Abdul-Hameed Ahmad Abu Sulaiman

One of the issues that engage one's attention, especially in light of numerous simplified discussions, is the acute difference over the doctrine of crucifixion in the Christian faith. The more Christianity sticks to the doctrine of crucifixion and considers it a symbol of love, sacrifice and redemption, the highly critical Muslims become of this doctrine and the more they consider it mere falsehood and fabricated lies. The incidental observer of such muddled discussions can by no means get to a satisfactory positive or negative significance of this vehement argument over the crucifixion incident.

If such disagreement extends over the wide historical relationship between Christianity and Islam as well as over the reason behind the eruption of enmity between them, it is not right to take such disagreement as lightly as many people do; nor is it right to take it seriously in such a way as to appear arbitrary and supportive of one particular stand and not the other without a deliberate and comprehensive observation, given that the Qur'anic stand, which clearly disapproves of the doctrine of crucifixion, considers Christianity a divine religion and holds the Messiah, Jesus Christ, and his mother, Virgin Mary daughter of Imran, in high esteem.

Perhaps in order to conduct a constructive dialogue about the relationship between Christianity and Islam, which are arguably the two greatest world faiths today and which are considered the foundations of two greatest  human civilizations ever known in human history, we ought to study this issue  and address this doctrine with great care and depth and to place them in their comprehensive place within the context of the relationship and positive dialogue between the two faiths, given that the real reason behind this doctrinal confrontation is in effect the failure of both parties to comprehend the essence of the issue and their failure to consider each other's views in this respect.

Preface: Guided Philosophy is Strong Certainty

Man is born with intellect and understanding through which he is distinguished from other creatures. It is this distinction that the Qur’an refers to in Allah’s statement:
“And He taught Adam all the names (of everything).” (Al-Baqarah 2:31)

The purport here, as far as I am concerned, was not to teach Adam how to pronounce the names of these things. For, man’s formation and ability upon which Allah created him do not indicate that. Rather, the meaning was the knowledge about names of things – in all languages – which our father did not see in his primitive civilizational condition.1 The occurrence of that in such condition has no impact on the history of man and there is no practical proof for it in known human natures and capabilities.

If we recognize that mere names are meaningless and valueless if there is no understanding of their essence and indications in any form, such as their nature, reality and functions then the possible interpretation of knowing the names as mentioned in the above verse should be man’s ability to understand, to sort out the collectives and trace them back to their origins and species. This is a clear matter in the case of Adam’s creation when he was proportioned and breathed into. For example, chairs, apartment floors and animals have various shapes, colors, appearances and compositions. And each of these is different from the other. However, they can all be traced back to similarities and dimensions that bring these entities together and form them into kinds and species. There is, for instance, office chair, reception chair or car chair (seat). There is also big chair, small chair, wooden chair, iron chair or plastic chair. Equally, there are chairs of different colors, shapes and sizes. However, the common factor that brings them all together is that they are a tool for sitting and resting on. Hence, man’s ability to differentiate between things and sort them out is the origin of his knowledge and cognizance skill, his thought and invention generating power and his capability to engender signs of names in different human languages. Therefore, in my opinion, man’s ability to understand, his linguistic capabilities that enabled him to create codes and apply the same to the named objects, and his ability to use these designations are indeed the foundation of his civilizational and constructional aptitude.

Abdul-Hamid Abu Sulayman

The predecessors translated the best of human sciences and knowledge available in their time into Arabic language. They digested it along with their native Arabic language and, in the process; they produced the sweetness of Islamic civilization.

The question now is: How can this translation be done in today’s sciences? How can their translation attain the required substance? The answer is: We need to learn from our experience and from the experience of others. The translation should be done according to a civilizational plan and vision that helps our effort and actualize our goal in enriching our Arabic language in a way that will enable us respond to the emerging challenge – the scientific and methodological challenge. It is in this way that we can make an originally creative contribution in the light of our Islamic civilization and our solid Islamic identity.

From the historical experience of our Ummah, we learn that the positive aspect comes from translation of the divine natural sciences which gave the Islamic universal vision the opportunity to be the fertile ground and the ideal foundation for nurturing the tree of sciences, and their scientific and experimental methodologies that gave the contemporary man a dazzling base for civilizational achievement.

The negative aspect of Muslim translations comes from impacts of obsolete religions and philosophies that sank the Islamic culture into the abyss of these archaic superstitions and deceptions, distorted Israelite stories, and misleading philosophies that eventually overcame the pure Islamic vision and led the Ummah and its civilization into perversion, imitation, subordination, breakdown, dependency and jugglery.

Abdul-Hamid Ahmad Abu Sulaiman

There is no doubt that the attention paid by the Centre for Islamic Research and Studies to the issue of Islamic presentational approach in this stage of the Ummah’s contemporary journey is, ideologically, of utmost importance. For, this Ummah has been beset by weakness, disunity and ignominy it has never experienced before throughout its history. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the enlightened Muslim scholars, thinkers, educators and educated elite to seriously feel a sense of responsibility. This is because; the presentational approach directed towards the Ummah, is not up to the required standard. The presentation is supposed to be accurate and effective diagnosis of the Ummah’s situation and serve as a guide to the remedy for its diseases, and as an illuminating hope for its future and the future of its coming generations. As long as this presentation has not risen up to this desired standard, it will remain – in its substance – mere idle talk that has contributed immensely to the degeneration, weakness and backwardness of the Ummah.

Members of this Ummah are not bound together by a single race, colour, region or language, yet they share in common the misfortune of backwardness, disunity, corruption, weakness and downfall of public institutions. The only interpretation for this sorry situation is the common culture shared by peoples of this Ummah and the way this culture addresses members of this Ummah and its generations.

In spite of the difference among the Muslims scholars, thinkers and reformers that the Ummah is suffering from, at least, a thousand-year old existential crisis, the major problem is what Imam Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali has diagnosed in his two great works: ‘Ihya Ulum ad-Din’ and ‘Tahafut al-Falasifah’. In the first work, he made it clear that the Ummah’s religious culture and thought were suffering from a crisis; and in the second work, he indicated that the Ummah’s philosophical and civilizational culture and thought were suffering from a crisis.