ALTHOUGH it may justly be maintained that Muslim and Christian thought agree at certain points concerning the condition of man as he is ‘by nature’, nevertheless, as we remarked in Chapter 4, Islam and Christianity differ completely over the question of human destiny. The wide divergence of opinion, which we have noted on this subject, proceeds from the fact that Christian thought has before it the hope of participation in the divine nature, whereas the Muslim holds that, both in this life and hereafter, there can be no participation in Allah. The Christian believes that God the Father ‘sent forth His son, born of a woman’ (Gal. 4:4), in order that Christ, being truly man and very God, might redeem man and re-create human nature according to the fashion of His own glorious life. In other words, the Christian view of man’s creation finds its crown in the hope of re-creation through Christ the Son of God, who assumed our human nature in order that we might partake in His.
The Muslim has no such hope, and believes that he honours the Divine Being by insisting that in this life and for ever, the Creator will remain separate and distinct in every respect from His creation. As we have already noted, Islam holds that between Allah and man there is ‘opposition’, i.e., that there is an absolute and unchanging difference between the nature of Allah and that of His creation.[1] Orthodox Muslim thought is rooted and grounded in the dogma of a fundamental and irreconcilable difference between the nature of Allah and His creatures. This belief, which is essentially opposed to the Christian doctrine of a redemptive Incarnation, will now be further illustrated as we study the Muslim and Christian conceptions of ‘glory’.
The Arabic word which is translated ‘glory’ in most translations of the Quran is the term ‘jalal’. It is very significant that this term, whose Biblical equivalents are used of both God and man, is used in the Quran of Allah alone. It is only found in two verses of Surah 55 (verses 27 and 78).
Lane, in his Arabic-English Lexicon, states that ‘jalal’, as it is used in Muslim literature, signifies ‘supreme greatness of rank, dignity, or estimation.’ It expresses the greatness or majesty of Allah or His absolute independence. A common phrase in Muslim literature is ‘To Allah alone belong glory and majesty,’ and Lane, in further explication of jalal, quotes the following sentences which illustrate the use of the term: ‘Allah is too great to be comprehended within limits,’ and ‘Allah is too great to be perceived by the senses.’[2]
The word ‘glory’, used in this manner to signify the greatness of Allah, expresses a conception which is fundamental in all orthodox Islamic teaching concerning Allah. The word conveys the idea of Allah’s transcendent Self and the altogether alien splendour of His divinity. It is a word which serves to indicate the essential difference between Allah and man, and is employed to magnify a divine nature in which man dare not aspire to participate.
In an Islamic context the word ‘glory’ signifies Allah’s absolute and incomprehensible divinity. There is no suggestion of the Biblical idea of the divine self-revelation in holiness (cp. Exodus 33:17-23, and Isaiah 6:3). Allah’s glory is not the glory of the only-begotten from the Father, revealed to men in grace and truth (John 1:14). It is also inconceivable to Muslim minds that there could be any suggestion that man has fallen short of the glory of God through sin (Romans 3:23), or of man being ultimately transformed into the divine glory and being transformed from glory to glory (2 Corinthians 3:18).
The New Testament teaching concerning the glory of the saints is expressed in terms of the transformation and re-creation of human nature. This transformation will be completed when both body and spirit are changed into the likeness of the glorified Lord. Christ ‘shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of His glory, according to the working whereby He is able even to subject all things unto Himself’ (Philippians 3:21); ‘When Christ, who is our life, shall be manifested, then shall ye also with Him be manifested in glory’ (Colossians 3:4). The glory of God is bestowed upon His children in Christ Jesus. It is the glory of His holy nature, of His grace and truth. The boundless and incorruptible treasures of the divine nature are given to man, as man partakes in the glory of the risen Lord.
One cannot expect to find such a hope in Islam. Allah’s glory is that dread mystery which is the property of divinity alone, and in which man can never hope to share. It is not the glory of a holy and righteous nature, but marks a divine transcendence, which is ‘too great to be comprehended within limits’ and cannot conceivably be limited by the restrictions which righteousness would impose. In Muslim Sufi (mystical) literature frequent use is made of the word ‘tajalli’ to signify that dread glory of Allah which is manifested to the Sufi in ecstasy. Such a manifestation, although not unlike the form of the experience which is referred to in Ezekiel 1:28, is the manifestation of a blinding and incommunicable divine glory. There is no suggestion in Sufi literature that such an experience is comparable to the Christian hope — through re-creation in Christ — of a participation in the divine nature and its glorious righteousness.
It is an apt climax to our comparative studies of Muslim and Christian doctrines, that, in this final chapter, we should consider the Biblical doctrine of grace and compare it with analogous teachings in Islam. It is a fitting close to our comparative studies, because the Biblical doctrine of grace is one of the central themes of Christian theology, being inseparably connected with God’s activity in redemption. Modern Muslim theologians refuse to attempt any interpretation of the divine nature; but Christian thought, as it contemplates the divine activity which is pre-eminently manifested in the redeeming work of Christ, is led to an acknowledgment that God’s nature is grace and truth. The self-bestowal and self-committal of God the Father, who is active in Christ and the Holy Spirit for man’s redemption, is the distinctive message of the Bible, and gives its content to the term ‘grace’.
It is a characteristic of Christian teaching, that its emphasis is laid primarily upon what God does, and that this divine activity is regarded as itself a revelation of the divine nature. The Bible proclaims a divine consistency[3] and integrity in righteousness and truth, and, as he recalls the acts of God in history and experience, the Christian finds the Father who acts in truth because He is Truth. Just as there is no myth or speculation at the sources of Christian thought, so also there is no deceit or wile in God. ‘Thus God is,’ declares the Bible, ‘and, in accordance with His nature, thus He acts in history.’
We have, however, already noted that orthodox Islam denies the possibility of Allah’s being conditioned by holiness and truth. This important Biblical doctrine of God is denied by Islam, and instead Islam sets forth a belief in an unconditioned Deity and also repudiates the possibility, both here and hereafter, of any participation in the divine Mystery which it worships.
Here therefore, in the Biblical doctrine of God — His integrity and holiness, and, above all, His gift of Himself in redeeming grace — are those essential elements of Christian belief with which the Christian must make his Muslim friend familiar, if the latter is to find that intellectual security which he seeks. We may regret that the Muslim first seeks that type of assurance, but it is a fact which has to be reckoned with in our preaching, and the Christian preacher will find in the Biblical doctrine of grace and truth the light wherein to interpret the vital and fundamental Christian doctrine of the nature of God. Although this is one of the final topics of our comparative studies, it should be the first theme of our preaching to Islam, for the Christian evangelist may be assured that, until his Muslim friend has rejoiced with him in the glorious message of God’s holy, redeeming grace, he will not find reasonableness and intelligibility in the Christian Gospel which he seeks.
The Muslim generally perplexes the Christian at the outset by demanding an explanation of the Trinity. He asks, ‘What is the constitution of this Divinity which is declared to be Three in One and One in Three?’ We can never hope to satisfy that demand unless we first persuade our hearer to submit to the disciplines which the Biblical revelation imposes, and to accept the Father, active and self-giving, as He seeks by grace to redeem man from sin. There is no formal explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity to be found in the Bible, but it does record the gracious redemptive activity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Biblical message of grace reveals the Triune God meeting the actual situation of man.
God has acted decisively in taking away the sin of the world, but until a Muslim is brought under the judgement of God’s Holy Spirit and seeks God’s righteousness, that divine action will remain a mystery to him. Nevertheless just as the Quran gives no assurance to the Muslim that through that written dispensation he may grasp the mystery of Allah, so also God’s action in redemption is not designed to interpret to our finite minds the inner mystery and constitution of the Godhead. We can only speak in terms of what is known to us, through Scripture and experience, of what God has done in grace and truth. What God has done in redemption, in the unvarying integrity of His holy nature and under the limitations which grace and truth require, it is the theme of the Bible, and there can be no other way in which we can speak of the Divine nature to Islam.
In the Biblical passages which are relevant to the doctrine of grace the Hebrew word ‘hesed’, or ‘mercy’, in the Old Testament corresponds to the term ‘grace’ in the New Testament. In order therefore to give due consideration to what, from our English translations, appear to be parallel passages in the Quran (passages which occupy as important a place in the Quran as do similar passages in the Bible), it will be advisable for us to study all the terms which have been rendered ‘mercy’, ‘grace’ and ‘favour’ in translations. Once again, as in the case of our previous studies of Quranic terminology, we will not assume that our judgements on such terms are sufficient, but we will also refer to the statements of Muslim theologians who have understood these terms in relation to their theological system.
The Quranic word ‘rahmat’, which is generally translated ‘mercy’, corresponds closely to the Hebrew word translated ‘bowels,’ ‘tender affection’ (e.g., Psalm 77:9)[4]. It is used in a number of passages in connection with a variety of objects and persons. Almost every Surah of the Quran begins with the invocatory prayer in which Allah is addressed as ‘the Compassionate, the Merciful’, and these two epithets are derived from the same root as ‘rahmat’. The Quran itself is a mercy (Surah 6 v. 158), and so also is the prophet Muhammad (Surah 9 v. 62). The Torah is a mercy to the children of Israel (Surah 11 v. 20), and prophecy and prophets are a mercy (Surahs 12 v. 111; 19 v. 21). The protective wall erected by Alexander the Great against the onslaughts of Yajuj and Majuj is a mercy (Surah 18 v. 97). Allah’s bestowal of material blessings is a mercy (Surahs 11 v. 45; 17 v. 102). Much light is also thrown upon the nature of Allah’s mercy in a number of other passages. In Surah 6 vv. 12 and 54, we read that mercy is something which Allah has ‘prescribed’ for Himself. The expression used here means, literally, a written ordinance, and Allah, it seems, prescribes mercy in much the same way as He causes He decrees to be written. The mercy of Allah leads some men to Paradise (Surah 7 v. 47) and saves men from Hell (Surah 6 v. 16 f). Allah has mercy on those who believe (Surahs 4 v. 174; 9 v. 72), and on the man whom He guards from evil deeds (Surah 40 v. 9). He makes whomsoever He pleases enter into His mercy (Surah 48 v. 25), and especially favours with His mercy whomsoever He wills (Surah 2 v. 99).
The most illuminating passages are perhaps those wherein Allah’s mercy is specifically contrasted with His torment. Allah torments whom He will, and has mercy on whom He will (Surah 29 v. 20). Men will differ among themselves, declares the Quran, ‘save those thy Lord has had mercy on. For this has He created them, and the word of thy Lord is fulfilled: I will surely fill Hell with jinn and mankind altogether’ (Surah 11 v. 120). Mercy and torment are the complementary aspects of Allah’s dealing with men.
Muslim theologians have very little to add to the teaching of Surah 29 v. 20: ‘Allah torments whom He will, and has mercy on whom He will.’ Tahanawi, in his Kashshaf, states in the article on ‘rahmat’ that this word signifies that Allah gives to His slave the reward of which the slave is not worthy and removes his merited punishment. ‘Rahmat’ thus signifies the removal of punishment from one who merits punishment.
Allah declares that He saved men ‘by our mercy’ (Surah 11 v. 69), but this salvation, which is mentioned in many passages in the Quran, is not salvation from sin, but is a salvation to security (in this life and the next) which is granted by Allah to the believers as He wills; and, as we have noted, no one can believe, save by the permission of Allah (Surah 10 v. 100). Those who go astray, and those who are lost, despair of Allah’s mercy (Surah 15 v. 56), for Allah’s mercy is not compassion for the lost sinner. The mercy of Allah, bestowed as He wills, and providing security from torment for the believers, is clearly restricted in scope. Allah’s mercy, like His love, does not embrace the lost sinner. It is a policy rather than a disposition, a policy which Allah has prescribed for Himself (Surah 6 vv. 12 and 54), and its alternative is the tormenting of men in Hell. Allah’s mercy does not proceed from a disposition of gracious love which seeks to save the lost. It is restricted in its operation by Allah’s determination to fill Hell with men and jinn. In its passionless operation such mercy is totally unlike God the Father’s disposition of holy love, which seeks to save men from their sin by self-committal and the uttermost degree of sacrifice.[5]
We have considered the Quranic use of the word ‘mercy’, and the manner in which that word is understood by Muslim theologians. We now turn to the cognate term ‘grace’. The word ‘fadl’ (‘fazl’) and ‘ni‘mat’ are used extensively in the Quran in the sense of ‘grace’ and ‘favour’ and, incidentally, are also widely used in the Muslim vernaculars of India.
The verb from which the noun ni‘mat is derived is used with both Allah and Muhammad as the subject in Surah 33 v. 37. In that passage it expresses the ‘favour’ shown to the prophet’s adopted son Zaid. The noun itself is found in Surah 48 v. 2, wherein we read that Allah forgives the prophet Muhammad’s sins, fulfils His favour upon him, and guides him in the right way. In Surah 5 v. 5 we read that Allah fulfils His favour by perfecting the religion of believers. Ni‘mat is used as a synonym of fadl in Surah 3 v. 168, of those who are ‘in favour (ni‘mat) from Allah, and grace (fadl).’ The Quran goes on to add by way of explication: ‘No evil toucheth them; they followed the pleasure of Allah, and Allah is the Lord of mighty grace.’
Both the noun fadl and its verb are used frequently in the Quran. The noun itself appears, along with rahmat, in a significant passage in Surah 2 v. 61: ‘Were it not for Allah’s grace (fadl) towards you and His mercy (rahmat), ye would have been of those who are lost.’ To the believers Allah gives ‘increase of His grace’, but the misbelievers enter torment (Surah 42 v. 25). In that passage we find once again — as we saw in the case of rahmat — that where fadl is used of Allah’s favour in granting security and belief and of man’s destiny, the term is contrasted with Allah’s torment. Allah’s protection and provision in this world also are of His grace. ‘He gives His grace to everyone who merits His favours’ (Surah 11 v. 3) underlines the fact that, as is the case with Allah’s mercy, only those who deserve such favour by virtue of their status as believers and who have followed the ‘pleasures of Allah’, may taste of His grace. Such passages as this stress the condition of worthiness in the object of Allah’s grace, but in another passage, where Allah’s ‘hurt’ and His ‘grace’ are contrasted, we read: ‘Should Allah touch thee with harm, there is none to remove it save He; and if He wish thee well, there is none to repel His grace. He makes it fall on whom He will of His servants; for He is pardoning and merciful,’ (Surah 10 v. 107).
Both fadl and ni‘mat mean ‘an act of favour, a superabundance.’ When the words are used of Allah they indicate the abundance of created blessings which are bestowed in this life and in Paradise, through the Divine bounty. The word fadl may also be rendered ‘preference’ (as in Surah 7 v. 37, where sinners say to others in Hell: ‘Ye have no “preference” so taste ye the torment’), and it is by way of preference and discrimination that Allah’s grace and favour are manifested.[6] Allah bestows His grace upon the deserving, upon the ‘righteous’. He rewards ‘those who believe and do right; verily, He loves not the misbelievers’ (Surah 30 v. 44).
We can now conclude our comparison of the Quranic and Biblical teachings on mercy and grace.[7] We have noted that, in the Quran, neither mercy nor grace are bestowed upon sinners; they do not proceed from a divine disposition which seeks to save all men. In point of fact (as we see from Surah 11 v. 120, quoted on p. 96) Allah is quite determined that all men shall not be saved; He will fulfil His word by filling Hell with men and jinn. Allah’s grace and mercy indeed provide created blessings. Such grace and mercy, however, are not ‘over all His works’ (as is the mercy of God), but are exclusive in operation rather than comprehensive.
On the other hand, that aspect of Biblical teaching which is contained in the words ‘mercy’ and ‘grace’, finds its complete expression in the Incarnate Son of God. Christ Jesus did not come into the world to manifest divine preference for those who ‘believe by divine permission.’ Christ died for the ungodly; He died for all men, for ‘there is none righteous, no, not one.’ The grace that Christ brings in His Person is not an impersonal bestowal of security and bounty upon the ‘righteous’ and favoured slaves of an omnipotent Deity;[8] rather He brings in Himself the gracious self-committal of God in sacrifice for sin. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ is His Person and the life which He gives for the undeserving. By His grace Christ emptied Himself, offered Himself in death for us, dwells within us and raises us to new life by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Allah is not the ‘God of grace’ (1 Peter 5:10) in the Biblical sense. Divine self-committal in sacrifice is impossible within Islamic theology; such a proposition would be unthinkable within the context of Muslim thought. Moreover, Allah is not a ‘Person’ in the Christian sense of the word, but an ‘Individual’, supreme and absolutely unique, both in His nature and power.[9] He bestows His bounty and security upon those of His ‘righteous’ slaves whom he prefers.[10]
The last topic of our chapter is the significance of the Word of the Cross to Islam, but, before proceeding with our discussion, we shall find it profitable to recapitulate some of the statements made in earlier chapters concerning the Muslim doctrine of God. We have noted that the Muslim doctrine of Allah completely determines Islam’s view of the Universe and of man’s place and destiny therein. That might be expected, since the Biblical doctrine of God exercises a like determination. The Quran and Muslim theology, however, express that determination in terms of Allah’s sole creativeness. The noblest poetry of the Quran magnifies Allah’s power in creation, but it is a power which is without limitation. The world is indeed the kingdom of Allah. He creates all the atoms of existence and His sovereignty is continuous and absolute. All the acts, thoughts and intentions, sensations, faith and destiny of man, are His creation, and the hearts of His slaves are between His fingers ‘as one heart.’ Finally, there is an irreconcilable difference between the nature of Allah and that of His slaves, and that difference remains for ever.
Muslim theology also insists, on the authority of the teaching of the Quran, that Allah ordains man to belief or unbelief, to Hell or to Paradise, just as He pleases. There is nothing which might restrain His will as He disposes of those pin-points of human life. Life is therefore ‘atomic’ in its manifestation, and man’s experience is discontinuous. Neither in man, nor in Allah, is there any ‘character’. There is merely a ‘habit’ in things, which gives the impression of continuity.
In the face of these Muslim dogmas of man’s created and discontinuous experience and Allah’s absolute domination, the Christian Gospel makes certain affirmations. Firstly, Biblical theology states that, since God is Truth and is essentially righteous, His creative activity and kingdom do not include man’s sin. He abhors evil and does not create it. This leads us to the second affirmation, that the world ‘lieth in the evil one’ (1 John 5:19). In this world there is a restricted and temporary dual dominion. Man is alienated from God by his sin, and God’s kingdom has yet to come on earth as it is in Heaven.
Thirdly, the Bible proclaims the Word of the Cross, whereby God declares His love in seeking to save and re-create sinners. ‘God sent forth His Son, born of a woman’ (Galatians 4:4), that, by faith, man might be ‘conformed to the image of His Son’, that ‘He might be the firstborn among many brethren’ (Romans 8:29). Christ, being truly God, became by His self-emptying (Philippians 2:7) truly man as He is truly God. Thus, in the Person of His Son and by the Divine sacrifice of the Cross, God intervened in history and fulfilled His eternal purpose for man’s redemption through the ‘lamb that hath been slain from the foundation of the world’ (Revelation 13:8). ‘Christ died for our sins according to the Scripture,’ so that we might follow Him, rising from the death of sin into eternal life. ‘He hath granted unto us His precious and exceeding great promises; that through these ye may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world by lust’ (2 Peter 1:4).
When we speak of the Word of the Cross we repeat the language of Scripture, and do not seek to explain how Christ became man in order to redeem His race, or how, having risen in His glorified body, He sits at the right hand of God. ‘We shall be like Him (1 John 3:2) is the response of faith to Christ’s death and resurrection, and this, we reverently believe, is the holy purpose of God the Father. The means that God employed in His self-committal and sacrifice are a divine mystery. The manner of Christ’s coming is beyond our understanding, but the reason for His sacrifice is no mystery, if we consider the unquestionably miserable condition of man, whose very existence is menaced on this human plane by destructive sin. For how can man find salvation except through God’s gracious self-committal? Man has no resources in himself.
To the grace and truth of Christ and the Word of His Cross, Islam turns ears that hear not and eyes that cannot see. Islam denies the possibility of that gracious self-committal in sacrifice and affirms that the assuming of humanity by divinity is as blasphemous a doctrine as the hope of human participation in the divine nature. All evil and every human experience is directly created by Allah; He does as He pleases in all things, and therefore the Word of the Cross is ‘foolishness’ to Islam. Islam is content with the dogma of Allah’s incommunicable nature and absolute power. If He wills He forgives, if He wills He punishes, and there is no need for what Islam regards as an artificial and unworthy doctrine of divine sacrifice.
The Word of the Cross is folly because Islam confesses ‘Allah! there is no God but He,’ and this is the situation in which we preach our glorious Gospel of re-creation through the redemptive Incarnation. So far as the human situation is concerned, the Christian Church cannot relieve the tension which its Gospel creates. But the Church must reflect God’s love for sinful men, and our patience must be the patience of those who recognise that Islam denies the Gospel because it does not acknowledge the holy Father, ‘in whom can be no variation, neither shadow that is cast by turning (James 1:17). The Gospel of grace and truth and the Word of the Cross are beyond the understanding of the Muslim until he walks in His light ‘in whom is no darkness at all’ (1 John 1:5); for as our Lord declares, ‘No man can come to Me, except the Father which sent Me draw him’ (John 6:44).
Notes
1 This does not imply that Islam holds to an absolute difference between the Divine and human functions. Some Muslim writers, notably al Ghazali, have urged Islam to copy those qualities of Allah which, as grasped by man’s finite mind, may be regarded as ethically admirable. There is also the well-known Tradition, ‘Verily, Allah is the Bounteous Giver and He prefers such comeliness in man.’ Man, functioning as a social being, is urged to imitate such qualities in Allah as may be admirable from an ethical point of view.
2 Allah is called ‘Majid’ (glorious) in Surah 11 v. 76. In the other three passages where this word is found, it is used of the Quran. Allah is also called ‘Aziz’ (mighty) in a number of passages (e.g., Surah 2 v. 205).
3 This matter of divine consistency is important in Biblical theology, but not in orthodox Muslim thought. In a passage of the Irshad (chap. 19, section 13) where al Juwayni discusses the question whether Allah wills what He orders, we read that it ‘is not so in our (Asharite) doctrine, for Allah (in the Quran) orders the unbeliever to believe, although He knows that the unbeliever is damned; and Allah does not will that he should have faith.’ In the same paragraph al Juwayni declares that the Asharites hold that Allah may order a man to do that which is impossible. Specific reference is made to the case of Abu Lahab, whose damnation is assured according to Surah 111, and al Juwayni states that, although Abu Lahab (with other Meccans) was urged by the Quran to believe, it was impossible for him. That Allah may order a man to do that which is impossible is also substantiated by the fact that in Surah 2 v. 286 men offer the prayer: ‘Lord make us not to carry what we have not strength for.’ This verse, the orthodox hold, contains clear proof that Allah may order a man to do that which is impossible. Cf also W. C. Klein, Elucidation of Islam’s Foundation, p. 112, where we find al Ashari’s authority for this belief.
4 The reader who is interested in philology, and who would wish to compare the Arabic with the corresponding Hebrew words, will note the similarity between the Hebrew and the Arabic verb H N N as it is used (once only) in Surah 19 v. 14, where we read that Allah gave to John the Baptist ‘grace’ and purity.
5 Allah, according to the significance of one of His 90 Beautiful Names, ‘al Halim’ (the Forbearing), is indulgent towards sinners, in that He does not punish them at once for their sin and is not disturbed by sin.
6 It is interesting to compare Quranic ideas of ‘election’ with the teaching of the Bible, The Biblical doctrine is of election to service and to suffering; it is not an election to privilege as in the Quran. Such election is accepted by man in a sense of moral responsibility, lest, as St Paul says, ‘when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway’ (1 Cor. 9:27).
7 Another term which is used by the Muslim theologians to connote ‘grace’ is the word ‘lutf’. The adjective ‘latif’, translated ‘kind’, is used in such Quranic passages as Surah 12 v. 101; ‘Verily, my Lord is kind to whomsoever He will.’ Such ‘kindness’ is, according to the orthodox theologians of Islam, the creation of the power to believe; and Allah may create that power at any moment.
8 Dr John Oman, in his authoritative and illuminating work Grace and Personality, discusses the problems raised by any doctrine of grace which proceeds from a doctrine of irresistible divine omnipotence. He stresses the fact that God the Father, in His dealing with men as persons (not as slaves of His will, for ‘we have not received the spirit of bondage again unto fear’), does not destroy by omnipotent grace the reality of man’s religious dependence and moral independence. This (because of the Christian doctrine of God and the sonship to which God calls man in Christ) is a problem which must always be present in the mind of Christian theologians when discussing the operation of grace. It is interesting to note that orthodox Muslim theology reveals not the slightest interest in such a problem, but confines itself to a discussion of legal responsibility for acts of sin. For a statement on this point, see above pp 47f.
9 We wish to indicate here, by the use of the terms ‘Person’ and ‘Individual’, the distinction between the nature of God and that of Allah. By ‘Person’ we express the distinctive Biblical doctrine of the divine ‘communicableness’; a doctrine which has been amply illustrated by our foregoing study of grace. On the other hand we have used the term ‘Individual’ to express the separateness of Allah’s nature.
The term ‘personal’ is used extensively in modern Christian theology and in the preaching of the Church. The expression ‘God deals with man in a personal way’ is often employed. In order to safeguard ourselves from the error of assuming that human life is the pattern of the ‘personal’, we should think of the ‘personal’ in terms of the highest form of personality. Our theology must be theomorphic, not anthropomorphic, and the Person of Christ is the pattern of personality. The Godhead is fully ‘personal’, in that it is fully communicative and self-donative. In so far as man receives the Holy Spirit of God he too becomes personal: he is a new creation, and the life of the new man in Christ Jesus is marked by self-communicating grace.
10 This Muslim doctrine of an unconditioned, morally neutral, omnipotence, really involves Islam in the dilemma which Descartes propounded. Descartes asked, when criticizing a doctrine of strict omnipotence: ‘Is God omnipotent? In that case He can create a force which He cannot destroy. If He cannot so create it, He is not omnipotent, but if He can create it, He cannot destroy it; and in that case, He is not omnipotent either.’
Table of Contents
Answering Islam Home Page