Is it polite for Muslims to recite the Qur’an in churches?

A reflection on the recent controversy over the Qur’an recitation at St Mary’s Cathedral in Glasgow.

A reflection on the recent controversy over the Qur’an recitation at St Mary’s Cathedral in Glasgow.

I have on a number of occasions been invited to talk about Islam in churches; and each time, as a former practising Christian and erstwhile cathedral chorister, I have taken great pains to ensure that I do not knowingly cause offence to my host; and I have assumed that other Muslims would obviously do likewise. Imagine then my surprise when, unusually given his pride at being a technophobe, my father phoned to ask if I was aware what was trending on the BBC news website.

Based on my father’s description, and on what I then found on the webpages of the BBC, Scottish Episcopal Church and elsewhere, with the suggestion that the recitation related to the Annunciation and included a denial of Christian orthodoxy on the nature of Christ, my assumption was right that the Qur’anic passage must have come from chapter 19, Surat Maryam, and included verse 35: {It does not behove God to adopt a son. Glory be to Him! Whenever He decides on a matter, He has only to say, “Be!” and it is.}

Advised by the imam of my local mosque that a recording of the recitation had been posted on social media, what I found at first was the recitation of a passage recited from the third chapter, Surat Al Imran, verses 42-48, in which no mention of the Christian doctrine of “Son of God” is made. Yet, although it too came from St Mary’s Cathedral, it turned out to be from two Christmases ago; and the most obvious – albeit not the only – possible cause for offence given on that occasion was the use of ‘Allah’ instead of ‘God’ in the English translation.

Among the guiding principles of positive interfaith dialogue from the Qur’an, I could cite this command (Q.3:64) to the Prophet to {Say, “O People of the Covenant, step up to a statement acceptable to us and you, that we worship none but God, that we associate nothing with Him…} Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews at the time would have been supremely relaxed about the use of the name ‘Allah’ since, unlike many WASPish Christians today, they had been using it long before the Qur’an was revealed. Another relevant piece of advice (Q.16:125) to the Prophet is to {Call to the path of your Lord with wisdom and good counsel; and contend with them only with what is best…} And finally from the Qur’an, a warning (Q.29:46) to all Muslims, {And do not contend with the People of the Covenant except with what is best – other than those amongst them who have done wrong – and say, “We believe in what was sent down to us and sent down to you; our God and your God is One…} To pick just one authentic hadith, or saying, of the Prophet Muhammad, what person of faith could disagree with the exhortation that “whoever believes in God and the Last Day, let him honour his neighbour”?

Based on these principles, and as an educated Muslim, I can understand the former Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali, when he wrote that “Christians should know what their fellow citizens believe and this can include reading the Koran for themselves, whether in the original or in translation. This is not, however, the same thing as having it read in Church in the context of public worship.” And his view is not new but can be traced back to the late 5^th century Decretum Gelasianum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis.

Looking back at the Christmas Day service in 2014 at St Mary’s Cathedral, Glasgow, even that fell foul of that decree, since it included a recitation of Q.3:44 {… and you were not with them when they cast lots as to which of them would be Mary’s guardian…} While seemingly quaint and innocuous perhaps to unschooled Christian ears, the incident referred to this verse is found not in the canonical books of the New Testament, but in the book known as the Gospel of the Infancy. And therein lies the problem, as that apocryphal work has the distinction of being mentioned in Pope Gelasius’ decree, but not amongst the writings whose authority the Church in the West at that time accepted. Rather it was classed with the books which ought to be avoided, recognised only by heretics and schismatics.

So, seen from both Christian and Muslim perspectives, and notwithstanding the laudable desire to foster good community relations, it was as unwise of the Scottish Episcopal Church to invited someone to recite from the Qur’an as it would be impolite of a Muslim to accept it, assuming it was known that Q.19:35 was to be included.

“The conflict is over. We need your advice on how to bring it to a close.”

In the wake of Martin McGuinness’ death, a reflection on what the Qur’an teaches us about resolving violent insurgency.

On Tuesday 20^th March, Martin McGuinness died. he gave us no reason to believe he was a Muslim; and yet his journey from paramilitary to peacemaker prompts us to think about the teaching of the Qur’an on how to bring insurgency, rebellion, war of liberation – call it what you will – to a close. There is no need, in referring to sundry verses, to suggest any spiritual link between successive British governments and the early Muslims, or between the IRA and the treacherous elements among the many pagan Arab tribes in the early 7^th century CE. Nevertheless perhaps we can agree that it is more than just coincidence the similarity between certain core principles found in the Qur’an and the steps taken by the various parties to end the conflict in Northern Ireland. Equally therefore, one could argue it is more than just coincidence that the many internal conflicts in Middle East and elsewhere appear to be no nearer being resolved.

The most obvious reference to civil unrest in the Qur’an is the verse (Q.49:9) that declares that “If two groups among the believers resort to violence, try to reconcile them; and, if one transgresses against the other, fight the one that transgresses until it submits to God’s command. Then, if it submits, reconcile them in justice, and be equitable – God loves the equitable.” In brief, in terms of “the Troubles”, for “submits to God’s command” one should read “takes steps towards a cessation of violence, accepting that a lasting solution can only found through negotiation.” That first step seems to have taken with the delivery to 10 Downing Street in February 1993 of a message that “The conflict is over. We need your advice on how to bring it to a close.” This was received by the then Prime Minister, John Major, who to this day attributes it to Martin McGuinness, even though he always staunchly denied it. Regardless, that led ultimately to the signing of the Good Friday Agreement on the 10^th of April 1998, which has made possible a provincial government in which power is shared more or less successfully between former political enemies.

While those like Jim Dixon or Norman Tebbit, who suffered personal injuries or loss as a result of IRA bombs, understandably find it hard to forgive, the Qur’an (Q.5:34) does urge the kind of magnanimity shown towards former paramilitaries in the Troubles in Northern Ireland, who ‘repent’ – in the sense of turning away from their rebelliousness – before the authorities are able to arrest them, as well as the release of “qualifying prisoners”. Here one must note the distinction, as the Qur’an (Q.5:33) does, between members of a group actively engaged in the peace process and, in the words of the  Northern Ireland Peace Agreement, those “Prisoners affiliated to organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not benefit from the arrangements.”

Because of the false interpretations by extremist Muslims to justify atrocities against civilians, it is fashionable to look on the opening verses of Surat al-Tawbah, the ninth chapter of the Qur’an, as sanctioning any no-holds-barred, all-out war by a righteous “us” against an evil “them”. However, as the commentaries make clear, the historical context is that of an insurgency by not all (Q.9:7), but rather sections of the pagan Arab population of Mecca and their allies following the conquest of the city in 8AH/630CE. Yes, one verse (Q.9:5) does urge slaying the hostile idolaters wherever they are found, but they also make provision (Q.9:6) for conveying belligerents to a place of safety away from the conflict zone, if should they request safe passage; while those who relinquish their old beliefs and choose to be reconciled to the new status quo are to be treated as brothers (Q.9:11). The Qur’an does not leave its readers under any illusion (Q.9:8) about the capacity of treachery in those motivate by the darker side of human nature. However, in literally the same breath as calling on believers to fight the untrustworthy leaders of hostile rejectionism (Q.9:12), it states that the purpose of opposing them is not to exterminate them, but so that they might desist.

Although he could not be certain at that time that the IRA could be trusted, and many in his own cabinet advised strongly against it, nevertheless John Major chose to adopt a stance advocated in the Qur’an (Q.8:61) that “if they take peace under their wing, then you too take it under your wing; and put your trust in God, Who is All-hearing, All-knowing.”

Thank God the IRA and the governments of the United Kingdom and of Ireland did; and would that more had the courage to follow their example.