, and then i70u will ha1.e to deal rvith them carefullv."6' God grant that we fulfill ~uther's ~vish-and indeed that of God, M-ho desires-that all humans would be sal~ed-and begin to approach this tremendous challenge by witnessing without '+ \VA J3:372. - See especially Ste\.en Emerson, Iihnri Incorpornte~i: A Guide to Mi2itn11t I~--inlr~ ill ti!? US I .Amherst, 17: Prometheus Books, 2006). -1 \\-.A 53:Tl. -1 \\.ATR 3:221, comprise to the gospel of Christ - the crucified and risen One - ~vith grace, charity, and love.