The Pope On The Koran & Islam per Mr. Pipe

I do not see any effective or noticible changes in Islam as all but a very, very few
Muslims will reject, with such violence as they see as necessary, any hint of changes
the Koran or the legal traditions of Islam or the uses of violence, rape, genocide murder
and such other like practices of that ideology.

By Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 17, 2006

Islam and Muslims are expected to be a priority for Pope Benedict XVI, but he has been publicly quite muted on these topics during his first nine months in office. One report, however, provides important clues to his current thinking.

Father Joseph D. Fessio, SJ, recounted on the Hugh Hewitt Show the details of a seminar he attended with the pope in September 2005 on Islam. Participants heard about the ideas of Fazlur Rahman, a Pakistani-born liberal theologian (1919-88) who held that if Muslims thoroughly reinterpret the Koran, Islam can modernize. He urged a focus on the principles behind Koranic legislation such as jihad, cutting off thieves’ hands, or permitting polygyny, in order to modify these customs to fit today’s needs. When Muslims do this, he concluded, they can prosper and live harmoniously with non-Muslims.

Pope Benedict reacted strongly to this argument. He has been leading such annual seminars since 1977 but always lets others speak first, waiting until the end to comment. But hearing about Fazlur Rahman’s analysis, Fr. Fessio’s recalled with surprise, the pope could not contain himself:

This is the first time I recall where he made an immediate statement. And I’m still struck by it, how powerful it was…[T]he Holy Father, in his beautiful calm but clear way, said well, there’s a fundamental problem with that [analysis] because, he said, in the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Muhammad, but it’s an eternal word. It’s not Muhammad’s word. It’s there for eternity the way it is. There’s no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it.

This basic difference, Pope Benedict continued, makes Islam unlike Christianity and Judaism. In the latter two religions, “God has worked through His creatures. And so, it is not just the word of God, it’s the word of Isaiah, not just the word of God, but the word of Mark. He’s used His human creatures, and inspired them to speak His word to the world.” Jews and Christians “can take what’s good” in their traditions and mold it. There is, in other words, “an inner logic to the Christian Bible, which permits it and requires it to be adapted and applied to new situations.”

Whereas the Bible is, for Benedict, the “word of God that comes through a human community,” he understands the Koran as “something dropped out of Heaven, which cannot be adapted or applied.” This immutability has vast consequences: it means “Islam is stuck. It’s stuck with a text that cannot be adapted.”

Fr. Fessio’s striking account prompts two reactions. First, these comments were made at a private seminar with former students, not in public. As “Spengler” of Asia Times points out, even the pope “must whisper” when discussing Islam. It’s a sign of the times.

Second, I must register my respectful disagreement. The Koran indeed can be interpreted. Indeed, Muslims interpret the Koran no less than Jews and Christians interpret the Bible, and those interpretations have changed no less over time. The Koran, like the Bible, has a history.

For one indication of this, note the original thinking of the Sudanese theologian, Mahmud Muhammad Taha (1909-85). Taha built his interpretation on the conventional division of the Koran into two. The initial verses came down when Muhammad was a powerless prophet living in Mecca, and tend to be cosmological. Later verses came down when Muhammad was the ruler of Medina, and include many specific rulings. These commands eventually served as the basis for Shari‘a, or Islamic law.

Taha argued that specific Koranic rulings applied only to Medina, not to other times and places. He hoped modern-day Muslims would set these aside and live by the general principles delivered at Mecca. Were Taha’s ideas accepted, most of Shari‘a would disappear, including outdated provisions concerning warfare, theft, and women. Muslims could then more readily modernize.

Even without accepting a grand schema such as Taha proposed, Muslims are already making small moves in the same direction. Islamic courts in reactionary Iran, for example, have broken with Islamic tradition and now permit women the right to sue for divorce and grant a murdered Christian equal recompense with that of a murdered Muslim.

As this suggests, Islam is not stuck. But huge efforts are needed to get it moving again.