[م.]. [تريق] [قوريشي]
أثناء سنونه في [مكجلّ], [در.]. إسماعيل [أل-فروقي]' [س] ميّزت موهبة ك [ديسبوتنت] كان بنظائره. زدت قدرته أن يتتبّع المقاومة حجة إلى استنتاجه منطقيّة كان بسيطرته من البلاغة. الطريق هو أوصلبنفسي أثناء مجابهه مع الناس من أخرى [فيثس] يستطيع كنت رأيت في المقتطف تالي من حواره مع أسقف [كنّث] [كرغّ] وأب مايكل [فيتزجرلد] في [شمبسي] في يونيو - حزيران 26, 1976.
[فيتزجرلد]: أنا أحبّت أن يسأل لتصفية ال [در.]. [أل-فروقي] بيان أنّ [إيسلميك] [دا]' [وه] عالميّة [بر إكسسلّنس], بفضل تمييزه شاملة من [ألّ ث] أديان بما أنّ [د] [جور]. [إين فكت], ماذا يكون عنيت بكلّ أديان? يتلقّى استعانة إلى أبولّو وأخرى آلهات وآلهة نوع الدين, غير أنّ إسلام ميّز هذا [أس ولّ س] كلّ أخرى أديان بما أنّ [د] [جور]?
[أل-فروقي]: إسلام يميّز كلّ أديان بما أنّ [د] [جور], وبعد ذلك يدعو هو الموالات من هذا [ليجونس] [ر] أن يبدأ المهمة النقد. ما من استبعدت دين ب ال [موسليم] بداهة. [إين وثر ووردس,] إن أنا ألتقي أحد ما الذي يتلقّى أبدا يعلم إسلام والذي يعبد, مثلا, "[إكس]" أو "[ي]", ماذا أنّ يمكن كنت, أنا بما أنّ [موسليم] قبل الظّهر لا حرّة أن يدعوه [بغن], أو أن يعتبره بما أنّ يدان ب [غد]; بالأحرى, أنا ينبغي تحدّثت مع ه [إين وردر تو] اكتشفت ماذا دينه يكون, في الإعتقاد أنّ إلهة ينبغي في رحمته يتلقّى أرسلت نبي إلى ه, ل [قور]? يقول: ? و [ب] هناك ما من الناس حتّى الّذي إلهة يتلقّى لم يرسل نبي? ([ق.]. 35:24)
يصدق بعد ذلك أنّ إلهة في رحمته ينبغي يتلقّى قلته شيء, يلتقي أنا مع ه بصدد يكون يؤمر حول إيمانه, وبعد ذلك أنا في [فيت] ه أن يبحث ه خاصّة تقليد [إين وردر تو] اكتشفت الرسالة أساسيّة أنّ إلهة قد أعطىه. وإن, [إين رلأيشن تو] أنّ مركزية يكشف لب, الإستراحة من الإعتقاد وممارسات من أنّ دين بما أنّ يطوّر من خلال تاريخ [تثرن ووت] أن يكون حزمة الأوضاع, أنّ كان إكتشاف تجريبيّة ل ي. But for the Muslim this must never be an a priori decision which condemns a man because he “doesn’t believe in my God my way”.
However, if I discover that religion has been corrupted and falsified beyond recognition, then I have a duty to tell him about the Qur’an, God’s final revelation, to present it to him as rational truth, and invite his consideration. If he says, “I don’t want to listen”, then either he is malevolent or a fool.
Cragg: What you are saying, then, is that God has sent prophets everywhere, but ex hypothesi these prophets must be consistent with Islam.
al-Faruqi: Yes, Islam as religio naturalis, din al fitrah.
Cragg: But that which in Buddhism is antithetical to Islam and to rationalism is not simply chaff mixed with wheat, if I may put it that way; it is the very wheat of Buddhism. By your analysis here it must then have been a false prophecy which brought the Buddhist to that belief.
al-Faruqi: I won’t say a false prophecy. I would say that a true revelation through an authentic prophet has been thoroughly falsified.
Fitzgerald: But by which historical criteria is the “true” prophet to be identified? And where is the “true” prophecy of which you speak within Buddhism?
al-Faruqi: I don?t know, but it can be researched; the fact that I assume it to be there at the origin is at least a good step in the direction of ecumenical tolerance.
Cragg: It seems rather an escape hatch of a theory, because if a prophet is really a prophet then his message becomes known, it is balagh, communication; and if it has not survived historically it must be mythical.
al-Faruqi: No. At one time it was known. But then later on it became falsified as the Hebrew message became falsified, and the Christian message was falsified.1
- Islamic Da’wah: Its Nature and Demands. American Trust Publications, Indianapolis, 1986. pp. 11-12. [back]
Arnoldlyn said on 10 March 2006:
I think the other guy raised alot of good points and that al-Faruqi just made stuff up to hopefully make the logical problem that the other guy raised go away. It got corrupted. Gee, it seems like God let everything get corrupted. That’s always the iron clad excuse that they pull of of their pocket. There is a gap in the logic, so a consopiracy theory is invented to fill the gap. And the surprising part, is that people think al-Faruqi gave a good answer. I guess they have a cewrtain liking or predispostion to conspiracy theories. That’s about all I can think. Very odd indeed.
danny said on 14 March 2006:
I think there is no “conspiracy” involved with the statement that the message preached by, say Jesus, got corrupted over the passage of time. This is a historical fact, something readily acknowledged by all scholars with the exception of the most hardcore conservative Christians. Scholars only disagree over the degree of changes/corruption. For a long time scholars have been trying to unearth the historical Jesus, precisely because it is realized that over the passage of time the story of Jesus evolved into something else.
Similarly, that the writings within the Jewish Bible underwent evolution and were composed from different sources by unknown authors at different times, long after the events alleged within them, is also pretty much acknowledged by all scholars. Certainly, I believe that the basic message of monothiesm is still preserved in the Jewish and even the Christian writings, yet the fact that certain changes have taken place over the passage of time cannot be denied.
What about Budhism etc? Do we have the message of Budha pure unadulterated? I doubt many scholars would answer in the affirmative.
Luke said on 4 October 2006:
The message of Jesus has been retained in the same manner as the Qur’an has been retained. It is studied in its original language, and great care has been taken to ensure its accuracy throughout the ages. If the only version available nowadays was the English, then I think there would be grounds to say the message has been tainted. But since it is widely studied in the original Greek, I think there are no causes for worry about Christ’s message being lost.