Notes Introduction 1. The comment was made during a 1992 seminar held at De Sales University , Center Valley, Pa. 2. From Surah 25:1, 6 al-Furqan, The Criterion. 3. The Dawood and Arberry translations are smoother thanYusuf Ali’s but lack notes and appendixes. The Pickthall translation is quite literal and contains little explanatory material,while Ahmed Ali makes some decisions that are not literal enough. Ahmad von Denffer concludes that all translations by non-Muslims “should be rejected” because a proper translation can be rendered only by a devout Muslim who is skilled in the classical Arabic language and Islamic literature.He is moderately critical of Yusuf Ali’s translation (see pp.144–45).Bilal Philips likewise rejects translations by non-Muslims because he feels that there are now sufficient translations by competent Muslim scholars (see his Usool at-Tafseer, pp. 73–83). Note that the readily available translation and other works by Maulana Muhammad Ali (d.1951) are problematic.He was a member of the Ahmadiyya community , and the translation as well as notes reflect that community’s teachings. The Ahmadiyya are considered heretics by Sunni and Shi‘ia Muslims. 4. Glassé, pp. 159–62. 5. Bukhari, in the Khan translation, vol. 1, p. 8. 6. See Glassé, p. 416. One. Risks,Perspectives,and Understandings 1. See Said, pp. 62–63, 72–75, 235–38, 300–321. Throughout the work Said (1935–2003), a secularized Palestinian whose religious background was Christian, argued that theWestern construction of the “Oriental” and the “Orient ” depicts Oriental men as effeminate,weak,inscrutable,sneaky,dangerous,and 456 a threat to whiteWestern women and Oriental women as exotic and eager to be dominated.He argues that the generalWestern “Orientalist” view is that especially Arabs and Islam are backward, foreign, sensual, passive, despotic, antiprogress, and inferior to theWest. See also von Denffer, pp. 156–62. 2. Dalai Lama, p. 226. 3. Maimonides, vol. 3, bk. 14, treatise 5, chap. 11, p. xxiii. In 1743 the Venetian censors deleted a lengthy passage concerning Jesus and the Messiah in which the quotation occurs. 4. See, for example, Hick, A Christian Theology of Religions and God Has Many Names; Hick and Knitter; Race;W.C. Smith; and Swidler. 5. See Dupuis. The book is a study in the history, present state, and future of what he terms “religious pluralism.”While the Jesuit former missionary active in India does not deal explicitly with Islam,his theological analysis of Christian views is valuable; see pp. 6–23, 330–58. Note also Braaten’s essay,“Lutheran Theology and Religious Pluralism” (p. 107), in Rajashekar, Religious Pluralism, pp. 105–28. 6. See Race. He deals extensively with the three modes of response. The threefold paradigm has limitations but is generally useful. Note also McGrath, pp. 520–38.McGrath argues for the use of the term particularism because “exclusivism sounds polemical” (p. 534). I prefer exclusivism for the sake of clarity. 7. See especially Kraemer.While respecting the intentions of other faiths, Kraemer maintained that it is only God’s revelation in Jesus that gives the power and truth that lead to salvation.Note also the discussion in McGrath,pp.532–34. 8. Some outspoken contemporary American “exclusivists” who have addressed directly the question of whether Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same God are considered in chapter 14. Among the New Testament passages often cited by exclusivist Christians to support the view that salvation is only through Jesus are John 3:16f; John 6:28–65; Acts 2:37–39; Romans 1:16–3:26; 1 Tim.2:1–7;1 Pet.3:18–22;2 John 8:11;Jude 3–23;and Rev.22:6–21.Secondcentury “fathers” who held that there was no salvation apart from confessing Jesus as Lord and Savior are, e.g., Ignatius of Antioch (Magnesians 5–9; Smyrnaens 6 in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1); Tertullian (Apology 21; On Prescription against Heretics ) in Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume 3; and Hippolytus (Refutation of All Heresies, chaps. 29–30, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5). A third-century bishop-theologian carried the logic of no salvation apart from Jesus to no salvation apart from the Christian Church;see Cyprian,“On the Unity of the Church” (Treatise 1,in AnteNicene Fathers, vol. 5, pp. 421–29),“Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of...