Apostasy

The Right to Religious Conversion: Between Apostasy and Proselytization

Kroc Institute Occasional Paper #27:OP:1

(August 2006)

A.Rashied Omar Research Scholar of Islamic Studies and Peacebuilding Joan B. Kroc Institute for InternationalPeace Studies University of Notre Dame

Introduction^*

Inthe Spring of2006 an Afghan citizen, AbdulRahman, who had converted from Islam to Christianity was arrested under local shari`ah law which mandates the death penalty for apostasy. As a result of international pressure Abdul Rahman was released and given asylum in Italy.<sup>1</sup> This widely publicized incident highlighted the urgent need for Muslims to seriously re­examine the restrictive shari`ah laws on apostasy. It is unfortunate, however, that this case took place inthe war ravaged context ofAfghanistan, where relief aid for the victims of war is dispensed by Christian agencies some with a primarily evangelistic agenda. A similar program of aid evangelism has been undertaken in war­tornIraq. The activities ofsuchgroups have reinvigoratedthe debate over whether it is ethical for philanthropical activities and humanitarian service to be undertaken with the primary intent to proselytize. The legitimacyof religious conversion and the ethics of mission are challenging issues. But theyare also pertinent issues that should form part of an honest dialogical encounter between Christians and Muslims, since they have important implications for conflict transformationand interreligious peacebuilding.

Taking this conflict as its point of departure this paper argues that both the prevailing Muslim positions on apostasy and Christian engagement in aid with the primaryintent ofevangelismgenerate a harmfulenvironment for Christian­Muslim

^* Dr.A. Rashied Omar isan ImamfromSouth AfricaandResearchScholar ofIslamicStudiesand Peacebuildingat the UniversityofNotre Dame. He serves as a facultyadvisor tothe Kroc Institute’s Program in Religion, Conflict and Peacebuildingand isan Associate ofthe Salam Institute for Peace and Justice anda Trustee ofthe Council for a Parliament oftheWorld’s Religions.

relations and interreligious peacebuilding. The paper concludes bychallenging Christians

and Muslims committed to interreligious dialogue to go beyond mere declarations of the right of any individual to change his or her religion and decrying the use of inappropriate means to entice the personto switchhis/her faith. The deeper challenge is to find creative

ways of making such affirmations a key part of the modus vivendi of convivial relations betweenthe two communities. It might be usefulto commence byre­visiting the question ofreligious conversion inthe context ofChristian­Muslimdialogue.

Religious Conversion as a Source of Conflict

The problem of the right to religious conversion and the ethics of Christian mission and Islamic da`wah² has been a longstanding topic of debate in interreligious dialogue. The subject was considered at length during a meeting between Christian and Muslim scholars and leaders in Chambesy, Switzerland in 1976.³ Since then, the issue has been raised intermittently, most notably at a Christian­Muslim Consultation on “Religious Freedom, Community Rights and Individual Rights” sponsored by the Interreligious Office of the World Council of Churches (WCC) at the Duncan MacDonald Center for the Study of Islam and Christian­Muslim Relations in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1999.⁴ More recently, the question has resurfaced at a number of interreligious forums. For example, at the “Critical Moment in Interreligious Dialogue Conference” convened by the WCC in Geneva from 7­9 June 2005, the problem of religious conversion and the ethics of mission was raised as one of the most divisive issues betweenreligious communities.⁵

BothChristianand Muslim scholars of interreligious relations share concerns over

the right to conversion and the ethics of mission. Elizabeth Scantlebury, for example, has argued that the matter of Christian mission and Islamic da`wah is central to the negative model of interaction between the followers of the two religions.⁶ Similarly, the Muslim thinker and scholar Seyyed Hossein Nasr observed that “one of the most contentious issues in the dialogue between Islam and Christianity is missionary activity.” He goes on to describe it as one of the obstacles and outstanding problems in Islamic­Christian dialogue.⁷ While for many Muslims, Christian mission is the obstacle, for Christians according to the Evangelical scholar, J. Dudley Woodberry, the concern is in the area of religious freedom, and inparticular the right ofMuslims to convert fromIslam.

The question of changing or disseminating one’s religion is not only a source of tension and distrust between Christians and Muslims it is also a bone of contention between Christians, Muslims and other religious communities in diverse parts of the world. In India, for example, religious conversion and Christian evangelism are viewed as sources of deadly conflict. The widespread violence directed against Christians in India, a direct result of Hindu protests against religious conversion, is documented in the Human Rights Watch Report (1999), Politics by Other Means: Attacks Against Christians in India.⁸

Explicating the conflict over the right to religious conversion, the Montreal­based philosopher of religion, Arvind Sharma, states that “most modern Hindus are opposed to the idea of conversion, from one religion to another per se.” He further argues that “the Hindu view of religious freedom is not based on the freedomto proselytize, but the right to retain one’s religion and not be subject to proselytization.” ⁹ A similar viewpoint is

expressed by Swami Agnivesh, a renowned interreligious activist and the president of

Arya Samaj, an international Hindu revivalist movement. Agnivesh confirms Sharma’s position, arguing, “It is the prevalent view of most Hindu thinkers, including Mahatma Gandhi, who was known for his religious tolerance, that a true pluralist person seeking dialogue would demand that Christianity and Islam liquidate their missionary apparatus.” ¹⁰ As a direct consequence of such views legislation in several Indian states against conversion has been debated and in some cases implemented. The most recent case is that of the so­called “Freedom of Religion Bill” which has been adopted by the Rajasthan Cabinet of Chief minister Vasundhra Raje Scindia and is currently before the Legislative Assembly for approval. A number of non­government organizations have challenged the legal validity of such legislation all over India, and pointed out that it violates the fundamentalright of freedomofconscience.¹¹

The topic of changing and disseminating one’s religion as it relates to the Indian context is also a raging debate within scholarly circles. A multi­disciplinary symposium on the subject formed part of the 19 ^th World Congress of the International History of Religions, in Tokyo, Japan in March 2005.¹² Arvind Sharma is one of the leading advocates for changing the existing formulation of the freedom of religion clause in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for he believes that the existing formulation favorsthose religions who proselytize.¹³

Yet other scholars, like the Dutch anthropologist of religion, Peter van der Veer, have questioned the validity of the central assumption on which the Hindu case against the legitimacy of religious conversion is based, stating, “I find it quite important to point out that the ‘naturalness’ or givenness’ of Hinduism is a myth.” ¹⁴ Van der Veer’s

suggestion that Indians have not been primordially Hindu, and that they converted to

what came to be known as Hinduismat some point in historyis a challenging proposition that needs to be further explored. Moreover, there are some Hindu strands such as the Hare Krishna who do engage in mission activities. Notwithstanding, the outreach activities ofthese Hindu groups, it needs to be unequivocallyacknowledged however that Hindu mission’s pales into insignificance in the face of the global proselytization efforts sponsored by Christians. Not surprisingly, therefore, the question of religious conversion and the ethics of mission, poses a different challenge for Muslims. Unlike mainstream modernHinduismas depicted bySharma and Swami Agnivesh, Islamalso encourages its adherents to share the teachings and faith with others. But how similar or disparate is Christian missionto that ofIslamic da`wah?

Christian Mission and Islamic Da`wah: A Comparative Perspective

Notwithstanding the fact that Christian mission and Islamic da`wah was the exclusive concern of a meeting between Christian and Muslim scholars and leaders in Chambesy (1976), the renowned scholar of Christian­Muslim relations, David Kerr, correctly argues that “little scholarly attention has yet been given to the comparative study of Islamic da`wa and Christian mission.” ¹⁵ A noticeable trend in the paucity of comparative studies that do exist is that while non­Muslim scholars such as William Wagner,¹⁶ J. Dudley Woodberry,¹⁷ and to a lesser extent Antoine Wessels¹⁸ have highlighted the parallels between Muslim da`wah and Christian mission, Muslim scholars, on the other hand, have been eager to point out significant differences. Three renowned Muslim scholars who have emphasized the differences are the Pakistani

economist and thinker Khurshid Ahmad, the late Syed Zainul Abedin, founder of the

Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, and the late Palestinian­American scholar Ismai’l Rajial­Faruqi.¹⁹

In his editorial to the published proceedings of the 1976 Chambesy Consultation Ahmad, for example, called attention to the differences in the way Muslims and Christians “offer their message to others and at a deeper level, in the way they concern themselves with the world.” ²⁰ In particular, he drew a sharp distinction between the methods of doing da`wah from what he called “the widespread abuse of Christian diakonia.” ²¹ Ahmed’s position was reflected in the final declaration of the Chambesy Consultation which condemned in clear terms the misuse of diakonia (caritative service and support), and strongly urged Christian churches and organizations to suspend their misused diakonia activities in the world of Islam.²² Notwithstanding, the fact that representatives of two of the leading Christian bodies, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the Interreligious Office of the WCC, were part of the Chambesy declaration, not all Christians agreed with the strong stance adopted by it. Some Christian scholars have since made similar charges of Muslim organizations offering monetaryenticements to Christians inexchange for their conversionto Islam.

Abidin takes Ahmad’s critique even further and proposes that da`wah is witnessing the truth solely by means of the exemplary lives of individuals and communities. He contends that making religious conversion the explicit and measurable objective of da`wah violates both the prerogative of God, who changes the hearts of human beings, and God­given freedom of choice, without which the call of Islam to faithful submission would be meaningless.²³ Abedin also draws a sharp distinction

between da`wah and dialogue. He defines interfaith dialogue as different from

evangelism and mission, and sees its primary function as that of social solidarity, joining hands in equality and respect to fashion a better world.²⁴ Abedin’s definition of da`wah and its methodology is idiosyncratic but may provide us with a useful clue for the development ofanethic of missionand da`wah.

Of the three scholarly perspectives on da`wah, Faruqi in particular has accentuated its divergences from Christian mission. During his presentation at Chambesy he defined da`wah as “ecumenical par excellence. All religious traditions” he proposed, are “de jure”, by which he means that “they have all issued from and are based upon a common source, the religion of God which he planted equally in all men…din al­fitrah.” While committed to religious pluralism in principle, al­Faruqi opposes relativism and what he describes as “kitchen cooperation,” a kind of lazy ecumenism. Based on this novel outlook on religious mission, al­Faruqi views Islamic da`wah as “an ecumenical cooperative critique ofthe other religionrather than its invasionbya new truth.” ²⁵

The tension between Christian and Muslim perspectives on their common commitment to mission is usefully illustrated by J. Dudley Woodberry when he claims that Faruqi’s conceptionofthe nature and ethics of da’wah “shows considerable parallels with Christian mission, though he does not recognize it.” ²⁶ Woodberry’s assertion suggests that a significant gap inunderstanding between manyChristians and Muslims on the way in which they perceive of their respective missions. David Kerr is one of the few scholars who have been attentive to this tension. Kerr develops a conceptual distinction between what he calls the “sending” notion of Christian mission and the “calling notion” of Islamic da`wah. “The former,” Kerr suggests, “entails a centrifugal process while the

second is centripetal.” ²⁷ He is acutelyaware that these theologicalconcepts are shaped by historical experience and actual practice. He furthermore proposes that Christian­Muslim reflections on mutualunderstandings of missionand da`wah may find renewed consensus in the Eastern Orthodox Church concept of “witness” (Greek martyria). The concept resonates with the Qur’anic concept of shahada and may provide a way of clarifying intentions and avoiding the malpractices of proselytism.²⁸ The ongoing challenge for Muslims and Christians is to find an ethical consensus on what Woodberry usefully describes as “mutualrespectfulwitness.” ²⁹

Recently, partly in recognition of the pressing nature of this challenge to interreligious dialogue, Dr. Hans Ucko, program secretary of the WCC’s Office on Interreligious Relations and Dialogue called on the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue to join the WCC in assuming responsibility to address what he described as “one of the most controversial issues in interreligious relations: conversion.” ³⁰ But why have the questions of religious conversion and the ethics of mission and da`wah remerged as critical issues for interreligious dialogue at this time?

The Context forthe Reemergence of the Debate

A number of reasons account for the reemergence of the themes of religious conversion and the ethics of missionas critical issues for interreligious dialogue. Chiefly, the questions of religious conversion and the ethics of mission and da’wah, while extensively debated at Chambesy and elsewhere, have never been adequately resolved. Second, there is a gaping chasm between well­intentioned and benevolent statements of interreligious consultations and living realities on the ground. Third, is the negative

impact on Christian­Muslim relations resulting from the current belligerent environment

generated bythe terrorist attacksonthe United Statesof America onSeptember 11, 2001, and the Bush administration’s subsequent decision to wage an “enduring war on terrorism” in Afghanistanand Iraq.

I argue that geopolitics are the key source of the renewed interest in the debate about the right to religious conversion and the ethics of mission and da`wah. In support of my contention I draw on the theoretical insights offered byElizabeth Scantlebury. In a seminal article published exactly two decades after the Chambesy dialogue on da`wah and mission, Scantleburyargued that the contestationofthe two faiths to gain converts at the other’s expense always takes place within specific social and historical contexts, which in turn significantly affects the way those involved interpret the situation.³¹ The sociopolitical context may account for why many Christians and Muslims see the relationship between mission and da`wah differently. The negative experience of Christian mission due to its symbiotic relationship with colonialism may be propelling Muslims to distance their understanding of da`wah from the historical practice of Christian mission in Muslim contexts. Following Scantlebury, I contend that the challenge of religious conversion and the ethics of mission and da`wah have taken on even greater urgency precisely because of the heightened religious tensions resulting fromthe contentiousness ofcertainChristian aid agencies accompanying the US­led wars in Afghanistanand Iraq.

In this regard it may be expedient to note for example, the views of the American evangelical scholar Charles Marsh. Marsh has brought the problem of war as a context for proselytization into sharp relief in an editorial in the New York Times of January 21,

2006.³² He contends that not only did “[A]n astonishing 87% of all white evangelical Christian in the United States” provide overt religious legitimation for the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, but some of their most prominent leaders, like Franklin Graham ³³ and Marvin Olasky,³⁴ drummed up support for the wars through Sunday congregational sermons touting such conflicts as creating “exciting new prospects for proselytizing Muslims.” ³⁵

Given that the religious legitimation for the US war in Afghanistan was even stronger than that for the war in Iraq, since that country’s Taliban regime was more directly linked to the September 11 attacks, it is not surprising that these same members of the Evangelical community coveted the Afghanistan war’s evangelizing prospects more zealously. In fact the question of proselytization was already a contentious issue prior to the toppling of the Taliban regime. In August 2001, the Taliban charged eight members of a German aid agency, Shelter Now, of promoting Christianity under the cover of relief efforts. The workers were all later rescued by a US helicopter. This incident, however, was greeted withgreat antipathy by some Christian organizations who denounced the Taliban regime, and was touted as yet another example of the lack of religious freedom in Muslim countries.³⁶ The freeing of the aid workers was greeted with great fanfare by these groups. Not unexpectedly, almost four years after the US invasion of Afghanistanthe questionofthe right to religious conversion found it’s most publicized case in Afghanistan. There have been many other similar cases, frequently charged under the Taliban’s harsh “blasphemy laws.” Yet, another of these cases of religious persecutionwould dominate the international headlines another four years on.

The Conflict between Religious Freedom and the Islamic Law of Apostasy

In February 2006, an Afghan national, Abdul Rahman, who had converted to Christianity in 1990 while working as a medical assistance for a Christian non­governmental aid group in Peshawar, Pakistan, was arrested and charged with apostasy under what was interpreted to be traditional shari`ah laws. The case received worldwide publicity, with an Afghan court threatening to execute Abdul Rahman if he did not repent. As a direct consequence of the vociferous international outcry over the persecution of Abdul Rahman, he was released after the judge dismissed the case on grounds of insanity. Despite his acquittal, the defendant was forced to leave Afghanistan and givenasylumin Italy for fear ofsocialrecriminations fromAfghancivilsociety.³⁷

The case of Abdul Rahman’s conversion to Christianity has once again highlighted the urgent need for Muslims to seriouslyre­examine the restrictive traditional shari`ah laws on religious conversion from Islam. It is not good enough for Muslims engaged in interreligious dialogue to skirt this issue by hiding behind their support for the Chambesy statement affirming “the right to convince or to be convinced.” ³⁸ A close reading of the Chambesy discussions discloses that despite their support for the declaration the Muslim interlocutors were equivocating. At one point in the discussions, Bishop Kenneth Cragg felt compelled to spell out unambiguously the Christian concern about the Muslim position on religious freedom in the following manner: “…we are not talking about freedomof belief, or of religious practice, but the freedom of movement of belief? and there is a radicaldifference between these two. A faith which you are not free to leave becomes a prison, and no self­respecting faithshould be a prison for those within it.” ³⁹

Yet more seriously is the fact that the right to be convinced and to convert from

Islam to another religion is held by only a minority of Muslim scholars. This view of religious freedom is however not shared by the vast majority of Muslim scholars both past as well as present. Most classical and modern Muslim jurists regard apostasy (riddah), defined by them as an act of rejection of faith committed by a Muslim whose Islam had beenaffirmed without coercion, as a crime deserving the deathpenalty. Almost all traditional books of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) deal extensively with the penalties to be imposed onapostates suchas the dispositionof the apostate’s propertyand inheritance and the dissolution of their marriages.⁴⁰ Indeed the preponderance of classical Islamic positions proscribing apostasy makes understandable the harsh contemporary Muslim responses to Abdul Rahman’s conversion to Christianity. Contemporary Muslim jurists are uncritically transporting medieval juristic positions that were negotiated in radically different historical circumstances to present day realities.⁴¹ How else is one explain the widespread attachment to the death penalty verdict among traditional Muslim scholars and the socialostracization meted to so­called apostates in manyMuslim societies?

At the same time a number of modern Muslim scholars have argued for more lenient and humane positions onapostasy, marshalling strong support for their views.⁴² In this regard the viewpoint issued by Louay Safi of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) in the context of the Abdul Rahman, furor in Afghanistan was noteworthy. Safi declares unequivocallythat a “Muslim who convertsto Christianity is no more a Muslim, but a Christian and must be respected as such.” ⁴³ Notwithstanding these and other tolerant Islamic positions on religious conversion, Muslims engaged in interreligious dialogue need to be more honest and forthcoming about the enormous challenge theyface

in reforming the hegemonic traditional Muslim position on apostasy. To use the same

words of the Muslim scholar, Ataullah Siddiqi, in the context of Christian efforts to curtail aid evangelism, “there is a big gap between our pious hopes and our practical realities, something which we do not perhaps wish to face.” ⁴⁴ In order to strengthen the Muslim reformist case to reform traditional laws on apostasywill require some Christian help. Their Christian interlocutors might need to labor hard to calm inappropriate Christian proselytization efforts. Without such a moratorium on inappropriate proselytization, as recommended by the Chambesy declaration, it will be hard to convince Muslim hardliners that the reform of apostasy laws are opportunistic Christian demands to make conversionpossible.

A number of Muslim scholars, such as Mahmoud Ayoub, have pointed out that apostasy has been a political problem in both early and later Muslim societies, and has increased with the advent of colonialism and the expansion of Christian missionary activity.⁴⁵ While it would be incorrect to suggest that the harsh shari`ah views on apostasy were first formulated in the colonial­era, there can be no doubt that colonial­era Christian missions generated a harsher interpretation of the shari`ah law. Similarly, the recent debate triggered by the legal persecution of Abdul Rahman emerged from a war ravaged context where relief aid for the victims of the war was dispensed by agencies linked to the perceived aggressors. I contend that the Abdul Rahman furor did not occur in a social vacuum but in a concrete political context and was not surprisingly enhanced by it. Here again the challenging question of religious conversion and the ethics of aid evangelism arise in a war context. There are of course many other instances of religious conversion which do not take place in the context of aid evangelism, which still incur

religious persecution in Muslim societies However, these cases are regrettably

overshadowed bythe former.

Mission and Da`wah in aWarContext

Both Christians and Muslims have historically been implicated in spreading their faiths through war and conquests, though this is not the complete storyof the growth and expansion of these world traditions. In fact more peaceful and humane methods predominate as ways in which Christianity and Islam have historically been transmitted. The problem, however, is the romanticization of our historical legacies and the consequent denial that such abuses ever occurred, a tendency that is compounded by polemical scholarship which attempts to show that one religion has been more culpable than the other. Such dispositions stand in the way of serious efforts at seeking interreligious coexistence and sustainable peacebuilding in the contemporary era. Our times demand instead sincere acts of contrition through apologies and forgiveness to heal the memories of our trespasses. Yet even more critical is the interreligious challenge of together finding ways to prevent such atrocities from ever occurring again. It is against this background that the proselytizationeffortsofsome Christianaid organizations in war tornIraq canbecome contentious and inflammatory.

In April 2003, almost exactly one month after the United States of America launched a pre­emptive war against Iraq, Time Magazine reported that two Christian aid organizations, the International Missions Board of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Samaritan’s Purse, were waiting on the border between Jordan and Iraq for a green

light from the US military command to enter Iraq in order to engage in what they called “aid evangelism.” ⁴⁶ The Reverend Franklin Graham, son of the influential evangelist Billy Graham and head of the Samaritan’s Purse, justified their actions by claiming that the goalofthe aid ministryin Iraq was “to healpeople, and hopefullytheywill see God.” The controversial context and insensitive timing of Samaritan’s Purse’s proselytization program was not accidental. It was a deliberate and well­orchestrated strategy. Samaritan’s Purse and its leader Reverend Franklin Graham are some of the most ardent religious supporters of the US war in Iraq. Moreover, this was not the first time in recent history that Christian evangelists had used a war context as a means for spreading the Christian gospel. It is well known that during the 1991 Gulf war, Rev Franklin Graham’s organization gave US Soldiers deployed in Iraq 30,000 Bibles in Arabic for distribution inIraq and the neighboring Muslim majoritycountries.

As has already been noted the proselytization actions by these Christian evangelists, are further compounded by the fact that many of their most influential leaders and institutions at home have made belligerent pronouncements against Islam. For example, prominent evangelical leaders suchas Franklin Graham ⁴⁷, JerryFalwell, Pat Robertson and Jerry Vines have all made derogatory statements against Islam. Graham, for example, has called Islam “a very evil and wicked religion.” ⁴⁸ In a recent book, Secrets of the Koran, evangelical missionary Don Richardson claims, “The Koran’s good verses are like the food an assassin adds to poison to disguise a deadly taste.” ⁴⁹ And prominent evangelical Churches such as the Southern Baptist Convention regularly convene seminars and lectures on Islam that criticize the religion as regressive and violent.⁵⁰ It is therefore not surprising that the vice­president for governmental affairs of

the National Association of Evangelicals, Reverend Richard Cizik, is on record saying,

“Evangelicals have substituted Islam for the Soviet Union,” and that “The Muslims have become the modern­day equivalent of the Evil Empire.” ⁵¹ The belligerent positions of these prominent Evangelical leaders drown out the more balanced perspective on Islam advocated by the National Association of Evangelicals in conjunction with the Washington D.C. based Institute of Religion and Democracy. The latter have formulated positive guidelines for Christian­Muslim dialogue which emphasized the necessity to “affirm some points of theology and morality that Islam and Christianity have in common” and furthermore called on Christians to “work together with some Muslims on certainpublic issues inwhichtheyhave similar concerns.” ⁵²

All of this raises two pertinent and interrelated questions. First, can the evangelical outreach to Muslims be seen as a new crusade against Islam, however intentionally? Or even as a recurring colonial theme of Christian mission and military dominance, seen often, but not always, as going hand in hand. Second, is it ethical for philanthropical activities and humanitarian service to be undertaken among victims of war with the ulterior motives of proselytism? These are challenging but pertinent issues that should form part of an honest dialogical encounter between Christians and Muslims, since they have important implications for conflict transformation and interreligious peacebuilding.

The Ethics of Aid Evangelism

As has already been noted, aid evangelismwas one ofthe keyquestions addressed by the Chambesy Dialogue, and the conference took a firm position. It strongly

condemned any diakonia (service) undertaken for any ulterior motive and not as an expression of agape (love).⁵³ The conference urged Christian churches and religious organizations to immediately suspend such efforts in the Muslim world. It was indeed a courageous and ambitious resolution. But did the Chambesy participants really believe that they or even the institutions they represented had the power to implement the resolutions with immediate effect?Subsequent events have suggested otherwise.

Perhaps Muslim participants naively believed that their Christian interlocutors had such an authority. Five years later, the Islamic Foundation based in the United Kingdom decided to republish the proceedings of the Chambesy Dialogue in protest, saying? “The misused diakonia ties in the world of Islam not only have not been discontinued, but in fact expanded since 1976, on a vast scale and with the knowledge and participation of the very same institutions whose members were participants at Chambesy.” ⁵⁴ Insupport of its claimthe Islamic Foundationcited the research findings of one of its members, Ahmad von Denffer. Von Denffer had uncovered a multi­million dollar campaign launched by the Lutheran Churches in Germany, an affiliate of the WCC, to evangelize Fulani Muslims all over West Africa using diakonia as a cover.⁵⁵ It is against this backdrop that the interreligious movement needs to once again address the question of the ethics of the aid evangelism undertaken by some prominent evangelical institutions in war tornIraq. There clearlydoes not seemto be a consensus with regard to the ethical efficacy of aid evangelism on the part of all Christians. The one­time consensus expressed at Chambesy has clearlyunraveled.

To its credit, both the WCC and the Pontifical Council on Interreligious Affairs have since Chambesy consistently reaffirmed their commitment to eschewing unethical

forms of mission, including that of aid evangelism. In fact, during a 1999 WCC­

sponsored “Christian­Muslim Consultation on Religious Freedom” held at Hartford Seminary, Connecticut, the participants recommitted themselves to “the relevance and value of the 1976 Chambesy statement” and affirmed the importance of distinguishing between proselytism and witness as the WCC has done within the Christian context, and emphasize the necessity to express an ethics of mission and da'wah to which both Christians and Muslims can agree. ⁵⁶ Even more recently, the recent President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Relations, Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, proposed that “Christians do not engage in works of mercy as a pretext for preaching about Jesus Christ but, like the Good Samaritan, out of compassion for those who are suffering. So it can be said that interreligious dialogue is not aimed at bringing the partner in dialogue into the Catholic Church.” ⁵⁷

Unfortunately, this Catholic understanding of the Christian narrative of the Good Samaritan is not shared bythe evangelicalrelieforganization bearing the same name. The Samaritan Purse’s international director of projects, Ken Isaacs, interprets his divine calling as not merely to address the physical needs of the Iraqi Muslims but also to tend to their spiritual penury. In response to concerns raised about the ethics and strategic wisdom of their relief efforts in Iraq he responded by saying “We do not deny the name ofChrist. We believe insharing himin deed and word.”

Conclusion

In conclusion it seems clear that while various Christian denominations disagree about the ethics of aid evangelism in the context of war, Muslims are far more united in

condemning it. The reverse is the case on the question of the right to religious

conversion. While Muslims are ambivalent about the right of their co­religionists to change their religion, Christians affirm this right. Of course the different theological postures adopted by Christian and Muslim scholars are profoundly influenced by historical reality and power relations, as was so impressively illustrated by Elizabeth Scantlebury. Honest dialogue can only begin with a clear recognition of this reality. A joint Christian­Muslim assessment of power imbalances should include not only misuses of mission and da‘wah, but also a strong rejection of all forms of violence and terrorism, including state terror. The belligerent environment resulting fromthese acts of barbarism threatens the relations ofChristians and Muslims around the world.

As a wayforward, I advise Muslims to heed the late Professor Isma`ilal­Faruqi’s callto engage inan“ecumenicalcooperative critique ofthe other religion.” For Christians I recommend the invitationof Father HenriSanson, SJ ofAlgiers to reflect on their vocationtowards Muslims “in the mirrorofIslam,” that is, taking into account at everystep the missionaryvocationwhichtheir Muslimpartners, in faith, know themselvesto be charged with.⁵⁸ And forbothcommunities,Icommend J. Dudley Woodberry’s recognitionthat there are times when onlythe deed is appropriate, as was the case whenJesus healed a leper and then instructed himto tell no­one. The deeper challenge for bothChristians and Muslims committed to interreligious dialogue and peacebuilding is to go beyond mere declarations ofthe right ofanyindividualto change his or her religionand decrying the use of inappropriate means to entice the personto switchhis/her faith. Instead, Christianand Muslim interreligious leaders and activists

need to urgentlyfind creative ways of making suchpositive affirmations a keypart ofthe modus vivendi ofconvivialrelations betweenthe two communities.

Endnotes

¹ For a detailed account ofthe Abdul Rahman conversion andtrialin Afghanistan see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_(convert) ² Da‘wah is an Arabic word meaning “call” or “invitation”, andthenoun form, da’i (plural du’at), refersto “one whocalls or invites toIslam.” I will discuss itsnaturemore extensivelylater in this paper. ³ For the full proceedings oftheChambesymeetingsee Christian Mission and Islamic Da’wah: Proceedings of the Chambesy Dialogue Consultation (Leicester, UK: Islamic Foundation, 1977). ⁴ I was privileged toco­chair thismeetingtogether with Tarek Mitri ofthe WCC’sinterreligious office. For the finalreport on this conference see Current Dialogue (34), February2000(Geneva: WorldCouncil of Churches).http://www.wcc coe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/cd34­19.html (accessed March 2006).⁵ For a briefreport see WorldCouncil ofChurches, From Harare to Porto Alegre 1998­2006: An Illustrated Account of the Life of the World Council of Churches (Geneva: 2005), 89. For more details on the “Critical Moment in Interreligious Dialogue Conference” see http://www.oikoumene.org/interreligious.html (accessed March 2006) ⁶ Elizabeth Scantlebury, “IslamicDa`wah andChristian Mission: Positive and Negative Models of Interaction between Muslimsand Christians,” in Islam and Christian­Muslim Relations, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1996, 253­269.<sup>7</sup> Seyyed Hossein Nasr, “Islamic­Christian Dialogue: problems andobstacles tobe ponderedand overcome,” in Islam and Christian­Muslim Relations, Vol. 11 No. 2, July2000, 213­227. <sup>8</sup> For the fullreport online see: http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/indiachr/ <sup>9</sup> Ibid. <sup>10</sup> Swami Agnivesh, Religion, Spirituality and Social Action: New Agenda for Humanity. (Delhi: Hope India Publications, Second Edition, 2003, 30).<sup>11</sup> For details on this controversial bill see “Hindutva ConspiracyClear in Rajasthan ‘Freedom ofReligion Bill,’” in Milli Gazette Online, April 6, 2006. http://www.milligazette.com/dailyupdate/2006/20060406_hindutva_rajasthan.htm<sup>12</sup> See “Proselytization Revisited: Rights, Free Markets, andCulture Wars,” symposium ofthe 19 <sup>th</sup> World Congress ofthe International HistoryofReligions, Tokyo, Japan (March 25­30, 2005)http://www.1.u­ tokyo.ac.jp/iahr2005/<sup>13</sup> Ibid. <sup>14</sup> Peter van der Veer, “Tradition and Violence in South Asia,” unpublishedpaper delivered at the “Women and the Contested State: Religion and AgencyandSouth Asia,” conference convened on April 11­12, 2003, Kroc Institute, UniversityofNotre Dame.<sup>15</sup> David A. Kerr, “Islamic Da`wa andChristian Mission: Towardsa Comparative Analysis,” in International Review of Mission, 89.353, pp. 150­171. For the full proceedings ofthe Chambesymeeting see Christian Mission and Islamic Da’wah: Proceedings of the Chambesy Dialogue Consultation (Leicester, UK: Islamic Foundation, 1977).¹⁶ William Wagner, “A Comparison ofChristian Mission and Islamic Da`wah,” in Missiology, 31 (3), 339­ 347, 2003.

¹⁷ J. DudleyWoodbury, “Toward Mutual Respectful Witness,” unpublishedpaper delivered at theConflict Transformation Project: Interfaith Dialogue, Fuller Theological Seminaryand Salam: Institute for Peace and Justice, Rockville, Maryland, USA, April 22­23, 2005.¹⁸ Antoine Wessels, “Mission andDa`wah: From Exclusion toMutual Witness,” in Church and Society, 84 (1), 1­01­112, 1994.<sup>19</sup> For a discussion ofthese differences see Ataullah Siddiqui, Christian­Muslim Dialogue in the Twentieth Century (Basingstoke, UK: MacMillan, 1997). <sup>20</sup> Khurshid Ahmad, “Editorial,” Christian Mission and Islamic Da’wah: Proceedings of the Chambesy Dialogue Consultation (Leicester, UK: Islamic Foundation,1977). <sup>21</sup> Ibid. <sup>22</sup> Op.cit. p. 101. <sup>23</sup> Sayed Zainul Abedin, “Da`wa and Dialogue: Believers and Promotion ofMutual Trust,” in Beyond Frontiers: Islam and Contemporary Needs (London: Mansell, 1989). ²⁴ Ibid., p. 54. ²⁵ Isma`il Raji al­Faruqi, “On theNature ofIslamic Da`wah,” International Review of Mission, vol. LXV, no260, 1976, pp. 391­400. See alsoIsma`il Raji al­Faruqi, Islam and Other Faiths, edited byAtaullah Siddiqui (Leicester, UK: Islamic Foundation, 1989), p. 312. <sup>26</sup> DudleyWoodbury, “Toward Mutual Respectful Witness,” unpublishedpaper delivered at Conflict Transformation Project: Interfaith Dialogue, Fuller Theological Seminaryand Salam: Institute for Peace and Justice, Rockville, Maryland, USA, April 22­23, 2005.<sup>27</sup> Ibid., p. 153. <sup>28</sup> Op.cit, p. 163. 29 J. DudleyWoodbury, “Toward Mutual Respectful Witness,” unpublishedpaper delivered at Conflict Transformation Project: Interfaith Dialogue, Fuller Theological Seminaryand Salam: Institute for Peace and Justice, Rockville, Maryland, USA, April 22­23, 2005.<sup>30</sup> HansUcko, “Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue 40 years,” Current Dialogue (45), July2005 (Geneva: WorldCouncil ofChurches).http://wcc­coe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/cd45­03.html (accessed March 2006).<sup>31</sup> Elizabeth Scantlebury, “IslamicDa`wah andChristian Mission: Positive and Negative Models of Interaction between Muslimsand Christians,” in Islam and Christian­Muslim Relations, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1996, 253.³² Charles Marsh, “WaywardChristian Soldiers” in New York Times, January21, 2006. ³³ The Reverend Franklin Graham delivered theinvocation prayers at theinauguration ofPresident George

W. Bush. ³⁴ Marvin Olaskyis theeditor oftheconservative Worldmagazineanda former advisor toPresident Bush on faith based policy.³⁵ Charles Marsh, “WaywardChristian Soldiers” in New York Times, January21, 2006. Marsh is professor ofreligion at the UniversityofVirginia andisauthor of The Beloved Community: How Faith Shapes Social Justice, from the Civil Rights Movement to Today. ³⁶ For a report about this incident seehttp://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week505/news.html ³⁷ For a detailed account ofthe Abdul Rahman conversion andtrialin Afghanistan see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_(convert) ³⁸ Christian Mission and Islamic Da’wah: Proceedings of the Chambesy Dialogue Consultation (Leicester, UK: Islamic Foundation, 1977).³⁹ Op cit., p. 92 ⁴⁰ forausefulsummaryof theclassicalMuslimposition on apostasyseeYohanan Friedmann, Tolerance and Coercion in Islam (Cambridge UniversityPress, 2003), pp.121­159. ⁴¹ This point iswell argued byLouaySafi “ApostasyandReligious Freedom,” http://1insight.org/articles/Print/Apostasy.htm⁴² For a surveyofsome modern discussionsofthetopic see Abdullah Saeed and Hassan Saeed, Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam (Ashgate Publishing, 2004). See alsoMohammadHashim Kamali, Freedom of Expression in Islam (Cambridge: Islamic TextsSociety, 1997), Abdullahi AhmedAn­Na`im “Islamic LawandApostasyandits Modern Applicability” in Religion (1986) 16, 197­224? and MahmoudAyoub, “Religious Freedom and the LawofApostasyin Islam,” Islamochristiana 20(1994) 73­91. ⁴³ LouaySafi, “Apostasyand Religious Freedom,” http://1insight.org/articles/Print/Apostasy.htm

⁴⁴ Ataullah Siddiqui, “FiftyYears ofChristian­Muslim Relations:Exploringand Engaging In a New Relationship,” paper delivered on the occasion ofthe PontificioInstitutoDi Studi Arabi E D ‘Islamistica’s (PISIA) 50th Anniversary, 12th May2000. For text seehttp://www.islamic­ foundation.org.uk/Fifty%20Years%20of%20Christian­Rev.05.pdf. ⁴⁵ Mahmoud Ayoub, “Religious Freedom andtheLawofApostasyin Islam,” in Islamochristiana 20 (1994), 75­91.⁴⁶ Johanna McGeary, “A Faith­Based Initiative,” Time Magazine, April 21, 2003. ⁴⁷ Franklin Graham’s statement was carried verywidelyin themedia. See Nicholas Kristof, “Bigotryin Islam ­AndHere,” New York Times, July2, 2002. ⁴⁸ Laurie Goodstein, Seeing Islam as ‘Evil’, Evangelicals Seek Converts, N.Y. Times, May27, 2003, at A3. ⁴⁹ Laurie Goodstein, Seeing Islam as ‘Evil’, Evangelicals Seek Converts, N.Y. Times, May27, 2003, at A3. ⁵⁰ Laurie Goodstein, Seeing Islam as ‘Evil’, Evangelicals Seek Converts, N.Y. Times, May27, 2003, at A3. ⁵¹ Laurie Goodstein, Seeing Islam as ‘Evil’, Evangelicals Seek Converts, N.Y. Times, May27, 2003, at A3. ⁵² MarkStricherz, “Evangelicals Advise on Muslim Dialogue,” Christianity Today [July2003]: 21.

www.ird­renew.org/muslimdialogue (accessed June 2006). ⁵³ Ataullah Siddiqui, Christian­Muslim Dialogue in the Twentieth Century (London: Macmillan Press, 1997), 101.⁵⁴ Ahmadvon Denffer, “Preface” in Ataullah Siddiqui, Christian­Muslim Dialogue in the Twentieth Century (London: Macmillan Press, 1997). ⁵⁵ Ahmadvon Denffer, The Fulani Evangelism Project in West Africa, Leicester: Islamic Foundation, 1980).⁵⁶ “ReportfromtheConsultation on ‘ReligiousFreedom,CommunityRightsand IndividualRights:A Christian Muslim Perspective,” Current Dialogue (34), February2000 (Geneva: WorldCouncil of Churches).http://www.wcc coe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/cd34­19.html (accessed March 2006).⁵⁷ Unpublished keynote address delivered byArchbishop Michael Fitzgeraldat a conference titled “In Our Time: Interreligious Relationsin a Divided World, sponsored byBrandeisandBoston College, March 16­ 17, 2006. Just before addressingthe conference Archbishop Fitzgeraldwas appointed bythe Vatican asits Nunciotothe ArabLeaguein Egypt.⁵⁸ For a useful discussion ofthis challenge see Christian W. Troll, “Witness Meets Witness: TheChurch’s Mission in the Context ofthe Worldwide Encounter ofChristiansand Muslim Believers Today,” Encounters 4: 1(1998) pp. 15­34.