M. Tariq Quraishi
Durante seus anos em McGill, Dr. Al-Faruqi de Ismail' o talent de s como um disputant foi reconhecido por seus pares. Sua abilidade de perseguir o argumento do oponente a sua conclusão lógica foi aumentada por seu mastery do rhetoric. A maneira que se conduziu himself durante seu encontro com os povos de outras fé pode ser vista no seguinte excerpt de seu diálogo com o Bishop Kenneth Cragg e pai Michael Fitzgerald em Chembesy junho em 26, 1976.
Fitzgerald: Eu gostaria de pedir esclarecimento do Dr. indicação do al-Faruqi's que Islamic wah do da' é ecumenical excellence par, pelo virtue de seu recognition detalhado de todas as religiões como de jure. No fato, que é significado por todas as religiões? Ter o recourse a Apollo e outros deuses e goddesses é um tipo da religião, mas Islam reconheceria isto as well as todas religiões restantes como de jure?
al-Faruqi: O Islam reconhece todas as religiões como de jure, e então convida os aderente destes ligions re começar a tarefa do criticism. Nenhuma religião é governada para fora pelos muçulmanos a priori. Ou seja se eu me encontrar com alguém que nunca se ouviram do Islam e que adora, por exemplo, um “X” ou “Y”, o que quer que aquele pode ser, I como um muçulmano am nao livre o chamar um pagan, ou o considerar como condemned por Deus; rather, eu devo falar com ele a fim descobrir o que sua religião é, na opinião que o deus deve em sua mercê lhe ter emitido um prophet, para o Qur? diz: ? E não há nenhuns povos até quem deus não emitiu um prophet? (Q. 35:24)
Acreditando então que o deus em sua mercê deve lhe ter dito algo, eu encontro-me com o com uma vista a ser instruído sobre sua fé, e I no vite ele para pesquisar então sua própria tradição a fim descobrir a mensagem essencial que o deus lhe deu. E se, com relação a isso núcleo revelado central, o descanso da opinião e práticas dessa religião como tornadas com a volta da história para fora para ser um bloco das mentiras, que seriam uma descoberta empírica para mim. 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.