|
January 23, 2006
Is gobbledygook beyond reform? Or does it invite reform?
In a report described as a "bombshell," Townhall.com's Diana West says that "Pope Benedict XVI is said to believe that Islam is incapable of reform": This bombshell dropped out of an early January interview conducted by radio host Hugh Hewitt with the Rev. Joseph D. Fessio, SJ, a friend and former student of the pope. The Rev. Fessio recounted the pope's words on the key problem facing Islamic reform this way: "In the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Muhammad, but it's an eternal word. It's not Muhammad's word. It's there for eternity the way it is. There's no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it." Fessio continued, elaborating not on how many ratings stars the pope thinks some biopic should get, but rather on the pope's theological assessment of a historically warring religion with a billion-plus followers, some notorious number of whom are now at war with the West. According to his friend, the pope believes there's no way to change Islam because there's no way to reinterpret the Koran -- i.e., change Koranic teachings on infidels, women, polygamy, penal codes and other markers of Islamic law -- in such a way as to propel Islam into happy coexistence with modernity.Scary stuff to contemplate, and that last question reminded me of Clayton Cramer's review of Robert Ferrigno's new book, Prayers For The Assassin. (A future scenario of the "Islamic States of America.") I don't know whether Ferrigno's view of Islam is the same as the Pope's (frankly, I'm not sure precisely what the Pope's view is), but I have noticed that those in the West who assert that Islam is inherently a fundamentalist religion not open to any interpretation are usually fundamentalists themselves. For reasons I've never been fully able to understand, fundamentalists often maintain that words are not open to interpretation, yet (as can be seen in the debate over the relatively new concept of "The Rapture") fundamentalists themselves have tremendous disagreements based on interpretation. With all respect to the Pope, to Christian fundamentalists, and to others who maintain the Koran isn't subject to interpretation, I would note that the Koran consists of words, of language. The assertion that words and language are not or cannot be subject to interpretation strikes me as unreasonable. Even the most simple words and phrases are often incapable of definition. As good an example of any is the phrase "graven image" in the Ten Commandments; if even fundamentalist Christians cannot agree on how to interpret that, imagine the problems with the Koran (which is loaded with similar phraseology, and which contradicts itself in many places. See this article on stoning, as another example.) Daniel Pipes (someone I think it's fair to describe as no apologist for Islam) examined a simple phrase from the Koran -- "there is no compulsion in religion" -- and found a plethora of religious opinions. He concluded that it means whatever believers want it to mean: Islam - like all religions - is whatever believers make of it. The choices for Muslims range from Taliban-style repression to Balkan-style liberality. There are few limits; and there is no "right" or "wrong" interpretation. Muslims have a nearly clean slate to resolve what "no compulsion" means in the 21st century.I'm worried also worried that in the haste to declare the Koran closed to all interpretation, the history of Islam -- especially Shia Islam -- is being forgotten. According to many Sunnis (and this Sunni web site) Shia Islam believes the Koran is incomplete: The QURAN is incomplete and distorted. The original QURAN had 17,000 verses. Hence 2/3 of the QURAN is missing. The original QURAN, compiled by Hadhrat Áli would be brought back by Imaam Mahdi.(This charge is denied elsewhere, of course.) I'm no religious scholar, but it's obvious to me that there's a lot of contentious interpretation of the Koran going on. For example, one (apparently fundamentalist) writer contends not only that Shia and Sunni Islam are both wrong, but that Sunni religious authorities use Hadiths to prevent people from following the Koran: The ulema divided themselves into sunnis and shias, each satisfied with what they have. The sunni factions further divided into sub cults. The shias are no different with their 12 imams cult, 7 imams cult, jabariyyah and others. Each one thinking they are better than the other.Hadith shmadith. Hey, as far as I'm concerned, it's all gobbledygook. Such stuff cries out for interpretation. posted by Eric on 01.23.06 at 12:40 PM
Comments
rife, ripe. Ugh. Grand Stand · January 23, 2006 03:20 PM West's credibility fails on the self-important hint that people are silent on the issue because they're too terrified to contemplate the "truth" of what was said. Another possibility is that the Pope's alleged statements about Islam are considered just plain wrong, needlessly inflammatory, and simply unworthy of further discussion. The conflict between Western and Wahabbist/Salafist/Islamofascist values needs to be resolved, one way or another; so what's the point of arguing over an opinion that explicitly rules out the very possibility of a solution? History suggests that religious zealots always say their respective beliefs are unchangeable and not open to discussion or compromise. But guess what -- religious doctrines change all the time, even when the original holy text doesn't! Raging Bee · January 23, 2006 03:47 PM Grand Stand, That's a nice strawman you've got there. I really like the idea that Muslims can easily modernize as long as they don't treat Islam as, you know, an actual belief. I think Benedict's point is valid - while Christianity can (and does) have many serious, true, believers who can still disagree about what to believe; Islam lacks that luxury. The reason for this is straight forward. First, the Old Testament represents God's teachings to the Israelites, not to Christians. The Gospels pretty explicitly state Jesus was replacing the old "arrangement" with a new one. Thus, while the OT is taken very seriously, no modern Christian feels the need to keep kosher (for example). Second, Jesus himself never wrote anything down. It is well understood that the Gospels (the histories of Jesus on earth) were written down generations later and are second hand accounts at best. Third, the remaining section of the Bible consists of letters written by various early followers. Again, while they are considered very important for the insights they provide, they are still considered works of Men. Thus, Christians can (and do) argue about how seriously to take Paul's statements about women and gays. Heck, I can sum up the "important" part of the Bible in one sentence: Love each other and love God. The rest of the book is merely lessons on how best to accomplish these things. Mike Heinz · January 23, 2006 05:35 PM I think I've got to agree with Mike Heinz JM · January 23, 2006 06:00 PM ...while Christianity can (and does) have many serious, true, believers who can still disagree about what to believe; Islam lacks that luxury. Tell that to the millions of Muslims who explicitly disagree with each other about what to believe in regard to such issues as women's attire, freedom of speech, violence against women, terrorism, etc. ...Again, while they are considered very important for the insights they provide, they are still considered works of Men. Muslims also make a distinction between the Koran, which is the basis for their belief, and various Hadiths, which they seem to consider less-than-100%-mandatory. And yes, they also argue over interpretation of passages in both. Muslims are human like us, and they have about the same capacity for learning and judgement. Forgetting this obvious fact is wrong, both morally and strategically. Raging Bee · January 24, 2006 10:13 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I think the problem is that people who suggest that Islam is not open to interpretation have never known people (or were aware they were Muslims) who are quite modern and view the religion more as cultural than dogmatic.
I think the Pope's remarks are better condensed to "they are not rife for conversion to Christianity." That little disturbance in the 12th Century seems to be a sore spot.