Via Transparent Eye, some good news from Nicholas Kristoff
Muslim fundamentalists damage Islam far more than any number of Danish cartoonists ever could, for it’s inevitably the extremists who capture the world’s attention. But there is the beginning of an intellectual reform movement in the Islamic world, and one window into this awakening was an international conference this week at the University of Notre Dame on the latest scholarship about the Koran.
“We’re experiencing right now in Koranic studies a rise of interest analogous to the rise of critical Bible studies in the 19th century,” said Gabriel Said Reynolds, a Notre Dame professor and organizer of the conference.
The Notre Dame conference probably could not have occurred in a Muslim country, for the rigorous application of historical analysis to the Koran is as controversial today in the Muslim world as its application to the Bible was in the 1800s. For some literal-minded Christians, it was traumatic to discover that the ending of the Gospel of Mark, describing encounters with the resurrected Jesus, is stylistically different from the rest of Mark and is widely regarded by scholars as a later addition.
Likewise, Biblical scholars distressed the faithful by focusing on inconsistencies among the gospels. The Gospel of Matthew says that Judas hanged himself, while Acts describes him falling down in a field and dying; the Gospel of John disagrees with other gospels about whether the crucifixion occurred on Passover or the day before. For those who considered every word of the Bible literally God’s word, this kind of scholarship felt sacrilegious.
Now those same discomfiting analytical tools are being applied to the Koran. At Notre Dame, scholars analyzed ancient texts of the Koran that show signs of writing that was erased and rewritten. [...]
One scholar at the Notre Dame conference, who uses the pseudonym Christoph Luxenberg for safety, has raised eyebrows and hackles by suggesting that the “houri” promised to martyrs when they reach Heaven doesn’t actually mean “virgin” after all. He argues that instead it means “grapes,” and since conceptions of paradise involved bounteous fruit, that might make sense. But suicide bombers presumably would be in for a disappointment if they reached the pearly gates and were presented 72 grapes.
One of the scholars at the Notre Dame conference whom I particularly admire is Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, an Egyptian Muslim who argues eloquently that if the Koran is interpreted sensibly in context then it carries a strong message of social justice and women’s rights.
Dr. Abu Zayd’s own career underscores the challenges that scholars face in the Muslim world. When he declared that keeping slave girls and taxing non-Muslims were contrary to Islam, he infuriated conservative judges. An Egyptian court declared that he couldn’t be a real Muslim and thus divorced him from his wife (who, as a Muslim woman, was not eligible to be married to a non-Muslim). The couple fled to Europe, and Dr. Abu Zayd is helping the LibForAll Foundation, which promotes moderate interpretations throughout the Islamic world.
[...]
If the Islamic world is going to enjoy a revival, if fundamentalists are to be tamed, if women are to be employed more productively, then moderate interpretations of the Koran will have to gain ascendancy. There are signs of that, including a brand of “feminist Islam” that cites verses and traditions suggesting that the Prophet Muhammad favored women’s rights.
Professor Reynolds says that Muslim scholars have asked that conference papers be translated into Arabic so that they can get a broader hearing. If the great intellectual fires are reawakening within Islam, after centuries of torpor, then that will be the best weapon yet against extremism.
As an aside, Nicholas Kristof is, without a doubt, one of the finest public thinkers alive today. Historians will write about him.
Now, wait 200 years
Evolution is a slow process man
I don’t care if you give it 2,000 years you are still gonna have some nuts in the cake.
But the signs are encouraging and I will make it a point to read more of Kristoff at your recommendation.
Most of what it states is true. My problem as an American is that I wished that the secularists in the USA would address the muslim fundamentalists in the same manner that they address the Christian fundamentalists (minus the vulgarities from the safety of one’s blog/twitter & keyboard).
In short: yeah, but it’d be nice if the NYT thought Islamic radicals were as dangerous as us Bible thumpers living in the inbred south (when we vote Red, that is….NC and FLA are acceptable, again).
Well, RW – I consider Muslim fundamentalists to generally be MORE dangerous as the “Bible thumpers” (only generally, because there are the Paul Hills & the Eric Rudolphs to contend with)…
But, I didn’t grow up with a mosque. I don’t have Imams working in the cubicle next to me (I’ve had about a dozen co-workers who were part- or full-time preachers), and I’ve never read the Koran all the way through.
In other words – apart from reminding them that a skeptical, objective evidence based, epistemology is better and that a modernist ethic is more civilized, I have very little to say to convince them to moderate. And that’s if I thought any of them read my blog (and I’m pretty sure they don’t). I can cheer the guys like Abu Zayd from a distant sideline… but even they won’t hear me. So… I guess you see what you are saying.
Hopefully, the new movement will make it illegal for a man to beat his wife! In England, the new Sharia courts allow a man to do this. I may not have spelled “Sharia” correctly. Not sure.
As for Nicholas Kristoff, he may be a great thinker, but isn’t up on his Bible study. The Passover Lamb was always slain on the day of unleavened bread prior to the actual day of Passover.
Christians know Christ was crucified the day before the Passover celebration because it was illegal for them to have a crucifixion on that day. They had to take the bodies down before midnight. That is why soldiers went over to break the legs of the men who were being crucified in order to stop them from being able to push up and breathe. Christ was already dead and they stuck a spear in His side, instead. When I read the book of John, I find no inconsistencies with this. It was the preparation Day of the Passover when Christ stood before Pilate.
As to the authorship of Mark, it is certain. The verses added at the end could have been by another writer authorized by Mark, but it is consistent with the Word of God and presents no problem to anyone I know.
Also, the question he brought up concerning Judas has never presented a problem to me and I have never heard anyone else speak as if this concerned them. Basically, the explanation I have heard is that when Judas was cut down, he fell and the description of the entrails gushing out, occurred. In 1599, the following explanation is given in the Geneva Study Bible:
Every teacher I have ever studied under realized that this is not an inconsistency, but rather a further description of what happened.
Well, obviously there will be differences between the conclusions of academic criticism and confessional apologetics, particularly when the apologetics come from a doctrinal standpoint at or to the right of the Chicago statement on inerrancy. Personally, I find it credible that Papias was correct in identifying Mark as the author of the (otherwise unsigned) Gospel that now bears his name, and that Mark – to some extent or another – was aware of or relied upon Peter. Apart from that one point I generally agree with the position Kristof represents: that the ending of Mark is a (possibly second century) interpolation and that the depatures of John from the synoptics represent real contradictions. I think you will find the bulk of critical scholarship, particularly that which isn’t committed to modern notions of inerrancy, supports my opinion.
I agree with you that the Arbitration act in the UK leaves open the possibility that domestic violence cases will not be handled equitably through the traditional court system and may instead be handled poorly by Sharia courts or other unorthodox arbitration schemes. I think it should be repealed.
Thing is, you’ll have to go a long way to find anyone in the bible thumper crowd who’ll applaud Hill or Rudolph. It’s not an act of honor to blow up a pizza parlor full of gays, it doesn’t get your family $25K if you kill an abortion doctor; it gets you imprisoned and universally despised within the USA (save for the Fred Phelps crowd, which is akin to the people who think we faked the moon landing; you can find a nutcase in any group large enough over here. There, the group doesn’t need to be very large & could actually include many of its elected members of gov’t). Our extremists are REAL extremists and we don’t have them blowing up people on a constant basis. Finding an American extremist who wants to kill gays/lesbians is the fringe; finding a Muslim leader who wants the destruction of Israel is, sadly, not the fringe. It’s darn near the norm. The president of Iran comes to mind.
Think about that for a second. Imagine a US politician who stands up and gives a speech calling for the death of gays in America. Or, who would deny that slavery even existed. THAT is the reality in Iran. Yet, here, we have outrage over caterpillars placed in a box alongside a terror suspect & sleep deprivation.
Obviously, Occam’s razor dictates, that they’re teaching a whole lotta hate and zeal for death in many Muslim mosques. Do that here and you’re headed for jail.
Heck, say you think a marriage should be between a man and a woman over here and you’ll be punished. WORDS that offend people get you fired over here. Over there……you get beheaded if you draw a picture of Allah. This shouldn’t be a left/right issue and it doesn’t make someone automatically agree with the war in Iraq if they say “hey, you Muslims, to say you have problems with your religion within the middle eastern region – the rest of the world’s Muslims seem okay – is akin to saying that the Catholic church has issue with gay priests & altar boys”. But, that sentiment is farther down the priority list in too many circles. THAT is our enemy, not Rush Limbaugh, not Jim Cramer, not Fox News (and not Barack Obama or Hillary or George Soros on my side).