Abd al-Jabbar’s polemic against Christians was remarkable in its ability to elicit a visceral reaction from the reader, whether it be horror at the depravity of Christians and their unscrupulous adulteration of divine law, or shock and defensiveness at the gross misrepresentation of the Christian tradition and the shameless interpolation of falsehoods that were inserted in order to fuel his polemic. What would cause a person to react one way or another? I propose that the question ultimately revolves around one’s belief about the origin of scriptural texts and the hermeneutics that must be employed in order to properly interpret that text.
It seems to me that Abd al-Jabbar was unaware that the Christian hermeneutical tradition was different from that of Islam, and that the Christian belief about how the scriptures came to be is different from that of Islam. As any effective polemic should, he attacked Christian belief and practice using Christian sources (the Gospels and Epistles), attempting to show contradictions between the Christians and their own Scriptures. Yet, his attempt was greatly hindered by his inability to engage those texts on the same terms as Christians.
Abd al-Jabbar appears to believe that the Christians view the “Injil” the way that Muslims view the Qur’an, namely, as the direct word of God that was passed down from God to an angel which was then to be given to humans. To believe that would be to believe that every single directive is unchangeable and immune from interpretation if it is clear and unambiguous, therefore allowing no space for development of doctrine or an alternative understanding of Jesus’ mission on earth.
Surely such a hermeneutical flaw would be obvious to Christians, if not to Muslims. No Christian who knew his or her tradition would be convinced by such a polemic. Is it possible, then, that Abd al-Jabbar knew of this difference between Christians and Muslims, and yet chose to write as he did? If so, it would appear that his polemic was primarily written with Muslims as his target audience, and not Christians. Is the mixing of hermeneutics an honest mistake that is made by both sides, or is it an intentional rhetorical device for inciting one’s own side into furor over the horrors of the other?
Paul Elhallal 
Thanks Paul – very interesting post! I take your point that Abd al-Jabbar does not do justice to the Christian understanding of revelation and the transmission of revelation. What complicates things, of course, is that the Qur’an speaks of Jesus and of an “Injil” — so Abd al-Jabbar has a “divinely” inspired reason to believe that the Christian scripture should have been revealed and transmitted as the Qur’an was.
LikeLike