Customer Reviews

Allah: A Christian Response

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

In this book Volf relies primarily on the resources of Christian theology (and only secondarily on philosophy) to argue that mainstream Christians and normative mainstream Muslims worship the same God. Acknowledging worship of a common God does not rule out significant differences between the two groups: Volf is NOT in the "all religions are basically the same" camp. When Christians and Muslims hold the belief that they worship a common God AND follow the ethical precepts of that God, summed up as loving God and loving neighbor, then they have a strong basis from which they can pursue peace and the common good with each other.

The most surprising part of the book was his analysis of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity in the light of Islamic monotheism. By his accounting, and he relies on traditional orthodox accounts of the Trinity, the affirmations and denials that make up the doctrine are well in line with Muslim teachings on the nature of God. Particularly interesting was his use of Nicholas of Cusa, a Christian theologian and philosopher who wrote eirenically toward Islam in the medieval era.

If you are looking for a thoroughly biblical and deeply Christian rationale for engagement with Muslims, you need to consider this book and its arguments. Volf's style is clear and accessible, with plenty of scholarly substance, yet written in a way accessible to non-scholars. If you take up Volf's arguments, you will find ways to maintain a deep commitment to Christ (even be an exclusivist committed to witness to Muslims) while loving Muslims in a way they will very likely perceive to be loving.

Using "political theology", Volf's main thesis is that the God of Christians and Muslims is the same. His approach is from that of a Christian but he is able to balance that with a few quotations from the Koran and Hadith. He argues persuasively that since "normative" Christianity's description of God's attributes is similar to "normative" Islam's description of Allah's attributes, therefore both religious traditions worship the same God.

When it comes to the issue of the Trinity (Muslims believe that Christians worship three gods instead of one), Volf brings in the masterful argument set forth by theologian Nicholas of Cusa (1401 - 1464) and that of Reformer Martin Luther. Volf gave a good summary of the explanation of Nicholas of Cusa of the Trinity to the Muslim so that there is "no dispute between Christians and Muslim about God's unity" (51). One part of his explanation is that "[n]umbers are for creatures. God is not a creature. Therefore God is beyond number - beyond the number one as much as beyond the number three" (52). It must be noted that Nicholas of Cusa came up with this ingenious explanation of the Trinity after the fall and rape of Constantinople in 1453 by the Muslim armies of Sultan Mehmed II and the Christians were trying to sue for peace. The argument by Martin Luther as explained by Volf was a bit confusing except that "the main emphasis of Luther's theology: God's unconditional love" (73). However it must also be noted that Luther's thinking was in the context of Sulaimen the Magnificent capturing Hungary and laying siege to Vienna. If Vienna falls, then the whole of Europe will follow. The Christians were again trying to find common grounds.

Having set the groundwork by appealing to Nicholas of Cusa and Martin Luther, Volf set forth to argue in the second half of the book that the common attributes of the Christian God and Islam's Allah are the same thus concluding that both are the same. All other points of differences are then explained under "eternal and unconditional love". Though I appreciate Volf's attempt to set a common ground for dialogue, and suspect his affirmation that "If Muslims and Christians have a common God, are not Islam and Christianity just two versions of the same thing?" (191), I am not comfortable with his approach.

As Volf himself has pointed out, the Apostle Creed reveals two essential aspects of Christianity - who God is and what He has done. One cannot explain away so easily the Trinity- God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son and the Holy Spirit in one Godhead (Christians believe in one God, not three Gods). Also the work of Jesus Christ on the cross cannot be explained away by just using the term "unconditional love" without going into atonement and Jesus' words "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). In the index of this 314 page book, there is only three references to Jesus' death on the cross.

The second sentence Volf's introduction chapter almost broke my heart. He writes, "Christian responses to Allah - understood here as the God of the Quran - will either widen the chasm or help bridge it (1). In Malaysia, the Christians have been trying to appeal against the government who wants to restrict the use of the word Allah to Muslims only. In one sentence, Volf gave away all that the Malaysian Christians have been fighting for all these years. Volf is aware of this issue in Malaysia (80-81). Allah has been used as synonymous with God by the Bahasa Malaysia (Malay) speaking Christians in Malaysia long before Malaysia became a country. Allah is an Arabic word meaning God.

This book is an excellent scholarly monograph in bridge building between two religious traditions. If it is from the Christian perspective, then one must be careful not to give away the basic tenets of one's faith.

This book presents an approach to Islam based on emphasizing commonalities in our conception of God. Volf feels that this is an essential means of dealing with the animosity between the two religions and a means of limiting extremists. New approaches are indeed needed and I agree with Volf that Western initiated wars in the Middle East are un-Christian and result in increased hatred and religious violence. Volf's research seems theologically astute and he reflects the loving attitude of Christ toward people of other religions but the results of his approach should give cause for concern.

Volf's very admirable goal is to decrease religious violence and promote greater harmony between Christian and Muslim communities. If Volf's presumptions are valid, the dialogues and common principles lauded by Volf and his Muslim collaborators should produce improved relationships between the communities and limit extremism. In countries which have been deeply impacted by the enlightenment (many non-Muslim and secularized countries), the principles promoted in this book can possibly be applied and Christians can find them helpful in building bridges with their Muslim neighbors.

Volf's hopes that by focusing on common ethics, and better behavior there would also be some effect on Volf's Muslim dialogue partners and their societies. Unfortunately the behavior of some key proponents of "A Common Word" seems to invalidate Volf's political and theological approach. HRH Prince Ghazi of Jordan (Volf's friend, coauthor of "A Common Word" and global religious peace activist) trumpets the most beautiful concepts of love in the Qu'ran and inter-religious understanding. In 2007 and 2008 Ghazi, serving as Chief Advisor to the King on Religious Affairs, was associated with policies which included harshly deporting many Christians from his country. He was also complicit in government orchestrated parliamentary and media attacks against the tiny evangelical Christian community in Jordan. (Christianity Today, Compass Direct and Wikileaked documents from the US Embassy in Amman adequately describe this bullying). Conversations which are recorded in recently Wikileaked documents reveal the Prince's deep enmity towards evangelical Christians (Jordanian led churches which were pioneers in healthcare and education in the region). (See Amman Embassy Cable Subject: Staffdel discusses Peace Process, Regional Events. June 3, 2008).

Prince Ghazi is a brilliant Western educated Muslim who understands Christian values and can craft documents which we find pleasurable to read as Christians. Personally, I like much of what is said in `the Amman Message" and " A Common Word". These writings bring to the forefront interpretations which accentuate aspect of Islam which are in wonderful symmetry with Christianity, but are the documents worth the paper they are printed on? Many Jordanians rightly feel betrayed that these documents are marketed abroad but not implemented at home. (See Wikileaked documents: July 8, 2009, Poet's prison sentence for "slandering Islam", February 7, 2010, Posner's focus on democratic and human rights reform) To his credit, Volf is busy promoting the tolerant values which he has subscribed to with regard to Islam. (Reviewer Mark Durie indicates that some of the signers of the "A Common Word" documents are proponents of violent jihad) This book and the principles laid down are intended for Christians, but Volf's hope that this would resonate with Muslims and have important consequences (p259) seems to have been trashed.

Given the behavior of some participants in his discussions, Volf should be asking himself if efforts like "A Common Word" are really just providing `peacemaking' credentials to those whose true interest is in promoting their own variety of political Islam. For whatever reason, the "The Amman Message" has never taken hold in the Arab World where it was penned. Egypt just elected a Salafi government. Hamas has gained strength in Palestinian Areas and even Israel, Hezbollah has cemented its power hold in Lebanon. The Arab Spring has not delivered the `moderate' leaders which the West wants and Jordanians also lean more and more towards Salafi interpretations of Islam. The late anthropologist Richard Antoun, who studied Islam in Jordan for decades, documented the increasing power of fundamentalist Islam within the Jordanian government's religious institutions.

Volf seems to be missing key information. In the book he states that Turkish Islamicist Fethullah Gulen's motives are more spiritual and ethical than political. (p237) Journalist who have studied the growing political clout of the Islamicists in Turkey recognize Gulen as a huge political force. Volf under-estimates the political- religious integration which is proving itself more and more central to Islamic theologies.

We can't say that nobody has benefited from this approach. Some in the Pentagon and/or State Department like the "Common Word" so much that it is being `weaponized'. Afghani Imams are offered training in `moderate' Islam in Jordan (where `moderate' Islam is losing ground). Wikileaked Amman Embassy documents show this training as somehow connected to US financial payments for Jordanian military forces, police training and other assistance in the "War on Terror" in Afghanistan. Author David Price has written recently about how anthropologists are being `weaponized' by the US military in its unending wars and it is clear that theologians can just as easily be `weaponized'. (Take a look at Amman Embassy Document Jan 22, 2010: Jordan: Preview of Afghanistan Support) Last I heard, `no compulsion in religion' implied that religion shouldn't be bundled in packages with guns, special forces and F16 fighter jets.

Volf's tribute to his Pentecostal father, the man who taught him to love and respect Muslims, made me wonder. What stance did Volf's father adopt towards his Muslim neighbor and what were the results? Volf's methodology could benefit from more of the collective wisdom of communities who live as minorities within Muslim communities. Historically the most powerful tool the church has had for overcoming conflict and bringing real peace is not the "Amman Message' but the "Gospel Message". I am not sure how this always plays out in this complex world but accepting that Christ himself is the Prince of Peace is our Christian starting point.

All this said, I enjoyed the book and hope that Dr. Volf is not discouraged by the poor results of his methodology. His books show an incredible depth of study and reflection and I genuinely wish that his efforts could reduce conflict. I do believe that many Muslims and Christians are serious about decreasing the ridiculous religious violence which plagues our world. Detaching religion from religious violence is an incredibly difficult undertaking but we all learn from these tremendous efforts.

"Do we worship the same God?" This has become a hotly contested and divisive question, posed in these troubled days by many Christians about Muslims and Islam. Influential theologian Miroslav Volf, who is Henry B. Wright professor of Systematic Theology at Yale, offers an answer in his latest book, Allah: a Christian response. Volf's influence is considerable, and this book deserves careful consideration.

Three influences and one agenda

Volf comes to this question with three formative influences, and an agenda.

His first influence is a long-standing engagement with the theology of reconciliation and conflict resolution, out of which he wrote his acclaimed Exclusion and Embrace. This engagement was shaped by growing up as a Pentecostal Croatian Christian in communist Yugoslavia, and through reflection on the Yugoslav wars of 1990-1995.

Volf's second formative influence is his intensive dialogue with Muslims in recent years, particularly through the Common Word initiative.

Volf's third influence is his admired father, to whom his book is dedicated, and who taught Volf from his earliest years that Christians and Muslims do indeed worship the same God.

The agenda Volf pursues is one of political theology. He asks, "Can religious exclusivists, adherents of different religions, [i.e. most Muslims and Christians] live comfortably with one another under the same political roof?" (p.220). Volf's answer to this question is `yes': on the basis of a shared belief in the one God.

The `Commonalities Approach'

To fully appreciate Volf's argument - and its limitations - we must take careful note of his `commonalities approach'. His rules of engagement with the other are:

1. "Concentrate on what is common," and
2. "Keep an eye out for what is decisively different." (p.91)

At the heart of Allah are a handful of claims about God which Volf contends are shared by `normative' Islam, and `normative' Christianity (p.123). He argues from these shared convictions to propose a political solution for how the two religions can live together in peace.

Volf's six core beliefs of monotheism are: (1) There is only one God. (2) God created everything that is not God. (3) God is radically different from everything that is not God. (4) God is good. (5) God commands us to love God. And (6) God commands us to love our neighbours as ourselves.

The first four beliefs, Volf says, establish his claim that, when people say God (or Allah), they refer to the same object, while the final two reinforce this claim (p.110).

Volf also distinguishes between referring to and worshipping God, and proposes that `To the extent that Christians and Muslims strive to love God and neighbor, they worship the same true God.' (p.124). The Allah of whom the Qur'an speaks, Volf argues, is the God of the Bible, and this one God `requires Muslims and Christians to obey strikingly similar commands as an expression of their worship.' (p.124)

Volf is an advocate of religious freedom, and argues that common belief in the one God requires both Muslims and Christians to support the impartiality of the state toward all religions (p.238), and specifically to embrace freedom of religion, without interference by the state, including the freedom to leave or change one's religion. (p.234). This conclusion rests crucially on Volf's claim that Muslims and Christians both accept God's command to love one's neighbour.

Packed with Interesting Perspectives

A `hot and spicy' dish, as Volf calls it, Allah is jam-packed full of interesting ideas and perspectives. Volf's reflections on what Nicholas of Cusa and Martin Luther had to say about Islam are rich (chapters 2-3), as is his discussion of the Trinity in chapter 7, in which he argues that what Muslims deny when they reject the Trinity is also denied by orthodox Christianity, and `Christians affirm what Muslims affirm' about God's oneness (p.143).

Another engaging feature of Allah is Volf's capacity to point out that Christianity has had a history of perpetrating the very abuses which some present-day Christians attribute to the God of Islam, such as persecution of apostates, or the use of warfare to impose religious observance.

Blind Spots: Warfare against Unbelievers

Volf's statements about Islam betray large blind spots, in part because he relies too uncritically on the testimony of his dialogue partners. This problem is particularly acute in his discussions of warfare against unbelievers, which is an important issue for peaceful coexistence.

Martyrdom Operations

For example, in a brief discussion of martyrdom operations, Volf cites the Amman letter to Pope Benedict as his evidence that `normative' Islam condemns what he calls `suicide terrorism' (p.112). Yet there is no reference to or discussion of suicide terrorism in the Amman letter.

One of the points Volf makes is that Islam rejects suicide. Yet he seems to be unaware that among the Amman's letter's signatories are several who have endorsed what they refer to as martyrdom operations (i.e. suicide bombings). These scholars do not consider these operations to be acts of suicide:

- Shaikh Ali Jumu'ah, Grand Mufti of Egypt and Amman letter signatory has stated, "The one who carries out Fedaii [martyrdom] operations against the Zionists and blows himself up is, without a doubt, a Shahid [martyr] because he is defending his homeland against the occupying enemy who is supported by superpowers such as the U.S. and Britain."

- The second signatory to the Amman letter, Professor al-Buti, has said martyrdom operations are completely legitimate if the motive is to spite the enemy.

- Another signatory, Shaykh Ahmad Al-Khalili, Grand Mufti of Oman, has stated, "We are quite sure that the Jews are in their way to extinction, this is the promise of Allah ... Suicide is human boredom of life and his intention to kill himself, those Palestinian mujahideen are not bored with life and their intention was not to kill themselves: instead, they wanted to spite their enemy."

The truth is that a great many leading Muslim scholars endorse `martyrdom operations', while rejecting the view that these are acts of `suicide' on the grounds that if the intention of the bomber is to attack a legitimate enemy, blowing himself up is not an act of suicide at all.

Aggressive Jihad

A more serious blind spot shows when Volf alleges that the use of military force to extend Islam is `rejected by all leading Muslim scholars today' (p.210), again citing the Amman Letter.

However, nothing in the Amman letter rejects aggressive jihad. What this letter rejects is killing people simply for the sake of their faith, and the use of force to compel conversion. It does not reject the use of warfare to extend the political dominance of Islam over unbelievers.

As Haykal's magisterial 1993 survey of jihad in Islam shows, many leading scholars, both past and present, endorse jihad to make Islam dominant in the world. That the purpose of military jihad is to extend Islam is supported by the consensus view of classical scholars, including the Shafi'i jurist al-Ghazali, of whom Volf states `he is in many ways the most representative Muslim thinker you'll find, from any period' (p.169).

Aggressive jihad is also supported by many Saudi scholars, such as Shaykh Muhammad al-Munajid, who has said, "Undoubtedly taking the initiative in fighting has a great effect in spreading Islam and bringing people into the religion of Allaah in crowds."

Even among the signatories of the Amman and Common Word letters can be found advocates for aggressive jihad. For example, M. Taqi Uthmani, one of the leading Muslim jurists in the world today, and signatory to both these letters, has taught that "Aggressive Jehad is lawful even today... Its justification cannot be veiled ... we should venerate ... this expansionism with complete self-confidence".

Muhammad Salim Al-Awwa, a prominent Egyptian cleric, is another prominent scholar who signed the Common Word letter. He has pointed out that the word for Islamic conquests in Arabic is fut'h `openings'. Al-Awwa explained that the purpose of conquest in Islam is `to clear the way between Muslims and the invitation to Allah without the obstruction of the [non-Muslim] rulers'. In other words, conquest opens up a land to Islam by removing political obstacles to the Islamic mission.

The Killing of `Innocents'

At some points Volf seems almost gullible. He recites the oft-repeated claim that Islam forbids `the killing of innocents', whereas in fact what sharia jurisprudence forbids is the killing of those whose lives Islamic law does not allow to be taken. The classical view is that the blood of disbelievers not living under a dhimma pact is halal (i.e. it is permitted to kill them).

While it is true that the laws of jihad forbid the killing of women and children - these should be enslaved rather than killed - it is permitted for infidel adult males to be put to death, `innocent' or not. Even killing women and children is allowed as collateral damage. For example, Volf's favoured authority al-Ghazali wrote `[O]ne must go on jihad at least once a year... one may use a catapult against them when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them.'

An Ungenerous Reading of an Opposing View

On the one hand, Volf gives too generous an interpretation to his dialogue partners, finding rejection of objectionable aspects of sharia where there is none. On the other hand, he misrepresents a view which is opposed to his own. In my book Revelation I argued that when comparing the God of the Qur'an and the Bible, one must consider differences, not just similarities. Volf interacts with this part of Revelation, but misrepresents it, saying:

Durie ... maintains that if you don't have a complete match between descriptions of God in Islam and Christianity, you don't have identity. To find out whether the God of the Qur'an is a genuine or false God, the procedure should be the same as when trying to figure out whether a banknote is genuine or counterfeit. If there are any differences from the banknote you know is genuine, then it's counterfeit'. (pp.91-92 - Volf's emphases)

This is a straw man. In reality I nowhere said that there must be a complete match to have identity, nor that finding any difference establishes that the God of the Bible and the Qur'an are not the same. I argued that while differences are important, the mere listing of differences is not enough to disprove identity. Instead one must focus on the deeper, fundamental attributes of God, and I then devoted a series of chapters to discussing deeper differences.

A Crucial Blind Spot: Love for which Neighbours?

The crux of the matter is Volf's claim about the love of God. Absolutely pivotal for Volf's argument is a hadith (a tradition of Muhammad) which he claims is a command to love `all' neighbors (p.182), including non-Muslims. Volf appears to have derived this insight this from the Common Word letter, which makes use of an edited version of this tradition.

Because this is such a key point in Allah, I reproduce the exact text of the tradition (in the English translation of Abdul Hamid Siddiqui), including its chapter heading:

Chapter 18: CONCERNING THE FACT THAT IT IS ONE OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF IMAN [Faith] THAT ONE SHOULD LIKE THE SAME THING FOR ONE'S BROTHER-IN-ISLAM AS ONE LIKES FOR ONE'S SELF

§72: It is arrested on the authority of Anas b. Malik that the Prophet (may peace and blessings be upon him) observed: one amongst you believes (truly) till one likes for his brother or for his neighbour that which he loves for himself.

§73: It is narrated on the authority of Anas that the Prophet (may peace blessings be upon him) observed: By Him in whose Hand is my life, no, bondsman (truly) believes till he likes for his neighbour, or he (the Holy Prophet) said: for his brother, whatever he likes for himself.
(Sahih Muslim, The Book of Faith (Kitab al-Iman)

The first thing to note about this hadith is that the chapter heading in the very source Volf cites makes clear that the tradition is about loving one's Muslim neighbour. The second thing to note is that the preferred reading (listed first) is `brother', understood in Islam to refer to a fellow Muslim. Also the version of the tradition in the even more revered Sahih al-Bukhari reads: "The Prophet said, "None of you will have faith till he wishes for his (Muslim) brother what he likes for himself."

It is also striking that Volf is unable to cite a single verse of the Qur'an to support the idea that God commands love for one's neighbour. What can be found in the Qur'an are disturbing instructions on how to deal with non-Muslim neighbours, such as Sura 9:123 "O you who believe! Fight [to kill] those who are near to you of the disbelievers, and let them find harshness in you. And know that Allah is with those who fear him."

Loving God?

Also questionable is the phrase Volf uses to justify his claim that Islam `commands us to love God with our whole being' (p.104). He cites Allahu wa'dahu `God alone', translated rather grandiosely as `God, One and Only'.

However the verse in question, Sura 39:45, literally says: "When God alone is mentioned, the hearts of those who do not believe in the hereafter shrink back with aversion; but when those besides him [i.e. other gods] are mentioned, behold, they rejoice." It is hard to read this as a command to `love God with our whole being', for the intent of this verse is simply to condemn those who worship a multiplicity of gods, in the context of future judgment.

It is about More than Love

It is disappointing that Volf goes no further in considering God's character than `God is love'. Certainly for Christians, the claim that `we worship the same God' demands agreement on this above all, but there are other salient attributes of God in the Bible, which it would have been fruitful to investigate in dialogue with Islam, such as his holiness, his covenantal faithfulness, his divine presence, and his creation of human kind in his image.

Leaps of Logic and Selective use of Evidence

The impression given throughout Allah is of someone who is keen to achieve his stated agenda of establishing a political theology for mutual coexistence. So keen that he is blind to contrary evidence, even when this is readily available, and makes unwarranted logical and rhetorical leaps in reaching for his goal.

For example, Volf cites verses to show that the God of the Qur'an loves (p.101), but then, without explanation, he immediately transforms this into `God is good'. These two claims are not the same, and the first is much easier to justify from the Qur'an than the second: `The Good' is not one of the famous 99 names of Allah found in the Qur'an.

Another example is Volf's claim that the Qur'an's commands are similar to the Ten Commandments of Moses. What is problematic is that there are other commands in the Qur'an which contradict the Ten Commandments, specifically in the context of relations with non-Muslims. For example there are verses which command killing disbelievers (e.g. Sura 9:5); a verse which endorses sexual intercourse with (non-Muslim) married captive women (Sura 4:24; see also 4:3, 23:6, 33:50, 70:29-30); verses which encourage Muslims to take booty from disbelievers (e.g. Sura 48:20); a verse and associated hadith which encourage Muslims to disrespect their non-Muslim parents if they are hostile to Islam, Sura 60:8-9; and verses which incite deceiving disbelievers under certain circumstances (e.g. Sura 3:28).

Proof by Contradiction?

Volf's method does not engage objectively with Islam in a rigorous way, carefully examining the weight of evidence for and against his various positions. Instead he zeroes in on commonalities to secure his six principles, backs each these up with a verse or two taken in isolation, and then constructs his argument on this foundation, seemingly in splendid isolation from Islamic theology and jurisprudence.

The weight of evidence is significant. It is not enough to just point out that something can be found somewhere in the Qur'an. One should also ask how central this theme is in the whole book. For example, the statement that God is loving is attested only twice (Sura 11:90, Sura 85:14). Scores of other attributes are far more more central, being mentioned more frequently (such as The Creator or The Omnipotent). The paucity of references to the love of God contrasts with the hundreds of references to God's love in the Bible, including central descriptions of the character of God, such as God's revelation of himself to Moses in Exodus 34:6.

An example of the isolation of Volf's argument, in the light of Islamic thought, is that, although he advances an argument that the monotheism of `normative' Islam should favor political inclusivism, rather than reinforcing exclusivism (p.246), Volf devotes no space to considering on what grounds Islam bases its unreciprocal treatment of the dhimmis, non-Muslims living in an Islamic society.

The result is that Volf's conclusions are at odds with normative Islamic beliefs and practices. This gap is so great - on such topics as freedom of religion, treatment of apostates, and the political status of non-Muslims in an Islamic state - that he virtually mounts a proof-by-contradiction against himself, in which his premises are undermined by his conclusions.

What about Muhammad?

Perhaps the biggest blind spot of all in Allah is Muhammad. Islam is not only based on the Qur'an - it is also based upon Muhammad himself. The sharia, as a system for all of life, is constructed, with painstaking care, upon the details of the life of Muhammad, whom the Qur'an itself repeatedly commends as the `best example' to follow. A problem with this is that Muhammad's example includes many instances of the ill-treatment and subjugation of non-Muslims, in contrast to many exhortations for Muslims to treat fellow-Muslims with respect.

If Muhammad did not love his non-Muslim neighbour as himself, and his is the best example for Muslims to follow, how can Islam overlook the moral force of this example? Volf's assumption that Islam should base its political vision on a few principles about the character of God - some of which are rarely if ever mentioned in the Qur'an - naively ignores this reality.

Because Volf turns a blind eye to Muhammad, he also completely underestimates the sharia as the most pressing issue for coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims.

This appears to be the reason why Volf has nothing to say about growing pressure from Muslim groups to establish parallel legal systems in Western nations. Muslim communities all over the lands of immigration have been asking and even demanding that non-Muslim governments recognise plural legal jurisdictions in order to accommodate the sharia. In our day, as sharia courts are springing up everywhere from London to Sydney, this is one of the most practical challenges to Volf's vision of a common political roof for Muslims and Christians. Yet without engaging with the issue of Muhammad and his sharia, Volf can have nothing of importance to say about the real world of religious coexistence.

It has also to be emphasised that sharia implemention is not specifically a Muslim-Christian issue. The sharia raises much broader human rights issues, which impact severely upon Hindus in Pakistan, Zoroastrians in Iran, Ahmadiyyas in Indonesia, apostates from Islam in just about any nation, and, of course, Muslim women everywhere. The question is not how Christians and Muslims can live together, but how Islam can coexist with non-Islam. In the prescient words of William Montgomery Watt in 1993:

There are undoubtedly some Islamic states which treat non-Muslim citizens in ways which can only be described as oppressive ... It is of the utmost importance that Muslim jurists should consider whether such treatment of non-Muslims is in accordance with the Shari'ah or contrary to it. More generally, does the Shari'ah allow Muslims to live peaceably with non-Muslims in the `one world' ... To have an answer to these questions may be a matter of urgency in a few years time.

In reality, what Muhammad, the Qur'an and normative Islam consistently teach - which is nothing to rejoice over - is that Muslims should strive to achieve political dominance over the adherents of other religions, for example Sura 48:28 states "He [Allah] has sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may cause it to triumph over all religion." This belief is expounded in countless commentaries, legal textbooks and writings of Muslim scholars, past and present. It is a core part of normative Islam, which has not been renounced by the Islamic mainstream. It is upon this rock that Volf's whole thesis founders.

Even-handedness or Tu Quoque Reasoning?

One frustrating aspect of Allah is Volf's subtle reliance on tu quoque reasoning, which works to deflect attention from core issues. For example, Volf only mentions the idea of the dhimmi -which is so central for Muslim-Christian coexistence - in a discussion of 16th century Christian religious compulsion (p.225). His seemingly even-handed presentation underscores Volf's emphasis that intolerance is a universal human problem, but it conceals a refusal to engage with the Qur'anic basis of theological non-reciprocity in Islam. Thus Volf nowhere engages with Sura 9:29, which is perhaps the most crucial verse for determining the status of Christians in Islamic political theology.

Beware the Blurb

The reader should also beware of attributing what the cover blurb says to Volf himself. The cover, prepared by the publisher, states that `a person can be both a practicing Muslim and 100 percent Christian without denying core convictions of belief and practice'. This is an unfortunate misreading, for Volf in fact only says that a person can be 100% Christian while following certain Muslim practices (p.199) such as fasting during Ramadan, or calling Muhammad a `prophet' with what is a non-religious meaning of that word.

It would have been more helpful if Volf had explained why belief in Muhammad as a prophet, in the orthodox Islamic sense, is inconsistent with Christian faith. Indeed through the whole book, the reader should be careful not to read implications into Volf's text which he does not actually make explicit, for in the effort to maximize common ground, he sometimes sails very close to the wind, not making explicit the boundaries he will not cross.

Who is Allah really written for?

There is a tension concerning who is the intended audience of Allah. On the one hand, Volf repeatedly claims that he has written this book for Christians. However, it is Muslims who most need to be convinced about his proposed common `roof' for coexistence.

Although Volf argues at length that normative Islamic and Christian monotheism should both support principles of religious freedom, most modern Christians do not need to be convinced about these principles as far as their own understanding of God is concerned. On the other hand, if Volf's claims about the God Muslims believe in are not compelling for Muslims, what difference will it make what Christians think about the God of the Qur'an?

Volf has announced a party, under a common political roof, of love for God and neighbour. In a sense, the Christians are already at the party: for them the roof is already in place. The Muslims, by and large, are not there yet. In Allah, Volf has written a book to persuade Christians that Muslims ought to come to the party, but in the end this will make little difference to whether the party actually takes place. The important thing is for Muslims to turn up, not for Christians to be convinced that they must.

If Volf is wrong about Islam - and I believe he is - and the whole Christian world were to think like him, the outcome could be that Christians do nothing to counter resurgent Islamic supremacist ideology, all the while being convinced in themselves that `normative Islam' supports principles of equality and freedom. This could be a recipe for a long steady spiritual decline, leading to political surrender.

For Western Christian eyes only?

Allah is very much pitched at Western Christians. However for Christians who currently live under Islamic dominance, even in countries where some of Volf's dialogue partners are in a position of leadership, his book could cause great pain and offense, for it denies oxygen to a coherent understanding of the roots of the non-Muslims' plight in Islamic theology and jurisprudence. To Volf's claim that belief in a common God of the Bible and the Qur'an should produce conditions for reciprocity and freedom, persecuted Christians will respond with shocked incredulity. They are all too familiar with the verses of the Qur'an which Muslims use to justify such ill-treatment, and to them Volf's rhetoric could sound like a form of abuse (i.e. the dhimmi syndrome), in which non-Muslims are only allowed to pursue peace by praising Islam.

Love trumps Truth

Volf's Allah is a good-hearted attempt to forge an interfaith theology for political coexistence and peace under `the same political roof' (p.220). Although his edifice is constructed on a profound knowledge of Christianity, warts and all, it relies upon blind spots and wishful thinking about Islam. Volf takes irenic delight in focusing on what is good and similar in the other. This is commendable in itself, but his method fails him badly, as he repeatedly overstates what is common and overlooks what is different. His loving gaze upon Islam is a heuristic failure.

Volf looks upon Allah through Christian eyes, seeing the God of the Bible in the pages of the Qur'an, but is often blind to contrary evidence. His image of Islam is thus fundamentally skewed.

This is a form of prejudice, not one born of a hostile fear of the other, but rather of the fear of excluding the other. This is a fear of being found to be less than Christian. Unfortunately, in Volf's method, and - it must be conceded - against his avowed intent (see p.259), love trumps truth. Caveat lector.

After reading this book on Muslim-Christian conflict, I think the author's unstated thesis is: "I can't change other people's attitudes and actions, I can only change mine." Volf's concern is not what Muslims think of us, or even whether they might be inclined to meet us halfway (although that is his hope) in dialogue and mutual tolerance. He can only speak as a Christian. But this limitation exposes the weakness of his argument in an otherwise excellent book. So what if our "circle" includes them; it matters little if their circle excludes us...unless we love them so much that they come around, which appears to be Volf's sincere hope.

In order to promote solidarity, Volf argues that Christianity and Islam have the same God: "Christians and Muslims name in different names and worship in different ways the one true God." However, there is no consensus among Muslims as to whether Allah is the God of Christians (Jews are omitted for the most part from the discussion, as are all other faiths). And some Christians respond to terrorism by concluding "their God can't be ours." Fear of Islam (however justified) does not welcome reconciliation.

A stumbling block to harmony is the Trinity. In order to defend a Trinitarian position against the charge that Christians say but don't mean that God is "one", Volf gives the best explanation I've read of the Trinity. Muslim criticism is toward a misguided view of the doctrine, Volf claims...which even many Christians admittedly get wrong; it's a difficult doctrine to grasp. Volf insists, "the talk about `three Persons' does not subvert God's oneness...God is beyond number" (which seems to imply 1 + 1 + 1 = 1). He speculates that the term "person" may not accurately describe what is largely inexpressible (language has limitations). He goes on to say, "The divine `Persons' are tied together in their mutual indwelling...you cannot say that the act of one is the act of that Person alone; the other two are always `in' the third."

In dealing with stereotypes, Volf spends considerable time unpacking Pope Benedict XVI's volatile comment that Islam is a violent religion...which resulted in some Muslims declaring the Pope must die. If a Muslim cleric said Christians were violent, would there have been comparable rioting in the streets?

My response to Volf's overall argument is that it doesn't matter whether we worship different deities; we can choose to be at peace regardless, with anyone. Volk asks, "Is monotheism by its very nature religiously and politically exclusive?" No, our prevalently Judeo-Christian nation is not at war with India, Japan, or China, yet their religions are even more at odds with ours. Does it really matter (politically) whether or not we worship the same God? Can Muslims and Christians "live under the same political roof and work together for the common good?" Volf asks.

In describing religious differences, Volf omits what I see as the major difference between the two, namely grace: "God demonstrates His love for us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us," Romans 5:8. How do Muslims satisfy the justice of God? But Volf's book is about political theology, not soteriology. This emphasis on justice plays out with Islam's denial of love toward enemies. They are told to love their neighbor...but what if that neighbor isn't a Muslim? Is God's love conditional? In writing to a Christian audience, Volf rightly charges us: "If you say that Your God is unconditional Love, you should show unconditional love towards Muslims."

Volf envisions a world that can embrace diversity and religious pluralism, and the free exercise of religion, to include the right to witness and to leave one's religion--no problem in America, but a huge problem in some Muslim countries. But the real issue is the human heart: "Bad people, with no intention of doing good, can think alike about God, and that won't prevent them from being at each other's throats." Volf admits, "We fail often, and fail miserably, not because of our convictions, but despite them."

Volf is hoping that Muslims and Christians will decide our religions are not "radically incompatible" and thus choose to coexist for the sake of peace. Otherwise clashes and conflict will continue. Changes in attitudes on a global scale are critical: "Our common future is at stake." There will be no peace unless all nations choose religious tolerance. There must be charitable dialogue, engagement--conversation, not crusade.

In Allah, Miroslav Volf tackles the controversial question, "Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?" Volf points out that it is only since 9/11 and the emergence of Muslim terrorist groups into the forefront that Christians have begun to ask this question. The book is a timely and carefully written argument from the point of view of a Christian theologian to fellow Christians (with Muslims as an intended and important secondary audience) that demonstrates that indeed the God of the Qur'an and the God of the Bible share sufficient similarities to be deemed the same.

Volf opens the debate by briefly touching on the modern issues contrasting the opposition's viewpoint, exemplified by Pat Robertson, who believe that Allah is a different God from that of Christians, with that of his own. In the wake of the violent reactions throughout the Muslim world to the Danish cartoons that satirically portrayed Muhammad in 2006 and the peacemaking overture of the Islamic scholars who issued the "Common Word" document in 2007, knowing whether Christians and Muslims worship the same God is critical to achieving peace and combatting extremism. Volf does not address the issue of salvation. His stated goal is to lay the theological foundation for peaceful Muslim-Christian relations.

Volf examines the record of Muslim-Christian relations for precedents. His first is Nicholas of Cusa was a cardinal during the sack of Constantinople by Ottoman armies. His recommendation to the pope to arrange an interfaith conference rather than a new crusade was based on his conviction that Christians and Muslims worship the same God with different names and in different ways. His second example is from a century later when the Ottoman armies had invaded Hungary. Martin Luther described Muslims using the same fiery rhetoric as he did for all his opponents. For Luther the Muslims didn't worship a separate God, but like Catholics, Jews, and heretical groups, they did not rightly know the one true God, while acknowledging significant overlaps between the Christian and Muslim understanding of God.

Then Volf returns to the book's central question. He suggests that no two people have the exact same belief in God, even if they share a common faith, so he proposes that the God of Christians and Muslims can be said to be the same if they show sufficient similarity. Volf examines portions of the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Bible and compares beliefs for normative Muslims and Christians: God is One, God is the Creator, God is transcends creation, and God is good. Also God commands that people love Him and love their neighbor. The key here is "normative." Volf sets aside extremist positions for the moment. Then, he examines the practices of Muslims and Christians. Stated beliefs are one thing. What person practices reflects what he truly believes. He concludes that to the extent that Muslims and Christians hold to the normative beliefs of their religion and practice the commandments to love God and love others, they do worship the same God. Muslims may worship God deficiently since they do not know God as revealed through Jesus Christ, but Volf is not examining the question of salvation.

Volf then examines some of the key differences between the Muslim and Christian conception of God. He clears up many of the misconceptions held by Muslims about the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and paints a picture of the Triune God to highlight another important difference, the nature of God's love. Though in both religions, God commands his followers to love, only in Christianity does God ask believers to love their enemies. The difference comes from the quality of divine love. For Muslims, God's self-love is the source of all human love. For Christians, the inter-personal love of the Trinity is the source. God's love is self-giving rather than self-directed. God does not love what is pleasing to Him, rather God loves and so transforms what is displeasing to Him to what pleases Him. These differences do not indicate that Muslims and Christians worship a different God, but are the basis for fascinating and rigorous debate about the nature of the one true God.

One of the most important points in Volf's argument is the inclusive nature of monotheism. Any attempt the confine God to a marker of identity (his example: the Christian Serbs) effectively reduces God to tribal deity. A community must instead align its own aspirations with God's character and demands. Both Muslims and Christians claim to worship the one God, but both communities often fall prey to having God align with their own narrow viewpoints. Since God does underly the ultimate values of both, this is a foundation for unity and peace.

Volf believes that unity and peace can be shared by Muslims and Christians who maintain an exclusivist religious worldview. Volf does not suggest that Christianity is the same as Islam, just because both adherents worship the same God. Nor must either group surrender the truth claims of their respective religions. Muslims and Christians do not need to settle for relativism. They can disagree with one another on important religious beliefs such as the nature of salvation, while remaining committed to treating one another with dignity and fighting for the common good of all. The foundation for this "political pluralism" for "religious exclusivists" is in the shared belief that the two most important commands are to love God and love one's neighbor. Additionally, a commitment to justice precludes treating the other as second-class citizen. Thus, Volf also has critics of religion, such as the new atheists, in is sights. Monotheism is the basis for a just and ethical, peaceful society, committed to political pluralism. In his words, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of political wisdom in a multi-religious state" (241).

Volf concludes his work by giving ten ways the arguments of his book can be used by Christians, primarily, but also by Muslims to combat religious extremism, including terrorism. The book thus achieves its practical purpose of promoting peace and the common good of Muslims and Christians in society. I highly recommend this book to any Christian (or Muslim!) involved in interfaith dialogue, religious ministry, or mission work. While I don't agree with every point that Volf makes, his writing is very clear, logical, and easy to read. His arguments are well constructed, with a good balance of reason and revelation, with modern and historical examples. Though some of the topics are challenging theologically, it should not be difficult to follow for the layperson. There is a lot of material worth debating and discussing in Christian, Muslim, or interfaith groups.

Review on the book: Allah: A Christian Response by Miroslav Volf. Decision to purchase this book came after reading an interesting article in Christianity Today "The Son of Crescent" by Collin Hansen Feb 2011 and advertisement in WSJ regarding book of Volf. After reading this article I had so many questions, do we really believe in same God or not. Practically right now everybody agrees that we believe in same God with Jews, but with Muslims? Pope John Paul II declared, yes, we believe in same God. Still so many questions are not answered. This book: Allah: A Christian Response by Miroslav Volf answers many questions and shows the way to solve other problems too. Sometimes this book is very controversial, but gives a lot of information for your own decision.
I like to share my experience with Muslim brothers. During my service in Soviet Army in early 80's I had many encounters with Muslims (usually soldiers who served in Soviet Army from Central Asian republics). I understand the problems with using words such as Son of God, Trinity, Jesus Christ, Gospels. When talking about Christian beliefs, everything depends on the background of the believers of Islam. Practically, much of their understanding of religion is based on cultural traditions, on the opinions of people who surrounded them, on family teaching, but not always directly on the Quran. It is much easier to have conversations with someone who reads the Quran himself. We can talk about similarities in Bible and Quran. For person who never read Bible it is amazing discovery. We're not talking about Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, all that stories absolutely same as in Old Testament.
According to Muslims we Christians believe in many gods, believe in human person and have many different sacred texts (4 gospels). Someone who hasn't read the Quran doesn't know that this book contains story about Mary and Jesus (sura 19), Trinity ("And We made the son of Mary and his mother as a Sign: We gave them both shelter on high ground, affording rest and security and furnished with springs". Uran 23:50). Christ is the Word in the Quran too.(Isa son of Miriam is only a messenger of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Miriam and a spirit from Him...(4:171)
To make easier conversations with Muslims, it is better to use Quran in the beginning. According to Quran Jesus (Isa) is a second Adam as Paul teaches us too, He is a Word as in John 1:1, and even according to Quran Isa is much higher than Mohamed. His birth story is very similar to what we know from Gospels. Also, Mary is the only woman who is mentioned by the name and she even has a special sura: 19 Mariam. Another problem for Muslims believers is that we have four Gospel; according to their teaching Isa must have only one book, it's why Mohamed was chosen to fix all mistakes. "And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil). (5:46)" For me this question is much more difficult. Also they believe that Isa will come before the end. For someone of Muslims background who didn't read Quran my advice: go buy the book and read, because conversations with such person who has no knowledge of Quran is nonsense. He will tell you hundreds of stories, what he thinks from Quran but they are not to be found in the text, and it is very difficult to read aloud Quran for this person because he will not believe that this is a real Quran. He will tell you that only right Quran is in Arabic, but when he asked to read on Arabic he can't.
Many similarities in conversation have Jews when you talk to them. Jesus Christ to them is a dirty word, but when you start to talk about Messiah it will be different and they will listen. Couple years ago I had very interesting conversation with young Jews during a flight from Paris to Jerusalem. For two hours we have been talking about the Messiah and his coming. They were Hassidic. But still we had problems when I started to read Old Testament: Ps 2, Is 53 in English, they told me that my translation is wrong.
Basically I am making the point that when I follow sacred texts (Quran or Torah) rather than religious traditions and traditional stories, believers have a tendency to not think critically but instead follow according their lifelong experience.
In conclusion I can tell from my own experience: we can preach Gospel and Jesus Christ using Quran for Muslims, and afterwards invite them to small Bible Study group (they can be afraid of large gatherings in churches). Same situation is with Jews, we can tell them about Messiah using Old Testament (basically Torah, Isaiah and Psalms) and afterwards bring them in small groups as Jews for Jesus, where they have familiar faces around.
I believe that this book: Allah: A Christian Response by Miroslav Volf is very useful not only for Christian and also to Muslims. After reading this book we can understand each other more respectfully. I think that background of author Miroslav Volf (he was born in former Yugoslavia with great diversity Christian and Muslims)) helps him to make this book.
March edition of Christianity today published an interview with Miroslav Volf: Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God? I think it will be very helpful to everybody who interesting with interreligious contacts

****
"Once this occupation of my own country had taken place, I suddenly felt a surge of violence within me, and I was not sure exactly what I ought to do as a Christian. ... A follower of Christ as I was, I wanted the truth seen with the eyes of inviting and reconciling love, not the truth born of cold indifference or simmering hatred." - Miroslav Volf

Volf is dealing with the hard question, most Christians wrestle with on occasions, how do they respond to situations of violence, against their brothers and sisters in humanity let alone their Christian kinfolk. They struggle daily to perceive Jesus' commandment, "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;..." Matthew 5:44

Influential Christian theologian Miroslav Volf attempts to explain how the loving God of Christianity and Allah of Islam are essentially one and the same Lord. But he advocates a controversial theological claim that Muslims worship Christians' heavenly Father; being actually the same personal God, the Pantocrator. Provokingly, further, Volf contends that a person could have an illusion to be both a practicing Muslim and a believing Christian without denying either core convictions. While contenders of the "clash of civilizations" have made religion their primary vehicle to divide and challenge, blind to the historical fact that the God of Christians and Muslims evolved of the Hebrew faith in the 'God of Old,' with minor variance. Jan Assmann proclaims further that Adonai, the Hebrew Lord is a normative inversion revival of Akhenaton's god Aton, declared as not merely a monolatrial supreme god, but the only god.

Volf interesting points of revelation, writing from his own Christian perspective, in dialogue with some Muslim scholars around the globe, on common concepts that overlap of the two faith traditions, (being firm not to include Judaism). Since the general Moslem proclamation is that Christians are polytheists, those 'scholars' do not count a bit. The Koran is quite clear in this respect, "I invite to Allah with clear knowledge, I and whoever follows me. Glorified is Allah, and I am not of the polytheists." [EMQ 12:108] The Moslem position on Volf's own response is complete rejection, "And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers." [EMQ 3:85]

Revd Volf, founder and director of Yale Center for Faith and Culture, revives vital contemporary interest in the theological and historical commonalties of Islam and Christianity reflecting on how much he thinks is at stake. Although Volf argues that both religions command to love one's neighbor, the author must tackle more problematic dogmas. The Trinity, for instance, and how to square it with the absolute indivisibility of Allah, using Nicholas of Cusa apology, never convinced the Ottomans. Should has he implicated the Motazalite view, of the Trinity as attributes, could not even help, their agreement was completely banished. He may have refered to, Harry A. Wolfson, Harvard late Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy in, 'Maimonides on the Unity and Incorporeality of God. Wolfson compelling argued and expertly offers a constructive vision for that era, Religious Philosophy: A Group of Essays, not this new pluralism approach which is anti Islamic and guarantees no common future.

Volf's inquiry into the divine character and identity of God, cannot be globalized, for Volf's view, recognizing a 'common deity', failed to put pressure on parties just to stop fighting. The true effort is to eredicate hate, Monotheists are categorized as violent because they are not tolerant in viewing the one absolute truth, their own. The fall of Constantinople and its cruel slaughters, and Sunni Shiite vicious assassinations, recently experienced in Iraq confirm the historical hate crimes anew. Volf makes clear that, to him, violent extremists count neither as genuine Christian nor true Muslims. Alas, Jihad is a violent edict of religious practice required by the Quran, as a pillar of Islamic faith. Volf definition of faiths as believing mainly "that God is one, creator, and different from the world," is wanting and renders his book's core concern is not for souls but rather for political co-existance, a civil matter, in Greek terms; politika.

Professor Miroslav Volf's work joins a series of peace makers, like Nicholas of Cusa, who has disagreed that Islam is a 'falsehood maintained by the sword'. Volf criticizes such rhetorical bluster, extending his arms in hope of bridge-building, "let us not judge, that we not be judged." Volf is an earnest Christian, but his response is a failed work of political theology. It reflects his genuine Christian response to Bosnia's ethnic cleansing, systematic mass rape and genocide following the Slovenian and Croatian secessions from Yugoslavia in the 1990's. Well researched, Volf's presents his book with Christian passion, but does not consider the present Islamic reality of political Islam, and its Shariaa applications. Pius letter in which he requested a dialogue with the Ottoman sultan, and recent repercussions on Pope Benedict's Regensberg address, indicate a historical relevance to Benedict's citation of Manuel II Paleologus, as an earlier stage of the "clash of civilizations" and the Islamic threat which proves my doubts.

As a non-Christian who has always found compelling the claim by Jewish and Muslim thinkers that the Trinity is actually polytheism or modalism, I had high hopes for this book. It's difficult to get Muslims and Christians into a meaningful conversation without constant attempts at proselytization, but I understood from the jacket that Volf was going to facilitate just this.

Instead, however, I'm led to wonder who the target audience is. It certainly didn't satisfy my curiosity as an outsider and I suspect Trinitarians and Muslims will not get much from the text. Trinitarians, I imagine, will probably feel as though their distinguishing doctrine has been watered down into unrecognizability, and even then no Muslim theologian would find it acceptable.

As it concerns the purpose of the book, the argument really does not begin to resolve the tension of the Trinity in a way that serves the book's apparent purpose. As an example, the passage which caused me to put the book down for a while is quoted by other reviewers: God is beyond numbers. I tend to read forgivingly, but the treatment this breathtaking claim was given is completely insufficient. Both sides of the debate readily ascribe exact numbers to deity. What does this mean for tawhid? Why the 3-ity but definitely not the 5- or 17-ity? Etc.

A reader would do well to read only the concluding chapters, I suspect, which are less concerned with theology and more with a workable philosophy of coexistence, codes of conduct in mixed company, etc.

"Allah: A Christian Response," is the book I've been waiting for. As an author and speaker on these topics - the #1 question I get (a good question) is, "Is the god of Islam the same as the god of Christianity." This book fully answers this question with both grace and truth. Thank you Miroslav for doing us all a huge favor by writing this well-thought through and well-researched book. It answers the question once and for all...