By Marco Schöller
Today Hartmut Krauss entitled " opportunities for critical reason " a response to Sabine Leutheuser-Schnarrenberger FAZ article "Every religion has an equal chance " of 10 Published in February 2011.
In his response, yes indeed a contradiction, it performs many of the arguments to the field, which are mostly dubious. I would like to focus only on a point that is very relevant, especially as it repeatedly appears in the Islam debate. This point reads the text of Krauss as follows:
carefree As of expertise, the minister argued that proof of its preliminary identification of the Bible and Koran. for the formation of decay is already so advanced that no (e) Speaker (in) the Minister once could bring closer that the Bible is a collection of texts from different eras with different authors, while it is in the Koran - one follows the irrational ratios - a direct revelation of text that have been in every word and every comma directly from Allah himself revealed to (verbal inspiration), and thus for the faithful in every detail before arbitrary interpretation particularly impregnated? It follows that the Koran is the subjective horizon of believers in space and time completely valid and not just critical and questioning adjustable text. What
that I really appreciate the presentation of the role of the Koran in that section. So, as Krauss - and numerous others who have similar theories as he represented - to formulate the representation fundamentally wrong and for the purposes of the author is thus a meaningless argument. Even with Krauss can therefore be no question of expertise. And I will not now make fun of the Koran that commas are not revealed by Allah, because the Koranic text has no commas (in the original text, he has absolutely no punctuation). But let it be drum. The matter is so serious: What's wrong with Krauss' presentation?
fact that the text of the Koran from God Himself is, of course Islamic religious conviction. No one doubts this, but just what the is not - and from here the argument goes wrong - is that both Muslims and non Muslims therefore already knew what the text exactly (!) ; means . The Muslims struggling now for over 1400 years to figure out what the meanings (in the plural ! ) have this wording. The whole of blah "subjective Horizon "and the" space-time "absolutely valid" Koran, which writes the lyrics Krauss overlooks this very important point that the majority of Muslims (yesterday and today) so pretends not to know definitively what meaning is now actually the wording hergibt and which not.
The only thing that can be derived from the Islamic belief in the divine revelation, is that the text as such absolutely relevant t and in this limited sense also is valid. Because of it but of course does not follow that they knew already because of this relevance, which now each relevant correct B edeutun g is the wording of the final wrong, the belief in the divine origin of the text amounts to a fixed and not changing, not modifiable "message" of this text the same. The Koranic text is, therefore, only insofar questionable not critical, as one of its fundamental relevance from an Islamic point of view can not be denied. This, however, as I said, given that we knew already, which is now actually the meaning of the text, so each passage was. And even if one assumes that one would the importance of a single location more or less covered endültig, closes still the same to the next problem: What lessons have you as a Muslim from that identified significant draw? That is de facto not to answer clearly. And now begins the second level, a new spectrum of interpretation and interpretations ...
Ergo: The Koran is a divine word revelation, one that believes, still a gan an d z r even open the text and the entire Islamic intellectual and religious history of places like this testimony that the majority of Muslims have seen forever. Also has the Qur'an not only by post-modernists in Umberto Eco's sense advocated openness that characterize every text, and in general any "talking" man's work, but a far beyond openness, namely (1) due to its specific structure, (2 ) 3 due to his often terse and shortening and diction () due to the particular ways of "openness" that allow the Arabic language and writing, to name only the most important points.
That it then and now there are groups deny the openness of the text in the sense described and claim a fixed meaning, they think we know 'final' is an important aspect of Islamic religious and social history. But the openness of the text can not be disputed with regard to the divine revelation of character, and actually use the "dogmatic" groups - in order to even call it that - that argument does not. The openness of the Koranic text is disputed by the groups that just refuse to open and maintain a specific meaning, with very different arguments, such as by drawing on non-Quranic material, such as the Hadith (ie the Prophet handed down dicta): Those hadiths are used to basis of the Koran interpretation taken, which in turn own, more or less "permanently fixed" championed important support.
But the Hadithmaterial as a whole is indeed an "open text", which consists of hundreds of thousands of individual texts, the historicity - even among Muslims - never definitively established. It follows that the problem of the importance of establishing only moves: When the basis of the Koranic text of hadiths attributed to an undoubted significance is, again exhibit that used the Hadiths actually go back to the Prophet ... and the text and the majority of Hadith is not less "open" than that of the Koran, so that must be shown again that the "correct" meaning of a particular hadith to him then, one has established that, to use to establish the significance of the Qur'anic text. This results in a de facto interpretation endless cycle that is to rewrite it. Much of the religious-Islamic intellectual history of the last 1400 years documented this incompleteness.
The result also dogmatism of Islam is assumed in the West today over again, is alien to Islam. One can say, without representing an essentialist interpretation of Islam. But I would go further and say that the turn to violence and terrorism, which is present in some of the "dogmatic" groups in our time, indeed the whole of human contempt, since the Fore is just the best proof that Islam is in this dogmatic way just no t monopolizing n l ä ß t . The Koranic texts - and subsequently the Islamic religion in its many different forms - refuse the dogma - and bring this very reason some Muslims this uncompromising and fanatical occurring yes indeed but out of frustration about the basic openness of the Koran and the intra-Islamic pluralism's essential violence springing forth.
That's even a point at which the Western critics of Islam strive for.
0 comments:
Post a Comment