What is it with German theologians? A Muslim convert hired as a professor of Islamic theology to counter the teaching of extremist Muslims has determined that the Prophet Muhammad probably didn’t exist:
When Prof. Kalisch took up his theology chair four years ago, he was seen as proof that modern Western scholarship and Islamic ways can mingle — and counter the influence of radical preachers in Germany. He was put in charge of a new program at Münster, one of Germany’s oldest and most respected universities, to train teachers in state schools to teach Muslim pupils about their faith.
Muslim leaders cheered and joined an advisory board at his Center for Religious Studies. Politicians hailed the appointment as a sign of Germany’s readiness to absorb some three million Muslims into mainstream society. But, says Andreas Pinkwart, a minister responsible for higher education in this north German region, “the results are disappointing.”
Prof. Kalisch, who insists he’s still a Muslim, says he knew he would get in trouble but wanted to subject Islam to the same scrutiny as Christianity and Judaism. German scholars of the 19th century, he notes, were among the first to raise questions about the historical accuracy of the Bible.
And he come to the same conclusion as the German Christian scholars: skepticism. I wonder if the results will be the same: an erosion in confidence in the source material but continuing to follow the traditions of the faith (Jesus isn’t God but he was a wonderful teacher and example). He seems to be following that path:
Muhammad Sven Kalisch, a Muslim convert and Germany’s first professor of Islamic theology, fasts during the Muslim holy month, doesn’t like to shake hands with Muslim women and has spent years studying Islamic scripture. Islam, he says, guides his life.
Muhammad may not have existed but by all means let’s continue the misogyny!
(via)
posted November 19, 2008 at 8:07 pm
What is it with German theologians?
You can say that again …
I don’t know enough about Islam to label this the deal-breaker it would be in the Christian faith for which the historicity of Jesus is vital. But this is just the sort of finding that makes fundamentalists dig in their heels more and not even want to “go there.”
Pity, scholarship backfired.
an erosion in confidence in the source material but continuing to follow the traditions of the faith
This isn’t the negative to me as to you. It’s the “hope against hope” and the “evidence of things not seen.” Traditions are naturally passed from person to person, not picked up first-hand from a text:try gleaning a “Thanksgiving dinner” from Joy of Cooking. (I had to say “glean” because I’m starting Ruth tomorrow at the Alliance church).
posted November 19, 2008 at 9:39 pm
I must be missing something. Where in the reported article does he claim that Muhammad never existed. I assume he’s referring to things that have been going on among Jewish and Christian thinkers, speculations and investigations that incorporathe the findings of archelologists as well as the Higher Literary Criticism of the Bible. Instead of mocking this, shouldn’t we praise his “Western” approach. After all, this sort of investigation was begun by Protestants who wanted to “purify” the religion (from all those Roman Catholic accretions)and it highlighted the ant-authoritarian stance of many Protestants. When someone mocks this approach, it seems to place them in camp of the fundamentalist Muslims.
posted November 19, 2008 at 10:07 pm
OK, now I’m missing something … can you cite the mockery verbatim, please?
michele suggests that, if Kalisch’s scholarship wins the day, adherents will come to devalue the now pseudonymous source material. I say, “Likely, but it’s no biggie.”
I’m drawing all my conclusions/parallels from Christianity because I don’t know anything about Islam. And, in my experience, baby steps are needed to avoid the extremes of scandalizing coreligionists on the one hand or undermining their faith on the other.
German theologians aren’t known for their “light” touch (‘though Ratzinger seems to be learning).
posted November 19, 2008 at 10:28 pm
For their next study they’re going to prove that L. Ron Hubbard never existed either.
posted November 19, 2008 at 10:45 pm
There isn’t any evidence for the existence of Muhammed, Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus or any of his disciples including the Apostle Paul. Religions all evolve from other religions as do the stories about their supposed founders. Theologians are always reluctant to criticize other religions because they know their arguments can be easily used against their own.
posted November 19, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Well, Boris, there is very, very, very limited evidence in mainstream historical scholarship for the existence of Jesus. But that hasn’t deterred billions of Christians from feeling about Jesus the way they do, myself included. ____I’m hardly an expert on Islam. From what I understand, there is a belief that the Almighty Allah inhabits the very words of the Koran, so “messing with” the Koran isn’t going to be taken lightly. In many Muslim countries, this professor would be tried and convicted of blasphemy. In some, put to death.____But Kalisch can insist he is nonetheless a Muslim, because he holds, as do many Christians, that the source materials could have been corrupted (or, as most Jews believe about the Torah, mythical), but the spiritual truths they provide to be nonetheless of value. ____I’m no Biblical literalist myself. The Bible contradicts itself in some passages. Not only does Genesis not agree with the fossil evidence, Genesis 1 doesn’t agree with Genesis 2. The gospels aren’t entirely harmonious. I can’t honestly therefore believe every word of the Bible is literally true. But in respects important to life and belief, the Bible is of great value to me.____There are Christians who would believe I am damned to hell for this. But there are Christians who worship the Bible rather than the living Christ. Those are the same Christians who often seem to be really selective in reading it, too.