A New Threat to Interfaith Scholarship

[c0de]

Three years ago a German scholar Karl-Heinz Ohlig, published a book titled "Dark Origins" which questioned the existence of the man Muslims believe is the last prophet of God, Muhammad (PBUH). According to Ohlig, the Prophet never existed, and the Koran is actually an early manuscript of the Bible. The early Muslims according to this theory were actually gnostic Christians who took control of the holy land through peaceful means, from the Byzantinne empire, without a conflict.

Such theories are usually ignored by scholarship as they have the potential to cause a rift between established academic institutions which hold joint programs accross the world. Especially if their methods and research are not backed up with reasonable analysis. This was the case when Ohlig released his theories for review. Recently however, another German scholar, backed this thesis and the problem is that he professes to be a Muslim himself. His name is Muhammad Sven Kalisch, he converted to Islam when he was 16 and was interested in the gnostic aspects of religion. Currently he still retains his Islamic identity within a small Shiite sect, even though he says that he is not sure if the Prophet ever actually existed.

This new development is causing a storm in the academic circles because Mr. Kalisch holds a chair at a University in Germany which was actually training other teachers to start new courses on Islam for German high schools. Because of this however, unfortunately, the Islamic institutions have backed away from offering their cooperation to the project.

I actually just read about this issue from a OP-ED piece in an online weekly. Apparently, this has provided the many hate-sites and biased writers alike with a new arsenal to sabotage the interfaith dialogue. I researched the issue a little more and found a very good refutation of this view, by another German scholar, Michael Marx who is involved in a cooperative effort with Muslim scholars. The project (Corpus Coranicum) at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences, is an example of such joint-interfaith efforts which have the potential to be affected by such developments.

The interview is by SPIEGEL ONLINE, but I do not think that I am allowed to post it all here because of some copyright issues here apparently, so I will just post the link. It is a good read, which deals with all the different facets of the argument that the Prophet never existed, and negates them one by one.



Excerpt:

Micharl Marx: "You have to be a bit delicate about it. In general, when it comes to history, you can't point to any scientific proof. How would we, for example, prove the existence of Charlemagne? We can't conduct any experiments; we have to work with evidence. And, for this issue, the evidentiary thread is the Koran. In this case, the evidentiary situation is better than it is for any other religion. We know of manuscripts of the Koran and Islamic inscriptions already 40-50 years after the Prophet died."

Dispute among Islam Scholars: Did Muhammad Ever Really Live? - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

 

[wil]

There is a distinct question whether Jesus, Moses, Abraham ever existed.

Now many of us believe Adam and Eve never existed.

And if the rest of them are figments of imagination, metaphor, how exactly does that effect interfaith?

G!d as we knew it was created in man's image, and continues to be explained with man's science and philosophy and belief's. So the G!d we knew never existed and the G!d we know now a hundred or a thousand years from now won't exist, we'll have a new paradigm for G!d.

But does any of whether or not they existed destroy the value of the stories, of the parables, of the metaphor of the moral? I think not.

And each religion, denomination, sect and creed resonates with certain folks and has value to them, I honor that.

 

[Dream]

But does any of whether or not they existed destroy the value of the stories, of the parables, of the metaphor of the moral? I think not.

It definitely would make lots of material redundant.

G!d as we knew it was created in man's image, and continues to be explained with man's science and philosophy and belief's. So the G!d we knew never existed and the G!d we know now a hundred or a thousand years from now won't exist, we'll have a new paradigm for G!d.

It would be good in that case to come up with some purpetual system to help human beings maintain a peaceful civilization. Self-perpetuating if possible, since people tend to forget or die young. It would be especially good to give them a path that could cause them to meditate (upon obvious natural principles) that could help them derive for themselves the mental skills needed for a successful life. That way you could perhaps insure people could always find divine inspiration from the simple truths in life. Oh, what such system could there be? Where can it be found? Would anyone like to make a suggestion?

 

[wil]

It definitely would make lots of material redundant.

Not to me. Tis the reason we have so many faiths and so many sects/denominations/beliefs within each faith. Spirit speaks to each of us in as many ways as we are individuals. So the stories are all powerful as each has an audience and each audience hears something different.

Every salesman knows 80% of the sales are made between the seventh and twelth contact...why because that is the way we humans work...the first time we here anything we reject it...it needs to sink into our psyche.

We drive down the road we see a gas station, we look at our gas guage and we say "hmmm" we drive further another station, maybe we should pull in...it'll often be the third or fourth station while our tank is at 1/4 or lower before we pull in and fill up... is that last station, the one that we finally decided to take action...is it redundent? or is it at the right place at the right time with the right solution for us??

 

[Dream]

We drive down the road we see a gas station, we look at our gas guage and we say "hmmm" we drive further another station, maybe we should pull in...it'll often be the third or fourth station while our tank is at 1/4 or lower before we pull in and fill up... is that last station, the one that we finally decided to take action...is it redundent? or is it at the right place at the right time with the right solution for us??

I see what you mean, however it doesn't work that way in life. Rather than picking a gas station, life preparation is a matter of eat or don't eat. Your example includes choice, but growing up isn't a choice. Wil, did you grow up in and break away from an ironclad religion, or were you reared with choices to make? Without choice there is no 'interfaith' at all, so what can insure choice throughout all future generations?

 

[wil]

I see what you mean, however it doesn't work that way in life. ...so what can insure choice throughout all future generations?

And here I thought I was living life!

I don't see anything that will eliminate choice. I see no need in insuring it.

 

[Dream]

No offense, Wil; but what planet are you from?

 

[c0de]

Hey guys

Wil said:

But does any of whether or not they existed destroy the value of the stories, of the parables, of the metaphor of the moral? I think not.

Depends on your definition of morality I think. IMO the matter can not be left in the wind, because for many, morality is defined through the revealed messages of God. I mean, if one wishes to rely one's own reason to define morality, then such problems/questions will not affect that person. However, for people like me who do not place much faith in man's own rationality, such questions are absolutely existential.

 

[Dream]

His name is Muhammad Sven Kalisch, he converted to Islam when he was 16 and was interested in the gnostic aspects of religion. Currently he still retains his Islamic identity within a small Shiite sect, even though he says that he is not sure if the Prophet ever actually existed....Apparently, this has provided the many hate-sites and biased writers alike with a new arsenal to sabotage the interfaith dialogue. I researched the issue a little more and found a very good refutation of this view, by another German scholar

In my experience, inter-faith only works on the personal level. Kalisch made a good decision to think for himself but a poor decision to try and change everyone else. Perhaps you can take advantage of the skirmish to identify who it is that opposes the interfaith dialogue and why. They have moved pieces forward on the board and cannot go back, so now you can learn from that watch everything unfold. Comfort the wounded. Don't get involved in useless argument. Wait for false rhetoric to die down, continuing to enjoy life and seek righteousness.

Even if both sides of a dialogue are understanding and want to unite, a single stubborn person will always be able to stop all unification and stifle all dialogue, every time! Guaranteed. You can spend 60 years working on common dialogues, but nothing will come of it bureacratically. Not enough people will sign the paper, or not enough people will be brave, or not enough people....whatever. That means the ultimate affect of interfaith dialogue is not to establish interfaith bureaucratically but to grow personally. Eventually, after enough stubborn people grow old and die the disagreements are gone.

 

[c0de]

@ Dream

To be honest, the reason why I started this thread was because I was afraid that some might be exposed to Ohlig's and Kilsch's view without realizing that their argument has already been refuted. Despite my efforts this will happen anyway, but I had to do something, so I posted this here. As for the rest, I am almost in complete agreement.

p.s. Nice new avatar

 

[Bandit]

The newest threat in interreligion is the same as the oldest threat and that is, that it is a facade, with the most deceptive wall of all being that it is done in a controlled, solicited environment or else like any religion -it does not work.
When people say what they really want to say and how they really feel, toes will be stepped on, people will be harrassed, threatened, warned, falsely accused and silenced. This is how these political religions (politics in general) thrive, thus interreligion creates the same exact ridiculous rules & politcs in order to survive and function.

The pretense of all religions are equal, the same, respect the belief but dont accept the belief even when the belief steps all over your belief etc. etc..., it does not matter and all paths lead to the same place is a nice gesture but only works in a controlled and enforced environment, like this one, like religion itself.

There is the religion about religions (intereligion) and then there is reality but reality does not work in a controlled atmosphere like this, thus people are forced to become and believe a specific way about all religions and more or less not care either way. It becomes a way of life for some to ignore and to avoid the real problems and valid questions by creating a sense of doctrinal tolerance or you could say enforced & persuaded peace though far from true peace. Kind of like a Beast. It is quite laughable at times because it is not real while at the same time makes an awesome reflection of the reality of religious institutions and the chaos they bring to the world (in the narrow sense of world & things -meaning people- and of course all the inhabitants within).

Such theories are usually ignored by scholarship as they have the potential to cause a rift between established academic institutions which hold joint programs accross the world.

It would destroy certain beliefs. creating fear and make people more angry that they cannot prove or disprove the dogma, that is why they ignore the real problems/theories and inconsistency. Kind of like not having the pressure cooker lid on properly, knowing it is not on correctly, and pretending it is.

 

[wil]

No offense, Wil; but what planet are you from?

Currently earth, don't recollect much beyond that.

In my experience...Even if both sides of a dialogue are understanding and want to unite, a single stubborn person will always be able to stop all unification and stifle all dialogue, every time!

Agreed I don't waste my time much with them.

When people say what they really want to say and how they really feel, toes will be stepped on, people will be harrassed, threatened, warned, falsely accused and silenced. ...The pretense of all religions are equal, the same, respect the belief but dont accept the belief even when the belief steps all over your belief etc. etc..., it does not matter and all paths lead to the same place is a nice gesture ...It would destroy certain beliefs. creating fear and make people more angry that they cannot prove or disprove the dogma, that is why they ignore the real problems/theories and inconsistency. Kind of like not having the pressure cooker lid on properly, knowing it is not on correctly, and pretending it is.

From the last to the first, and namaste brother, always good to see you pop in. As the science and history unfolds yes it will tear the curtain on the holy of holies for many. But I believe only on those that lack faith, if you've put your faith in man's words and dogma and tradition rather than the underlying story you will have issues when the tradition and words are proven wrong. You'll grasp at straws holding onto pieces until all you find is air.

I don't believe all religions are equal or the same, I do believe they were all divinely inspired, ie folks had a connection and an understanding and a desire to share...I can't completely embrace all that happened after that, but I can accept that folks need that path and find a connection to the original inspiration thru it.

And yes there will be some fall out, just like the occasional flood of the river providing nutrients to the farmland, or the forest fire that rejuvinates the forest, a little distruction is natural on the path to growth.

 

[c0de]

@ Bandit


Good Morning


Just because all sides might think they are the best, is no reason to think they shouldn't be able to get along without causing insult and injury to each other. That is really all interfaith dialogue is about. To get a better understanding of each other's perspectives. There is no higher aim then that really. The reason I cited this development as a threat, is not just because of the person who initiated it, but the Islamic institutions which (wrongly) withdrew their support from the program. I think they should have found a way to move forward and replied and refuted the argument, instead of backing away from the entire project.

 

[Bandit]

@ Bandit


Good Morning


Just because all sides might think they are the best, is no reason to think they shouldn't be able to get along without causing insult and injury to each other. That is really all interfaith dialogue is about.

Argue, bicker, fuss & fight...that is what it is all about. You are never goiong to do away with those human traits in certain people. Granted, bigotry just like religion is taught, you are not born with it. The very fact that the beliefs are contradictory to one another is an insult to each others religion in its own right. If everyone was in agreement, there would be no religious dialogue to argue about

When two people disagree, someone being wrong is simply not allowed in the interreligion religion.

To get a better understanding of each other's perspectives. There is no higher aim then that really. The reason I cited this development as a threat, is not just because of the person who initiated it, but the Islamic institutions which (wrongly) withdrew their support from the program. I think they should have found a way to move forward and replied and refuted the argument, instead of backing away from the entire project.

I would not say what you posted is a threat, probably more of a waste of time when you look at the big picture and assemble facts from history. It has never changed and it is not going to just because people sit around and talk about it. I fail to see how someone walking away from the mess makes them wrong, or right for that matter. If people dont wan't to participate in something, they can walk at any time. That is what makes us human and one of the few choices we really have to change if we desire.

Either jesus is the messiah or he isn't. Either Jesus existed or he didn't. You can't have it boths ways and both be right. The reality of that is someone is in fact wrong or both can be wrong. Ah! but that is not allewed in interreligion -because now you have a a bias and a possible war teetering.

To refute or even to defend like you might suggest, is foolishness to me. Creating arguments and refuting them over the imaginations of humans is a problem -there is no gain to doing that. How is there a better understanding that we people create stuff in our heads?

Getting a better perspective for what goes up & down and round & round in peoples heads is fine, but it does not resolve the hate, the fear, the arguments and the politics. Refuting arguments in religion? People can say anything they want in beliefs of the mind and no one can refute it. Pointless.
Thousands of fairies with wings live under my garden in front of my house. Refute it.

Concerning the bolded a little farther, I am convinced there is a broader agenda to have these religious talks with hopes to gain world peace as the ultimate goal. That is a good thing, a good hope, but it is not a reality thing or a real hope. Based on history talking about religion & politics creates more problems than it creates peace though I am also convinced that it creates a false sense of peace or you could say temporary solutions. One of them being -keep them busy talk fighting so they don't go to war and blow up the planet over religion.

I don't believe all religions are equal or the same, I do believe they were all divinely inspired, ie folks had a connection and an understanding and a desire to share...I can't completely embrace all that happened after that, but I can accept that folks need that path and find a connection to the original inspiration thru it.

And yes there will be some fall out, just like the occasional flood of the river providing nutrients to the farmland, or the forest fire that rejuvinates the forest, a little distruction is natural on the path to growth.

Hi Wil,

I dont believe they are the same either or equal and they completely contradict each other. I differ from you on this one thing because I don't believe for two seconds all these institutionalized religions were inspired by only one god but by many different gods i.e... Humans created it. I don't find myself connecting with any of these religions. That does not mean I don't have my own connection that is completely different from the gods in these religions.

We do agree on the fallout. The fact that you acknowledge problems exist is a start to making things better. I think from the fallouts, war or church spilts or whatever, you just end up with a new religion and a new war...simply because they dont agree with another human beings mind.

I suppose destruction is needed in order to grow new circles if one considers that progress. I don't see the point in arguing about religion day in & day out, so it must take a certain personality to enjoy it. I view religion more like a curse to society causing more harm than something that produces good fruit. That does not mean there are no good people in religion. It just means religion is not needed to make things better and religion is not needed to make people good.

 

[Bandit]

That means the ultimate affect of interfaith dialogue is not to establish interfaith bureaucratically but to grow personally. Eventually, after enough stubborn people grow old and die the disagreements are gone.

This is a great point.

Only thing is for disagreements to be gone, the religions would also have to be gone...voluntarily of course.

I never grew from religious discussions and it did not matter where, here or anywhere or what the religion is. It made me hate religion and want nothing to do with it on any level, except for of course throwing a few stink bombs here & there. It is kind of odd because I am not sure if it was the conversations, icky personalities or time itself, perhaps all of the above that turn me off & created this massive ocean between me & religion. Kind of nice having the religions & disagreements gone personally. Perhaps the bolded is the ultimate goal & threat at the same time? Not bad if it is because it surely worked for me!

This of course does not mean I do not enjoy sharing personal experiences outside of the religious vortex because in a one on one basis & in private, I do.

 

[c0de]

@ Bandit


Your assuming that I expect to make a difference in the grander scheme of things... I do not.

 

[wil]

Either jesus is the messiah or he isn't. Either Jesus existed or he didn't. You can't have it boths ways and both be right.


I don't believe for two seconds all these institutionalized religions were inspired by only one god but by many different gods i.e... Humans created it.

Some contemplations, let's say he didn't exist and he is the messiah. Ie the story is what saves you. Entertaining the belief of I and the father are one, entertaining the belief that heaven is a perspective and in your midst quit looking high and low, but within, entertain the possiblity of loving your neighbor will change the world.

Second half...so what if G!d is man made...man being his lowly self can't be so arrogant to believe these insights came from within, that we are capable of directly connecting with all knowledge all thought all inspiration, so we make up mythical figures, we are channeling man, or G!d told me. Because if I come down off the mountain with these 10 laws who is going to listen to me?? But you'll fall for the burning bush or the 9 armed sixeyed, mouse with an elephant head or...

So I'm not saying they made it up, bu their psyche made it up, because it was the only way they can believe they accessed the ethers.

 

[Bandit]

@ Bandit


Your assuming that I expect to make a difference in the grander scheme of things... I do not.

I understand & I am the same as I don't expect any difference either. I just found the whole interfaith scholarship thingy a bit over the hill for me to accept then tossing in some threat to the scheme as if it is a valid religion to itself made for an interesting drive by.

 

[c0de]

@ Bandit

I understand & I am the same as I don't expect any difference either. I just found the whole interfaith scholarship thingy a bit over the hill for me to accept then tossing in some threat to the scheme as if it is a valid religion to itself made for an interesting drive by.

Are you now taking exception to the fact that I am defending Islam as "a valid religion"? Because that I am.

 

[Dream]

So I'm not saying they made it up, bu their psyche made it up, because it was the only way they can believe they accessed the ethers.

That is interesting, Wil. I'm going to save that idea for last, though; because its too much for me to think about. Also there are several ways to interpret 'accessing the ethers'. It could imply either an active or passive role.