What do Christian and Muslim interfaith groups say about scriptural violence and coexistence?

1. Scriptural violence: a hermeneutic problem, not just a textual one

Major interfaith projects treat violent passages in the Bible and Qur’an as interpretive challenges to be addressed rather than simple proofs that religion equals violence. The Cambridge Interfaith “Scripture & Violence” initiative seeks to equip people to “grapple with scriptures that seem to condone or encourage violence” across Christian, Muslim and Jewish traditions and to undo prejudices that assume text determines action ^[1]. Its learning resources stress that behaviour labelled “religious violence” often involves many factors beyond scripture, discouraging simplistic causal claims ^[2].

2. Dialogue’s stated aim: reduce misunderstanding, promote coexistence

Muslim interfaith bodies emphasise that dialogue’s primary role is to remove misunderstanding, accept difference and generate peaceful social relations; the World Council of Muslims for Interfaith Relations explicitly states this as an objective ^[3]. Ecumenical Christian bodies likewise frame dialogue as part theological, part civic — seeking a “viable model of society” that guarantees equality and religious liberty while addressing practical challenges of plural communities ^[7].

3. Practical cooperation often trumps theology on the ground

Research from conflict zones shows that ordinary Christians and Muslims sometimes prioritise pragmatic reasons for peace — safety, family welfare and preventing destruction — over purely theological rapprochement ^[8]. In Nigeria, scholars find coexistence is sustained by local dynamics such as policing, mutual interest and interdependence as much as by interfaith theology ^[8].

4. Interfaith work contains internal tensions over evangelism and doctrine

Christian participants in interfaith initiatives often balance two impulses: building friendship and witnessing their faith. Reporting on Christian-Muslim dialogue notes advocates who press for “genuine friendship” while also insisting on the integrity of Christian witness; some networks explicitly include conversion as part of religious interaction ^{[9] [10]}. These divergent aims — friendship vs. proclamation — create tensions within interfaith practice ^{[9] [10]}.

5. Security concerns and persecution claims shape the conversation

Claims of violence against Christians in Muslim-majority countries influence how interfaith work is perceived and practiced. U.S. congressional language and advocacy groups cite numerous cases of harassment, forced marriage and persecution of converts and encourage political pressure to protect Christians ^{[5] [11]}. In Nigeria, monitoring groups report tens of thousands of deaths in targeted political violence since 2009 and NGOs point to Islamist militant activity; those figures and incidents intensify demands for protection and complicate local interfaith efforts ^{[4] [6]}.

6. Competing narratives: persecution, context, and proportion

Sources diverge on whether anti-Christian violence is a coordinated or widespread campaign. Humanitarian monitors and think-tanks note high civilian death tolls that include Christians and Muslims and caution against claims of state-coordinated extermination; other advocacy groups highlight specific patterns of abuse and targeted attacks on Christians ^{[4] [6]}. Interfaith leaders warn that securitized responses — including foreign threats of military action — risk inflaming divisions and must not replace locally-led reconciliation ^[12].

7. Best-practice themes emerging from sources

Practical recommendations repeated across the materials include: contextualised scriptural interpretation, grassroots dialogue that addresses lived needs, safeguarding religious liberty in law and practice, and keeping humanitarian protection separate from polemical politics ^{[1] [7] [8]}. Successful projects cited range from educational resource development to safe spaces for shared scripture reading and cultural exchange ^{[2] [13]}.

Limitations and what reporting does not say

Available sources document the aims of interfaith groups, examples of programmes and contested data about violence, but they do not provide a comprehensive global tally tying specific scriptural interpretations directly to particular violent acts — that causal claim is treated as contested and often absent from the cited material ^{[1] [2] [4]}. Sources also vary in perspective: academic and interfaith bodies prioritise interpretation and coexistence ^{[1] [3]}, while advocacy and political texts foreground persecution and protection ^{[5] [6]}.