Context people - READ IN CONTEXT - paradigms, paradigms, paradigms
Ok..unlike most, I finally read Pope Benedict XVI's speech from last week. As Catholic World News states - read the whole speech, not just the quotations! Thankfully there are actually reputable news agencies who try to uncover what the speech was really about. Thank you Time Magazine.
Basically, Benedict's argument is that Christian theology is based in Hellenistic philosophical structures (Thomism and Scholasticism hold great weight in Catholic theology) and subsequently reason ties all of its concepts together (note the close tie between philosophy and theology in the medieval and early modern european university curriculum).
In contrast, Islamic faith does not have a similar set of ties that link and join its theological leanings. Allah transcends reason. Allah is beyond it. Allah can counter reason if Allah so wished. As ones who submit to Allah, Muslims are required to follwo Allah's will regardless of how reasonable (in a logic and philosphical sense) it may be. For this, Benedict cites an Islamicist who cites an earlier Islamic thinker. It harkens to the deabtes of the early centuries of Islam surrounding the place of philosophy in Islam and whether it was theologically justified or permissible (i.e. applying reason to the will of Allah).
What Benedict's speech imples, therefore, is that Manuel II (who he quotes) does not fully understand the underpinnings of Islam and is trying to debate with a Muslim from an entirely different paradig of logic. The quotation that Benedict uses illustrates how little Manuel understands despite being fairly well versed (apparently) in Islam and its sacred writings. The underlying logic behind what Manuel is trying to argue is completely irrelevant to his opponent because Allah transcends reason.
What does this ultimately mean? I think benedict would have argued that trying to convince a terrorist who is Muslim that terrorism in the name of Islam is wrong and goes agains the logic of the teachings of the Quran may be futile if that individual believes that it is Allah's will that they do whatever it is they do since Allah is allowed to demand whatever Allah demands of followers.
It is a much more interesting and deep inquiry that Benedict begins but provides no answers for - not that he should have. He is neither a Muslim scholar nor a Muslim required to follow Allah's will. What it will be, I think, is a challenge for Muslim scholarship, the ulema, and the umma as a whole. Western Christianity on the other hand needs to understand the undepinnings of Islam and how it really and truly is a different way of thinking, not just an Arabian adaptation of Judeo-Christian thought from the 7thC.
Basically, Benedict's argument is that Christian theology is based in Hellenistic philosophical structures (Thomism and Scholasticism hold great weight in Catholic theology) and subsequently reason ties all of its concepts together (note the close tie between philosophy and theology in the medieval and early modern european university curriculum).
In contrast, Islamic faith does not have a similar set of ties that link and join its theological leanings. Allah transcends reason. Allah is beyond it. Allah can counter reason if Allah so wished. As ones who submit to Allah, Muslims are required to follwo Allah's will regardless of how reasonable (in a logic and philosphical sense) it may be. For this, Benedict cites an Islamicist who cites an earlier Islamic thinker. It harkens to the deabtes of the early centuries of Islam surrounding the place of philosophy in Islam and whether it was theologically justified or permissible (i.e. applying reason to the will of Allah).
What Benedict's speech imples, therefore, is that Manuel II (who he quotes) does not fully understand the underpinnings of Islam and is trying to debate with a Muslim from an entirely different paradig of logic. The quotation that Benedict uses illustrates how little Manuel understands despite being fairly well versed (apparently) in Islam and its sacred writings. The underlying logic behind what Manuel is trying to argue is completely irrelevant to his opponent because Allah transcends reason.
What does this ultimately mean? I think benedict would have argued that trying to convince a terrorist who is Muslim that terrorism in the name of Islam is wrong and goes agains the logic of the teachings of the Quran may be futile if that individual believes that it is Allah's will that they do whatever it is they do since Allah is allowed to demand whatever Allah demands of followers.
It is a much more interesting and deep inquiry that Benedict begins but provides no answers for - not that he should have. He is neither a Muslim scholar nor a Muslim required to follow Allah's will. What it will be, I think, is a challenge for Muslim scholarship, the ulema, and the umma as a whole. Western Christianity on the other hand needs to understand the undepinnings of Islam and how it really and truly is a different way of thinking, not just an Arabian adaptation of Judeo-Christian thought from the 7thC.
posted by The Avatar | 11:47 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home