Wen Muslims meet Moltmann

Practical Theology

ISSN: 1756-073X (Print) 1756-0748 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yprt20

‘When Muslims meet Moltmann’ – can Jürgen Moltmann’s theology of suffering help forcibly displaced ex-Shi’ite Iranians to reconsider their understanding of God?

Daniel Tai-yin Tsoi

To cite this article: Daniel Tai-yin Tsoi (2019): ‘When Muslims meet Moltmann’ – can Jürgen Moltmann’s theology of suffering help forcibly displaced ex-Shi’ite Iranians to reconsider their understanding of God?, Practical Theology, DOI: 10.1080/1756073X.2019.1699730

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1756073X.2019.1699730

Published online: 10 Dec 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yprt20

PRACTICALTHEOLOGY

https://doi.org/10.1080/1756073X.2019.1699730

‘WhenMuslimsmeetMoltmann’– canJürgenMoltmann’s theologyofsufferinghelpforciblydisplacedex-Shi’iteIranians toreconsidertheirunderstandingofGod?

DanielTai-yinTsoi

AllNationsChristianCollege,Ware,UK

ABSTRACT

Sufferingisubiquitous,andChristianandIslamictheologiesattempt toprovidesomeunderstandingsofthisuniversalreality.Christian theologianJürgenMoltmannsuggestsatheologyofsuffering whichemphasisesthecross,andthesufferingTriuneGod showingsolidaritywiththegodforsakenandthegodless.This studycriticallyexploreshowMoltmann’stheologymayhelp forciblydisplacedIranianstoreconsidertheirunderstandingof God.UsingMoltmann’stheologyasaframework,Jesusisalso comparedwithShi’itewell-knownmartyrImāmHusaynwho underpinsShi’ites’ understandingofsuffering.BothJesusand HusaynfeltbeingabandonedbyGod,showedawillingnessto suffer,andhadredemptiveandliberatingroleswithintheir religions.Sevenforciblydisplacedex-Shi’iteIranianChristian convertsinBritainwereinterviewedtoexaminetheircontext.The IranianswerealloppressedbytheIranianregimebeforearriving Britain.MostparticipantsheldnegativeopinionsaboutHusayn becausehisnarrativecarriesanundesirablepoliticalconnotation fromtheirexperienceinIran.TheIraniansalsoquestionedthe helpfulnessofusingHusaynasacommongroundtowitnessand introduceChrist.Nevertheless,they findMoltmann’snotionofthe sufferingGod,andGod’ssolidaritywiththesufferersattractive becauseoftheirsuffering.Basedontheseobservationsand reflections,waysofengagementareproposedtohelpthree distinctgroupsofforciblydisplacedIranianstoreconsidertheir understandingofGod.Theseincludeengaginginterreligious dialogueonsufferingwithpiousShi’ites,pursuinganevangelistic focusonthesufferingGodforex-Shi’ites,anddevelopinga uniquecontextualtheologyamongChristianconverts.

KEYWORDS

JürgenMoltmann;Iranians; suffering;forciblydisplaced; Christian–Muslim engagement;contextual theology

Sufferingisaninescapablerealityandoftenmakesapersonchangetheirunderstanding ofGod.TheongoingMiddleEastturmoilhastriggeredthedisplacementofpeoplefrom thatregionintoEuropeinthepastdecade.OneexampleisIran,whichbecametheIslamic Republicafterthe1979Revolution.TheIranianregimesuppresseshumanrightssuchas freedomofexpressionandreligion(AmnestyInternational 2017).In2016,Iranwasthe topcountryoforiginforasylumapplicationsinBritain(Blinder 2016).Iraniansface

CONTACT DanielTai-yinTsoi daniel.tsoi@narrow-way.org AllNationsChristianCollege,Easneye,Ware,HertfordshireSG128LX,UK

©ContactPastoralTrust2019

considerablesuffering,whichmakessomeofthemquestiontheirShi’aIslamicfaithand converttoChristianity(MohabatNews 2017;Stock 2017).

Settingthescene

– suff

eringinChristianityandIslam

Religionsattempttounderstandsuffering.InChristianity,manyPsalmsarelamentsbefore Godaboutpeople’ssuffering.TheselamentsallowpeopletoaskGodwhytheysuffer,and toactupontheirpain.TheBookofJobalsoexploresthequestionoftheodicyandinnocentsuffering.Isaiah53describespeople’sredemptionthroughthesufferingoftheLords’ Servant.TheNewTestamentshiftsthefocustoapostolicsufferingforfollowingaGodgivenmission(Bowker 1995,42–80;Hamm 2013).Jesus’sMessianicsufferingsetsan exampletopreparehisdisciplestotakeuptheircrossandtoenduresuffering(Calef 2013).ThesesufferinghelpJesus’sfollowerstoidentifywithChristandsetanexample forothers.

Christiantheologiansalsoconsidersuffering.Augustineemphasisesevil,whichiseternallyopposedtoGod.Moralevilcomesfromhumans’ misuseoftheirfreewillafterAdam’s ‘originalsin’,andnaturalevilistheby-productofAdam’smoralevil.Godpermitsevil,but heisstillincontrolandbringsgoodfromit,asdemonstratedthroughChrist’sredemptive work(Bowker 1995,81–98).AnothercontemporarydevelopmentisthenotionofGodasa ‘fellow-sufferer’ withhumansintheirsuffering.This ‘sufferingGod’ approachchallenges thetraditionalbeliefofdivineimpassibility.Severaltheologiansadvocatethis ‘suffering God’ idea,includingAfrican-AmericantheologianJamesCone(Cone 1975),JapanesetheologianKazohKitamori(Kitamori 1966)andGermantheologianJürgenMoltmann(Moltmann 2001).AnotherGermanpoliticaltheologianDorotheeSolleecombinessuffering, feminism,andmysticisminhertheologyofGod,andaskshowhumanpaincan becomeGod’spainandhowGod’spainisexpressedinhumanpain(Soelle 1984). PalestinianliberationtheologianssuchasNaimAteekandMitriRahebalsoproposetheirtheologyofsufferingfromtheiruniquepoliticalcontext(Ateek 1989;Raheb 1995).

Incontrast,IslamemphasisesGod’somnipotenceandcontrol.ForthoseclosetoGod, sufferingtestsbelievers’ faithandpatience,buildsuptheircharacterandidentifiessincere Muslims(Q2:155,Q21:35,Q11:9-11).ProphetslikeAbrahamandMuhammadsufferedas Godputthemintrials(Q26:80,Q6:33).Muslimsareexpectedtoacceptandendure trialsbytrustingGod’smercyandcontrol,andtheywillberewardedforthat.Those whosufferanddie,particularlyforIslam,willbeforgivenandadmittedintoParadise (Q3:195).Forthosewhoarecomplacentwiththeirfaith,sufferingcanbeGod’swarning sothattheywillsavethemselvesfrommoreseverepunishmentinthenextlife.For unbelieverswhoignorethewarningsfromGod’sprophet,sufferingisapunishmenttodispensejusticeandtowarnothers.

Mu’tazilismandAsh’arism,thetwomainIslamictheologicalschools,differintheir opinionsonhowtoreconcileGod’somnipotencewithhumanfreewill,andtheissueof humanresponsibilityinfacingsuffering.Mu’tazilitesemphasisedivinejusticeandmitigate beliefinGod’somnipotence.TheyconsidertheinnocentsufferinguponchildrenisGod’s warningtotheadultsaroundthesechildren,andthechildrenwillbecompensatedfor theirsufferinginthenextlife.Incontrast,Ash’aritesinsistonGod’somnipotence.They rejectthebeliefinfreewillandMu’tazilites’ rationalisationaboutdivineaction.Ash’arites believeeverythinggoodorbadinthisworldhappensaccordingtoGod’swill.Humans

cannotandshouldnotknowwhyGodimposessufferingonhiscreation.MostSunni MuslimsfollowAsh’arism(Ormsby 1984,16–31;Bowker 1995,123–136;Moucarry 2004, 17–19,341–356;Heemskerk 2006).

SufferingisalsocrucialinSufism,whereinendurance(s  abr)ofsufferingisa ‘station’ (maqām)ofthemysticalpathandleadstohigher ‘stations’ oftrust(tawakkul)andsatisfaction(rid  ā).SufisfocusonGod’smercyandtheirunderstandingofsufferingchangesfrom beingtrialsfromGodtogracefromGod.SufferingreinforcesSufis’ convictionthattheyare God’sfriends,andGodusestrialstoconfirmthesincerityoftheirlove(Heemskerk 2006, 135)

Shi’aMuslims,whomostlyadoptMu’tazilism,emphasisethesufferingofMuhammad andthetwelveImāms,notablythethirdImāmHusaynibnAli.Theyalsobelievethaton theJudgementDay,Muhammad,hisdaughterFatimaandHusaynwillintercedeforthe faithfultoberewardedfortheirsuffering(Heemskerk 2006,135).Moreover,Shi’a scholarMahmoudAyoubproposesthenotionofredemptivesufferinginHusayn’smartyrdom.HearguesboththesufferingofJesusinChristianity,andHusayninShi’ism demonstrateredemptiveefficacy,asthelatergenerationsofbelieversrememberthem,andthat theirsufferingisimitatedbyothersforjusticeandpeace(Glaser 2008;Ayoub 2011).

Hence,therearesomesharednotionsbetweentheChristians’ andShi’ites’ understandingofsuffering.Thispaperreportsastudyattemptingtoanswerthequestionofwhether Moltmann’stheologyofsufferingmayhelpforciblydisplacedex-Shi’iteIranianstoreconsidertheirunderstandingofGod.First,JesusandHusaynwerecomparedtoidentify commongroundsforChristian–Muslimengagement.Then,theresearcherconductedpersonalsemi-structuredinterviewswithsevenforciblydisplacedex-MuslimIranianChristian convertsrecruitedfromachurchinBritain.Becauseofsomeparticipants’ abilitytouse English,aFarsiinterpreterwassometimesused.Theinterviewsweretranscribedinto Englishandkeythemeswereextractedfromthedata.Finally,usingthedatafrom theseinterviewsandliteraturereview,reflectionsonhowMoltmann’stheologycanbe appliedinthisuniquecontextwereproposed.

Althoughdifferenttheologianshavesuggestedvarioustheologiesofsuffering,there areseveralreasonsforchoosingMoltmanninthisresearch.First,Moltmann’stheology ofsufferingisgroundedinJesusChrist,whoisconsideredasthebasisforChristian witnessinthismulti-religiousworld(Anon 2011).MuslimsgenerallyholdJesusinhigh regard,andthismayprovideacommongroundforChristiansandMuslimstodiscuss suffering.ThisfocusisparticularlyhelpfulinthecomparisonbetweenJesus’sand Husayn’ssufferingsasitcanprovideausefulframework.Moreover,Moltmann’stheology isconsideredtobeopentodialoguewithotherreligions,withoutlosingitsChristological focus(Bauckham 1996,6–8).

Moltmann

’stheologyofsuffering

Moltmann’stheologyfocusesonJesus’scryonthecross, ‘MyGod,myGod,whyhaveyou forsakenme?’ MoltmannproposesthatwhenChristwascrucified,boththeSonandthe Fathersuffered.TheSonnotonlysufferedphysicallybutwasalsoabandonedbythe Father.Moreover,theFathersufferedfromgriefatthelossoftheSon.ThroughChrist’s passion,the ‘godless’ andthe ‘godforsaken’ canexperienceacloserelationshipwith God(Moltmann 2001,250–251).

Moltmannalsoadvocatesanunderstandingofthe pathos ofGod:hispassionateinvolvementandco-sufferingwithhispeople(Moltmann 2001,276–288;Chester 2006,34). Goddoesnotsufferbecauseheisdeficient.ThecrossshowsthatGodsuffersoutofthe fullnessofhisbeingandhiscompassionatelove,whichsuffersinsolidaritywiththose whosuffer(Richard 1992,45).Moltmannproposes ‘Godsufferswithus’:hissolidarity withhumansintheirsufferingthroughChrist’spassion; ‘Godsuffersforus’:hisinterventionandredemptionforhumansthroughChrist’sdeath;and ‘Godsuffersfromus’:human sufferinghasmadeGodsufferbecauseofhislove(Moltmann 1981,2–5, 1990,180–181).

Moltmann’stheologyofsufferingiseschatologicalandtrinitarian.Hiseschatologyis basedonhistheologyofhopethroughChrist’sresurrection.Thishopeis ‘notonlyaconsolationinsufferingbutalsotheprotestofthedivinepromiseagainstsuffering’ (Moltmann 1993,21).Also,MoltmannadvocatesGod’ssufferingandthecrosscanonlybeappropriatelyunderstoodinthetrinitarianterm.HebelievesGod’sinner-trinitariansuffering reachesthegodlessandthegodforsakenwithhislove(Bauckham 1996,56).

Moltmannconsiderstheologyshouldbringfreedomandtransformationtothisworld witharevolutionaryhope,whichanticipatestheeschatologicaltransformationpromised byGod(Moltmann 1993,84;Bauckham 1996, 103).Moltmannproposespsychologicaland politicalliberationsfromhistheologyofthecross.Psychologicalliberationreleases humansfromcompulsionssothattheycanaccepttheirhumanity,freedomandmortality. Politicalliberationfreesthestatefromservingpoliticalidolsandliberatesindividualsfrom alienationandlossoftheirrights(Moltmann 2001,340–341).

Moltmann’stheologyofsufferingshowsseveralstrengths,includinghisemphasison God’slovefortheworldanditspraxisonliberation.Nonetheless,thereisalackof soundhermeneuticsinMoltmann’stheology(Bauckham 1989,293–310;Chester 2006, 27).Also,Moltmannappearstohaveabandonedtheconventionalviewofthedivinetranscendence(Wells 1990,63–65)andover-emphasisesGod’sclosenesstohumanity.

SufferingandmartyrdomofImāmHusayn

SufferingandmartyrdomarecrucialinTwelverShi’ism.Theirdoctrineof Imāmate advocatesGodappointedtwelveofMuhammad’sdescendantsasImāms,whoareconsidered sinlessandasGod’srepresentativesonearth.Shi’itesalsobelievethelastImām, al-Mahdi hasbeenpreservedbyGodthroughoccultationandisstillalive. Al-Mahdi willreturnon theJudgementDay(Richard 1995,6–7;Shomali 2003,106–110).

ThethirdImāmHusayn,Muhammad’sgrandson,isparticularlysignificantamong Shi’itesbecauseofhismartyrdom.YazīdbecametheUmayyadcaliphatein680CE,and HusaynrefusedtopledgeallegiancetoYazīd.Inthatyear,Husaynandhiscompanions movedtoKufa,asmalltownincurrentIraq.YazīdconsideredHusayn’sadvancetoKufa asprovocative,andtroopsweresenttoKufato fightagainstHusayn.HusaynandhiscompanionsbivouackedatKarbalainthedesertnearKufaforthe firstfewdaysoftheIslamic monthofMuharram.Husayn,alongwithsomeofhisfamilyandfollowers,werekilledon thetenthdayofMuharram(Ashura).ItisgenerallybelievedthatHusaynwaspreparedfor hisdeathandheforewarnedhiscompanionsaboutthedangersofstayingwithhim.Most literaturesuggestsHusaynandthemartyrsweredecapitated,andtheirbodieswere trampledbyhorses(Richard 1995,27–29;Cook 2007,55–57;Ayoub 2011,118;Tabatabai n.d.,196–201).

Shi’itesstilllamentHusayn’smartyrdomwithmourningritualslikeweeping, flagellation andevenbloodlettingontheDayofAshura.TheyalsogaveHusaynthetitleofthePrince ofMartyrsandconsiderhismartyrdomasanexampletofollow,andtheirfoundationfor understandingsuffering(Richard 1995,28;Rohani 2012,27).

SimilaritiesbetweenJesusandHusayn

BothJesusandHusaynwerebelievedtodiewillinglyasasacrificefortheirfaithandto obeyGod.JesusandHusaynalsopredictedtheirmartyrdombeforetheirdeaths(Ayoub 2011,85).Moreover,botharebelievedtobesinlessandtohaveexistedbeforethe worldwascreated(Ayoub 2011,29).Theirfollowersalsoregardthesetwo figuresas menofpiety,humility,wisdomandgenerosity(Ayoub 2011,87).

Furthermore,JesusandHusaynwerebelievedtohavecomparablestrugglesbefore theydied.JesusaskedthecuptobetakenawayintheGardenofGethsemane;whileit wassuggestedthatHusaynwenttoMuhammad’stomb,prayedwithtearsandasked God’sguidancebeforehemovedtoKufa(Ayoub 2011,121–122).Also,Jesusexperienced beingabandonedonthecrossbyGodtheFather,andthisformsMoltmann’stheologyof suffering.SomeShi’itesbelieveHusayndespaireddeeplyasanabandonedmanwhenhe wasleftalonetofacedeathinKarbala.Thisdespairwassoimmensethatthereisalegend aboutthosefollowerswhowerekilledinthebattlewantingtocomebacktolifetodie againforHusayn(Ayoub 2011,125–126).

Shi’ascholarAyoubalsoproposesHusayn’ssufferingasredemptive.TheShi’itesbelieve ontheJudgementDay,HusaynwillstandbeforeGodasthe ‘HouseholdofMuhammad’ (ahlal-bayt)tointercedeforhisfollowers.ThroughHusayn’sintercessions,thesinsof thosewhosufferforIslamorwhomournforHusayncanbeforgivenbyGod.Husayn’s martyrdomisalsosuggestedasa ‘divinelypreordainedevent’ andwasforetoldby Muhammad(Bradley 2008,9;Ayoub 2011,70,97).ChristiansbelieveJesus’scrucifixion isredemptive,andJesushasanintercessoryrolewhichwasforetoldbytheProphet Isaiah.Hence,Ayoubconcludesthereis ‘proximity’ betweenShi’ismandChristianity becausebothbelievetheneedfor ‘amediatorbetweenmanandGod’ aspartofthe divineplanforsalvation.HealsosuggeststhattheShi’adoctrineof Imāmate isatype of ‘IslamicChristology’ (Ayoub 2011, 199).

HopeisvitalinMoltmann’stheologyofsuffering.MostShi’itesbelieveHusaynwill returnontheJudgementDaywithMuhammadandotherImāmstorewardthepious andthosewhosufferfortheirfaith(Ayoub 2011,205–206,224).Therefore,Husayn’s returnandtherewardgivetheShi’iteshopetoenduretheirsuffering.Shi’itesalso believe al-Mahdi isstillalivebuthidden.ThisbeliefbringsShi’iteshope,astheyalso believethatduring al-Mahdi’s occultation,heshowshisblessingsbyguidinghumanity towardswhatGodhasrevealedthroughMuhammadandtheImāms.Christiansbelieve JesusisaliveafterhisresurrectionbyGod,uponwhichMoltmann’seschatologicalhope isfounded.Jesusalsopromisedhisfollowersthe ‘Paraclete’ toguidetheminhisteaching.

Moltmann’stheologyalsoemphasisesliberationthroughsufferingandHusayn’smartyrdomshowsasimilardimension.AyoubsuggestsHusayn’sdeathcanberegardedas asacrificeinthestruggleinGod’sway( jihād),whichliberatesMuslimstopursuejustice andtruth(Ayoub 2011,141–142).Husaynisconsideredasanexampleofanaltruisticliberatorwho fightsforfreedomandjustice(Rohani 2012,40–41).Shi’ites’ participationinthe

mourningandre-enactingofHusayn’sdeaththroughtheAshuraritualslike ta’zīyah1 also reinforcestheiridentityandtheirloyaltytoShi’ism(Ayoub 2011,148,193).Thisidentity andloyaltyprovideShi’itesstrengthtoembraceandfacetheirsuffering,whichshows similaritieswithMoltmann’sideaofpsychologicalliberation.Theformationofidentity andloyaltywithintheShi’acommunityafterHusayn’sdeathisalsocomparablewith theestablishmentoftheChurchafterJesus’sdeathandresurrection.

DifferencesbetweenJesusandHusayn

Nevertheless,thereareseveraldifferencesbetweenJesusandHusayn.First,Moltmann’s theologyofsufferingisfoundedonthetrinitarianunderstandingofJesusastheSonof God.InIslam,HusaynisonlyanImām. Shirk2 isanunforgivablesininIslam(Moucarry 2001,95),andtheQur’anexplicitlyrejectsGodhasasonandemphasisesGod’s oneness, Tawhid (Q112:1-4;Q9:30).Therefore,itisHusayn,anImāmwhosufferswith andfortheShi’ites,ratherthanaswhatMoltmannsuggeststhroughJesus’sdeath,the crucifiedGodsufferswithus,fromusandforus.

Second,althoughbothJesusandHusayninspiretheirfollowersforliberation,thereare fundamentaldifferencesbetweenthesetwo figuresregardingtheirinvolvementinmilitaryandpoliticalaction.TheBiblepresentsJesusasgentleandpacific,andhekept himselfawayfromanyviolentactionandactivepoliticalinvolvement.EventhoughMoltmannsuggestspoliticalliberationfromhistheology,thisliberationwasneverintendedto beachievedbymilitaryconflicts(Merritt 2014).Incontrast,eventhoughShi’itesbelieve HusayndiedsacrificiallyinKarbala,hismovetowardsKufaisgenerallyconsidered havingamilitaryintentionagainstYazīd.LaterhistorysuggeststheKarbalatragedyand Husayn’sdeathledtotheformationofseveraloppositionalmovementsandmilitaryuprisings,whichoverthrewtheUmayyads(Shomali 2003,147–148).ThroughouttheShi’a history,Husayn’smartyrdomisofteninterpretedpoliticallyandusedinmilitary conflicts,includingtheIranianIslamicRevolution(Richard 1995,105–109).

Finally,althoughbothJesusandHusaynintercedefortheirbelievers,therelationship betweentheirintercessionandredemptiondiffers.AyoubsuggestsHusayn’sintercession isredemptive,asGodcanforgivethefollowers’ sinsthroughHusayn’sintercession.One waytogainHusayn’sintercessionistomournforhimthroughtheAshurarituals. Hence,Shi’itesobtainGod’sforgivenessthroughtheirhumanactionsbypleasing Husayn,whobecomesamediatorbetweenhumanityandGod.Incontrast,ChristiansgenerallybelievetheyaresavedbyfaiththroughgracewhichisattainedthroughJesus’s sacrificialdeathonthecross,notbytheirwork.

TheforciblydisplacedIranians’ context

Tounderstandthecontext,sevenforciblydisplacedIranians(threewomenandfourmen) wereinterviewed.Theywereallex-MuslimChristianconvertsandexperiencedsufferingin IranandBritain.FiveIranianschangedtheirreligioninIran.Allparticipantswererecruited

1ThepassionplayinShi’ismtoportraythemartyrdomofImāmHusaynduringthe firsttendaysofMuharram.

2ThesinofassociationofanythingwithGod;itisconsideredaspolytheismoridolatry,andMuslimsbelieveitistheworstof sins(Q4:48,116).

fromthesameevangelicalchurchinaUKcity,andthatchurchhasasubstantialnumberof Iranians.Theseparticipantsrepresentarangeregardingtheirage,educationalbackgroundandtheirpietyasMuslimsbeforeconversion.ForthosewhobecameChristians inIran,allreportedfearofbeingarrestedbytheIranianauthorities,whichcouldleadto deathasapostates.SeveralparticipantsweredisappointedwithIslam,particularlythe pressuretoconformandfollowreligiouspractices.OneIranianwasdisillusionedbythe politicalinvolvementandpreoccupationofpowerinIranianShi’ism.Someparticipants wereparticularlydrawntoJesusasheisdifferentfromtheotherprophetsdescribedin theQur’an.

AllparticipantsexpressedachangeintheirunderstandingofGodafterconversion:God becameclosetothem,ratherthanbeingdistantaswhentheywereMuslims.Moreover, theseIraniansperceiveGodaskindandforgiving,whichcontrastswiththeirprevious ideathatGodisanangryandscarydictatorwhoalwayspunishes.Theirperceptionof sufferingafterconversionwasalsoaltered:themajoritymentionedgettinghelpand hopefromGodthroughouttheirsuffering.ManyparticipantssuggestedGodbeingwith themduringtheirsuffering.TheChristianfaithseemedtohavegiventheseIranians strengthduringtheirsuffering,whichdidnothappenbeforeconversion.

WhentheywereaskedabouttheirunderstandingofsufferingasMuslims,several suggestedsufferingisthe ‘norm’ inIslamandrelatedtofate.Allparticipantsexpressed doubtthatIslamprovidedthemwithananswerastowhypeoplesufferorgavethem helpintheirsuffering.OneparticipantsaidtheirIranianreligiousleadersprecluded peopleaskingquestionsabouttheoriginofsuffering.Someparticipantsconsidered sufferingcouldbeatestfromGod,andtheystillholdthisideaafterconversion.

TheiropinionsonHusayn’sdeathvaried.OnlyoneparticipantbelievedHusayndiedfor thereligion.ThemajoritysuggestedHusaynwascaughtupinmilitaryconflictsand doubtedHusayndiedwillinglyforIslam.Severalparticipantsquestionedthegenuineness ofHusayn’sstory.OneIraniansuggestedtheAyatollahsmighthavefabricatedthestory. Forsomeparticipants,thequestformilitaryorreligiouspowerwasthereasonwhy HusaynwenttoKarbala.Interestingly,severalparticipantscontrastedthe fighting Husaynwiththenon-violentJesus.ManyparticipantsbelievedtheIranianIslamic regimeusedHusayn’sdeathtomanipulateIraniansfortheirpoliticalgoals.SomementionedtheIraniangovernmenttellingIranianstostopcomplainingastheirsuffering werelessthanHusayn’s.AnotherparticipantbelievedtheIraniangovernmentattempted to ‘brainwash’ Iraniansbykeepingthempreoccupiedwithreligion,ratherthanimproving Iran.

AllparticipantswitnessedIranianswhocriedorhurtthemselvesforHusaynduring AshurainIran.TheyalsoknewaboutHusaynassomeonewhocanintercedebefore Godforindividuals.OneIranianman(‘H’)participatedintheseritualsbeforeandbeat himselfforHusayn. ‘H’ stated, ‘IdidthattogetclosetoHusaynsothatIcouldgetclose toGod.Then,GodwouldforgivemeandallowmeintoParadise;themoreyoudidthis, thecloseryoucouldgettoHusaynandGod’.Severalparticipantscommentedthatsome Iraniansusedtheseritualsasameansofboastingabouttheirpiety.Alternatively,some participantssuggestedtheseritualsallowedIranianstocryopenlyandcollectivelyfor theirproblems,ratherthanjustforHusayn.Themajoritydisagreedwiththepractice andquestionedwhyIraniansneededtodothatforHusayn.Someparticipantsfurther doubtedwhypeopleneededHusayn’sintercessionandcouldnotaskGoddirectly.

TheseparticipantswereaskedtocommentonashortFarsidescriptionofMoltmann’s ideaabouttheFatherandtheSonsufferingduringthe ‘event’ onthecross.Allparticipants agreedthatJesussufferedonthecross.RegardingtheSonbeingforsakenbytheFather, theseIranians’ opinionsvaried.SomebelievedJesuswaslonelyonthecross.Others suggestedJesusmighthavehaddoubtsonthecrossbecauseofhishumannature,and afewevenrelatedthattotheirdoubtduringtheasylum-seekingprocess.Nevertheless, oneparticipantwaspuzzledwhyJesusfeltGodhadforsakenhim,asGodshouldbe closetoJesusas ‘amanoffaith’ .

TheiropinionsonwhethertheFathersufferedalsovaried.OneIranianagreedwith MoltmannthattheFathergrievedandbelievedthesufferingofboththeFatherand theSonhelpthemtomanagetheirsuffering: ‘GodunderstandsthesituationofIranians whochangetheirreligion. ’ AnotherparticipantalsoagreedthattheFathercouldsuffer ashesenttheSonbecauseofhislove: ‘itishardtogiveupsomethingprecious’ However,severalparticipantsseemedtostrugglewithMoltmann’sideaanddidnot commentontheFather’ssuffering.Theseparticipantswerefurtheraskedwhetherthey thoughtGodcansuffer.ExceptforoneIranian,allagreedGodcansuffer.Oneparticipant suggestedGodshowshispowerthroughsuffering,andanothermentionedGodhas emotion,andhencehecansuffer.ThreeIraniansalsomentionedtheideaofasuffering GodhelpsthemtomanagetheirsufferinginleavingIranandtheirfamilies.

Finally,whentheseparticipantswereaskedtocompareJesusandHusayn,themajority couldnotseeanysimilaritiesbetweenthetwo figures.Somementionedboth figures sacrificedfortheirfaith.Regardingdifferences,severalparticipantsagainsuggested Husayn’sdeath,butnotJesus,asbeingassociatedwithpowerandkillingothers.Except ‘H’,allexpressedreservationsabouttheideaofusingHusaynasabridgetointroduce JesustoIranians. ‘H’ saidhefoundcomparingJesuswithHusaynbeforehisconversion helpful.OtherparticipantsimpliedthecomparisonmighthelpsomeIranians,butgenerallytheywerenegativeonthissuggestion.SeveralmentionedthatthecomparisonisunlikelytochangeIranians’ fixedviewsaboutJesusandHusayn.Instead,thecomparison couldmakethemangry.Onemaleparticipant(‘M’)commentedthatusingHusayntointroduceJesusissomewhatlike ‘cheating’ and ‘abuse’ . Hebelievednobodyshould ‘dotheright thingfromthebadthing’ andsuggesteditwouldbebettertotellIraniansdirectlyabout Jesus.

FurtherreviewoftheIraniancontext

Theinterview findingsconfirmthattheseforciblydisplacedIraniansexperiencedsuffering beforeandaftertheyarrivedinBritain.Literaturesuggestsvarioussocio-politicalfactors relatedtoIranians’ suffering.TheIslamicRevolution(1979)andtheIran-Iraqwar(1980–88)hadseverelydamagedIran’seconomy(Axworthy 2008,279;Bradley 2008,100–112; Aidani 2016,96–100).Iranhasbecomeaclosedcountrywithlimitedinternational contact.Atthegrassrootslevel,Iranianssufferfromhighinflationandunemployment, whichmakesthemangryandfrustrated(Bradley 2008,108).

TheestablishmentofatheocraticIslamicregimeaftertheRevolutionhasalsochanged thereligiouslandscapeofIranandcausedturmoilamongIranians.BeforetheRevolution, Iraniansenjoyedfreedom,includingpractisingdifferentreligions.SoonaftertheRevolution,theregimebeganexercisingexcessivereligiousandpoliticalcontroloverIranians’

livesinthenameofIslam(Bradley 2008,113).Theregimeattemptstoremoveanything thatunderminesShi’ismorthegovernment(Bradley 2008,113,119).Religiousmeaning wasalsoattachedtotheIran-Iraqwaraspropaganda.Thegovernmentpushedthe notionofthe ‘giftofmartyrdom’ andguaranteedentrytoheavenformartyrstoencourage peopleto fightagainsttheenemy(Richard 1995,211;Axworthy 2008,273;Aidani 2016, 97–100).ThenarrativeofHusayn,asthePrinceofMartyrs,wasusedfrequentlyforpolitical purposes.AnthropologistMichaelFischerdescribesthe ‘Karbalaparadigm’,thesymbolism derivedfromtheinterpretationofthebattlebetweenHusaynandYazīd(Fischer 1980,13–20).This ‘Karbalaparadigm’ isusedpurposelytoservebothreligiousandpoliticalfunctions(Aghaie 2011,x–xiii,154–161).

UsingShi’ismasapoliticalvehiclehasimpactedIranians’ sentimenttowardstheirreligion(Fischer 1980,208;Richard 1995,190;Foltz 2004,161;Axworthy 2008,260).Before theRevolution,Iraniansblamedtheirproblemsonthegovernmentandpolitics,rather thantheShi’afaith.SincetheRevolution,allthepoliciesrelatedtotheregimehave beenimplementedinthenameofShi’ism,andanyfailureofthesepoliciesseriously underminesthereligion(Bradley 2008,65).Therearealsoreportsofcorruption amongShi’aclerics.Hence,IraniansaccuseShi’ismofbeingresponsiblefortheir suffering(Bradley 2008,108).

TherearealsoimportantculturalfactorsinIranians’ suffering.Distrustandinsecurities arecommonamongIraniansbecauseoftheoppressiveregime.Experiencingfear,includingthatofbeingdiscoveredbytheIranianauthoritiesafterconversion,isfrequently reportedbytheresearchparticipants,andcontributedtotheirdecisionstoleaveIran. Moreover,beingforciblydisplacedtoanothercountry,theseIraniansencounterhostility andalienationinthehostcountry,especiallybecauseIrancarriesnegativelabelslike the ‘axisofevil’ (Aidani 2016,57).Thelanguagebarrierandculturaldifferencesamplify thechallenge.Theirreasonsforseekingasylumwereoftendiscreditedbythehost country,andtheyweresuspectedofcomingforcomfortandpersonalachievement, ratherthanescapingfrompersecutioninIran.Also,theriseofnationalismandxenophobic policiesinEuroperesultsinfurtherresentmenttowardstheforciblydisplacedfromMuslim countries(Ralston 2017, 26).

Therefore,IranianscanperceivetheirsufferingasthefailureofShi’ism,ratherthanpoliticaldeficiencies.AnythingrelatedtoShi’ism,includingHusayn,provokesIranians’ anger. ThereisanundeniableassociationbetweenShi’ismandIranianpolitics,andthislinkisso strongthatanythingrelatedtoShi’ismsuchasHusayn’sdeathcarriesapoliticalconnotation.BecauseofthedistrustandfearcommonlyobservedamongIranians,theymay developa ‘defencemechanism’ againstanyactionswhichareperceivedasinsincere anddeceiving.

Moltmann,HusaynandIraniansinfurther ‘conversations’

UsingMoltmann’stheologyofsufferingasaframework,itisevidentthattherearesome similaritiesbetweenJesusandHusayn,whoarethekey figuresfortheChristiansandthe Shi’ites’ understandingsofsufferingrespectively.Thesesimilaritiesincludeboththe feelingofbeingabandonedbyGod,awillingnesstosuffer,andtheirredemptiveandliberatingroleswithintheirreligions.Thesesimilaritiesmaybeusedasacommongroundfor interfaithengagementdespitesomecrucialdifferences.

Nevertheless,the findingsoftheinterviewssuggesttheseex-MuslimIranianChristian convertsstruggletoseethecommonground.TheyfocusedprimarilyonthecriticaldifferencesbetweenJesusandHusayn.Asallresearchparticipantsexperiencedsufferingand oppressionfromtheIranianregime,theKarbalanarrativeisconsiderednegativelyby theseIraniansbecauseoftheirtendencytointerpretandassociateitwiththeIranian Islamicregime.TheyalsoshowedhesitationaboutwhetherIranianswould findcomparing JesuswithHusaynhelpfulinchangingtheirunderstandingaboutGod.Husaynappeared unnecessaryandcausednegativereactionsamongtheseIranians.Instead,theseIranians changedtheirunderstandingofGodaftertheirconversion.Thisshiftofunderstandingis consistentwithMoltmann’snotionofthesufferingGod,whocomesclosetohumansand iswillingtosufferwithandforthem,ratherthanadictatordistantfromhiscreation.

ThedisillusionmentwithShi’ismcausessomeIranianstoleaveIslamaswiththese researchparticipants.ForthosewhohaveleftIslam,somebecomeatheistsanddisappointedwithGodfortheirsuffering.Some findChristianitydesirableandbecomeChristianconvertsforseveralreasons:Jesusisconsideredtobringpeaceandhealing.Also, theirisolationandthe ‘doubletrauma’ astheforciblydisplacedmakeMoltmann’s notionofsolidarityfromthesufferingGodappealing.

Withthese findings,areasonablequestiontobeaskediswhetherHusaynstillhasarole forIranianstoreconsidertheirunderstandingofGod.ForthepiousShi’ites,Husaynhasan imperativeposition,andhismartyrdomisthefoundationoftheirunderstandingof suffering.Therefore,ifitisusedwisely,Husayncanstillhelptoengagethepious Shi’itestolearnaboutChrist.Oneresearchparticipant ‘H’ usedtobeadevoutShi’ite, andheistheonlyoneparticipantwhocouldseemoresimilaritiesbetweenJesusand Husayn.HealsofoundcomparingJesuswithHusaynhelpfulinhisjourneytowardsChristianity.Nevertheless,theassociationbetweenHusaynandpolitics,particularlywiththe Iranianregime,hascausedtheoseIranianswhoaredisappointedwithShi’ismtoreject thespiritualinterpretationofHusaynasapositiveexampleforShi’ites.Inthiscase, usingHusaynasabridgetowitnesstoJesuswillundesirablycolourthemessage.For theseIranians,toavoidanymisunderstandings,Husaynshouldstepback.WhendiscussingChrist,themessengershouldbeawareofHusayn’spotentiallynegativeimpactonthe messagetotheseIranians.

Farrokh,anex-MuslimChristianconvert,proposesthenotionof ‘encroachment’,which referstoChristiansenlistingandredefiningIslamicideasandmaterialstousurpthemfrom indigenousMuslimcommunities(Farrokh 2018,52–53).HebelievesthatMuslimswill quicklynoticeencroachment,whichcanoffendthem.FarrokhconsiderspresentingacontinuitybetweentheBiblicalandtheIslamicfaithasdeceptive(Farrokh 2018,67).Examples ofencroachmentincludecitingQur’anictextstogiveanimpressionthatthemessenger considerstheQur’anasauthoritative.However,FarrokhagreesIslamicideascanbe usedas ‘conceptualbridging’ , bywhichhemeans ‘buildingatheologicalconstructwith whichaMuslimaudienceisalreadyfamiliar’ (Farrokh 2018,63).Farrokh’sconcernsmay explainwhyanotherresearchparticipant ‘M’ perceivedusingHusayntointroduceJesus asdeception.Nonetheless,indialogueswithpiousShi’ites,asincereandgenuinecomparisonbetweenJesusandHusaynisnot ‘encroachment’ but ‘conceptualbuilding’.Inthis comparison,severaltheologicalconstructslikesuffering,redemptionandsacrificeare familiartoShi’itesbecauseofHusayn’snarrative.Usingtheseconstructs,meaningfuldiscussionsbetweenChristiansandShi’itesareachievable.

Itiswell-recognisedthattherearediverseattitudesandapproachesforChristiansin relatingandwitnessingtoMuslims(ChristianMuslimForum 2009;BellandChapman 2011).Ethicalguidelinesandrecommendationsforwitnesswerepublishedbothin Britainandworldwide(ChristianMuslimForum 2009;Anon 2011).Oneoftheemphases inthesedirectivesistheimportanceofintegrity,honestyandhumility,whichisalso endorsedbyFarrokh.

Suggestionsonfutureengagements

ToexaminehowMoltmann’stheologyofsufferingmaybeappliedintheforciblydisplacedIranians’ context,threedistinctgroupsofIraniansshouldbeconsidered:the piousShi’ites,thosewhohaveleftShi’ismandtheChristianconverts.

First,thepiousIranianShi’itesconsistsofthoseIranianswhohaveleftIranunwillinglybut kepttheirShi’afaith.InterreligiousdialoguemayhelpthemtoreconsidertheirunderstandingofGod,andthetopicofsuffering,includingHusayn’smartyrdom,canbeusefulforsuch dialogue.Moltmannadvocatesinterreligiousdialoguesandlinksthemwiththesuffering God,whose ‘strengthismightyinweakness’,and ‘canonlybetestifiedindialoguesandin thewoundsandtransformationwhichdialoguesbring’ (Moltmann 1977,160–161).Moltmann alsoproposesusingdialoguestopractiseourattitudestosufferingononeanother.He believesthatduringdialogues,Christiansshouldtestifybyshowingloveandinterestin othersfromadifferentfaith,andbybecomingreceptiveandvulnerabletothosefrom anotherreligion.Therefore,thegoalofdialogueistransformationthroughbeingvulnerable, givingloveandshowinginteresttoothers,asthesufferingGodhasdone.Thistransformationcanchangeone’sunderstandingofGod.Moltmannseesinterreligiousdialoguesas partofthe ‘widerframeworkoftheliberationofthewholecreationforthecomingkingdom’ (Moltmann 1977,162–163).Healsoaffirmsreligiousfreedomasanessentialframeofreferenceininterfaithdialogues(Moltmann 2000,20–22).Hence,thereisapotentialtodevelop dialoguesbetweenpiousIranianShi’itesandChristianstodiscusssuffering,andtopractise vulnerabilityononeanotherasMoltmannsuggests.Thesedialoguesalsofollowtheguiding principlesofChristianwitnesstootherfaiths(ChristianMuslimForum 2009;Anon 2011).

ThesecondgroupconsistsofthoseIranianswhohavegivenuptheirShi’itebeliefsand practices.TheymaystillcallthemselvesMuslims,butthislabelismerelynominal.These IranianslikelyfeeldisillusionedwithIslamaftertheyhaveexperiencedsufferinginthe nameoftheirreligion.Somemayevenbecomeatheistsbecausetheyfeelabandoned byGodandareangrywithGodforthesufferingandevilsintheworld.Moltmanncalls this ‘protestatheism’ andsuggeststheexclusiveemphasisonGodasomnipotent, whichistheShi’ites’ understanding ofGod,maycontributetothisprotestatheism.Moltmannsuggeststhatthewaytoovercomeprotestatheismisthroughthetheologyofthe sufferingGod.Theinterview findingsinthisstudyalsorevealthattheseIraniansthrough theirsufferingweredrawntothenotionofthesufferingGod.InMoltmann’stheologyof sufferingandthecross,Godandsufferingnolongercontradictasinprotestatheism.God isnotanymoretheGodof apatheia anddistantbutis ‘knownasthehumanGodinthe crucifiedSonofMan’ (Moltmann 2001,234–235).MoltmannassertsthatonlywhenChristiantheologyhasappropriatelyunderstoodwhathappenedbetweentheSonandthe Fatheronthecross,canitthenspeakofthesignificanceofGodforthosewhosuffer andprotestinthisworld(Moltmann 2001,227).

Hence,fortheseIranianswhoaredisappointedwithShi’ismandaGodwhodoesnot careaboutthem,introducingthemtothesufferingGodthroughthecrossofChristcanbe ahelpfulwitness.BecauseoftheseIranians’ suffering,theymayechothe ‘death-cryofthe dyingChrist’ whowasforsakenbyGod(Moltmann 2001,261).ThesufferingGodbecomes aGodwhoshowssolidaritywiththesesufferingIranians,thegodforsaken.Thissuffering GodinthecrucifiedChristintercedesforthosewhosuffer,includingtheseIranians,with hiscross,andcrieswiththem.

MoltmannfurtherelaborateshisunderstandingofGod,whichisparticularlyrelevantto ex-MuslimIranianswhoarewearyofreligionandrules.MoltmannsuggeststhatGoddoes notbecomeareligionoralaw.Instead,God ‘humbleshimselfandtakesuponhimselfthe eternaldeathofthegodlessandthegodforsaken,sothatallthegodlessandthegodforsaken canexperiencecommunionwithhim’ (Moltmann 2001,286).

ThelastgroupisthoseIranianswhohavedecidedtofollowChrist,ashadtheresearch participants.TheseIranians’ understandingofGodhasalteredaftertheirconversion,and themainquestioniswhetherMoltmann’stheologyofsufferinghelpsthemtofollowChrist morefaithfully.ItisevidentfromtheinterviewsthatthechangedunderstandingofGod afterconversionamongtheseIraniansindicatesadegreeof ‘theologymaking’ intheir context.ThesechangeshadalreadyhappenedbeforeMoltmann’stheologywasintroducedtothemduringtheinterviews.Moltmann’stheologycanformthebasisforthese Iranianstodevelopacontextualtheologyoftheirmultipleidentities:Iranians,exShi’ites,theoppressedandsuffering,andforciblydisplacedinaforeignland.Churches whichhosttheseforciblydisplacedIranianconvertscanalsoplayasignificantrolein doingtheologytogether ‘with’ theseIranians,soastoencouragethemto ‘maketheology’ bythemselves.Thereisadelicatebalanceofdoingtheology ‘forthem’,ratherthan ‘with them’.Inarecentpaper,researchersreportedthepresenceofrefugeesinaDanishcongregationhadtaughttheindigenouschurchmemberstherealmeaningofthe sufferingofChristandtheworld.Thesharedvulnerabilityofdoingtheologytogether hasunitedthecongregationintoa ‘real,incarnationalcommunity’ (LorensenandBuchHansen 2018,39).Doingtheologytogethercanberisky.Theprocessisdemandingand chaotic,andtheremaybefearamongthepeopleinthehostcountryoflosingidentity becauseoftheincreasingculturalandreligiousdiversity(Ralston 2017,26).However, this actionechoesMoltmann’sideaofvulnerabilityandpractisingsufferingonone another(Moltmann 2000,60–61).

UsingMoltmann’stheologyandhisproposalofliberationasthefoundation,theseIraniansmayalsodevelopapowerfulandauthentictheologyofliberationrelatedtotheir suffering,whichincludesthelackofreligiousfreedominIranandtheinjusticeandoppressiontheyfaceastheforciblydisplacedinBritain.ItisreportedthatsomeIranianex-Muslim Christianconvertsengageinliberatingactionsforgreaterreligiousfreedomandending discriminationandpersecutionagainst ‘apostates’ inIran(Miller 2016,239).WhendevelopingatheologyofliberationintheseIranians’ specificcontext,itisnecessarytodevelop theirhermeneuticsrelatedtobeingoppressedandinexile,andthesubsequentpraxis fromthesehermeneutics.Thepraxisshouldincludenotonlyliberationfromoppression butalsoreconciliationandhealing.WhattheChristianfaithsaysaboutforgivenessand reconciliationinoppressionandpersecutionisparticularlyrelevanttotheseIranianconverts.DevelopingthistheologywillbechallengingbutcrucialtomakingtheseIranians’ voicesbetterheardinthewiderworld.Thereareexamplestofollow,includingLatin

AmericanandPalestinianliberationtheology(Boff 1980;Ateek 1989;Raheb 1995;Sobrino 2003).ItisworthnotingthattheliberationtheologyoftheLatinAmericantheologianJon SobrinosharessomesimilaritieswithMoltmann’stheologyinfocusingonChrist’ssuffering andthecross(Sobrino 2003,233–253).

Concludingthoughts

Thispaperreportsastudyexaminingtheissueofsuffering,whichisimperativenotonlyto theologybutalsotohumanity,especiallythosebelieversfromaMuslimbackground.The literaturereviewandinterviewsofforciblydisplacedIraniansprovideboth ‘emic’ and ‘etic’ perspectives,resultinginacomprehensiveevaluationoftheircontext.Thisresearchisan attempttodotheologywiththeseIranians.Therearesomelimitationstothisstudy.These Iranianconvertswereusedas ‘proxy’ forMuslims.AlthoughtheywereallMuslimsbefore conversion,thereisalackofgenuineMuslimvoicestocommentonthekeyissuesand suggestionslikecomparingJesuswithHusayn,usinginterreligiousdialogueandpresentingthenotionofthesufferingGodtoMuslims.Moreover,thisstudyislimitedbythe languagebarrierandtheneedtouseaninterpreterduringsomeinterviews,asthe researcherdoesnotknowFarsi.Also,theresearcheridentifiesthemselvesasanevangelicalChristianfromanon-WesternbackgroundbuthaslivedinBritainforoveradecade whenthisstudywasconducted.Despiteeffortstoremainobjectiveduringinterviews andanalyses,unconsciousbiasmayoccurbecauseoftheresearcher’scontext.

MoltmannrecentlycommentedontherelationshipbetweenChristandMuslims: ‘Christ isnotagainsttheMuslims.Hediedforthem … WeshouldacceptMuslimsaspersonsfor whomChristdied’ (Merritt 2015).Sufferingisubiquitous,andnobodycandenyitstormentingeffect.However,asMoltmannsuggests,sufferingalsoprovidesopportunitiesforindividualstobeabletolove,tohopeandtobeliberatedandtransformedthroughthe sufferingGodbecauseofthecrossandtheresurrectionofChrist,whosufferedforus, withusandfromusall – Christians,Muslims,Iraniansandnon-Iranians.

Acknowledgements

DanielTsoiwouldliketoexpresshisgratitudetotheIranianswhoparticipatedinthisresearch,and staff oftheAllNationsChristianCollege,especiallyDrWilsonMcMahon,DrCarolWalkerandDr WarrenBeattie,fortheirvaluablecontributionstothisstudy.

Disclosurestatement

Nopotentialconflictofinterestwasreportedbytheauthor.

Notesoncontributor

DanielTai-yinTsoi beinganimmigranthimself,DanielTsoienjoysbuildingfriendshipswithpeople fromvariousculturesandfaithbackgrounds.HewasawardedMasterofTheology(MTh)incontextualtheologyfromtheAllNationsChristianCollegein2018.Thisarticleistheabridgedversionofhis MThdissertation,whichwasawardedtheMasterdissertationprizefromtheBritishandIrishAssociationforPracticalTheology(BIAPT)in2019.Danielhasabackgroundofworkingasamentalhealth professionalandhealthcareeducator,andhehadalsopublishedjournalarticlesontheseareas.His

theologyresearchinterestsincludeinterfaithrelations,contextualtheology,missiology,sacraments, andabetterunderstandingofexperiencesandpracticesamongChristianbelieverswhocomefrom otherfaithbackgrounds.

References

Aghaie,KamranScot. 2011. TheMartyrsofKarbala:Shi’iSymbolsandRitualsinModernIran.Seattle: UniversityofWashingtonPress.

Aidani,Mammad. 2016 NarrativeandViolence:WaysofSufferingAmongstIranianMeninDiaspora London:Routledge.

AmnestyInternational. 2017. “Iran.” AmnestyInternational.AccessedOctober26,2017. https://www. amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/iran/

Anon. 2011. ChristianWitnessinaMulti-ReligiousWorld:RecommendationsforConduct:WorldCouncil ofChurchesPontificalCouncilforInterreligiousDialogueWorldEvangelicalAlliance.Accessed November13,2019. https://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-programmes/ interreligious-dialogue-and-cooperation/christian-identity-in-pluralistic-societies/christian-witnessin-a-multi-religious-world/@@download/file/ChristianWitness_recommendations.pdf

Ateek,NaimStifan. 1989 Justice,andOnlyJustice:APalestinianTheologyofLiberation.Maryknoll: Orbis.

Axworthy,Michael. 2008 Iran:EmpireoftheMind:AHistoryFromZoroastertothePresentDay London:Penguin.

Ayoub,Mahmoud. 2011. RedemptiveSufferinginIslām:AStudyoftheDevotionalAspectsof ʻāshūrā’ in TwelverShíʻism.TheHague:Mouton.

Bauckham,Richard. 1989. “JürgenMoltmann.” In TheModernTheologians:AnIntroductiontoChristian TheologyintheTwentiethCentury,editedbyD.F.Ford,293–310.Oxford:BasilBlackwell.

Bauckham,Richard. 1996 TheTheologyofJürgenMoltmann.London:T&TClark. Bell,Steve,andColinChapman,eds. 2011. BetweenNaivetyandHostility:UncoveringtheBestChristian ResponsestoIslaminBritain.MiltonKeynes:Authentic. Blinder,Scott. 2016 MigrationtotheUK:Asylum.Oxford:TheMigrationObservatory,Universityof Oxford.

Boff, Leonard. 1980. JesusChristLiberator:ACriticalChristologyforOurTime.London:SPCK. Bowker,John. 1995 ProblemsofSufferingintheReligionsoftheWorld.Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress.

Bradley,Mark. 2008 IranandChristianity:HistoricalIdentityandPresentRelevance.London: Continuum.

Calef,SusanA. 2013. “TakinguptheCross:SufferingandDiscipleshipintheGospelofMark.” In SufferingandtheChristianLife,editedbyR.W.Miller,49–79.Maryknoll:Orbis. Chester,Tim. 2006. MissionandtheComingofGod:Eschatology,theTrinityandMissionintheTheology ofJürgenMoltmannandContemporaryEvangelicalism.MiltonKeynes:Paternoster. ChristianMuslimForum. 2009 “EthicalGuidelinesforChristianandMuslimWitnessinBritain.” Cone,JamesH. 1975. GodoftheOppressed.SanFrancisco,CA:HarperSanFrancisco. Cook,David. 2007. MartyrdominIslam.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Farrokh,Fred. 2018 “Contextualizationand ‘Encroachment’ inMuslimEvangelism.” JournalofGlobal Christianity 4(1):50–67.

Fischer,MichaelM.J. 1980. Iran:FromReligiousDisputetoRevolution.Cambridge,MA:Harvard UniversityPress. Foltz,RichardC. 2004. SpiritualityintheLandoftheNoble:HowIranShapedtheWorld’sReligions. Oxford:Oneworld.

Glaser,Ida. 2008 “Cross-ReferenceTheology:Speaking,ThinkingandLivingtheCrossintheContext ofIslam.” In JesusandtheCross:ReflectionsofChristiansFromIslamicContexts,editedbyD.E.Singh, 137–156. Eugene,OR:Wipf&Stock.

Hamm,M.Dennis. 2013 “TheSharingofHisSufferings:TheSocialCostofFollowingJesus.” In SufferingandtheChristianLife,editedbyR.W.Miller,19–47.Maryknoll:Orbis.

Heemskerk,MargarethaT. 2006. “Suffering.” In EncyclopaediaoftheQur’ān.Vol.5,132–136.Leiden: KoninklijkeBrill.

Kitamori,Kazoh. 1966. TheologyofthePainofGod.London:SCMPress.

Lorensen,MarleneRinggaard,andGitteBuch-Hansen. 2018. “ListeningtotheVoices:RefugeesasCoauthorsofPracticalTheology.” PracticalTheology 11(1):29–41.

Merritt,Ben. 2014. “TurningSwordsintoPlowshares-MoltmannonWarandPeace.” The Moltmanniac.AccessedAugust28,2018. http://moltmanniac.com/turning-swords-intoplowshares-moltmanns-political-theology/ Merritt,Ben. 2015. “ChristisnotAgainsttheMuslims.HeDiedforThem.” TheMoltmanniac.Accessed September29,2017. http://moltmanniac.com/christ-is-not-against-the-muslims-he-died-for-them/ Miller,DuaneAlexander. 2016. LivingAmongtheBreakage:ContextualTheology-MakingandExMuslimChristians.Eugene:WipfandStockPublishers. MohabatNews. 2017 “IslamicClericsWarnAgainstSpreadofChristianityintheMostIslamicCityin Iran.” MohabatNews.AccessedAugust4,2018. http://mohabatnews.com/en/?p=3660.

Moltmann,Jürgen. 1977. TheChurchinthePoweroftheSpirit:AContributiontoMessianicEcclesiology. London:SCMPress.

Moltmann,Jürgen. 1981. TheTrinityandtheKingdom:TheDoctrineofGod.London:SCMPress. Moltmann,Jürgen. 1990. TheWayofJesusChrist.London:SCMPress.

Moltmann,Jürgen. 1993 TheologyofHope:OntheGroundandtheImplicationsofaChristian Eschatology.Minneapolis,MN:FortressPress.

Moltmann,Jürgen. 2000. ExperiencesinTheology:WaysandFormsofChristianTheology.London:SCM Press.

Moltmann,Jürgen. 2001. The CrucifiedGod:TheCrossofChristastheFoundationandCriticismof ChristianTheology.London:SCMPress.

Moucarry,Chawkat. 2001 FaithtoFaith:Christianity&IslaminDialogue.Leicester:Inter-VarsityPress. Moucarry,Chawkat. 2004. TheSearchforForgiveness:PardonandPunishmentinIslamandChristianity. Nottingham:Inter-VarsityPress.

Ormsby,EricL. 1984. TheodicyinIslamicThought:TheDisputeOverAl-Ghazālī’s ‘BestofAllPossible Worlds’.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress. Raheb,Mitri. 1995 IAmaPalestinianChristian.Minneapolis,MN:FortressPress.

Ralston,Joshua. 2017. “BearingWitness:ReframingChristian-MuslimEncounterinLightofthe RefugeeCrisis.” TheologyToday 74(1):22–35.

Richard,Lucien. 1992 WhatAreTheySayingAbouttheTheologyofSuffering? NewYork:PaulistPress. Richard,Yann. 1995. Shi’iteIslam:Polity,Ideology,andCreed.Oxford:BasilBlackwell. Rohani,SayyidMuhammadSadiq. 2012. QuestionsAboutAshuraandtheUprisingofImamHusayn. Qum:Ansariyan.

Shomali,MohammadAli. 2003. Shīʻī Islam:Origins,FaithandPractices.London:IslamicCollegefor AdvancedStudiesPress&InternationalInstituteforIslamicStudies. Sobrino,Jon. 2003 JesustheLiberator:AHistorical-TheologicalReadingofJesusofNazareth.Maryknoll: OrbisBooks.

Soelle,Dorothee. 1984. TheStrengthoftheWeak:TowardaChristianFeministIdentity.Philadelphia, PA:TheWestminsterPress. Stock,Katie. 2017. “SeekingAsylum,FindingChrist:WhyMuslimRefugeesAreConverting.” Premier Christianity.AccessedAugust4,2018. https://www.premierchristianity.com/Past-Issues/2017/ March-2017/Seeking-Asylum-Finding-Christ-Why-Muslim-refugees-are-converting Tabatabai, AllamahSayyidMuhammadHusayn. n.d. Shi’iteIslam.Karachi:ShiaInstituteofPakistan. Wells,Paul. 1990 “GodandChange:MoltmannintheLightoftheReformedTradition.” In ThePower andWeaknessofGod:ImpassibilityandOrthodoxy:PapersPresentedattheThirdEdinburgh ConferenceinDogmatics,1989,editedbyN.M.deS.Cameron,52–68.Edinburgh:Rutherford HouseBooks.