Parallel Grammars of Engagement: Reframing Mission Studies and Da‘wah fī Sabīl Allāh in Comparative Missiology

Abstract

This article explores Christian mission and Islamic daʿwah fī sabīl Allāh as two distinct yet structurally comparable forms of theological engagement with the world. While both concepts have traditionally been studied in relation to religious transmission, doctrinal fidelity, and institutional expansion, contemporary scholarship increasingly recognizes their broader significance as practices of ethical responsibility, public witness, and interreligious encounter. The study proposes a comparative theological framework that goes beyond descriptive comparisons to examine the underlying structures that shape mission and daʿwah. Both traditions are approached as embodied practices through which religious communities cultivate specific forms of moral agency, religious subjectivity and interaction with others. From this perspective, mission and daʿwah are not merely understood as communicative activities, but as expressions of lived socio-ethical and theological commitments. The article posits that both traditions are organized around three interconnected dimensions: divine agency, human mediation, and epistemic orientation. These dimensions provide a common analytical framework while preserving the theological distinctiveness of Christianity and Islam. By developing this comparative axis, the study contributes to comparative theology in three ways: it offers a new conceptual framework for analysis; it highlights the dynamic and self-reflective nature of both traditions; and it demonstrates how mission and daʿwah can serve as platforms for interreligious understanding, fostering meaningful dialogue and deepening theological self-awareness through engagement with religious diversity.

1. Introduction

The study of Christian mission and Islamic daʿwah has traditionally been shaped by concerns of religious transmission, institutional expansion, and doctrinal fidelity. Within both Christian theology and Islamic thought, these categories have often been interpreted through paradigms of outreach, invitation, or evangelization directed toward those outside the faith community. In an increasingly pluralistic and interconnected world, however, such functional understandings are insufficient to account for the theological depth and relational complexity embedded within these practices. In recent decades, both mission studies (Kim and Fitchett-Climenhaga 2022; Kim 2024) and daʿwah studies (Weismann and Malik 2020; Massad 2025) have undergone significant transformation, shifting away from narrowly conversion-oriented frameworks towards a broader focus on dialogue, ethical engagement, and interreligious understanding. This article argues that missio Dei in mission studies and daʿwah da‘wah fī sabīl Allāh in Islamic thought can be fruitfully analyzed through what may be termed a “comparative axis” of theological engagement (Clooney 2010; Cornille 2020). Rather than treating these concepts as equivalent or collapsing them into generic categories of “proselytization,” the comparative axis approach identifies structured analogies and principled differences between them. It proposes that both concepts articulate distinct yet structurally comparable grammars of divine engagement with the world, organized around divine agency, human mediation, and epistemic orientation. By developing this framework, the article seeks to make three contributions. First, it offers a conceptual tool for comparative theology that moves beyond descriptive juxtaposition toward structural correspondence. Second, it demonstrates that both Christian and Islamic traditions contain dynamic and self-reflective understandings of religious propagation, which cannot be reduced to mere institutional expansion. Third, it shows that missiology and daʿwah studies can function not only as disciplines of religious communication but also as sites of interreligious intelligibility, where theological self-understanding is deepened through encounter with difference. The central research question guiding this study is therefore: How can missio Dei and daʿwah fī sabīl Allāh be understood as structurally comparable yet theologically non-identical frameworks of divine engagement with the world? The thesis advanced is that both concepts constitute theocentric models of outward religious orientation, but differ in their metaphysical grounding, mediating structures, and communicative logics. Recognizing both their convergence and divergence enables a more nuanced understanding of Christian–Muslim engagement in plural societies, where socio-theological conviction and interreligious coexistence must be held in productive tension.

2. Reconfiguring Mission Studies and Daʿwah in Contemporary Socio-Ethical and Theological Context

Any meaningful comparison between missio Dei and daʿwah fī sabīl Allāh must begin with an examination of the epistemological status of mission studies and daʿwah studies within their respective socio-ethical and theological contexts. Such an inquiry clarifies the disciplinary assumptions, normative commitments, and modes of knowledge that inform each tradition’s understanding of religious engagement with the world. Moreover, the status quaestionis will reveal how, beyond their traditional role in religious propagation, Mission Studies (Missiology) and Daʿwah Studies have increasingly emerged as important fields through which Christians and Muslims can better understand one another and cultivate constructive relationships in plural societies.

2.1. Transformation in Christian Missiology

Modern missiological reflection has increasingly moved away from triumphalist or purely ecclesiocentric models of mission toward more relational, contextual, and dialogical understandings (Colzani 2010). A decisive contribution to this shift is found in the thought of David J. Bosch, whose seminal work Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Bosch 1991) traces historical paradigms of mission and argues for a postmodern ecumenical paradigm grounded in humility, contextuality, and openness to other traditions. For Bosch, mission is not merely the activity of the Church but participation in a deeper divine movement within history. Similarly, Lesslie Newbigin emphasizes the challenge of Christian witness in pluralistic societies. In The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Newbigin 1989), Newbigin argues that Christian proclamation must retain its integrity while engaging respectfully with competing truth claims. His work highlights the tension between exclusivity and public engagement, making pluralism not a threat but a context for faithful witness. The conceptual reorientation of mission is further developed in the theology of missio Dei, associated with figures such as Karl Barth and Karl Hartenstein and later elaborated by contemporary missiologists (Schuster 2002). This theological shift relocates mission from ecclesial initiative to divine initiative: the Church participates in what God is already doing in the world. This move has been expanded by scholars such as Bevans and Schroeder (2004), who emphasize contextual theology and the necessity of cultural engagement. Further contributions by Andrew F. Walls and Lamin Sanneh have profoundly reshaped the understanding of Christian mission through the concepts of translation and indigenization. Walls draws attention to the historical and intercultural transmission of Christianity, emphasizing the polycentric and translatable nature of Christian knowledge (Walls 1996, 2002). Lamin Sanneh contributes a postcolonial sensitivity by examining how mission both shapes and is reshaped by indigenous agency and vernacularization (Sanneh 1989, 2003). Theology of religions and intercultural theology have also contributed significantly to this shift in understanding (Dotolo 2021). Knitter (1985, 2002) examines exclusivist, inclusivist, and pluralist approaches to religious diversity within a context of Mission Studies. Dupuis ([1997] 2001) seeks to reconcile Christian commitment to Christ with a positive theological appreciation of other religions. Likewise, intercultural theology is grounded in the conviction that all theology is contextually shaped and therefore cannot be reduced to any single cultural or theological tradition. It recognizes the equal significance of theological voices emerging from diverse cultural contexts. Consequently, intercultural theology is concerned not only with theological content but also with the cultural forms and practices through which faith is expressed (Dell’Orto 2017). This perspective redefines mission as a process of local appropriation and contextual interpretation of the Gospel rather than the simple transmission of a message from one culture to another (Schroeder 2015). Methodologically, it draws on interdisciplinary approaches, particularly from the social and cultural sciences, to explore the interaction between faith and context. Furthermore, by acknowledging that religious traditions are integral components of cultural realities, intercultural theology places interreligious encounter and dialogue at the heart of theo-missiological reflection (Wrogemann 2022). In summary, modern missiology emerged through the convergence of two major theological developments: the concept of missio Dei and the rise of contextual theology. While missio Dei redefined mission as participation in God’s activity in the world, contextual theology emphasized the cultural and historical situatedness of all theological reflection. Together, these developments reshaped the theological foundations of mission. The doctrine of missio Dei provided a universal theological horizon, while contextual theology ensured that mission remained attentive to the diversity of human experiences and cultures. Their interaction generated a more dynamic and holistic understanding of mission, one that connects God’s universal action with concrete historical realities (Mazzolini 2022). Moreover, the understanding of missio inter gentes (“mission among the peoples”) emerged as a development and partial critique of the classical paradigm of missio ad gentes (“mission to the nations”), whereas missio ad gentes was traditionally understood as the Church’s movement outward to proclaim the Gospel to those outside Christianity, often emphasizing evangelization and ecclesial expansion, missio inter gentes reimagines mission as presence, dialogue, and mutual transformation within contexts of religious and cultural plurality. Rooted in the theology of Missio Dei, missio inter gentes understands mission as participation in God’s activity already present among peoples and cultures rather than as a movement initiated solely by the Church. Mission therefore becomes relational and dialogical: Christians do not stand over against others as possessors of truth but live and witness among others through solidarity, service, listening, and shared engagement for justice, peace, and human flourishing. This approach does not abandon proclamation but relocates it within reciprocal encounter. Christian witness is expressed not only through verbal proclamation but also through hospitality, accompaniment, and cooperation with people of other faiths. Thus, missio inter gentes retains the universal horizon of the Gospel while emphasizing that God’s action precedes and exceeds ecclesial boundaries. In contemporary missiology, missio inter gentes has further opened toward proposals such as missio cum gentibus (“mission with the peoples”), where believers of different traditions become partners in participating in God’s reconciling and life-giving work in the world. A short formula could be: from proclamation to presence (ad gentes), from presence to dialogue (inter gentes), and from dialogue to shared participation (cum gentibus) (Sabetta 2021). As a result, the transformation they initiated extended beyond missiology itself, influencing broader theological discourse and challenging long-standing assumptions about theology, culture, and Christian witness. This broader trajectory reveals that missiology operates within a plural epistemological framework characterized by methodological hybridity, contextual sensitivity, and continuous critical self-reflection. Mission is thus understood not as a unilateral transmission of religious truth but as a dynamic process of encounter, dialogue, and mutual transformation across cultural boundaries (Pachuau 2017). If that is true, the epistemological status of Mission Studies may be characterized as a complex, polycentric field of inquiry that resists reduction to a single methodological or disciplinary paradigm. Situated at the confluence of systematic and practical theology, religious studies, and the social sciences, it operates through a critical negotiation between normative, confessional claims and empirical-analytical approaches. Epistemically, Mission Studies is marked by a constitutive reflexivity: it not only produces knowledge about mission as a historical and sociocultural phenomenon, but also interrogates the conditions, presuppositions, and power dynamics that undergird its own knowledge production. This entails a methodological pluralism in which theological hermeneutics, ethnographic observation, historical analysis, and intercultural critique are held in a dialectical relationship. As a result, its epistemic claims are provisional, context-sensitive, and dialogical, shaped by the interaction between local Christian communities, global processes, and the shifting boundaries between insider and outsider perspectives. In this sense, Mission Studies occupies a liminal epistemological space, mediating between faith-based rationality and critical scholarly discourse while remaining attentive to the normative implications of its subject matter (Skreslet 2012). A tentative definition would be along the following lines: Missiology, or Mission Studies, may be defined as an interdisciplinary and theologically grounded field of inquiry that critically examines the nature, history, practice, and epistemological foundations of the Christian mission in relation to diverse cultural, religious, and social contexts. It integrates systematic and practical theology with insights from the social sciences, history, and cultural studies to investigate both the normative claims arising from theological traditions and the empirical realities of mission as a lived, contextual phenomenon. As such, missiology encompasses the analysis of missionary praxis, the interpretation of Scripture and tradition with respect to mission, and the study of the global transmission and inculturation of the Christian faith. Its epistemological posture is characterized by reflexivity and dialogical engagement, insofar as it continuously interrogates its own presuppositions while remaining attentive to the interaction between revelation, context, and human agency (Colzani 2012).

2.2. Da‘wah Studies and Contemporary Islamic Thought

Daʿwah (from the Arabic root meaning “to call” or “to invite”) refers, in its most general sense, to the various ways in which Muslims seek to communicate Islam and encourage adherence to its teachings. It encompasses both an internal dimension—calling Muslims to deepen their commitment and practice of Islam—and an external dimension—inviting non-Muslims to embrace the faith. Rooted in the Qurʾanic notion of God’s “call” to humanity and exemplified in the life and mission of the Prophet Muhammad as the archetypal dāʿī, daʿwah has historically taken diverse forms across Islamic history. It has been carried out by rulers, ʿulamāʾ, sufis, merchants, soldiers, and, in the modern period, increasingly by lay Muslims, including women and youth. Far from being limited to formal preaching, daʿwah includes education, moral exhortation, publication, social reform, and, in some contexts, political action aimed at Islamization of society, even to the extent of establishing a theocracy. It can operate through persuasion or, in certain historical settings, in close relation to structures of authority and state power. Because Islam emerged in a context of religious plurality, daʿwah has always carried an interreligious dimension, shaping how Muslims understand and engage with religious “others.” (Sabetta 2016, pp. 163–213). At the same time, it has been a site of internal debate concerning authority, methods, and the definition of authentic Islam. In this sense, daʿwah is best understood not as a single practice but as a broad and evolving repertoire of missionary, ethical, and communal practices within the Islamic tradition (al-Faruqi 1982; Walker 1995; Masud 1995; Schulze 1995; Kuiper 2018, 2021). The emergence of daʿwah studies as a distinct field within modern Islamic thought represents a significant development in the intellectual history of contemporary Islam. Traditionally, daʿwah —understood as the invitation to God’s path and the communication of Islam—was not treated as an autonomous discipline. Rather, it was embedded within broader Islamic sciences such as Qurʾānic exegesis (tafsīr), jurisprudence (fiqh), theology (kalām), ethics (akhlāq), and prophetic biography (sīra). During the modern period, however, Muslim reformers increasingly conceptualized daʿwah as a systematic intellectual enterprise requiring its own methodology, epistemological foundations, and practical tools. In the Qurʾān, daʿwah is closely associated with wisdom (ḥikma), good exhortation (mawʿiẓa ḥasana), and reasoned argumentation (jadal bi-allatī hiya aḥsan) (Q 16:125). From its earliest formulations, therefore, daʿwah presupposes both normative knowledge derived from revelation and practical knowledge concerning human beings and society. It is simultaneously theological, ethical, pedagogical, and communicative. Modern Muslim scholars increasingly recognize this dual character. Daʿwah cannot be reduced to the simple transmission of fixed doctrines; it requires understanding the conditions under which religious truth becomes meaningful and persuasive. Consequently, it emerged as a field situated at the intersection of revelation and context, normativity and praxis, theology and social engagement. This evolution reflects the profound transformations experienced by Muslim societies from the nineteenth century onward: colonial domination, the encounter with Western modernity, the crisis of religious authority, globalization, and the growing presence of Muslim minorities in non-Muslim societies. In response to these challenges, daʿwah came to be understood not merely as preaching but as a comprehensive framework for mediating between revelation and contemporary reality (Racius 2004). A particularly fruitful way of tracing this development is through the intellectual lineage linking Rashīd Riḍā (1865–1935), Yūsuf al-Qaraḍāwī (1926–2022), and Tariq Ramadan (1962–). Although separated by different historical contexts, these thinkers share a common concern: the articulation of an Islamic discourse capable of remaining faithful to revelation while engaging modern social realities. Their contributions reveal a remarkable continuity in the understanding of daʿwah as a field of knowledge rooted in scripture, informed by reason, and oriented toward societal transformation.

2.2.1. Rashīd Riḍā: Daʿwah as Reformist Mediation Between Revelation and Modernity

The intellectual foundations of modern daʿwah studies can be traced to the reformist project of Rashīd Riḍā. A disciple of Muḥammad ʿAbduh and a major representative of Islamic modernism, Riḍā sought to address what he perceived as the decline of Muslim civilization through a return to the foundational sources of Islam (Khalil 2012, pp. 110–44). For Riḍā, daʿwah was inseparable from iṣlāḥ (reform). The purpose of inviting people to Islam was not simply conversion or religious instruction but the revitalization of Muslim society through the recovery of authentic Islamic principles. In his influential journal al-Manār, daʿwah became a vehicle for intellectual renewal, educational reform, and political awakening (Ryad 2002, 2009). Riḍā’s engagement with Christian missions reveals a coherent theological and missiological vision that may be analogically understood as his ṭarīq al-daʿwah—a distinctive mode of conceiving religious witness, reform, and human response to divine truth (Massad 2025, pp. 163–72). Although his direct encounter with an active Christian missionary was limited to his exchange with the Danish Lutheran missionary Alfred Nielsen (1884–1963), this interaction, together with Riḍā’s broader engagement with missionary literature and colonial realities, provides a significant entry point into his understanding of mission. Three interrelated principles emerge as constitutive of this ṭarīq al- daʿwah: ṭaʿn, taḥrīf, and daʿwah h. The principle of ṭaʿn functions as an ethical criterion through which Riḍā evaluates Christian missionary activity, distinguishing between sincere engagement and forms of polemics that demean Islam, the Prophet Muḥammad, and Muslim communities. The principle of taḥrīf establishes the theological boundary of engagement by grounding Riḍā’s critique of Christianity in the conviction that earlier revelations had undergone textual and doctrinal corruption, a position he reinforced through appeals to contemporary European biblical criticism. Yet Riḍā’s thought does not culminate in rejection; rather, it moves constructively toward daʿwah as the central orientation of religious life. Daʿwah, for Riḍā, encompasses invitation to non-Muslims, renewal among Muslims, and a universal appeal rooted in fiṭra, the innate human disposition toward truth and worship of God. From this perspective, mission is not primarily expansionist or polemical but participatory in humanity’s natural inclination toward divine guidance. This anthropological conviction also shapes Riḍā’s soteriology. He carefully distinguishes between islām as universal submission to God and Islam as a historical religious tradition. Consequently, divine judgment depends not merely on formal religious affiliation but on the degree to which individuals have genuinely encountered and understood the Prophet’s message. Those who have received only distorted presentations of Islam, or who sincerely seek truth without finding convincing evidence, are not automatically condemned. Only those who clearly recognize the truth of the prophetic message and reject it out of arrogance or self-interest incur blame. In this respect, Riḍā adopts a more nuanced and inclusivist position than is often assumed. The practical implications of this theology are evident in his educational and missionary initiatives, particularly the establishment of the Dār al-Daʿwa wa al-Irshād (“The College of Calling [one to God] and of Guidance”). The institution sought simultaneously to reform Muslims and to prepare missionaries capable of presenting Islam accurately to non-Muslims. Riḍā’s confidence in the success of such efforts derived from his belief that Islam corresponds to the natural religion of the fiṭra. If people were exposed to the authentic message of the Qurʾān and the Prophet, free from prejudice and misrepresentation, their innate disposition would lead them toward its acceptance. Riḍā’s ṭarīq al-daʿwah thus emerges as a paradigm that integrates ethical discernment, theological critique, and a soteriological confidence in the universal accessibility of divine truth.

2.2.2. Yūsuf al-Qaraḍāwī and the Academicization of Daʿwah for the Whole World

Yūsuf al-Qaraḍāwī played a decisive role in the transformation of daʿwah from a largely informal practice of preaching and religious exhortation into a structured field of Islamic knowledge. Situated within the broader reformist milieu of the twentieth century and deeply influenced by the intellectual legacy of the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaraḍāwī sought to provide daʿwah with a coherent methodological foundation capable of responding to the challenges of modernity, secularization, and ideological pluralism. His central contribution lay in conceptualizing daʿwah as an interdisciplinary science (ʿilm al-daʿwah), one that requires not only mastery of the Qurʾān and Sunnah but also familiarity with sociology, psychology, history, communication studies, and contemporary political realities. Through seminal work such as Thaqāfat al-Dāʿiyah (al-Qaraḍāwī 1979) (“The culture of the preacher”) and the concept of Fiqh al-Daʿwa, he argued that the preacher must possess a comprehensive intellectual formation that integrates religious knowledge with an understanding of the social context in which Islam is communicated (al-Qaraḍāwī 2001a; Malik 2018). This approach effectively expanded the scope of traditional Islamic learning by incorporating what he termed fiqh al-wāqiʿ (understanding of reality), thereby linking scriptural interpretation to concrete historical circumstances (Rock-Singer 2016; Setiawan and Sa‘bani 2023). Al-Qaraḍāwī’s theory of daʿwah was grounded in the principle of wasaṭiyyah (moderation), which he presented as a methodological framework for navigating between rigid literalism and excessive accommodation to modern secular values (Aziz 2024). Closely connected to this was his development of fiqh al-awlawiyyāt (jurisprudence of priorities), which trained preachers to distinguish between essential and secondary matters in religious life and to address social realities with prudence and proportionality (al-Qaraḍāwī 2001b; Hassan 2023). By integrating the objectives of Islamic law (maqāṣid al-sharīʿah) into daʿwah methodology, he further encouraged a purposive and welfare-oriented reading of religious texts. The institutional dimension of his project was equally significant. As founding dean of the Faculty of Sharīʿah and Islamic Studies at Qatar University, al-Qaraḍāwī helped translate these theoretical principles into academic curricula, contributing to the emergence of daʿwah as a university discipline (Rafida et al. 2025). Some of his textbooks were adopted in Islamic higher education, influencing programs from Al-Azhar University to International Islamic University Malaysia and helping shape a generation of preachers trained in both classical Islamic sciences and modern social analysis (Malik 1998; Aslati et al. 2022). From an epistemological perspective, al-Qaraḍāwī’s work marks a significant shift in the history of daʿwah. Rather than treating religious outreach solely as a devotional obligation, he recast it as a specialized field of knowledge with its own subject matter, methodologies, and pedagogical structures. In this sense, his project represents one of the most influential attempts to transform daʿwah into a form of Islamic practical theology, situated at the intersection of normative religious commitments and empirical engagement with contemporary society. While critics have questioned the political implications of his close association with Islamist movements, his contribution to the academicization and professionalization of daʿwah remains one of the defining developments in modern Islamic thought. Contemporary patterns of migration driven by economic opportunity, persecution, and war have generated what some scholars describe as an entirely new phenomenon that poses new and major problems. A central issue arising from this transformation concerns the existential and juridical status of Muslims living in non-Muslim European societies. Traditionally, such communities were addressed under the rubric of fiqh al-aqalliyyāt (“jurisprudence of minorities”), a legal framework concerned with regulating the religious life of Muslims residing in contexts where they constitute a minority population. Sunni scholars have expressed concern that prolonged exposure to Western cultural environments may lead to moral assimilation and thus weaken both Islamic identity and the effectiveness of daʿwah. In response, a figure such as Yūsuf al-Qaraḍāwī has sought to reopen and reformulate juristic discussions in order to address the needs of Muslims in Europe, regulate their engagement with wider society, and ensure that such engagement remains aligned with the objectives of the sharīʿa (Massad 2025, pp. 190–94). A key aspect of Qaraḍāwī’s contribution is his reworking of the classical binary between dār al-islām (“abode of Islam”) and dār al-ḥarb (“abode of war”). He criticises this division for implying that Muslims residing outside traditionally Islamic territories are, in some sense, living in a condition of religious deficiency or juridical suspicion. As an alternative, he proposes a third category, dār al-ʿahd (“abode of treaty”), referring to states that are not in active conflict with Muslim polities and in which Muslims are able to practice their religion freely. The notion of ʿahd (treaty or covenant) underscores a reciprocal ethical obligation: Muslims living in such contexts are bound to respect the laws of the land insofar as these do not contravene fundamental Islamic principles. Within this framework, Muslim residence in non-Muslim societies is not merely permissible but may even constitute a farḍ kifāyah—a collective obligation—when understood as part of the global dissemination of Islam. Western Muslims thus assume the role of agents of daʿwah, whether through institutional development, public representation of Islam, or socio-political engagement aimed at creating more favourable conditions for Muslim life. In a frequently cited formulation, Qaraḍāwī envisages a future in which Islam returns to Europe not through military force but through persuasion, preaching, and ideological influence. This “conquest” is explicitly non-violent, relying instead on communicative and cultural forms of expansion. Qaraḍāwī describes this orientation as wasaṭiyya (the “middle way”), a reformist stance that seeks to maintain the comprehensive normative orientation of sharīʿa while recognising the practical impossibility of its full implementation in contemporary nation-states. Consequently, he advocates pragmatic adaptation grounded in juridical reasoning, while maintaining the desirability of migration to dār al-ʿahd where conditions are more conducive to Islamic practice. His colleague Fayṣal al-Mawlawī extends and radicalises this reconfiguration of the dār typology. As co-founder of the European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR), he shares Qaraḍāwī’s commitment to issuing context-sensitive legal opinions for Muslims in minority settings. However, Mawlawī departs from Qaraḍāwī in his more systemic critique of the nation-state framework. He proposes replacing the classical division entirely with the concept of dār al-daʿwa (“abode of calling”), arguing that all non-Muslim-majority countries—except those in active conflict with Muslims—should be understood as spaces for inviting humanity toward God. In this model, the distinction between dār al-islām, dār al-ḥarb, and dār al-ʿahd loses its analytical force. Mawlawī reasons that if even historically Muslim-majority states such as Turkey no longer implement sharīʿa comprehensively, then the category of dār al-islām itself becomes untenable. Without a coherent dār al-islām, the conceptual counterpart of dār al-ḥarb also collapses. What remains is a global field of daʿwah, structured not by territorial opposition but by the universal obligation to call humanity to Islam. In this sense, Mawlawī’s framework universalises missionary responsibility while maintaining juridical conditions regarding peaceful coexistence and obedience to local law. Like Qaraḍāwī, Mawlawī understands jihād in expansive, non-military terms as a comprehensive ethical and intellectual struggle to advance Islam. Within modern conditions, however, he explicitly rejects armed struggle as neither effective nor normatively desirable. Instead, the primary modality of jihād becomes peaceful daʿwah, especially in contexts of religious plurality. Importantly, Mawlawī also develops a theory of interreligious relationality grounded in the concept of fiṭra (primordial human nature). While maintaining that intra-Muslim bonds retain a privileged status, he argues that Muslims can and should cultivate what he calls “civic friendships” with non-Muslims. These relationships arise from shared human interests rooted in fiṭra and are not contingent upon doctrinal agreement. From this perspective, he introduces the notion of ḥubb fiṭrī (“innate love”) toward non-Muslims as a form of ethical recognition grounded in shared humanity. Taken together, the approaches of Qaraḍāwī and Mawlawī reveal a significant shift in contemporary Islamic political–theological imagination: from territorialised conceptions of religious space toward a universalised horizon of daʿwah grounded in fiṭra. Muslim engagement with non-Muslims is thus reframed not primarily in terms of separation or conflict, but through a dynamic tension between shared human nature and the normative imperative of calling others toward Islam (Massad 2025, pp. 192–94).

2.2.3. Tariq Ramadan: Da ‘wah in a Global and Pluralistic Context

Tariq Ramadan represents a further development of this intellectual trajectory. Writing primarily in the context of Europe and North America, Ramadan addresses questions that neither Riḍā nor al-Qaraḍāwī encountered directly: secularization, globalization, multiculturalism, and Muslim minority citizenship (Ramadan 2004, 2009). Like his predecessors, Ramadan understands daʿwah as rooted in revelation. However, he places greater emphasis on ethical witness, dialogue, and civic participation. For him, daʿwah cannot be reduced to proselytization. Rather, it consists in making Islamic values present and intelligible within pluralistic societies. The epistemological innovation of Ramadan lies in his theory of the relationship between immutable principles (thawābit) and changing realities (mutaghayyirāt). Faithfulness to Islam requires distinguishing between universal ethical objectives and historically contingent cultural expressions. Consequently, daʿwah involves a continuous process of interpretation and contextualization. This approach demands what Ramadan calls a “double competence”: deep knowledge of the Islamic tradition and thorough understanding of contemporary societies. The dāʿī must be capable of moving between these two worlds and constructing meaningful bridges between them. Unlike some classical approaches that focused primarily on transmitting religious content, Ramadan conceives daʿwah as a dialogical process. Knowledge emerges through engagement with others rather than through one-sided instruction alone. Interreligious dialogue, public debate, and civic cooperation become legitimate dimensions of daʿwah because they contribute to the manifestation of Islamic ethical values in society. In this respect, Ramadan extends the epistemological horizon of daʿwah beyond the boundaries of the Muslim community. Daʿwah becomes a mode of public reasoning and ethical presence within a globalized world. Like Riḍā, al-Qaraḍāwī, and Mawlawī, Tariq Ramadan affirms that the Qurʾan articulates a universal message that directly addresses the fiṭra, calling human beings to remember God and surrender to the divine will. On this account, every human being possesses the capacity to recognise and respond to this call, provided they remain attentive to their innate disposition (Ramadan 2004, pp. 15–18, 230n16). When an individual trusts and submits to God, they are, in Ramadan’s terms, already a muslim—whether or not this identity is socially recognised or formally articulated within the visible umma. At the same time, although the fiṭra inclines human beings toward God, it does not compel them; individuals retain the freedom to reject this orientation in favour of a self-centred existence. Such rejection, however, is interpreted as a form of ontological dissonance, since humanity is understood to be created for the purpose of acting as God’s vicegerent (khalīfa) on earth. To turn away from revelation is therefore, in this framework, to turn away from one’s own nature. While the Qurʾan provides universal guidance that corresponds to the structure of the fiṭra, it is the Muslim community that renders this divine intention historically visible. Ramadan argues that the umma embodies within history the relationship between al-kitāb al-mastūr (the written revelation of the Qurʾan) and al-kitāb al-manshūr (the “open book” of creation) (Ramadan 2009, pp. 87–100). The function of the Muslim community is thus to remind humanity that creation itself is a sign of God and that the fiṭra constitutes an inner testimony to the divine. From this perspective, the obligation of the community is articulated through shahāda, which for Ramadan extends beyond verbal profession of faith to include active witnessing in the world. Shahāda therefore entails both testimony to the truth of revelation and the ethical responsibility to awaken in others’ awareness of their own fiṭra, thereby orienting human life toward the common good and the fulfilment of being vicegerent (Ramadan 2004, pp. 73, 203). In a religiously plural European context, this witnessing takes the form of constructive engagement with diversity. Ramadan argues that Muslims are called to transform religious plurality into an opportunity for cooperation, grounded in shared ethical values and mutual pursuit of social welfare. Because the Muslim community occupies a distinctive position as bearer of revelation, it is tasked with communicating this universal message to all people in ways that foster reciprocal benefit and moral responsibility. Drawing on Mawlawī, Ramadan further asserts that wherever a Muslim is able to freely practice their faith, they are “at home,” since the Prophet described the entire world as a masjid. This reframing dissolves the classical geographical division between dār al-islām and dār al-ḥarb. Instead, the decisive distinction is no longer territorial but existential: between those who respond to the universal call of God and those who refuse it. In this sense, responsibility lies not in geography but in response to the divine address articulated through the shahāda. While affirmation of this call constitutes entry into Islam, its continuity requires sustained ethical alignment with the sharīʿa, understood here as the ongoing embodiment of divine guidance. Within this framework, Ramadan ultimately rejects binary geopolitical imaginaries as both descriptively inadequate and theologically problematic. They fail to account for global religious plurality and contradict what he identifies as Islam’s foundational ethical orientation toward mercy. Consequently, he proposes instead the notion of a global dār al-shahāda—the “abode of witnessing”—in which the world is understood as a unified space of moral responsibility and divine testimony rather than segmented religious territories (Ramadan 2004, pp. 14–32, 63–77, 176, 195–97, 199, 248n1). A key unresolved question, however, concerns the practical content of shahāda beyond verbal profession. While Ramadan does not offer a systematic program, his reflections on interreligious dialogue provide significant insight into its operative logic. Dialogue, for him, is not merely informational but relational: it builds trust, recognises shared values, and creates the conditions for a common horizon for living together (Ramadan 2004, p. 201). This stems from his anthropological conviction that human beings are fundamentally responsible agents called to remember God and act accordingly. Such responsibility entails both epistemic and moral openness: a commitment to deepen understanding of truth and to pursue the good in cooperation with others. At the same time, Ramadan acknowledges the reality of divergent and sometimes competing religious claims. Muslims are therefore tasked not only with witnessing to divine truth but also with recognising instances in which other traditions express forms of submission to God that fall within the semantic horizon of islām itself. To regulate this delicate balance between inclusivist recognition and doctrinal integrity, Ramadan formulates four principles of interreligious dialogue. First, interlocutors must recognise the legitimacy of each other’s convictions without reducing disagreement to irrationality or illegitimacy. Second, each tradition must be allowed to speak on its own terms, without being filtered or distorted through external interpretive frameworks. Third, dialogue must remain open to critical questioning within a climate of mutual trust, without devolving into polemical antagonism. Finally, participants must practice reflexivity and self-critique, distinguishing between scriptural sources and inherited interpretations, thereby allowing for a more responsible and self-aware engagement with both one’s own tradition and those of others (Ramadan 2004, pp. 200–13).

2.2.4. Continuity and Development: An Epistemological Trajectory and a Responsible Posture

Despite important differences in context and emphasis, Riḍā, al-Qaraḍāwī, and Ramadan belong to a common intellectual tradition. Their shared assumptions reveal a coherent epistemological trajectory. First, all three regard revelation as the ultimate source of normative knowledge. The Qurʾān and the Sunna remain the foundation of daʿwah and the primary criterion for evaluating religious claims. Second, all reject purely literalist approaches that ignore historical and social realities. Each thinker insists that understanding context is essential for the effective communication of Islam. Third, all recognize the necessity of integrating different forms of knowledge. Classical religious sciences alone are insufficient. Daʿwah requires engagement with human experience, social structures, and cultural transformations. Fourth, all understand daʿwah as transformative rather than merely informative. The goal is not simply the transmission of doctrinal propositions but the ethical and spiritual renewal of individuals and societies. The development from Riḍā to Ramadan can therefore be interpreted as a progressive expansion of the epistemological scope of daʿwah. Together, these thinkers demonstrate that daʿwah is neither merely theology nor merely communication. It occupies a unique epistemological space where normative religious knowledge interacts with social reality in the pursuit of ethical transformation. As contemporary Muslim societies continue to confront the challenges of globalization, pluralism, and rapid social change, the intellectual legacy of these scholars remains crucial for understanding both the theory and practice of daʿwah in the modern world. Together, they articulate a progressive reconfiguration of Islamic global imagination. Qaraḍāwī retains a modified territorial framework (dār al-ʿahd) that integrates Muslims into non-Muslim polities through covenantal ethics. Mawlawī dissolves territorial binaries altogether in favour of a universal missionary space (dār al-daʿwah) grounded in fiṭra and peaceful jihād. Ramadan completes this trajectory by relocating the entire question of Muslim presence from territoriality to anthropology, transforming daʿwah into shahāda and reimagining the world as a unified field of divine witnessing (dār al-shahāda). Across these models, a common conceptual movement becomes visible: from space (dār) to nature (fiṭra) to responsibility (shahāda). What begins as a juridical question of territorial classification ends as a theological anthropology of universal human accountability before God.

3. Comparative Theology and Interreligious Learning

The interpretive framework of this study is also informed by developments in comparative theology and interreligious dialogue. Francis X. Clooney proposes that deep engagement with another religious tradition can transform and deepen one’s own theological understanding. Rather than suspending commitment, comparative theology involves “faith seeking understanding across traditions.” (Clooney 2010). Similarly, James L. Fredericks argues that authentic interreligious learning occurs when believers allow the religious other to challenge and expand their own conceptual frameworks (Fredericks 1999). Meanwhile, Miroslav Volf emphasizes that constructive engagement between religions requires both firm identity and openness to difference, rejecting both relativism and exclusivism (Volf 2012). These perspectives provide an important methodological foundation for the present study (Sabetta 2014, pp. 324–68; Cornille 2020). They suggest that missiology and da‘wah studies should not be understood solely as disciplines of outward communication but also as sites of inward theological transformation. Encounter with religious difference becomes a mode of self-knowledge (Sabetta 2020).

3.1. Missiological Comparative Theology as Comparative Similarity

If this framework is to become a genuinely missiological comparative theology, it requires moving beyond comparison as an exercise in theological juxtaposition and toward a constructive theology of religious encounter (Massad 2025, pp. 243–56; Sabetta 2025). Such a proposal may be developed by placing missio Dei and missio inter gentes in Christian theology into sustained dialogue with a contemporary Muslim theology of witness articulated through Riḍā, Qaraḍāwī and Ramadan, synthesized as ṭarīq al-shahāda (“the path of witnessing”). Within Christian theology, missio Dei emerged as a decisive reorientation of mission from ecclesiocentric expansion toward participation in God’s own activity in the world. Mission is not fundamentally an initiative of the Church but an expression of the triune God’s self-communication through the sending of the Son and the Spirit. Classical formulations often emphasized proclamation (kerygma) and conversion, yet contemporary missiology increasingly understands mission as discernment of where God is already active beyond ecclesial boundaries. This trajectory developed further through the concept of missio inter gentes, which shifts attention from mission to peoples (ad gentes) toward mission among peoples. Here, mission becomes dialogical presence, reciprocal encounter, and participation in the shared search for truth, justice, and reconciliation within religiously plural societies. The Christian missionary is no longer merely a transmitter of revelation but also a listener capable of perceiving traces of divine activity in the religious other. A missiological comparative theology extends this development by proposing that encounter with religious others is not only a context for mission but a constitutive dimension of theological reflection itself. Comparative theology therefore becomes an epistemological discipline of mission studies: one encounters the religious other not simply to communicate one’s own truth claims but to deepen one’s understanding of God through the encounter. Mission becomes simultaneously witness and reception. From the Islamic side, an analogous framework may be developed through contemporary theological reflections on daʿwah, fiṭra, and shahāda. Riḍā provides the first movement through his ṭarīq al-daʿwa, a theological account of how divine truth becomes historically persuasive. For Riḍā, daʿwah is not reducible to conversional rhetoric but represents an ordered invitation that integrates intellectual persuasion, ethical exemplarity, and social reform. Although Riḍā remained committed to Islamic truth claims, his approach recognized that religious communication occurs within contested and plural public spaces. Daʿwah therefore emerges as participation in God’s guidance of humanity rather than mere institutional expansion. Tariq Ramadan broadens this vision through his theology of fiṭra, understood as the primordial human disposition toward transcendence and moral orientation to God. Because every human being carries this innate openness, religious plurality does not signify the absence of divine presence but the diverse historical expression of humanity’s search for God. Ramadan’s reinterpretation of the world as dār al-shahāda transforms Muslim presence in plural societies into a vocation of witnessing rather than boundary maintenance. Witness becomes participation in the common good through ethical excellence, relational engagement, and the embodiment of divine values. When these two trajectories are brought together, they suggest what may be called ṭarīq al-shahāda—the path of witnessing. This concept functions as a Muslim analogue to missio inter gentes. Witness is not only proclamation but embodied participation in God’s ongoing invitation to creation. Grounded in the relation between al-kitāb al-mastūr (scriptural revelation), al-kitāb al-manẓūr/al-manshūr (creation as revelation), and fiṭra (human receptivity to God), Muslims become witnesses by helping reinscribe divine meaning where it has become obscured. Shahāda thus becomes simultaneously confession, ethical embodiment, dialogical presence, and theological interpretation. Placed into comparative dialogue, missio Dei–missio inter gentes and ṭarīq al-shahāda reveal a shared theological grammar. Both begin with divine initiative rather than religious expansion; both understand witness as participation in God’s action; both emphasize embodiment and relationality; and both challenge triumphalist understandings of mission. Yet each preserves its own normative center: Christians participate in God’s self-revelation through Christ and the Spirit, while Muslims witness through the Qurʾān and the restoration of fiṭra. A missiological comparative theology therefore proposes that mission and daʿwah become mutually transformative practices of witnessing. The Christian does not cease proclaiming Christ, nor does the Muslim suspend shahāda; rather, both enter into encounter expecting that God’s action may exceed the limits of their institutional and conceptual boundaries. Comparative theology becomes neither relativism nor apologetics but a discipline of receptive fidelity—remaining rooted in one’s tradition while allowing the religious other to become part of one’s theological understanding of how God acts in the world. In this sense, mission is no longer conceived as movement from center to periphery, but as shared participation among peoples and before God, in expectation that divine truth is encountered through both witness and encounter.

3.2. From Comparative Similarity to Structural Correspondence

While comparative studies of Christian mission and Islamic daʿwah have often focused on thematic parallels—such as evangelization and invitation, proclamation and communication, or conversion and guidance—such approaches can remain at the level of descriptive analogy. They identify comparable practices or concepts without necessarily asking about the theological structures that generate and orient those practices. The present study therefore proposes a shift from comparative similarity to structural correspondence. This proposal should be distinguished from, while remaining indebted to, established forms of comparative theology. Miroslav Volf’s work is particularly relevant in this regard. In Allah: A Christian Response, Volf develops a comparative theological argument around the notion of “sufficient similarity”: Christian and Muslim conceptions of God need not be identical in order for Christians and Muslims to recognize a significant theological referent in common. His method attends simultaneously to commonalities and decisive differences and seeks to establish a basis for theological and ethical engagement without requiring doctrinal equivalence (Volf 2012, p. 89). The present proposal takes the comparative task in a different analytical direction. It does not primarily ask whether Christian and Muslim theological claims are sufficiently similar, nor does it seek to determine the degree to which the two traditions can be reconciled at the level of theological content. Rather, it asks how theological claims are structurally related to religious action within each tradition. The object of comparison is therefore not simply the content of Christian mission and Islamic daʿwah, but the theological grammar through which each tradition constructs the relation between divine initiative, human participation, and the communication and reception of truth. It is in this specific sense that this article introduces the concept of a “comparative axis.” A comparative axis is an analytical device for placing two traditions within a common relational framework while preserving the irreducibility of their respective theological grammars. It does not function as a criterion for establishing sameness, equivalence, or mutual identity, nor does it simply juxtapose two concepts that happen to perform similar functions. Instead, it identifies a set of structural relational correspondences that can be examined across traditions and whose internal configuration may reveal both correspondences and asymmetries. The analytical work performed by the comparative axis can therefore be specified in three ways. First, it shifts comparison from isolated concepts to relations among concepts. Rather than comparing “mission” with daʿwah as if they were discrete and interchangeable categories, it asks how each is constituted through a relation between divine agency, human mediation, and the communication of truth. Second, it shifts the level of comparison from practice to theological generativity. The question is not merely what Christians and Muslims do when they evangelize or invite, but what theological account makes such action intelligible and normative within each tradition. Third, it makes asymmetry analytically visible. Because the same comparative categories are applied relationally rather than substantively, the model can register where the two traditions correspond, where they diverge, and where one tradition places a theological emphasis that has no direct counterpart in the other. The proposed axis is consequently organized around three interrelated dimensions: Divine Agency, concerning the origin and theological grounding of mission or invitation; Human Mediation, concerning the mode and limits of human participation in divine action; and Epistemic Orientation, concerning the theological logic through which truth is communicated, recognized, embodied, and received. These dimensions are not three independent themes but three mutually related aspects of a single theological structure. Together they constitute a triadic analytical model through which missio Dei and daʿwah fī sabīl Allāh can be examined as internally coherent modes of outward religious engagement. The distinction from approaches such as Volf’s is therefore methodological rather than merely terminological. Whereas Volf’s comparative project seeks to establish sufficient similarity across significant doctrinal differences in order to sustain theological and ethical engagement, the comparative axis proposed here seeks to map the internal relational architecture of two traditions and to compare the ways in which divine initiative, human agency, and epistemic transmission are configured within them. The purpose is not to determine whether mission and daʿwah are “the same,” or even whether they are sufficiently similar, but to make intelligible how each theological tradition constructs the possibility, responsibility, and form of religious engagement with the other and with the world. In this respect, the comparative axis functions as a form of structural comparison. Its originality lies not in introducing comparison itself, nor in claiming that Christian mission and Islamic daʿwah have never been compared, but in proposing a reproducible analytical framework capable of moving from conceptual resemblance to the examination of relational theological structures. It is precisely this movement—from what corresponds to how the corresponding elements are structurally related—that allows the comparison to remain both theologically substantive and attentive to difference. Its originality ultimately lies in introducing a relational level of comparison, whereby the theological structures that generate religious actions become the primary focus of analysis. This analysis is still in fieri, and many of the theo-missiological elements and their interrelations remain under consideration. Nevertheless, a preliminary but significant framework is already proposed in the following pages.

3.2.1. Divine Agency: Theocentric Foundations and Differentiated Ontologies

At the level of divine agency, both missio Dei and da‘wah fī sabīl Allāh are explicitly theocentric. Neither framework locates the origin of religious outreach in human initiative alone; rather, both understand it as grounded in divine reality. In Christian theology, particularly in the development of missio Dei, mission is understood as participation in the dynamic sending activity of God. Emerging from mid-twentieth-century missiological reflection associated with Karl Barth and Karl Hartenstein, and later elaborated by David J. Bosch, the concept redefines mission as fundamentally rooted in the inner life of God. The Father sends the Son, the Father and Son send the Spirit, and the triune God sends the Church into the world. Mission is therefore not an external activity added to God’s being but an expression of divine relationality and movement. In Islamic thought, da‘wah fī sabīl Allāh similarly locates religious invitation within divine command and guidance. The Qur’an repeatedly frames da‘wah as an act performed “in the path of God,” most explicitly in Qur’an 16:125, which instructs believers to invite others with wisdom and good instruction. Classical exegetical traditions and modern interpreters alike emphasize that da‘wah is not autonomous human action but obedience to divine directive grounded in tawḥīd, the absolute oneness and sovereignty of God. Despite this shared theocentrism, the ontology of divine action differs significantly. In missio Dei, divine agency is relationally structured through Trinitarian theology, emphasizing intra-divine sending. In da‘wah fī sabīl Allāh, divine agency is unified and non-relational in the metaphysical sense, expressed through command, guidance, and revelation rather than internal divine differentiation. Thus, while both traditions displace human centrality, they do so through distinct theological architectures.

3.2.2. Human Mediation: Ecclesial Participation and Ethical Responsibility

In missiological theology shaped by the missio Dei paradigm, human participation is primarily understood in ecclesial and sacramental terms. The Church is not the origin of mission but its instrument and sign. This understanding is evident in the work of Stephen B. Bevans and Roger Schroeder, who emphasize contextual theology and cultural embeddedness, and in the writings of Andrew F. Walls and Lamin Sanneh, who demonstrate how Christian witness is continually translated and indigenized across cultures. Human beings participate in divine mission through proclamation, service, dialogue and embodied presence within particular cultural contexts. Islamic thought, human participation in da‘wah fī sabīl Allāh is framed primarily in ethical and communicative terms. The role of the dā‘ī (inviter) is defined not through sacramental mediation but through moral integrity (akhlāq), knowledge, and persuasive communication. Classical thinkers emphasize that da‘wah is inseparable from personal virtue, while contemporary scholars such as Qaraḍāwī and Ramadan stress contextual sensitivity and intellectual engagement. Importantly, da‘wah is also understood in many traditions as a collective responsibility (farḍ kifāya), indicating that it is not restricted to clerical authority but shared among the community according to capacity. This introduces a distributed model of participation, distinct from but structurally comparable to the ecclesial model of mission in Christianity. Thus, while both frameworks emphasize human participation as derivative rather than originating, they differ in mediating structures: ecclesial-sacramental embodiment in Christianity versus ethical-communicative responsibility within the umma in Islam.

3.2.3. Epistemic Orientation: Witness, Wisdom, and Communication of Truth

The third dimension of the comparative axis concerns how truth is communicated and received within each framework. In Christian missiology, epistemic orientation is traditionally expressed through the concepts of witness (martyria), proclamation (kerygma), and increasingly dialogue in contemporary theology. Witness is not merely verbal assertion but embodied testimony, where truth is communicated through both speech and practice. This reflects a sacramental epistemology in which truth is mediated through lived existence and ecclesial presence. In Islamic da‘wah theory, epistemic orientation is structured through Qur’anic categories such as ḥikma (wisdom), mawʿiẓa ḥasana (good exhortation), and jadal bi-llatī hiya aḥsan (argumentation in the best manner). These categories establish a communicative ethic that combines rational persuasion, moral exhortation, and respectful engagement. Truth is not imposed but communicated through discourse that aligns with divine guidance and human receptivity. Despite differences in rhetorical form, both traditions reject coercion as a legitimate means of religious transmission. Both emphasize persuasion grounded in moral integrity and respect for human freedom. However, they differ in epistemological emphasis: Christian witness tends toward incarnational embodiment of truth, while Islamic da‘wah emphasizes discursive clarity and ethical persuasion rooted in revelation.

3.2.4. Synthesis: The Comparative Axis as Analytical Structure

Taken together, these three dimensions form a structured comparative field. This triadic structure does not eliminate theological difference; rather, it renders difference analytically legible. It enables a move beyond surface-level comparison toward an understanding of how each tradition constructs a coherent logic of outward religious engagement. The comparative axis therefore functions as both a descriptive and constructive tool. Descriptively, it maps structural correspondences between two theological systems. Constructively, it provides a framework for rethinking religious and interreligious engagement not as competition between truth claims alone, but as interaction between distinct yet intelligible theological grammars.

4. Comparative Analysis: Missio Dei and Da‘wah fī Sabīl Allāh as Parallel Grammars of Engagement

4.1. Shared Theocentrism and the Decentring of Human Agency

A first and foundational convergence between missio Dei and da‘wah fī sabīl Allāh lies in their shared theocentric orientation. Both frameworks decisively decenter human initiative by locating religious outreach within divine reality. In this respect, neither mission nor da‘wah is properly understood as a purely strategic or institutional activity. Instead, both are framed as responses to a prior divine movement. In Christian theology, this decentering is articulated through the doctrine of missio Dei, in which mission is understood as participation in the sending activity of the triune God. The Church does not “possess” mission; rather, it is incorporated into God’s ongoing redemptive engagement with the world. In Islamic thought, da‘wah fī sabīl Allāh similarly situates religious invitation within divine command and guidance. The Qur’anic imperative to invite others “with wisdom and good instruction” (Q 16:125) establishes da‘wah as obedience to divine instruction rather than autonomous religious expansion. Classical and modern interpreters consistently emphasize that da‘wah is meaningful only insofar as it remains oriented toward God. However, while both traditions decenter the human subject, they do so through distinct theological grammars: Christian thought does so through participation in divine relationality, whereas Islamic thought does so through submission to divine unity and command. This distinction becomes crucial for avoiding false equivalence.

4.2. Translation, Context, and the Problem of Cultural Mediation

A second point of convergence emerges in the role of cultural and linguistic mediation. Here, the insights of Lamin Sanneh and Andrew F. Walls are particularly illuminating. Sanneh’s thesis that Christianity is fundamentally a “translatable religion” suggests that Christian mission is not the replication of a fixed cultural form but the continual re-articulation of the gospel across linguistic and cultural boundaries. Walls similarly highlights the tension between the indigenizing and pilgrim principles, whereby Christian identity is both rooted in local culture and simultaneously relativized by a transcendent reference point. This logic of translation is not unique to Christianity as a historical phenomenon, but it becomes theologically significant within missio Dei, where divine engagement with the world is understood as inherently contextual and incarnational. Within Islamic thought, while the theological grammar differs, a parallel concern emerges in the practice of da‘wah across diverse linguistic and cultural contexts. Scholars such as Saeed (2005) and Tariq Ramadan emphasize that meaningful da‘wah must engage with the lived realities of Muslims and non-Muslims in plural societies. This includes attention to language, cultural norms, and social conditions in which religious communication takes place. Among others, Nayed’s (2016) work further deepens this dimension by emphasizing intellectual hospitality and dialogical openness in Christian–Muslim encounters. His approach suggests that da‘wah, when properly understood, is not merely transmission but also receptive engagement with the other’s intellectual and spiritual world. Thus, both traditions confront a shared problem: how divine truth is communicated through historically and culturally conditioned human languages. Yet their solutions differ. Christianity often emphasizes translation as theological necessity; Islamic thought tends to emphasize contextual communication within the bounds of scriptural fidelity and moral clarity. However, the focus in the Islamic discourse is to explore the methodologies and rationales employed by Muslim scholars in their interpretation of the Arabic language within the context of their tradition. This includes an examination of the assertion that the Quran is exclusively in Arabic. The privileged status accorded to Arabic in Islam derives not from an intrinsic sacrality attributed to the Arabic language or to Arab culture, but from the theological conviction that the Qurʾān is the revealed speech of God in a determinate linguistic form. The Qurʾān is therefore not conceived merely as a set of translatable propositions whose original linguistic form is secondary to its content. Its Arabic form participates in its identity as revelation, particularly in relation to the doctrine of iʿjāz al-Qurʾān, the inimitability of the Qurʾānic discourse. Consequently, translations are generally understood as renderings of the meanings of the Qurʾān rather than as the Qurʾān itself. This creates a significant theological tension between the universal character of the Islamic message and the particularity of its Arabic linguistic embodiment. The issue is therefore not simply one of the “sacralization” of Arabic culture, but of how a universal revelation can be mediated through a historically and linguistically particular form without reducing universality to cultural particularism. This formulation, in our view, would be particularly useful for our missiological and interreligious framework, because it opens the question of how Islam negotiates universality, particularity, translation, inculturation and cultural plurality.

4.3. Epistemic Ethics: Witness, Persuasion, and Non-Coercion

A third convergence concerns the ethical limits of religious communication. Both missio Dei and da‘wah fī sabīl Allāh explicitly reject coercion as a legitimate means of religious transmission. This establishes a shared normative horizon of persuasion rather than compulsion. In Christian missiology, witness (martyria) is increasingly understood as embodied testimony rather than institutional pressure. The post-Bosch paradigm emphasizes humility, dialogue, and the recognition of God’s presence beyond ecclesial boundaries. This shift has been reinforced by comparative theologians such as Francis X. Clooney and James L. Fredericks, who argue that interreligious encounter must be approached as mutual learning rather than unilateral correction. In Islamic thought, Qur’anic categories such as ḥikma, mawʿiẓa ḥasana, and jadal bi-llatī hiya aḥsan establish a communicative ethic grounded in persuasion, reasoned engagement, and moral exhortation. Scholars such as Kamali interpret these principles within broader maqāṣid al-sharī‘ah frameworks, emphasizing justice, welfare, and human dignity as constraints on religious communication (Duderija 2014). Despite this convergence, the epistemic style differs. Christian witness often emphasizes existential embodiment and sacramental presence, whereas Islamic da‘wah emphasizes discursive clarity, argumentative propriety, and scriptural reasoning. The former privileges being-in-the-world as testimony; the latter privileges articulated guidance as ethical communication.

4.4. Different Theological Architectures and Mutual Intelligibility

Notwithstanding these parallels, the comparative axis also makes clear that missio Dei and da‘wah fī sabīl Allāh are grounded in fundamentally different theological architectures. In Christianity, mission is inseparable from Trinitarian theology. The logic of sending originates in the intra-divine relations of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This produces a model of divine engagement characterized by relationality, incarnation, and ecclesial participation. In Islam, da‘wah is grounded in tawḥīd, the absolute unity and transcendence of God. Divine communication is expressed through revelation and prophetic mediation, without ontological division within the divine essence. This produces a model of engagement structured by command, guidance, and moral accountability. These differences are not reducible to terminological variation; they reflect distinct metaphysical assumptions about divine life and divine–human relation. Any comparative framework must therefore preserve, rather than dissolve, these theological asymmetries (Ipgrave 2003, pp. 181–300). Despite these differences, the comparative axis enables a significant reframing of Christian–Muslim relations. Rather than treating mission and da‘wah as competing systems of religious expansion, they can be understood as parallel modes of theological orientation toward the world, each generating its own ethics of engagement. In this respect, the work of Miroslav Volf is instructive, particularly his argument that religious traditions can maintain robust identity while engaging constructively with others. Similarly, comparative theologians such as Clooney demonstrate that sustained attention to another tradition can deepen rather than weaken one’s own theological understanding. From this perspective, mission and da‘wah become not only outward-facing activities but also inward-facing processes of theological formation. Encounter with religious difference becomes a site of reflection on divine agency, human responsibility, and the nature of truth itself. Before concluding, it is meaningful to summarise the central analytical outcome of this comparative study as follows: Structural non-equivalence: missio Dei and da‘wah fī sabīl Allāh arise from distinct metaphysical and theological systems (Trinitarian vs tawḥīdic). Functional resonance: both generate similar ethical and relational commitments in practice (non-coercion, persuasion, contextual engagement, moral integrity). It is precisely this combination—non-equivalence at the level of doctrine and resonance at the level of practice—that makes the comparative axis methodologically significant.

5. Implications and Conclusions

5.1. Theological and Interreligious Implications

The comparative axis developed in this study has significant implications for both Christian missiology and Islamic da‘wah studies, particularly in relation to how each tradition conceptualizes religious difference in plural societies. By framing missio Dei and da‘wah fī sabīl Allāh as structurally analogous yet theologically non-identical frameworks of divine engagement, the analysis challenges both reductionist polemics and overly harmonizing approaches to interreligious dialogue. A first implication concerns the reconfiguration of religious identity in plural contexts. In both traditions, identity is not merely a static possession but is formed through outward engagement. In Christianity, participation in missio Dei shapes ecclesial self-understanding as a community sent into the world. In Islam, participation in da‘wah fī sabīl Allāh similarly constitutes the believer as one who bears ethical and communicative responsibility within society. Identity, therefore, is not suspended in interreligious encounter but is actively formed through it. A second implication concerns the ethics of religious communication. The comparative axis highlights that both traditions embed strong normative constraints against coercion and emphasize persuasion grounded in moral integrity. However, the framework also reveals that these shared ethical commitments arise from different theological sources: Trinitarian relationality in Christianity and tawḥīdic accountability in Islam. Recognizing this difference prevents the superficial assumption that ethical convergence implies theological convergence. A third implication involves reframing interreligious engagement as epistemic enrichment rather than strategic tolerance. The study suggests that engagement with the religious other can function as a site of theological deepening. Mission and da‘wah, when properly understood, are not only outward-facing communicative acts but also inward-facing processes of reflection that reshape how each tradition understands God, revelation, and human responsibility.

5.2. From Competition to Intelligibility: A Conceptual Shift

One of the central contributions of the comparative axis is its ability to shift the analytical focus from competition to intelligibility. Traditional approaches to mission and da‘wah often presuppose a competitive model of truth-claims, in which religious difference is primarily framed as conflict over ultimate validity. While such tensions cannot be eliminated, the present framework suggests that they do not exhaust the meaning of either tradition. Instead, missio Dei and da‘wah fī sabīl Allāh can be understood as distinct “grammars” of divine engagement. A grammar does not determine meaning in advance but provides the rules by which meaning is generated and expressed. Similarly, each tradition structures how divine agency, human participation, and truth communication are conceived and enacted. This grammatical approach allows scholars to ask new questions: How is divine action linguistically and conceptually structured in each tradition? What forms of human agency are authorized or required? What counts as faithful communication of truth?

5.3. Methodological Contribution to Comparative Theology

Methodologically, this study contributes to comparative theology by proposing a structured analytic model rather than a purely narrative or thematic comparison. While much comparative theological work relies on deep engagement with texts and traditions, fewer studies attempt to formalize comparative relations into explicit conceptual frameworks. The triadic model of Divine Agency, Human Mediation, and Epistemic Orientation offers a replicable structure that can be applied to other interreligious comparisons beyond Christianity and Islam. It also allows for a more disciplined articulation of similarity and difference, reducing the risk of either over-identification or excessive fragmentation.

5.4. Limitations and Further Research

Despite its contributions, the comparative axis model has limitations. First, it necessarily abstracts from the internal diversity of both traditions. Within Christianity, understandings of mission differ significantly across Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, and Pentecostal traditions. Within Islam, da‘wah practices vary across Sunni, Shi‘i, Sufi, reformist, and local cultural contexts. A more in-depth study would need to account for these internal variations. Second, the model operates at a theological-structural level and does not fully address historical entanglements between mission, da‘wah, colonialism, and modern geopolitics. These dimensions are essential for a comprehensive account of interreligious encounter and warrant further investigation. Third, while the model emphasizes intelligibility, it does not resolve deep doctrinal disagreements. Its aim is not reconciliation of truth claims but structured understanding of how those claims function within their respective traditions. Future research could extend this framework to comparative studies involving Judaism, Hindu traditions of dharma propagation, or Buddhist forms of teaching and transmission.

5.5. Conclusions

This article has proposed a comparative axis for analyzing missio Dei and da‘wah fī sabīl Allāh as structurally comparable yet theologically distinct frameworks of divine engagement with the world. By organizing the comparison around divine agency, human mediation, and epistemic orientation, the study has shown that both traditions articulate coherent but non-identical grammars of outward religious engagement. The central argument is that missio Dei and da‘wah fī sabīl Allāh should not be reduced to functional equivalents of proselytization, nor should they be treated as entirely incommensurable systems. Instead, they represent parallel theological logics shaped by different metaphysical commitments—Trinitarian relationality in Christianity and tawḥīdic unity in Islam—yet converging in their ethical emphasis on non-coercive, context-sensitive, and morally grounded communication. In this sense, mission and da‘wah are not merely instruments of religious expansion but also sites of theological self-reflection. Engagement with religious others becomes an opportunity to reconsider how each tradition understands God’s relation to the world and humanity’s role within it. The comparative axis thus provides a framework for reimagining Christian–Muslim relations not as a struggle for dominance but as a structured field of mutual intelligibility. In an age marked by intensified religious plurality, migration, and global interdependence, such a framework offers a constructive alternative to both exclusivist isolation and relativist dilution. It affirms the integrity of each tradition while opening conceptual space for deeper understanding across religious boundaries.