GREENER JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
ISSN: 2276-7800 ICV: 5.99
Research Article (DOI: http://doi.org/10.15580/GJSS.2015.1.061114390)
‘Where two Systems Exist Side by Side for a Long Time There is Bound to be Mutual Borrowing:’ Reflections on Christian-Muslim Intermarriage as a Juxtapositional Framework for Dialogue
Dr. Dube Edmore
Lecturer Islamic and Biblical Studies, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Mashava Campus, Great University, Box 1235, Masvingo, Zimbabwe
Email: samatawanana @gmail. com
ABSTRACT
The study noted that marriage with its reputed spouse intimacy baits high possibilities for Christian-Muslim dialogue in the fast-growing global village. Religious intolerance is taken as the key imperative for dialogue. Anti-Semiticism which resulted in the Jewish holocaust is cited as the worst effect of religious intolerance. The tolerant marriage model eliminates the insider-outsider paradigm. The dialoguer, by understanding the ‘other’ from within, enhances self-understanding. Many of those interviewed showed growth curves that demonstrated the functional nature of the marriage model. The paper however, in its phenomenological analysis, had problems with such habits as disowning of offspring and acceptance of marriage for gain.
Key Words: Christian-Muslim Dialogue, Kitabiyyah, Osmotic Juxtaposition.
INTRODUCTION
This paper proposes dialogue in respect of the Christian-Muslim confrontational religious exclusivism whose retrogressive ripple effects humanity has witnessed. The intolerance resulting from the exclusive disposition is postulated as one sign of growth failure by either believer. Growth in this case implies assimilation, adaptation or metamorphosis of new schema (vision or awareness). In the actual Biological growth though the body is transformed, there is something that remains of the original appearance. On that basis, this study proposes that though positive change is achievable in the realms of belief and ceremonial, there is always a constant core that remains.
BACKGROUND OF STUDY
In dealing with dialogue among African Christians and Muslims I am aware that I am treading on a tight rope. Dialogue, I submit, is a growth issue full of mutations and unpredictable turns. I am compelled to hazard a contribution in this area, which addresses and risks the most essential of human beliefs. The risks of dialogue, I contend are worthwhile, as dialogue is no longer optional but mandatory. For how else can we deal with the ever-increasing human predicament resulting from religious intolerance in the global village? (Beversluis, 2000, p.16). With the demise of Christendom and Islamdom as separate entities the genuine believer has been faced with the dilemma of relating to his neighbor.
I do not doubt the obvious challenges that lie ahead. “Human genocide” as referring to the total person has been committed in the name of religion (Michael and Fitzgerald, 1994, p.2). The attempt to supplant the “polluted doctrine” through jihads and crusades has left deep-rooted physical and psychological problems (Sharpe, 1977, p.2).
In my attempt to contribute to scholarship on this topic I have tried to approach a delicate issue through a delicate but well-trodden path. Having seen how humanity and not the least, the African Christian and Muslim, value marriage I have decided to escape the noose of speculation by throwing marriage into the fray. This paper therefore considers how marriage, the most intimate of human relations, can both stimulate and act as a viable vehicle of Christian-Muslim Dialogue. It is interesting to note that Malina (1981, pp103f) captures the marriage model well, when he says, “In the first century Mediterranean world and earlier, marriage symbolizes the fusion of honour of two extended families.” It is this “fusion of honour” that the paper wishes to exploit.
I discuss my approach in the light of the Islamic regulations on the Muslim-Kitabiyyah (People of the Book including both Christians and Jews) relations. The Shariah law, following the authority of the Quran and the Sunnah of the prophet, recommends the marriage of the male Muslims to the Kitabiyyah (in this case female Christians) as possessors of the same divine revelations (5:5). The sex specification is no doubt a lanky limitation to dialogue in practice but not a plug or seal to it. I develop this idea subsequently. The holy Quran says,
“(lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time… 5:5
This gives rise to Christian-Muslim family ties whose impact on dialogue this paper endeavors to market. The core issue is that the Kitabiyyah may continue to observe Christian feasts under the Muslim roof (Doi, 1984, p.135). This procedure is replicated in the actual practice among the African Christians and Muslims in Zimbabwe, and I argue later that the practice has an inherent growth mechanism. If you share love and lay bare your faith to your partner, how does that expand your horizons of each other’s religion? How does that deepen your own faith? What enduring principles emerge from this filial exchange? Answers to such questions are what I consider core to dialogue.
The Quran advocates for dialogue with the People of the Book (29:46) and Christi (1999, p. 27) sees the 99 Quranic verses praising Jesus and many more praising Mary as an invitation for dialogue. This is further enhanced by the fact that, the Quran says, “There is no compulsion in Islam,” making the maxim “Islam or the sword” an inaccurate application (Schacht, 1986, p.132). In saying this I am not being blind to the numerous positions on these issues. I am only saying that, if the Quran is the first and infallible source of the Shariah, its open statement should be taken as mandatory. Taking the Quranic ruling literally, as the Shariah has tended to do where the Quran is explicit, has greater benefits for dialogue
Continuing to read for the dialogue in-built mechanisms from the Islamic side I have found solace not only in the marriage practice discussed above (Christian feasts under the Muslim roof), but also in the sequel to the dissolution of marriage. In the case of divorce, the young children go with their Christian mother. If she dies or re-marries the children’s custody passes to her mother or sister, until the boy is sexually mature and the girl has been married and the marriage has been consummated (Doi, 1984, p.183).
For dialogue (growth) to occur both the Christian and the Muslim must meet each other as genuine believers each bringing in new schema.
On the Biblical side Paul offered words of advice on those in inter-marriages in order to help those who had difficulties. He wrote:
“To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is any unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him” (I Cor 7: 12f RSV).
The term “unbeliever” is here used in the exclusive sense of the word, defining a non Christian. The modern Christian (technically the grandchild of the crusaders) has metamorphosed and has abandoned the exclusive theory “outside the church, no salvation” (Knitter, 1985, pp121f). Both the Roman Catholics and the World Council of Churches have acknowledged Islam as leading people towards God, and have recommended those on the ground to engage in Christian –Muslim dialogue as the way forward. There is however no need for excessive optimism as there is a great gulf between the official position and actual practice.
The crux of the matter is, since the Quran allows inter-religious marriage and rules out compulsory conversion of the wife, is marriage not a viable vehicle of dialogue? Can the Christians who have acknowledged Islam as ordered towards salvation, and religious freedom as an inviolable civil right (Abbot, 1967, pp679-81), stand in the way of inter-marriage?
HYPOTHESIS
Marriage between Christians and Muslims may impact positively on dialogue given the intimacy; mutual respect and honor expected in marriage; radiating from the spouses and reaching out to their families.
METHODOLOGY
Conceptual Framework
The rhetoric of dialogue is fraught with several attitudes to it. The most “dangerous” framework is exclusivist, in which one particular religion monopolizes truth. “If, for instance, Islam embodies the true religion, a ‘non-Islamic truth’ cannot exist in the field of religion” (Panikkar, 1999, p.5). This approach to dialogue is indefensible today because of its extreme lack of logic. Not all who employ this framework in dialogue act in bad faith, but it is also true that many who act in good faith are also in objective error. This approach does not suit the dialogue of the intimate union that I propose. For in such a union each side must exhibit its truth and has to be taken seriously. “In the present world context one can hardly fail to discover positive and true values- even of the higher order- outside one’s tradition … ‘Splendid isolation’ is no longer possible” (Panikkar, 1999, p.6) Pluralism is therefore preferable to exclusivism. This leads to the re-interpretation of value systems to make then assimilable.
Pluralism (Panikkar, 1999, p.10) is
“the attitude of not breaking the dialogue with the other opinions because having renounced any absolutism, it keeps intra-religious dialogue permanently open…The aim of intra-religious dialogue is understanding. It is not to win over the other or to come to a total agreement or a universal religion.”
Pluralism gives tribute to our forefathers who never came to a universal religion because they were nourished by the differences (Panikkar, 1999, p.11).
The Phenomenological Approach
The phenomenological method is best placed to deal with contrasting images, polemics and apologetics that mark religious intolerance. The efficacy of the approach lies in its inherited positive disposition. The term ‘phenomenology’ itself is replete with objectivity; derived as it is from the Greek word ‘phainomenon’ referring to that which manifests itself (Allen, 1987, p. 273). The method embraces comparative aspects through its classification of different types of phenomena. Comparison is important to this study which examines the delicate phenomenal codes that can be used to nourish Christian-Muslim dialogue. Eric Sharpe notes however that despite its comparative nature, the term phenomenology eludes any precise definition, and Chitando (1998, p. 101) is of the view that it owes its multiplicity of definitions to the various orientations of its adherents, who include historians of religion. It is Edmund Husserl who ties it down to basics by maintaining that it deals with descriptive accuracy by excluding reductionism, and it is this aspect which is quite handy to the current study dealing with the much lacerated Christian-Muslim relations.
In doing that the method employs epoche which refers to the bracketing out of pre-conceived ideas (Cox, 1996, p.19). All commitments accumulated a priori must be overcome in order to allow the phenomenon to speak for itself. Bettis (1969, p.1) concurs by asserting that epoche eliminates “abstract a priori standards of academic disciplines.” The principle is not without its own challenges however, but the attempt in itself is a great leap-forward; and thus Kristensen (cited by Bettis, 1969, p.49), insists that “there is no religious reality other than the faith of the believers” and therefore at the end of any research the researcher must always acknowledge that, “the believers were completely right.” Chitando (1998, p.109), however, questions the efficacy of this conviction due to shear ignorance of some believers, who are wont to say under probe, “Things have always been so.”
The principle of epoche is greatly aided by “performing empathetic interpolation” (Cox, 1992, p.38). This entails putting oneself in the believer’s place and describing the phenomena from within, rather than imposing conclusions from without. The researcher walks a mile in the shoes of the believer, which according to Cox (1996, 19f) has the problem of conversion. It may also lead to mediocre results as it is difficult to question the one you empathize with. One generally tends to defend rather than quiz the recipient of empathy.
The performance of eidetic vision (Husserl, cited in E. Sharpe, 1986, p.224) follows this stage of empathetic interpolation. Eidetic vision comes from eidos meaning ‘form,’ ‘idea,’ or ‘essence.’ According to Husserl, this vision accounts for the observer’s ability to deduce the real essence of the phenomena independent of preconceptions, or popular declarations. Accordingly, one’s conclusion must always be based on the phenomena and the believers’ understanding of it.
Though the research utilized this method the researcher was aware of its limitations. The researcher was however pleased with the effort, for although it was not possible to say that the conclusions were purely objective, the very endeavor to be objective was comforting.
Brief Literature Review
Joel Beversluis (2000, p.126) outlines the factors that prompted people to dialogue with each other as follows:
“The development of the study of world religions; the experiences of the Christian ecumenical movement dating back to the early decades of this (twentieth) century; the challenges of the holocaust to both Judaism and Christianity; increasing pluralism and globalization; challenges of proselytizing; …ethnic and sectarian conflicts; increased understanding of conflict resolution; and others.”1
According to Leonard Swidler (in Beversluis (2000, p.138), in dialogue we learn to change and grow and not to force the other to shift positions. Dialogue is not a debate, because a debate is meant to change the other, or to buy the other over to our position. What should happen in dialogue is that we learn, grow and change; and as we change, our partner will also change. Dialogue accomplishes much more than a debate, in that if successful it has a simultaneous mutual change of dialoguers, where as in a debate when one changes position the other remains constant.
David Ramage (in Beversluis, 2000, p.128) is of the opinion that, “It is easier and more productive to get people to work together on common projects, where friendships can form and attitudes re-form, than to bring them to the meetings and formal dialogues where defenses and identities are on high alert.” No false fronts make dialogue. “In brief no trust, no dialogue” (Beversluis, 2000, p.139). And no other framework can yield trust beyond marriage in which each partner bares self.
John Hick (in Sharpe, 1977, p.137) says, “In the eternal life there is no longer any place for religions; the pilgrim has no need of a way after he has finally arrived.” This means that all religions have one purpose; that is, leading the pilgrim to salvation (eternal life), and will be discarded when the objective has been achieved.
Raimon Panikkar is the real guru who spent more than forty years grappling with the issue of dialogue. His mother was a Spanish Roman Catholic and his father and Indian Hindu. He was a Catholic cleric with Doctorates in Chemistry, Philosophy and Theology. This vast intellectual capacity and mixed parental background made him a real sharp and ideal scholar of interreligious dialogue. Since the 1960s he stressed the need for diversity in religions. He challenged the definite normativity of Christ. In that he rejects the fulfillment of other religions in Christianity (Knitter, 1985, pp152-154).
Panikkar offers two important models for dialogue. The first one is the Geographical model: the ways to the mountain Peak (Panikkar, 1999, pp.12-14). There are many ways for reaching the mountain Peak. The mountain Peak represents the ultimate value – God, salvation, happiness, power, security and so on. Believers are pilgrims moving towards the mountain Peak. The ways to the mountain Peak are wider apart at the bottom but move closer together as the believer gets closer to fullness. There are instances of discovering new paths on the way, which however do not change the goal; so the goal remains constant (the mountain Peak). One can never start at the foot of the mountain again. The new paths therefore do not negate the distance covered by the old ways, but pay tribute to them by taking off from where they left.
The second model is the Physical Model.0 Panikkar (1999, pp.15-17) gives the image of the “white light of reality” (fullness) that falls onto a prism of human experiences and is refracted into innumerable traditions, doctrines and religions. Traditions, doctrines and religions having a common source (white light of reality) have areas where they are difficult to distinguish one from the other. Panikkar (1999, p.16) says, “Green is not yellow, Humanism is not Buddhism and yet at the fringes one cannot know, except by postulating it artificially, where yellow ends and green begins.” Through any colour (religion) one can reach the white light. The white light is the object of fullness and the mixture of colors produced by the prism gives birth to a new colour (religion). In dialogue some religions choose to call themselves white light and the rest refractions of truth. The best position is when all religions view themselves as refractions of the same light.
Panikkar argues that we cannot at the same time understand someone’s position and still take it to be false. We can only understand a position if we are converted to it and we cannot be converted to falsehood because it offers no nourishment for growth. In a mature dialogue therefore the dialoguers are converted to each other’s truth, and the metamorphosis and assimilation of each other’s truth defines growth in dialogue. No mature dialogue returns the dialoguer where he was at the beginning (foot of the mountain).
In dialogue one must face the challenge of conversion in his quest for religious answers. A dialoguer as a seeker chanting a virgin and inviolate way must treasurer the beauty of personal discovery. He enters dialogue without prejudices and preconceived solutions knowing fully well that he may be converted to new truth (Panikkar, 1999, p.63). Being converted to new truth is not retrogressive because this is not a game of numbers; nor does it falsify the former truth. It only marks a new mode of travel to the same mountain Peak.
Field Research
In the initial field research for the attainment of a Doctoral Degree with the University of Zimbabwe (unpublished) intensive field research was carried out, first to ascertain the feasibility of the existence of Christian-Muslim mixed marriages and secondly to discover any phenomena of such marriages that fell into the dialogue-friendly category. The existence of such mixed marriages was confirmed by the research. Dialogue-friendly phenomena were also ubiquitous. In quite a number of cases the mixed marriages started off as nagging ‘ulcers or embryonic boils.’ Family structures were present to provide surgical apparatus for the ‘physiological problem,’ which resulted in the treatment of the ‘ulcer or the elimination of the boil.’
As is always expected before any major hospital opens to alleviate human suffering, a mortuary has to be constructed, not because of the incompetence of doctors or non availability of surgical tools; but because of the intransigence of some diseases. It has equally been established that in some cases the maturation of dialogue did not follow the normal growth curve; with some marrying spouses being disowned by parents. In this case dialogue failed to spread extended family-wise, but remained treasured in the marrying spouses’ nucleus family only. In this case the family surgical tools found the ‘family doctor on leave,’ but as they say in Shona that “There is no boil cure apart from operation” the situation remained nagging for attention. Any reference to Chapter Six or Seven (Dube, 2003, pp143-236) in the subsequent pages refers to the believer’s testimony of this initial research.
Of interest in the current research was reference to the Israelite monarch as pro-dialogue. Reference was made to Solomon’s accommodation of foreign religious notions and Ahab’s building of the temples for Ashera, the goddess of his wife Jezebel’s religion, Baalism. The accommodation of other religions was always intrinsic to the progressive socialization of the Jewish religion, with prophecy as the only thorny negation of dialogue (cf. I Kings 18). Prophecy tended to live in the past and one scholar in a mixed marriage described them as a negation of progress. The Bible is therefore replete with dialogue friendly stories trying to negotiate their way past prophetic sanction.
Enduring Principles
Tolerance
The most conspicuous positive principle emanating from a mixed union is tolerance. Where initial recognition has not been forthcoming in the end there is tolerance of the marriage and its differences. Very often tolerance emanates from human needs amicably ameliorated by the spouses in respect to the opposing or hostile extended family. Current research has shown that although the said alleviation of human need does not amount to the carrot and stick or the Brunner incentives, it does solicit for the human ear resulting in non-attitudinal acceptance of the marriage, or cessation of hostilities where bruising encounters were the order of the day.
Adaptation
The elasticity of both Christianity and Islam has equipped both Christians and Muslims with the capacity to adapt to the new situations. This adaptation is the outward sign or kernel of growth in dialogue. Without the ability to adapt dialogue freezes, but marriage is such that it facilitates adaptation. The essence of the communion of marriage is sustained by continual, genuine, interpersonal, mutual or subsequent accommodations. The spouses have mutual acceptance of each other which allows them to take each other’s beliefs very seriously. The interviews have shown that with the movement of time there was even acceptance of the spouses within the extended family, where there was a snug in the beginning.
Osmotic Juxtaposition
The principle of osmotic juxtaposition gives impetus to dialogue. Osmosis scientifically refers to the movement of particles (religious schema) from the region of higher concentration (first spouse) to the region of lower concentration (second spouse). Since the two spouses are porous (open) towards each other, the religious schema from either spouse (as first spouse) to either spouse (as second spouse) percolates the receiving spouse with gradual easy. This is aided by the principle of reciprocity in which both parties to a marriage reciprocate actions and teachings. The spouses are each other’s guru and apprentice. According to I. M. Lewis (Lewis, 1966, pp.58-75) if two religious systems live side by side for a long time there is bound to be mutual borrowing, which inevitably leads to growth in dialogue. It is an irresistible dialogue that comes without being consciously brought in to bear on the participants. By solving practical everyday problems together members of the family contribute to practical dialogue (Beversluis, p.128). Intimate love of the spouses acts as both a centripetal and centrifugal force for the dialogue band wagon, since intimate love is the best way of translating a religion ‘from a region of higher concentration to a region of lower concentration.’ It circumvents “radical displacement” (Cole, 1983, p.99) and the “demoniac element”36 that see no truth in other religions.
Consultation: Interviews show that the extended families generally consult the spouses over their religious and food taboos. As a general principle family decisions are consultative rather than dictatorial. Consultation is the root of dialogue.
Collective responsibility: The marriage courts discussed in Chapter Six have the collective responsibility to keep the family alive. This collective responsibility strengthens the bond of cooperation. By solving practical everyday problems the marriage council and the extended family at large become unconsciously or functionally receptive to the views from either side even regarding varying religious views. By getting into the affairs of the couple as a family responsibility they come to learn more about the couple’s beliefs and taboos.
Inherited relationships: Families continue to relate to each other long after the deaths of the actual spouses. For that reason the families continue to play certain roles in each other’s rituals long after the death of the actual spouses.
Micro impartation: The family is the first school par excellence, whose aim is to pass on certain values. If the said impartation succeeds in building a community of dialoguers within the family such dialogue will eventually flow into the outside world creating streams of inclusivism towards fullness in pluralism. This is true of the ideal situation portrayed by Panikkar’s case (product of mixed family). This is nourished by the principle of imitation in which those who have seen the light lead by example and the children and other members of the extended family follow cue.
Conditioning: The family conditions offspring to a certain way of behaving and thinking.
Macro/spatial representation: The family is the basic unity of society and spouses involved in mixed unions comprise all levels of society. They are academics, the semi literate and the illiterate. The academics can introduce courses on dialogue and revise the polemic works (cf. Panikkar). The families with political influence can help introduce laws that promote dialogue in a democracy. In that way, the family dialogue can easily find itself permeating society, as mixed families have their members representing society at all levels. Everyone belongs to a family and very often portrays values of that family.
CONCLUSION
In concluding this work I wish to pay due respect to Louis Massignon (Secretariatus, 1979, p.7) who said that “If we want to understand somebody, we must try not to take possession of him, but become his guest.” The Indian Hindus, for example, are known to maintain that, if one wants to know more about Hinduism one has to be apprenticed to a guru (Sarmatha, 1970, pp21-34). On the positive side this is true of intermarriages where each spouse becomes a permanent guest (apprentice) of the other: one who is most welcome and most trusted. With all the principles listed above coming into play there is a real possibility for growth in dialogue in intermarriages. The participants being exposed to the various ennobling truths grow in their understanding and pursuit of truths against all odds. The preceding findings have shown that growth embraces participants beyond the marrying spouses, through what I have liberally referred to as a ‘contagion.’ If one member in a family adopts new truth, the other family members are bound to share in that truth in one way or the other. The definable praxis and Africanness are other identifiable pillars of growth that propel the ‘contagion’ forward.
The principles above show that there are several notches to dialogue. These range from tolerance to “growth in dialogue’, a process Raimon Panikkar (1999, pp.12-14) would rather call the “way to the mountain peak.”39 Dialoguers start at the bottom of the hill where beginners may start from the view point of tolerance right up to the growth which comes to fruition right at the “mountain peak” (ultimate goal of dialogue). Intermarriage has the capacity for nourishing dialogue which does not always translate into conscious dialogue, but definitely thrives towards fullness.
Dialogue is “not all roses.” It has real ups and downs. It is therefore incomplete to discuss only growth in dialogue even in cases of intermarriages. There are cases where there is a meticulous application of the exclusive model, which negates growth and therefore in our definition not dialogue. Dialogue as discussed in this thesis must have a mechanism for coming to fruition. The interviews in Chapter Seven show that there are cases of parents disowning their offspring because of marrying one from an unwanted cult. This reaction of course shows that if the
two marrying spouses who have been disowned remain married in pursuit of the truth that has dawned upon them, for them dialogue has been kindled. But for the disowning parents dialogue has refused to take root.
There are also cases of resignation to fate. This is not dialogue as I have defined it in the light of other scholars. These are cases that need further enlightenment. There is also the issue of secular education as contributing to the acceptance of intermarriages as a matter of fact. Acceptance, though, often culminates in the accumulation of knowledge and the widening of horizons. One may argue with a lot of justification that the issue of secular education can on its own contribute to tolerance and possibly growth. Such a person would nevertheless not fail to see that where education is augmented by intermarriages it is likely to reap better fruits.
As I round off this discussion I am compelled to say, against the backdrop of this research, intermarriage provides a practical framework for interreligious dialogue. Though intermarriages have been shown to bring about agony to some families, which has resulted in family separations for as long as intolerance lasted, that most families have been able to overcome this in the majority of cases, shows that, by its nature the family has mechanisms for harmony creation which a religious dialogue can possibly utilize.
REFERENCES
Abbot, W. M. (et al) (1967). The Documents of Vatican II. London: Geoffrey Chapman.
Abdalati, H. (1986). Islam in Focus. Riyadh: NOPP.
Ali, Y. (1989). The Holy Quran. Brushwood: Amana Corporation.
Allen, D. (1987). “Phenomenology of Religion,” in M. Eliade (ed.) The Encyclopaedia of Religion, Vol. 11. New York: Macmillan.
Bettis, J. D. (ed) (1969). Phenomenology of Religion. New York: Harper and Row.
Beversluis, J. (ed) (2000). Source Book of the World Religions: An Interfaith Guide to Religion and spirituality. California: New World Library
Chitando, E. (1998). “The Phenomenological Method in a Zimbabwean Context: To Liberate or to Oppress?” in Zambezia, Vol. XXV (i), (pp.99-114).
Christi, A. A. G. R. (1999). Pro-dialogue Contact Book, Karachi: UIPM.
Cox, J. L. (1996). Expressing the Sacred: An Introduction to the Phenomenology of Religion, Harare: University of Zimbabwe Publications.
Cox, J. L. (1992). Expressing the Sacred: An Introduction to Phenomenology of Religion. Harare: University of Zimbabwe Publications.
Cragg, K. (1964). The Call of the Minaret. New York: Oxford University Press.
Doi, A. (1984). Shariah: The Islamic Law. London: Ta Ha Publishers.
Dube, E. (2003) Marriage, A Practical Framework for Inter-religious Dialogue: A Christian-Muslim Example (Unpublished DPhil). University of Zimbabwe, Harare: Zimbabwe.
Farah, C. (1994). Islam: Beliefs and Observances. New York: Baron Educational Series.
Knitter, P. F. (1985). No Other Name? A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes Toward the World Religions. New York: Orbis Books.
Lewis, I. M. (ed) (1966). Islam in Tropical Africa. London: Indiana University.
Malina, J. (1981). The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Atlanta: John Knox Press.
Michael, T. and Fitzgerald, M. (1994). Recognizing the Spiritual Bonds that Unite Us: 16 years of Christian-Muslim Dialogue. Vatican City: Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue.
Panikkar, R. (1999). Intra-religious Dialogue. New York: Paulist Publishers.
Roberts, R. (1971). The Social Laws of the Quran: Considered and Compared with those of the Hebrew and Other Ancient Codes. London: Curzon Press.
Ruthven, M. (1984). Islam in the World. London: Penguin
Sarmatha, S. J. (1970). “Christians in Dialogue with Men of Other Faiths,” in Christians Meeting Muslims: WCC Papers on Ten Years of Christian-Muslim Dialogue. Geneva: WCC, pp.21-34
Schacht, J. (1986). An Introduction to the Islamic Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Secretariatus Pro non-Christians (1979). Guidelines for a Dialogue Between Christians and Muslims. Indian Edition: KMC Press
Sharpe, E. (1986). Comparative Religion: A History. London: Duckworth.
Sharpe, E. (1977). Faith Meets Faith: Some Christian Attitudes to Hinduism in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. London: SCM Press.
Cite this Article: Edmore D, 2015. ‘Where two Systems Exist Side by Side for a Long Time There is Bound to be Mutual Borrowing:’ Reflections on Christian-Muslim Intermarriage as a Juxtapositional Framework for Dialogue. Greener Journal of Social Sciences, 5(1):013-019, http://doi.org/10.15580/GJSS.2015.1.061114390.