Faith, Friendship, and the Search for Truth: A Catholic–Muslim Exchange
Preface
As a Catholic philosopher and theologian, I have long believed that sincere interreligious dialogue is one of the essential tasks of our time. In a world marked by division, caricature, and ideological noise, the ability of two people to speak across religious boundaries with honesty, clarity, and charity is itself a witness to the dignity of the human person. What gives such dialogue its depth is not only the intellectual search for truth, but also the deeper and often unspoken motive behind it: genuine concern for the salvation and spiritual well-being of the other.
Whether Christian or Muslim, when a believer offers a sacred text or explains a doctrine with heartfelt conviction, the gesture is not an act of coercion but of profound charity. It reflects the desire, grounded in love of neighbor, that the other may encounter what one believes to be divine truth. Such intentions are often misunderstood in a secular context, yet they are at the heart of meaningful apologetics.
The atheist Penn Jillette once described how moved he was when a Christian man gave him a Bible after a show. Jillette, who rejected the man’s beliefs, nevertheless called him a very, very, very good man because he cared enough about Jillette’s eternal destiny to overcome awkwardness and speak openly. That sincerity struck him deeply and remained with him.
I was reminded of that same spirit in a recent exchange with a Muslim friend. He kindly offered to send me a personal copy of the Qur’an, and I later offered him a Catholic Bible. These gestures were not about winning an argument, but about sharing what each of us believes is the path to salvation. That concern for the other’s soul, when expressed with respect and humility, is one of the highest forms of love.
The correspondence that follows shows how firm conviction and genuine friendship can coexist. It demonstrates that disagreement, when grounded in truth seeking and charity, can lead to deeper understanding, clarity, and even spiritual enrichment. I offer this exchange for students, educators, and anyone interested in seeing how Catholic and Muslim dialogue can unfold with integrity and goodwill.
Two Qurans given to me by Muslim friends during my time at the Saudi Embassy in 2013.
Figure 1 (below, on the left): An English translation of The Noble Qur’an, gifted to me by a Muslim colleague during my time at the Saudi Embassy in 2013.
Figure 2 (below, on the right): A beautifully bound edition of The Noble Qur’an with commentary, also given to me by a Muslim friend. These copies accompanied many hours of discussion, listening, and prayerful reading.
Email Correspondence
All names except my own have been removed for privacy. Messages appear exactly as written, with only metadata and system clutter removed for readability.
From Scott Ventureyra (me)
Sunday, September 7, 6:54 PM
Here’s my article, let know what you think.
From My Muslim Friend
Sunday, September 7, 7:05 PM
Assalam alaykom Scott!
Well received the link, thank you again buddy.
Will get back to you soon inshAllah.
Have a wonderful night.
From Scott Ventureyra (me)
Sunday, September 7, 7:10 PM
Amazing!
God bless my friend,
Scott
From My Muslim Friend
Tuesday, September 16, 8:37 PM
Hi Scott,
I hope this message finds you well. Please accept my apologies for the delay in getting back to you. When I first received your article, I did not realize it was such an extensive work, 34 pages is a real commitment to read carefully! Because of my busy schedule, I was not able to go through it properly on my phone.
I have now printed the article so I can read it with the attention it deserves and inshAllah, I plan to finish reading it and share my thoughts and comments with you by the end of this week.
Thank you for your patience and for sharing your work with me.
God bless!
From Scott Ventureyra (me)
Wednesday, September 17, 8:19 AM
No problem, my friend.
Thanks for your email. I hope all is well with you.
Talk to you soon.
God bless!
From My Muslim Friend
Sunday, September 21, 11:54 AM
- The Qur’an itself. Reading the text directly will clarify many of the points where your article relies on second-hand assumptions. And this is a bonus since you have too much common intellectually points : https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=yXCMU72z0Ms&t=896s - Neutral/Academic works: (an orientalist work, even not 100% true or favorable to muslims in my pov, but still useful for understanding the legal structures established to protect non muslims and it’s recognised by non muslims writers)
- Karen Armstrong – Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time
- John Esposito – Islam: The Straight Path
- Reza Aslan – No god but God
- Dr Garry Wills – What the Qur’an Meant: And Why It Matters
- 3- Islamic perspectives and debates:
- Dr. Jamal Badawi’s lecture series on Islam and Christianity (YouTube).
- Ahmad Deedat : Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction? (all proofs are from the Bible) available as a debate on youtube as well
- Ahmad Deedat or Dr. Shabir Ally’s debates with Christian scholars (e.g.,Jimmy Swaggart, William Lane Craig, James White).
Best regards,
From Scott Ventureyra (me)
Saturday, October 25, 12:26 PM
Hi my friend,
Please accept my apologies for replying so late to this email. I am currently visiting my parents in Spain. I have been very busy with work and writing too.
Whenever you are ready, let me know your thoughts. No rush.
Best wishes,
Scott
From Scott Ventureyra (me)
Tuesday, October 28, 5:45 AM
Ok, I found your response. Thanks for taking the time to read my paper and providing such a comprehensive response.
I will read it carefully and respond back soon.
Best,
Scott
From Scott Ventureyra (me)
Wednesday, October 29, 8:39 AM
Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying. I had not realized that your message had arrived until recently. Over the past few weeks, I was visiting my parents in Spain and writing on several other subjects that I think you and I would agree upon, such as gender ideology, transhumanism, totalitarian legislation that stifles freedom of expression, and the recent murder of Charlie Kirk and its wider cultural impact. In fact, my latest article, “The Illusion of Self-Creation” in Crisis Magazine, explores the spiritual and moral dangers of transhumanism (https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/the-illusion-of-self-creation). It has been an intense and reflective period, and I am glad to return now to our ongoing dialogue.
I also want to mention that these discussions are not new to me. I have several close Muslim friends and worked for a time at the Saudi Embassy over ten years ago, where I developed a great appreciation for Islamic culture and hospitality. One of my good friends, a Muslim convert, even contributed a chapter to my book Making Sense of Nonsense, in which we examined various philosophical and theological questions with mutual respect. So I have had many occasions to discuss these issues with sincerity and openness, and I deeply value the kind of honest exchange we are now having.
I want to thank you for the care and sincerity with which you read my paper. I deeply respect your willingness to engage ideas on their own terms and to ground them in evidence. Below, I have tried to address each of your main points with equal seriousness, drawing from both Christian scholarship and critical historical studies, including voices from within and outside the Islamic tradition.
The Jizya
You are right that jizya historically included taxation and military exemptions. My concern was not to deny these features but to highlight the theological symbolism of subordination in its classical interpretation. Qur’an 9:29 ends, “until they pay the jizya … and feel themselves subdued (wa-hum ṣāghirūn).” Major exegetes such as Ibn Kathir interpreted ṣāghirūn as “disgraced, humiliated and belittled,” explaining that payment was to be made by hand as a sign of defeat (see Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim). Jurists including al-Tabari, al-Jassas, and al-Qurtubi often reinforced this reading.
Historical practice confirms this understanding. The Pact of ‘Umar and later fiqh manuals describe the dhimmi system, in which non-Muslims were barred from building new houses of worship, riding horses, or bearing arms. Scholars such as Dario Fernández-Morera document in The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise that in al-Andalus Christians and Jews, while sometimes tolerated, lived under explicit legal inferiority. Events such as the Granada massacre of 1066 and the Almohad persecutions of the twelfth century, which forced Maimonides to flee, show that the system was far from the egalitarian picture often presented. I do not claim that all Muslim societies enforced humiliation or that Muslims today hold such attitudes. My point is that the traditional juristic framework allowed for subordination and was understood that way by many authorities. Recognizing that history does not negate Islam’s capacity for reform or moral greatness; it simply asks us to face the record without sentimentality.
Qur’anic Verses and Warfare
I appreciate your invitation to consider the broader context of Qur’anic verses on combat. You are right that 2:190 commands restraint, “Fight those who fight you, but do not transgress.” Yet the historical-legal tradition introduced a complex evolution. As scholars like John Burton (The Sources of Islamic Law, Edinburgh 1990) and Wael Hallaq (The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law, Cambridge 2009) explain, early Meccan calls to patience were later supplemented by Medinan verses that legislated warfare. The doctrine of naskh arose to reconcile these tensions. Many classical jurists, including al-Suyuti and Ibn al-Jawzi, taught that later verses such as 9:5 and 9:29 abrogated earlier, more peaceful injunctions.
This historical shift need not impugn Islam’s moral worth, but it shows that the Qur’an was interpreted within a legalistic rather than purely spiritual horizon. Christianity, through Augustine and Aquinas, eventually developed the concept of just war, subordinating violence to moral reason. Benedict XVI highlighted this contrast in his Regensburg Address (September 12 2006, Vatican archives), arguing that faith divorced from reason risks coercion. The point is not to condemn but to note how theology shapes ethics. I agree that Islam also has a spiritualized understanding of jihad, especially within Sufism, yet history reveals an ongoing tension between inner and external struggle. Acknowledging both elements is part of honest scholarship. It allows us to affirm the noble and reject the violent without pretending that the latter never existed.
Abrogation (Naskh)
You mention that many Muslim scholars consider 2:256 (“There is no compulsion in religion”) to be universal and binding. That is indeed the contemporary consensus, and I welcome it. My reference to abrogation was to the historical diversity of interpretations. Early jurists differed on whether such verses remained normative once Islam attained political strength. By the ninth century, naskh was an accepted hermeneutical tool, as shown by Hallaq and Burton. From a philosophical view, this raises the question of divine consistency. Christian theology sees revelation as progressive yet non-contradictory because God’s moral nature is immutable. Islamic theology, regarding the Qur’an as uncreated and co-eternal with God’s will, introduces a different paradigm: divine law may change in expression while God remains transcendent. Thinkers like Robert Reilly (The Closing of the Muslim Mind) and Ibn Warraq note that this can lead to an emphasis on divine will over divine reason. Such theological voluntarism has practical consequences for ethics and law. It is not an accusation but an observation of different metaphysical assumptions. I fully acknowledge reformist voices such as Fazlur Rahman, who strive to reinterpret the Qur’an’s moral core in universal terms. My hope is that both our traditions continue to refine their understanding of revelation so that truth and moral reason always coincide.
The Crucifixion
Thank you again for raising the question of the crucifixion; it goes to the heart of Christian faith and to the core historical claims that distinguish Christianity from Islam. I realize this subject can be sensitive, but it deserves the utmost seriousness. My discussion in the paper was not intended to insult the Qur’an but to underscore that, from a historical-critical standpoint, the crucifixion of Jesus is among the best-attested events of antiquity. As Bart Ehrman, a secular historian, has often said, “One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on the order of Pontius Pilate.” Even Reza Aslan, whom you mention, and who is not a New Testament specialist but a sociologist of religion, acknowledges in Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth that Jesus’ execution by crucifixion is historically indisputable. Ironically, this admission places him in a compromising position: though sympathetic to Islam’s portrayal of Jesus, he affirms the very event that the Qur’an denies. That consensus extends across atheist, agnostic, Jewish, and Christian scholars alike. Gary Habermas has documented this exhaustively through his “minimal-facts” research, compiling hundreds of peer-reviewed studies showing that virtually every serious scholar of antiquity—Christian, Muslim (former), Jewish, agnostic, or atheist—accepts Jesus’ crucifixion as historical (ses.edu/minimal-facts-on-the-resurrection-that-even-skeptics-accept). Out of thousands of credentialed New Testament academics, only Robert M. Price denies it, and even Richard Carrier, though a mythicist, is a philosopher rather than a New Testament scholar. For a direct exchange, Michael Licona’s debate with Shabir Ally demonstrates this consensus clearly (youtube.com/watch?v=F8JD6g2o9mU).
The Qur’an’s statement in 4:157—“they did not kill him, nor crucify him, but it was made to appear so”—emerges nearly six centuries after the events and offers no historical detail or eyewitness corroboration. From a historical-methodological perspective, that is a serious difficulty: all first-century sources, Christian and non-Christian (Tacitus, Josephus, Lucian of Samosata), attest to Jesus’ death by crucifixion, while the Qur’an speaks from temporal distance without access to those testimonies. When Muslim apologists claim otherwise, they typically employ selective readings of the Gospels while disregarding multiple independent attestations, the very standard that undergirds historical certainty.
When engaging with the New Testament, many Muslim apologists unfortunately employ eisegesis rather than exegesis. Exegesis is the objective “drawing out” of a text’s meaning by focusing on its original context—linguistic, cultural, and historical—whereas eisegesis is the subjective “reading into” a text, where one’s own assumptions or theological biases are imposed upon it.
The authors you cite, such as Karen Armstrong, John Esposito, and Gary Wills, are respected in their fields, yet none are specialists in early Christian historiography. Armstrong writes as a comparative religionist aiming for harmony among faiths from a postmodernist lens (I have critiqued such an approach, and I guarantee that Muslim scholars are opposed to her methodology), Esposito as a political scientist, and Wills as a cultural essayist. They enrich dialogue but cannot overturn the historical-critical consensus that Christianity’s origin presupposes the crucifixion and resurrection faith of Jesus’ earliest followers. Beyond the question of historicity lies the theological meaning. Christianity teaches that God entered human suffering and redeemed it through love. Without the crucifixion, there is no atonement or resurrection. The Cross reveals divine power as self-giving rather than coercive. Saint Paul expressed this paradox: “We preach Christ crucified … Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor 1:23-24). It is precisely this revelation that distinguishes the Christian view of salvation and shapes its moral imagination. While I respect Muslim reinterpretations, I cannot see them as historically or theologically equivalent. The crucifixion rests on firmer evidence than almost any event of the ancient world, and its moral meaning continues to inspire hope. Dialogue can be fruitful only when both of us speak honestly: Islam affirming divine transcendence, Christianity proclaiming divine self-gift. I hope our friendship can sustain such candor.
On the Debates and Lectures You Mentioned
I have watched or read transcripts of many of the debates and lectures you cited, including those by Dr. Jamal Badawi, Ahmad Deedat, and Dr. Shabir Ally. They certainly show an admirable passion for defending Islam, and I appreciate that they bring scriptural reasoning into public conversation. Yet I would encourage us both to consider the limitations of those exchanges. Most are apologetic in style rather than academic, shaped more by rhetoric than by rigorous historical or textual method. Deedat’s Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction? (youtube.com/watch?v=8Fyi74L_9jg) depends on selective proof-texting and ignores the consensus of New Testament scholars—Christian, Jewish, and secular—who affirm Jesus’ death by crucifixion. Dr. Badawi’s lectures on Islam and Christianity (youtube.com/watch?v=z9R5yqYyBBY) make some helpful moral comparisons but rarely engage primary Greek or Aramaic sources or the historical criteria used in critical scholarship. Similarly, Dr. Shabir Ally’s debates with Jimmy Swaggart, William Lane Craig, and James White are lively but operate within a polemical frame rather than a shared evidential standard. In each case, when confronted by professional historians such as Mike Licona or Bill Craig, the Christian side grounds its claims in cross-disciplinary data, archaeology, textual criticism, and multiple independent attestation, while the Muslim side usually appeals to later theological interpretation. These exchanges nonetheless have value: they reveal that disagreement can coexist with civility and that both traditions take truth seriously. My hope is that our own dialogue can move beyond the limitations of those debates by combining that same zeal with the philosophical patience of thinkers like Maritain and Lonergan, who sought understanding through reason rather than winning arguments. If we can do that, I believe we can uncover deeper commonalities and face our real differences with honesty and friendship.
For a deeper exploration of these topics, you might find my reviews of Nabeel Qureshi’s Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus, Robert Reilly’s The Closing of the Muslim Mind and James White’s What Every Christian Needs to Know About Islam of interest. Both address key theological and philosophical contrasts between Christianity and Islam in a spirit of clarity and respect. You can read them here:
- A Sign in Three Dreams: Review of Nabeel Qureshi’s Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus https://scottventureyra.com/a-sign-in-three-dreams/.
- Review of Robert Reilly’s The Closing of the Muslim Mind: https://scottventureyra.com/review-of-the-closing-of-the-muslim-mind/.
- Review of James White’s What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an:
https://scottventureyra.com/review-of-what-every-christian-needs-to-know-about-the-quran/.
Human Dignity and Anthropology
I am grateful that you raised the Qur’an’s teaching on human dignity and vicegerency (2:30; 17:70). These are noble truths, and Christianity gladly affirms their moral beauty. My argument concerns the ground of that dignity. Christianity teaches that the human person bears the image of God and, through the Incarnation, is united to divine life itself. That participation gives human worth an absolute and unchanging character. Islam exalts humanity’s stewardship yet maintains an infinite Creator-creature gap; that difference in metaphysics affects how dignity is conceived and protected. For Thomas Aquinas and later Jacques Maritain, human rights and moral law flow from being’s participation in God, who is reason and love. If the divine nature were conceived as pure will, as in classical tawhid theology, moral law could be viewed as decree rather than reflection of divine reason. The distinction is subtle but profound. Catholic thought views personhood as communion, a relational image of the Trinity, whereas Islamic thought, though rich in ethics, seldom extends into this personalist metaphysics. Modern Muslim thinkers such as Muhammad Iqbal and Abdolkarim Soroush have sought to reinterpret dignity in more personalist terms, which I find admirable. Yet they implicitly acknowledge that traditional frameworks require philosophical development to match the Christian notion of the person as a being-in-relation. This is why John Paul II and other Catholic personalists insisted that the Incarnation offers the only fully coherent basis for universal human rights. My intention was not to deny Islam’s moral insight but to emphasize the Christian explanation for why every life possesses sacred worth. If dignity is grounded merely in divine will or social contract, it can be revoked. If grounded in participation in God’s being through Christ, it remains absolute. Here lies both our convergence and our difference, a difference that can enrich, not divide, genuine dialogue.
Thank you again, for the generosity of spirit and clarity you bring to this exchange. Though we stand in different theological traditions, we share a concern for truth, reason, and the defense of human dignity against the ideologies that threaten it (think of what they are teaching children in school and in our wider culture, these are threats to both traditions). I hope that in the future we can meet in person to continue this dialogue, though at the moment I am quite swamped with projects, parish work, and family life. Still, I look forward to staying in touch and finding the right time to reconnect more deeply.
By the way, I was curious to know a bit more about you. Are you a director by profession, aside from driving Uber? And do you use Facebook? It could be another way for us to stay connected or exchange ideas in the future.
If you’re ever interested in exploring more of my work, you can find close to two hundred of my articles, on philosophy, theology, culture, and science, at my website, www.scottventureyra.com.
God bless you my friend,
Scott
From My Muslim Friend
Wednesday, October 29, 12:13 PM
Peace upon you my dear Scott,
I hope you had a wonderful time with your parents in Spain and that the trip brought you peace and inspiration. Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I truly appreciate the time, care, and intellect you invest in our exchange.
Since you asked to know more about me, I am originally a film producer and director by profession. Before coming to Canada, I worked in cinema and media production for almost 20 years. I’ve also been a university lecturer. Here, I have redirected my experience toward digital communication and educational media, proudly serving French-language education in Ontario as a director of educational content supporting learning in French as both a first and second language.
I am also a strategist and digital communication analyst, currently leading a major study on emerging professions in the audiovisual industry in the era of artificial intelligence (2026–2029). It is a pioneering project that we will present at Festival Cinémania on November 13 in Montréal. It would be a real pleasure to invite you, should you be interested, although the entire event will be in French.
I truly appreciate the depth of your response, even if I have not yet had the time to read it in full detail. I skimmed through it and will go over your articles and references more carefully as soon as possible.
That said, I noticed that you did not respond to the first and most essential invitation I made: to read the Qur’an itself.
If we judge Islam by the actions of some Muslims, it would be as unfair as judging Christianity by the Crusades, the Inquisition, the KKK, slavery, or the residential schools in North America, all justified by some with references to the Bible. Just as these do not represent Christ’s message, the acts of Muslims who transgress divine ethics do not represent Islam, nor what Allah commands.
That is why I sincerely invite you to go directly to the source, the Qur’an, unfiltered, without intermediaries or inherited interpretations.
Allah addressed humanity directly through this book, simple, clear, and timeless. The theological debates we often discuss represent no more than three percent of its content. The remaining ninety-seven percent consists of ayat, a term that means both verses and signs, because they are signs and proofs for every kind of mind and heart: for intellectuals and philosophers, scientists and artists, adults and teenagers seeking meaning. Everyone finds something that speaks uniquely to them.
So I invite you, as the thoughtful and rigorous intellect you are, to read it cover to cover, without prejudice and without commentary. Neither I nor anyone else can explain God better than He explains Himself. Let us stop turning around the argument and go straight to the source of it all.
Since you suggested that I read Nabeel Qureshi’s book Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus, I would like to offer a counterexample that I find equally inspiring. Please watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
There are hundreds of similar stories, but this one is my personal favorite because of the speaker’s reasonable proofs, besides his humor, cultural references, and age proximity, with which I deeply identify.
I would also recommend this reflection that may pique your curiosity to read it : https://www.youtube.com/watch?
I look forward to continuing this exchange, one that I hope remains rooted in honesty, respect, and the sincere pursuit of truth.
From Scott Ventureyra (me)
Friday, October 31, 6:11 PM
Peace be upon you, and thank you for your gracious and thoughtful message. I truly enjoyed learning about your impressive background in film, education, and digital communication. Your creative and intellectual range is inspiring. I hope your presentation at Festival Cinémania goes wonderfully. Unfortunately, I won’t be able to attend, but I deeply appreciate the kind invitation.
The weather in Spain was lovely, and it was wonderful to spend time with my parents after a demanding period of work and writing. It was a peaceful and restorative visit that reminded me of how grounding family and faith truly are. Praying the Rosary with my parents, for the first time since I was a teenager, was a deeply moving and spiritually powerful moment.
You invited me to read the Qur’an directly, and I want you to know that I have done so. In 2013, while working at the Saudi Embassy, I engaged in many long-and-stimulating conversations with Muslim friends and colleagues. Those were intense years in my life—I was a deist then, drawn toward theism but not yet back to my Catholic faith. During that time, I read the Qur’an carefully and was given two copies by Muslim friends I still hold in high regard. I will attach photos of them here. Those experiences opened my mind and strengthened my respect for Islam’s devotion, intellectual heritage, and moral seriousness.
I am familiar with the argument-from-beauty and the poetic eloquence of the Qur’an—the notion that its linguistic perfection and rhythmic balance are themselves signs of divine authorship. It’s a compelling apologetic, and I understand why many find it transformative. Beauty has always carried persuasive power for me. In Christian thought, St. Augustine made a similar claim in his Confessions—that beauty itself points to God, drawing the soul upward toward the source of all harmony. I wrote about this in an article on Augustine’s argument-from-beauty, which you might enjoy: https://scottventureyra.com/augustine-as-an-apologist-is-confessions-apologetic-in-nature/.
For Christians, though, beauty finds its supreme expression in the Incarnation and, above all, the Cross. Here the utterly transcendent God lowers Himself to zero—from infinite majesty to utter self-emptying, to elevate humanity into divine fellowship. It is the ultimate act of love and the definitive response to evil. On the Cross, God takes upon Himself the world’s suffering and transforms it into redemption. He turns humiliation into glory, death into life. This is why Christ commands us to love-and-pray for our enemies: a radical altruism that is distinct to His message and continues to challenge the human heart.
You are right that the actions of individuals or groups must not define an entire faith. The KKK, slavery, and the injustices of colonialism were grave betrayals of Christ’s teaching, not expressions of it. Yet, it was precisely Christians, such as William Wilberforce and the Quakers, who led the abolitionist movements that finally brought slavery to an end. Tragically, slavery persisted in many Muslim-majority countries long after it was abolished in the Christian West, and in some regions of North Africa and the Middle East, it still lingers today. This reality does not condemn Islam but reminds us that theology shapes moral progress.
As for the Crusades, they remain a complex historical reality. While abuses occurred, many of the campaigns can be understood as defensive in nature, launched to protect pilgrims and sacred sites after centuries of incursions. The Church’s just-war teaching, articulated by Augustine and Aquinas, sought precisely to restrain violence and ensure that any use of force was guided by justice and moral reason. So, while the Crusades are often caricatured as wars of aggression, they also contained genuine elements of sacrifice and defense.
You spoke beautifully about divine revelation, and I agree that scholarly interpretation can never replace a direct encounter with God’s word. For me, though, the ultimate Word of God is Christ Himself—not a text, but a Person. In Him, God’s truth becomes flesh and dwells among us. The Qur’an’s vision of God as pure will commands reverence, but I found myself longing for a God who not only commands but enters into suffering—who shares our humanity and redeems it from within.
Reflecting on my time at the Saudi Embassy, I’m reminded of my early struggle with the problem-of-evil. It was never that evil disproved God; rather, it seemed to discredit Him—challenging His omnibenevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence by making His goodness appear inconsistent with the depth of human suffering. Over time, I came to see that this challenge is both logical-and-emotional. Philosophers have long abandoned the internal problem-of-evil, the claim that an omnipotent-and-benevolent God is incompatible with evil’s existence, because no logical contradiction can be shown. What remains is the external problem-of-evil: why so much, and of such kinds? This is not merely a philosophical question but an existential one.
Christianity answers it not by abstraction but by revelation. The Cross is God’s response to evil—not a theoretical solution but a divine participation in suffering. God does not explain pain; He enters it. On the Cross, He absorbs the world’s cruelty and, in doing so, conquers it through love. That realization transformed my own understanding of faith. What once made me doubt God became the reason I could finally trust Him.
I also wanted to thank you again for your generous invitation to the Festival Cinémania. Although I cannot attend, I admire your work deeply. It’s clear you bring both artistic vision and intellectual discipline to everything you do. I look forward to hearing more about your thoughts on my previous response once you’ve had a chance to read it more closely.
Your mention of artificial-intelligence particularly intrigued me. I’ve been fascinated by AI for years and recently submitted an abstract to the Science-of-Consciousness Conference 2026 in Tucson, Arizona, where I’ve presented several times. It’s one of the most stimulating gatherings I know, bringing together people of all religious-and-non-religious backgrounds, some of the brightest minds I’ve ever met, and some of the most enlightening conversations I’ve ever had. I’d highly recommend attending at least once in your life.
My abstract for next year is admittedly unusual—it explores possible connections between angelic-and-demonic intelligences, AI, neuronal activity, DNA/RNA, and whether communication through information systems and energy frequencies might be possible. It’s speculative but meant to open metaphysical reflection on the nature of consciousness and the spiritual dimensions of information.
Thank you again, my friend, for the sincerity and generosity-of-spirit you bring to this dialogue. It is not common to find someone who engages both heart-and-intellect in such depth.
As a small gesture of friendship, may I offer to purchase you a Catholic Bible? Just as you kindly offered to send me a Qur’an, it would be an honour to reciprocate..
May God bless you abundantly in your work, your art, and your pursuit of truth.
Concluding Reflections for Educators and Students
This exchange reveals the depth and beauty that can emerge from respectful, truth oriented dialogue between people of different faiths. Several themes stand out for pedagogical purposes:
1. Truth seeking requires patience and charity
Both of us, that is, my Muslim friend and I, communicate passionately but respectfully. Students rarely see this and should be encouraged to follow this example.
2. Interreligious dialogue does not mean watering down conviction
I speak as a Catholic theologian. My friend speaks as a committed Muslim. Neither compromises his beliefs, and the dialogue remains fruitful.
3. Sincere concern for the other’s salvation is an expression of love
Offering someone a Bible or a Qur’an is not coercion but an act of care.
4. Understanding another faith requires engaging its best sources
Primary texts matter. Careful scholarship matters. Charity and precision matter.
5. Students benefit from seeing adults disagree well
This is especially crucial in Catholic schools, where religion classes should form both intellect and character.
I share this exchange for anyone seeking to understand how Catholics and Muslims can disagree honestly yet remain committed to charity and truth. If it would be helpful, please send me an email and I can format the full dialogue into a PDF for classroom or personal study, and I would be glad to produce a brief social media summary for those wishing to share it.