Islam's view of revelation

[Scott]

Islam\'s view of revelation

A recent article I read has Pope Benedict making this observation about revelation in Islam.

The main presentation by this [start new-window link here] Father [Christian] Troll http://www.sankt-georgen.de/lehrende/troll.html was very interesting. He based it on a Pakistani Muslim scholar [named] Rashan, who was at the University of Chicago for many years, and Rashan's position was Islam can enter into dialogue with modernity, but only if it radically reinterprets the Koran, and takes the specific legislation of the Koran, like cutting off your hand if you're a thief, or being able to have four wives, or whatever, and takes the principles behind those specific pieces of legislation for the 7th century of Arabia, and now applies them, and modifies them, for a new society [in] which women are now respected for their full dignity, where democracy's important, religious freedom's important, and so on. And if Islam does that, then it will be able to enter into real dialogue and live together with other religions and other kinds of cultures.

And immediately the holy father, in his beautiful calm but clear way, said, well, there's a fundamental problem with that because, he said, in the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Mohammed, but it's an eternal word. It's not Mohammed's word. It's there for eternity the way it is. There's no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it, whereas in Christianity, and Judaism, the dynamism's completely different, that God has worked through his creatures [emphasis added]. And so it is not just the word of God, it's the word of Isaiah, not just the word of God, but the word of Mark. He's used his human creatures, and inspired them to speak his word to the world, and therefore by establishing a church in which he gives authority to his followers to carry on the tradition and interpret it, there's an inner logic to the Christian Bible, which permits it and requires it to be adapted and applied to new situations.

Thoughts - correct or incorrect view of Islam and/or Christian revelation?

[Edited on 1-11-2006 by Scott]

 

[Pergamum]

Allah speaks Arabic. The Koran is an eternal book in heaven. Muhammad merely dictated its eternal contents. Therefore, it is inaccurate to refer to "non-arabic translations" of the Koran.

In the 12th Century it was declared that Muslim jurists had decided upon every conceivable problem of Koranic law and the "Gates of Ijtihad" (interpretation) were closed.

 

[Mr Peabody]

Ich kann nicht Deutsch gespricht! Is there an English version of the doctor's article?

I've read the Koran in English twice. Very monotonous and rings as inspired as the Book of Mormon. Since they claim to believe the Old Testament, I've had some success proving Christ as the Messiah, and directing them to Romans and Hebrews. I look forward to more encounters.

Has anyone else read the Koran?

 

[Mr Peabody]

I found the link to the English version on that same page.

 

[Pergamum]

I have read the Koran at least 4 times all the way through.

Twice of which I read chronologically instead of Surah by Surah - which shows the warlike progression of Muhammad's thoughts.

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by trevorjohnson
Allah speaks Arabic. The Koran is an eternal book in heaven. Muhammad merely dictated its eternal contents. Therefore, it is inaccurate to refer to "non-arabic translations" of the Koran.

I pointed out that this mentality among christians was used to attack psalter translations.

http://puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=15762&page=3#pid219316

[Edited on 1-12-2006 by Peter]

[Edited on 1-12-2006 by Peter]

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Peter, dear brother,
You know that is simply inaccurate to portray the other side in the debate that way.

Whether they are correct or not, it is the side opposite yours that claims that your position reduces to something that (superficially) resembles this Islamic doctrine. You deny that your position is forced to reduce to that. You say, "We don't nor ought to adopt that attitude." Then the ones using that argument say that as far they can see you are being inconsistent. That is the argument, boiled down, whichever side is correct.

Now to say that some Christians are attacking Psalter translation by recourse to an Islamic theory of translation, as if they held this to be proper (when they only used the argument as a reductio), is ludicrous.

If you only meant to say:
"some Christians falsely accuse EP's of adopting a position that reduces to an Islamic doctrine of translation," (or something resembling one),
then I would think your statement more in line with the arguments.

 

[Peter]

Rev. Bruce, I'm not sure what you are saying. No one accused EPs of having an Islamic doctrine of inspiration, the UH proponents were accusing EPs of being inconsistent because they did not sing in Hebrew. I pointed out that this view was akin to the muslim view mentioned before. In other words, the reductio had presuppositions incompatible with more basic Christian doctrines.

Not that I should have even brought it up. Its irrelevent to the discussion and probably rose from fleshly principles.

[Edited on 1-12-2006 by Peter]

 

[MurrayA]

Does anyone have lines of inquiry, books, or links to websites on the following:

1. The psychology of Muhammad, as to how to explain his claims to divine contact, and thus (alleged) divine origin of the Qur'an.

2. The parallels of Islam, both as to its teachings and its origins, with Mormonism? This is a parallel I have for many years found tantalising, but it seems no-one has had the political courage to explore.