While checking out another article on the the Arab news site Aljazeera.net, I stumbled across an interesting editorial on the history of relations between Islam and the West, as seen by a female Muslim scholar who works at the University of London:
"Why are negative images of Islam more prevalent than any others? Why is it still acceptable to say things about Muslims that would simply be deemed unacceptable of Jews, Christians, or Buddhists?
"That years of inter-faith dialogue have done little to advance a better understanding of the Islamic faith in the western world is an indication of how profoundly entrenched in the Western psyche crude misrepresentations and vulgar stereotypes of Islam are.
"Indeed, much of what is said of Islam today is in reality medieval in origin. The terms might have a modern ring to them, but the content remains very much medieval in essence. The roots stretch as far back as the 7th century, to Christianity’s earliest encounter with Islam.
[...]
"The medieval Christian view of Islam as a deviant, violent, licentious and heretical creed was secularised, stripped of its transcendental character and rearticulated within a modern essentialist philosophy that continues to define the terms of western discourse on Islam, in its mainstream at least.
"The correspondence between what is said and written today and the medieval texts we have inherited on the subject of Islam is so striking that I often have to remind myself that it is not the words of a medieval author I am reading, but those of a contemporary writer. True, the language is modern, but its content is largely medieval."
Reading carefully through these arguments, I was struck by how very similar they are in some respects to Catholic arguments againts Protestant polemicists, and even Christian arguments against agnostic and atheistic polemicists. The root of the argument on all fronts is that apologists for a particular religion often perceive that there is a good deal of misunderstanding of what that religion actually teaches or what its adherents actually believe.
Since this article does not offer much by way of example about how Islam is allegedly misinterpreted by its Christian critics, I cannot comment on the merits of this scholar’s complaint.
But it does demonstrate one point that I think we can take to heart: Before critiquing another religion, listen to its adherents and evaluate what they say they believe. Compare and contrast to the historical teachings of the religion as needed, of course, but take seriously the explanation offered by those who believe in the religion.
Hard as it may be to believe, it is likely that a believer in a particular religion, however incomplete that religion may be, really does understand better what it teaches than does an outsider. The outsider may or may not have a more complete religion to offer, but he won’t get a hearing for it until he takes seriously the concerns and religious commitments of the person he’s evangelizing.
In other words, just as there is nothing more frustrating for a Catholic than to be told "You worship Mary," or for a Christian, "The idea of a god is just a crutch religionists use to avoid reality," so it must equally be frustrating for a Muslim to be told "You worship a false god." With such frustrations clouding the air, there is little likelihood that anyone is going to listening — really listening — to each other and thus furthering the spread of the gospel.
UPDATE: Thanks to the reader who corrected my Latin grammar. I is grateful. 
