Is dialogue with Islam possible? Yes, Vatican says

[quantum_star22]

“And there is also the up until now strong and people-deceiving superstition of the Ishmaelites, being the forerunner of Antichrist. And it is born from Ishmael, who was born from Hagar to Abraham, from which they are called Hagarenes and Ishmaelites. And they call them Saracens, as from Σαρρας κενοι (those empty of Sarah), because of what was said by Hagar to the angel: “Sarah has sent me away empty.” So then, these were idolaters and reverenced the morning star and Aphrodite, who they indeed named Khabar in their own language, which means great. Therefore, until the time of Heraclius, they were plainly idolaters. From that time and until now came up among them a false prophet called Mamed, who, having encountered the Old and New Testament, as it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, he put together his own heresy. And under the pretext of seeming pious, attracting (?) people, he reported that a book was sent down to him from heaven by God. Therefore some of the compositions written by him in a book, worthy of laughter, which he handed down to them as an object of reverence.”-St John of Damascus

 

[quantum_star22]

"If you do not wish to believe we will commend your soul to God because we declare that if you die while holding to your law you will be lost; God will not accept your soul. For this reason we have come to you.”-St Francis of Assisi(in reply to the Sultan of Ciro in refusing to leave Isalm)

 

[Reuben_J]

Please provide the proof and provide the hadiths. I don’t know where it would be permitted for a Muslim leader to lie in war, except that he makes a public statement that he will be attacking the enemy from the east and he attacks the enemy from the west instead.

There is no situation that Sunni Muslim could lie to a Christian except in war, that would only be if he/she felt his life was threatened. Thus it is impractical for a Christian to be worrying about whether a righteous Muslim would lie to him regarding a religious dialogue.

The assassination of a Jew, Kab bin Al-Ashraf, by tricking him with false proposition to lure him to them so that they could kill him, was an example. No lives were threatened at that point in time; it was just a ploy to kill him, a perceived enemy.

Narrated Jabin bin ‘Abdullah : Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?’ Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?’ The Prophet said, ‘Yes.’ Muhammad bin Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka’b).’ The Prophet said, ‘You may say it.’ ….
(You may read the whole Hadith in Bukhari vol.5 book 59 no.360 p.248)

 

[Matthew_Light]

"We have come to preach faith in Jesus Christ to you, that you will renounce Mohammad, that wicked slave of the devil, and obtain everlasting life like us.”-St Francis of Assisi

What is the point of posting this quote?

 

[SteveVH]

What is the point of posting this quote?

It’s part of the new “Catholic Outreach to Muslims” program.

 

[quantum_star22]

It’s part of the new “Catholic Outreach to Muslims” program.

I’m trying to show what’s been taught throughout the centuries by the Church Fathers and saints.

 

[SteveVH]

I’m trying to show what’s been taught throughout the centuries by the Church Fathers and saints.

I know, but to what end?

 

[Bill_Martin]

The biggest problem with dialogue I have seen is a lack of willingness on the part of Catholics to educate ourselves about what Muslims actually believe. Imagine how frustrating it would be to have a discussion with someone who is poking through the Bible and picking out verses piece by piece with no understanding of Old vs New Testament and ignoring large swaths of scripture, then telling you this is what you believe and what the Catholic Church teaches. That’s essentially what people do all the time with the Quran. It’s no wonder little progress is made.

 

[TruthBearer]

The assassination of a Jew, Kab bin Al-Ashraf, by tricking him with false proposition to lure him to them so that they could kill him, was an example. No lives were threatened at that point in time; it was just a ploy to kill him, a perceived enemy.

Narrated Jabin bin ‘Abdullah : Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?’ Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?’ The Prophet said, ‘Yes.’ Muhammad bin Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka’b).’ The Prophet said, ‘You may say it.’ ….
(You may read the whole Hadith in Bukhari vol.5 book 59 no.360 p.248)

There is nothing in the Hadith that opposes anything that I mentioned regarding the this subject. According to what I’ve read about this particular topic, they were at war with this individual, he broke a treaty with the Muslims, and tried to assassinate Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam.

The details of the tactics that was used by Muhammad bin Malam to deceive Kab bin Ashraf are not mentioned, so to say, “by tricking him with false proposition to lure him to them so that they could kill him,” is a mere assumption, you are entitled to that assumption.

It is my understanding that Kab bin Ashraf was assassinated by Muhammad Bin Masalam. The details of the tactics are not mentioned.

Again there is nothing in the Hadith that opposes what the Islamic scholars have mentioned.

You can’t lie about surrendering or treaties are binding and Muslims are obligated to obey any treaty they sign.

 

[Reuben_J]

There is nothing in the Hadith that opposes anything that I mentioned regarding the this subject. According to what I’ve read about this particular topic, they were at war with this individual, he broke a treaty with the Muslims, and tried to assassinate Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam.

The details of the tactics that was used by Muhammad bin Malam to deceive Kab bin Ashraf are not mentioned, so to say, “by tricking him with false proposition to lure him to them so that they could kill him,” is a mere assumption, you are entitled to that assumption.

It is my understanding that Kab bin Ashraf was assassinated by Muhammad Bin Masalam. The details of the tactics are not mentioned.

"(369) Narrated Jabin bin ‘Abdullah : Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?’ Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?’ The Prophet said, ‘Yes.’* Muhammad bin Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka’b).’** The Prophet said, ‘You may say it.’ Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Ka’b and said, ‘That man (i.e. Muhammad demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you.’ On that, Ka’b said, ‘By Allah, you will get tired of him!’ Muhammad bin Maslama said, ‘Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be. Now we want you to lend us a camel load or two of food.’ (Some differences between narrators about a camel load or two.) Ka’b said, ‘Yes, (I will lend you), but you should mortgage something to me.’ Muhammad bin Maslama and his companion said, ‘What do you want?’ Ka’b replied, ‘Mortgage your women to me.’ They said, ‘How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the Arabs?’ Ka’b said, ‘Then mortgage your sons to me.’ They said, ‘How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the peoples’ saying that so-and-so has been mortgaged for a camel load of food. That would cause us great disgrace, but we will mortgage our arms [weapons] to you.’

Muhammad bin Maslama and his companion promised Ka’b that Muhammad would return to him. He came to Ka’b at night along with Ka’b’s foster brother, Abu Na’ila. Ka’b invited them to come into his fort, and then he went down to them. His wife asked him, ‘Where are you going at this time?’ Ka’b replied, ‘None but Muhammad bin Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Na’ila have come.’ His wife said, ‘I hear a voice as if dropping blood.’ Ka’b said, ‘They are none but my brother Muhammad bin Maslama and my foster brother Abu Na’ila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed." Muhammad bin Maslama went with two men. (Some sub-narrators mention the men as Abu ‘Abs bin Jabr, Al-Harith bin Aus and ‘Abbad bin Bishr.) So Muhammad bin Maslama went in together with two men, and said to them, ‘When Ka’b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strike him. I will let you smell his head.’ Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf came down to them, wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Muhammad bin Maslama said, ‘I have never smelt a better scent than this.’ K’ab replied, ‘I have got the best Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume.’ Muhammad bin Maslama requested Ka’b ‘Wall you allow me to smell our head?’ Ka’b said, ‘Yes.’ Muhammad smelt it and made his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka’b again, ‘Will you let me (smell your head)?’ Ka’b said, ‘Yes.’ When Muhammad got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions), ‘Get at him!’ So they killed him and went to the Prophet and informed him." Bukhari vol.5 book 59 no.369 p.248-250
*

They wanted to kill Kab bin Ashraf but used a lie to trick him to come to them. What was significant here was that a lie was being used. The objective was to kill him, the method was trickery – to let your enemy to come with a sense of being safe not knowing that he would meet his death there.

You have defended this action and that is your prerogative. In this episode Prophet Muhammad approved a plan by his henchman, Muhammad bin Maslama, to use a treacherous lie which the latter did specifically asked for approval, and he got it and thus proceeded with it to kill Kab. Kab, obviously did not know that he would be going to get killed when he went out to meet Muhammad bin Maslama and his accomplices. Thus he said to his wife, “*They are none but my brother Muhammad bin Maslama and my foster brother Abu Na’ila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed." *Actually he came out to meet them out of his generosity, and his killers used his ignorant of their intention to kill him.

I don’t know how you read that, apologetic notwithstanding, but it seemed clear enough that a lie was being used to deceive the enemy in order to kill him. How could Muslims be trusted if Muhammad allowed lies to lull the enemy into complacency with the intention to kill?

 

[TruthBearer]

"(369) Narrated Jabin bin ‘Abdullah : Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?’ Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?’ The Prophet said, ‘Yes.’* Muhammad bin Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka’b).’*** The Prophet said, ‘You may say it.’ Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Ka’b and said, ‘That man (i.e. Muhammad demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you.’ On that, Ka’b said, ‘By Allah, you will get tired of him!’ Muhammad bin Maslama said, ‘Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be. Now we want you to lend us a camel load or two of food.’ (Some differences between narrators about a camel load or two.) Ka’b said, ‘Yes, (I will lend you), but you should mortgage something to me.’ Muhammad bin Maslama and his companion said, ‘What do you want?’ Ka’b replied, ‘Mortgage your women to me.’ They said, ‘How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the Arabs?’ Ka’b said, ‘Then mortgage your sons to me.’ They said, ‘How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the peoples’ saying that so-and-so has been mortgaged for a camel load of food. That would cause us great disgrace, but we will mortgage our arms [weapons] to you.’

Muhammad bin Maslama and his companion promised Ka’b that Muhammad would return to him. He came to Ka’b at night along with Ka’b’s foster brother, Abu Na’ila. Ka’b invited them to come into his fort, and then he went down to them. His wife asked him, ‘Where are you going at this time?’ Ka’b replied, ‘None but Muhammad bin Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Na’ila have come.’ His wife said, ‘I hear a voice as if dropping blood.’ Ka’b said, ‘They are none but my brother Muhammad bin Maslama and my foster brother Abu Na’ila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed." Muhammad bin Maslama went with two men. (Some sub-narrators mention the men as Abu ‘Abs bin Jabr, Al-Harith bin Aus and ‘Abbad bin Bishr.) So Muhammad bin Maslama went in together with two men, and said to them, ‘When Ka’b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strike him. I will let you smell his head.’ Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf came down to them, wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Muhammad bin Maslama said, ‘I have never smelt a better scent than this.’ K’ab replied, ‘I have got the best Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume.’ Muhammad bin Maslama requested Ka’b ‘Wall you allow me to smell our head?’ Ka’b said, ‘Yes.’ Muhammad smelt it and made his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka’b again, ‘Will you let me (smell your head)?’ Ka’b said, ‘Yes.’ When Muhammad got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions), ‘Get at him!’ So they killed him and went to the Prophet and informed him." Bukhari vol.5 book 59 no.369 p.248-250

They wanted to kill Kab bin Ashraf but used a lie to trick him to come to them. What was significant here was that a lie was being used. The objective was to kill him, the method was trickery – to let your enemy to come with a sense of being safe not knowing that he would meet his death there.

You have defended this action and that is your prerogative. In this episode Prophet Muhammad approved a plan by his henchman, Muhammad bin Maslama, to use a treacherous lie which the latter did specifically asked for approval, and he got it and thus proceeded with it to kill Kab. Kab, obviously did not know that he would be going to get killed when he went out to meet Muhammad bin Maslama and his accomplices. Thus he said to his wife, “*They are none but my brother Muhammad bin Maslama and my foster brother Abu Na’ila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed." *Actually he came out to meet them out of his generosity, and his killers used his ignorant of their intention to kill him.

I don’t know how you read that, apologetic notwithstanding, but it seemed clear enough that a lie was being used to deceive the enemy in order to kill him. How could Muslims be trusted if Muhammad allowed lies to lull the enemy into complacency with the intention to kill?

Is your methodology in research and teaching of Islamic belief and law a direct reflection of the principles and morals taught to you by the Catholic Church?

 

[Reuben_J]

Is your methodology in research and teaching of Islamic belief and law a direct reflection of the principles and morals taught to you by the Catholic Church?

There is no need to get personal.

I only suggested this Hadith because you asked for it as proof of what I was saying. And I did not insist on it if you do not think the Hadith was authentic. You said that Muslims only allowed lying unless their lives are threatened. The other occasion that they can lie is the exceptional situations that you agreed with me. I only brought this up because you said Muslims do not and cannot lie.

As for the Hadith quoted, everybody can see it for what it is. I could be wrong but on reading it, it is obvious that the method used to kill the person, Kab bin Ashraf, was through deceit – his murderers met him on a false pretext. He agreed to meet them unaware that they were going to kill him.

This plan was approved by Prophet Muhammad; the fact that the killer, Muhammad bin Maslama asked for prior approval indicated that the act was deliberate.

Now, here a lie, a deceit was employed even though their lives were not threatened at that material time. You obviously do not think that was so and also said the method used was not mentioned. I reproduced the whole Hadith and obviously the method was described pretty well – Kab bin Ashraf was asked to meet them to discuss business transaction (about lending camels in return for some payment in kind).

I only need you to tell me whether a lie had been committed or not in this Hadith; or whether their lives were threatened for them to tell that lie. Since you defended their action, then perhaps your answer would be, no, a lie was not committed, and if yes, then their lives were threatened. I can say that both were not the case – that a lie had been committed and that their lives were not threatened at that material time.

Kab bin Ashraf was the enemy obviously but he was not killed in a fight or battle but through an offer of some business transaction employed as a pretext. In other word, Kab met them for a supposedly dialogue, a discussion.

 

[Matthew_Light]

I’m trying to show what’s been taught throughout the centuries by the Church Fathers and saints.

There are also quotes from Church Fathers and saints saying lots of other very objectionable things. Which I wouldn’t dream of posting, as it would only engender religious strife and antipathy, which are a world-devouring fire.

 

[rose_kelly]

I’m trying to show what’s been taught throughout the centuries by the Church Fathers and saints.

Its a pity you’re not listening to what the Pope wants in his attempt to promote peace.

 

[TruthBearer]

There is no need to get personal.

I only suggested this Hadith because you asked for it as proof of what I was saying. And I did not insist on it if you do not think the Hadith was authentic. You said that Muslims only allowed lying unless their lives are threatened. The other occasion that they can lie is the exceptional situations that you agreed with me. I only brought this up because you said Muslims do not and cannot lie.

As for the Hadith quoted, everybody can see it for what it is. I could be wrong but on reading it, it is obvious that the method used to kill the person, Kab bin Ashraf, was through deceit – his murderers met him on a false pretext. He agreed to meet them unaware that they were going to kill him.

This plan was approved by Prophet Muhammad; the fact that the killer, Muhammad bin Maslama asked for prior approval indicated that the act was deliberate.

Now, here a lie, a deceit was employed even though their lives were not threatened at that material time. You obviously do not think that was so and also said the method used was not mentioned. I reproduced the whole Hadith and obviously the method was described pretty well – Kab bin Ashraf was asked to meet them to discuss business transaction (about lending camels in return for some payment in kind).

I only need you to tell me whether a lie had ben committed or not in this Hadith; or whether their lives were threatened for them to tell that lie. Since you defended their action, then perhaps your answer would be, no, a lie was not committed, and if yes, then their lives were threatened. I can say that both were not the case – that a lie had been committed and that their lives were not threatened at that material time.

Kab bin Ashraf was the enemy obviously but he was not killed in a fight or battle but through an offer of some business transaction employed as a pretext. In other word, Kab met them for a supposedly dialogue, a discussion.

If it is lie for me to say Catholics prefer war over peace for Jesus said, “Think not that I came to send peace but a sword.” And the proof of this is right before the Crucifixion, Jesus told his disciples to sale their sandals and buy swords. But Catholics do not believe this. Because Catholics do NOT follow biblical commentary according to the understanding of the Catholic forum poster "Truthbearer.’. Then it is a lie for you interpret the hadith in the way that you have and have people on this forum, believe, Muslims implement and understand the hadith in the way you have suggested. But Sunni Muslims do not believe that. Because Sunni Muslims do NOT follow Islamic Law according to the understanding of Reuben J.

If I want to understand what Catholics believe and how they implement biblical teachings, it is necessary for me to learn from Catholics and to be in their company, otherwise, I run the risk of misreading and misunderstanding something that I’ve read.

Similarly, if I want to understand what Sunni Muslims believe and how they implement the Quran and hadith in their lives, it is necessary for me to learn from Sunni Muslims and to be in their company, otherwise, I run the risk of misreading and misunderstanding something that I’ve read.

In Sunni Islam they teaches, “knowledge is not taken from books, but by the men who posses it.” And I personally believe this to be true regardless what religion you seek to study.

This is my last post to you. And you can have the last word.

May you have a blessed day.

 

[mamlukman]

Bill–but this is EXACTLY what Muslim apologists do. The only virtue I can see in dialog is that you can correct the obvious misstatements and errors (on both sides), and at least see what the arguments from the other side are. If you don’t know their arguments, you can’t understand where they’re coming from.

 

[mamlukman]

The TruthBearer/ Reuben exchange–I was going to post the exact same hadith as Reuben, but he beat me to it. There are a whole host of Qur’an verses, hadith, etc. about taqiyya at

wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Lying_and_Deception

17 screens full, in fact. (Don’t quarrel with the web site, quarrel with the citations.)

As for Muslim merchants, I can’t remember the citation, and I’m not going to spend an hour to look it up, but there was a scholarly article on a fatwa in Mamluk Egypt allowing Muslim merchants to lie to non-Muslim customers. So much for honesty in trade.

From the Christian point of view, it is disingenuous to say something is “never” done, or done only in specific circumstances, and then have pages and pages of exceptions. Once again, I think we are back to a fundamental misunderstanding of core assumptions. Christians have their way of arriving at “rules” and Muslims have a totally different way of approaching it. Each assumes the other is using the same methods they themselves would use. This leads to misunderstanding. As I’ve said before, it’s like playing a football game, but each side has its own set of rules, and even it’s own definition of “winning.” So each side thinks the other is cheating, or being dishonest. And that is the only virtue I can see in dialog–you get to correct the other side’s outright errors, and you can try to understand how they are approaching issues and what arguments they use.

From a Christian point of view, we can’t understand–for example–how Muslims talk about how “free” women are and how well they’re treated in Islam. Muslims see a few verses and hadith that are favorable to women; Christians see a lot of verses and hadith that are unfavorable. Christians can’t understand how Muslims can just disregard the unfavorable verses and hadith and say, “That isn’t Islam.” Muslims on the other hand can’t see why Christians can’t accept their view.

As for the oft-quoted (by Muslims) NT verse about Jesus bringing a sword, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Christians are criticized for taking Qur’an verses or hadith out of context. But the opposite is true, too. Muslims should not take NT verses out of context–

Matthew 10:34: “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Yes. But read the story–what he is saying is that people will disagree whether to follow him or not: “father against son, mother against daughter…” etc. It’s not about killing people, it’s about disagreements, and Jesus is simply saying that by announcing his mission, he will cause disagreements between people who believe in him and those who don’t. Nothing about violence.

Same with the NT verse where Jesus tells the Apostle to sell their sandals and buy swords. It’s figurative. What he is saying is that after the crucifixion, things will change. Enemies of Jesus and the Apostles will be more violent and bolder. He’s not telling them to get “swords,” he’s telling them to arm themselves with better arguments. And at the end–as always–the Apostles show they don’t get it. They still think he’s talking about real swords. So Jesus says, “How many swords to you have among you? Two? OK, that’s good enough.” Today we would call it sarcasm.

 

[mamlukman]

Let me add one more comment about dialog, and the difficulty it presents.

I just bought a book “The History of the Qur’anic Text from Revelation to Compilation” by M M Al-Azami. Azami was born a Brahmin Hindu and converted to Islam in his youth. He was chairman of the Islamic Studies Dept. at Riyadh U., and a visiting scholar at Michigan, Princeton, Oxford, etc. He has degrees from India, al-Azhar in Cairo, and a PhD from Cambridge. The guy speaks perfect (as far as I can tell from his Youtube videos) Arabic, and excellent English. He’s in his 80s now, if he’s still alive.

OK. So he’s obviously a highly educated scholar, and one educated at Cambridge, at that.

But here’s the problem–despite all his credentials and knowledge, he does not approach scholarship in the Western way. As a result, his work is basically ignored in the West.

What do I mean by that? Let me draw on my 45 years as a member of the American Historical Association. A Western historian formulates a hypothesis or a question (just like in science). For example, “Has there always been one version of the Qur’an, or have there been different versions?” He then gathers evidence, uses a consistent method to evaluate the evidence, and comes to a conclusion. A good historian doesn’t know his conclusion in advance, and he is certainly not biased.

Azami (I haven’t read the book yet, just parts here and there, and various articles about both the book and the author on the web) approaches the subject like this: “Western scholars are attacking the idea that there is only one version of the Qur’an. I am going to prove them wrong, because I am a Muslim and I believe there is only one version.” Not scientific in the Western sense, because he is stating what he wants his conclusion to be before he starts. By emphasizing religion, he is suggesting that physical evidence–in the end–doesn’t matter. But there’s more! He accuses Western scholars–he lists them by name, a long list!–of purposely lying and trying to mislead Muslims. I have never heard a Western scholar accuse opponents on the other side of an argument of lying. Nor is it common to accuse them of having an agenda–because of course that means they are not real historians in a Western sense. Moreover, Azami uses different methods in his evaluation of evidence, depending on what results they yield–if he doesn’t like the result, he tosses it out and uses a different method until he gets a result he likes. This is not science in the Western sense. He uses sources indiscriminately: the trustworthy and the untrustworthy alike (should sound familiar to Muslims who read Hadith) and he doesn’t inform his readers that source x is highly speculative and the conclusions have been refuted by the general community of scholars in that field (again, should seem familiar…).

So in the end, Azami has written a book that is highly regarded in the Muslim world, and one that is basically ignored in the West (I could find only one review, in Semitic Studies, and one footnote in one book that pointed out one of Azami’s errors). This is sad, because I have no doubt Azami is highly intelligent and knowledgeable. And he should know better, unless his professors at Cambridge were asleep on the job. So why didn’t he write a book that would be up to Western standards? I can’t read his mind, but I assume because he thought his audience is Muslims, not the overall community of scholars investigating Islam. He didn’t care. Again, I think that is sad, and an excellent example of why dialog with Muslims is hard, if not impossible.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Let me add one more comment about dialog, and the difficulty it presents.

I just bought a book “The History of the Qur’anic Text from Revelation to Compilation” by M M Al-Azami. Azami was born a Brahmin Hindu and converted to Islam in his youth. He was chairman of the Islamic Studies Dept. at Riyadh U., and a visiting scholar at Michigan, Princeton, Oxford, etc. He has degrees from India, al-Azhar in Cairo, and a PhD from Cambridge. The guy speaks perfect (as far as I can tell from his Youtube videos) Arabic, and excellent English. He’s in his 80s now, if he’s still alive.

OK. So he’s obviously a highly educated scholar, and one educated at Cambridge, at that.

But here’s the problem–despite all his credentials and knowledge, he does not approach scholarship in the Western way. As a result, his work is basically ignored in the West.

What do I mean by that? Let me draw on my 45 years as a member of the American Historical Association. A Western historian formulates a hypothesis or a question (just like in science). For example, “Has there always been one version of the Qur’an, or have there been different versions?” He then gathers evidence, uses a consistent method to evaluate the evidence, and comes to a conclusion. A good historian doesn’t know his conclusion in advance, and he is certainly not biased.

Azami (I haven’t read the book yet, just parts here and there, and various articles about both the book and the author on the web) approaches the subject like this: “Western scholars are attacking the idea that there is only one version of the Qur’an. I am going to prove them wrong, because I am a Muslim and I believe there is only one version.” Not scientific in the Western sense, because he is stating what he wants his conclusion to be before he starts. By emphasizing religion, he is suggesting that physical evidence–in the end–doesn’t matter. But there’s more! He accuses Western scholars–he lists them by name, a long list!–of purposely lying and trying to mislead Muslims. I have never heard a Western scholar accuse opponents on the other side of an argument of lying. Nor is it common to accuse them of having an agenda–because of course that means they are not real historians in a Western sense. Moreover, Azami uses different methods in his evaluation of evidence, depending on what results they yield–if he doesn’t like the result, he tosses it out and uses a different method until he gets a result he likes. This is not science in the Western sense. He uses sources indiscriminately: the trustworthy and the untrustworthy alike (should sound familiar to Muslims who read Hadith) and he doesn’t inform his readers that source x is highly speculative and the conclusions have been refuted by the general community of scholars in that field (again, should seem familiar…).

So in the end, Azami has written a book that is highly regarded in the Muslim world, and one that is basically ignored in the West (I could find only one review, in Semitic Studies, and one footnote in one book that pointed out one of Azami’s errors). This is sad, because I have no doubt Azami is highly intelligent and knowledgeable. And he should know better, unless his professors at Cambridge were asleep on the job. So why didn’t he write a book that would be up to Western standards? I can’t read his mind, but I assume because he thought his audience is Muslims, not the overall community of scholars investigating Islam. He didn’t care. Again, I think that is sad, and an excellent example of why dialog with Muslims is hard, if not impossible.

This is not a difference between “Western” vs. “Eastern” - this is ideology vs. sound reasoning. Pope Benedict addressed this some years back - falling on some deaf ideological ears.

 

[TruthBearer]

The TruthBearer/ Reuben exchange–I was going to post the exact same hadith as Reuben, but he beat me to it. There are a whole host of Qur’an verses, hadith, etc. about taqiyya at

wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Lying_and_Deception

17 screens full, in fact. (Don’t quarrel with the web site, quarrel with the citations.)

From the Christian point of view, it is disingenuous to say something is “never” done, or done only in specific circumstances, and then have pages and pages of exceptions. Once again, I think we are back to a fundamental misunderstanding of core assumptions. Christians have their way of arriving at “rules” and Muslims have a totally different way of approaching it. Each assumes the other is using the same methods they themselves would use. This leads to misunderstanding. As I’ve said before, it’s like playing a football game, but each side has its own set of rules, and even it’s own definition of “winning.” So each side thinks the other is cheating, or being dishonest. And that is the only virtue I can see in dialog–you get to correct the other side’s outright errors, and you can try to understand how they are approaching issues and what arguments they use.

From a Christian point of view, we can’t understand–for example–how Muslims talk about how “free” women are and how well they’re treated in Islam. Muslims see a few verses and hadith that are favorable to women; Christians see a lot of verses and hadith that are unfavorable. Christians can’t understand how Muslims can just disregard the unfavorable verses and hadith and say, “That isn’t Islam.” Muslims on the other hand can’t see why Christians can’t accept their view.

As for the oft-quoted (by Muslims) NT verse about Jesus bringing a sword, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Christians are criticized for taking Qur’an verses or hadith out of context. But the opposite is true, too. Muslims should not take NT verses out of context–

Matthew 10:34: “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Yes. But read the story–what he is saying is that people will disagree whether to follow him or not: “father against son, mother against daughter…” etc. It’s not about killing people, it’s about disagreements, and Jesus is simply saying that by announcing his mission, he will cause disagreements between people who believe in him and those who don’t. Nothing about violence.

Same with the NT verse where Jesus tells the Apostle to sell their sandals and buy swords. It’s figurative. What he is saying is that after the crucifixion, things will change. Enemies of Jesus and the Apostles will be more violent and bolder. He’s not telling them to get “swords,” he’s telling them to arm themselves with better arguments. And at the end–as always–the Apostles show they don’t get it. They still think he’s talking about real swords. So Jesus says, “How many swords to you have among you? Two? OK, that’s good enough.” Today we would call it sarcasm.

I don’t really believe that about the commentary about Jesus’ statement, “Think not that I come to send peace but a sword.” ** I said “If” I said. ** I was merely illustrating a point.

Yes, every tradition has it own methodology in interpreting. There is even a difference between Shia and Sunni, which is why they disagree. I am sure orthodox and Catholics have difference methodologies interpreting the Bible and tradition, which is why you two are split.

As for Muslim merchants, I can’t remember the citation, and I’m not going to spend an hour to look it up, but there was a scholarly article on a fatwa in Mamluk Egypt allowing Muslim merchants to lie to non-Muslim customers. So much for honesty in trade.

With what I know about Islam, I doubt that it is a reliable or followable fatwa. Or it could be a misprint.