Historical theology

Via unmedia, a brief overview of Jewish theologian Franz Rosenzweig, and his views on Islamic theology and history:

"Allah merely is the apotheosized image of an Oriental despot, emphatically not the Judeo-Christian God of love. As a caricature, Islam is entirely sterile [...]

"Love requires the Judeo-Christian God to create the world. By contrast [writes Rosenzweig], 'the God of Mohammed is a creator who well might not have bothered to create. He displays his power like an Oriental potentate who rules by violence, not by acting according to necessity, not by authorizing the enactment of the law, but rather in his freedom to act arbitrarily.'"

We can ignore Rosenzweig's view on Islamic theology, because, being a polemic, he was simply reiterating a point (the whole idea of a polemic). His words do, based on the exceprts in the article, seem like a caricature of some of the classical Orientalist views of the Islamic concept of God. In anycase, these sorts of writings are simply aimed at debasing ones 'opponents', and affirming the superiority of ones own views. To this end, there is nothing unique in Rosenzweig's words; polemics exist in all religious and non-religious circles. We needn't neccessarily bother ourselves with tit-for-tat responses. [1]

Nonetheless, if we do challenge Rosenzweig's opinions, we will discover that his criticism is not neccessarily that of the "God of the Qur'an"; it is a criticism of a school of theology in Classical Islam (it seems as though he is criticising Ash'arism).

Therefore, we are allowed to state that his polemic is against an historical God, because all theologies are neccessarily touched by the hand of history. To prove this assertion, I would appeal to the fact of the matter: writing a theology is a human endeavour, one which has often been undertaken either to defend a religion and its god from criticism or to stave off heresies. Further, from a religious (and more speficially Islamic) point of view, no theology has ever claimed to be a 'revelation'. Did a single founder of the Semitic religions, who are usually taken as being Muhammad, Jesus or Moses, ever write a theology? The answer is obvious for all to see.

This is why theologies are, and must be, written and re-written, from time to time. I am sure if religious believers undertake the task of writing a completely 'modern' theology, the Weltanschauung of the modern world ('science') would underpin many of the arguments.

It is for this reason I am in the 'anti-theology' camp, or at least come close to such a position. Theology can end up choking faith, by creating a mental prison. Even the greatest theologian in Islamic history, Imam al-Ghazali, found theological debates 'out of synch' with proper faith. And, morally, the consequences of this can be disastrous for a religion. From a Muslim point of view, theology can end up masking and obscuring the core of the Qur'anic teachings (which a moral admonition, and not a theological tract).

Nonetheless, I do not believe that writing a 'theology' is an impossible task, or that it cannot provide useful food for the believer; I accept a theology which is ethically-based, or one that verges in that direction. But the task of an 'ethical theology' can only be undertaken when a proper ethics has been extracted from the Qur'an. And this requires the specialist, whoever he or she maybe, to make a genuine historical inquiry into his or her intellectual history. Ideally, the person undertaking such a task should be a committed Muslim, because he or she will have the conviction of faith to live by the meaning of the Qur'an. Once we know where have come from, we may chart a route to where we are going. As someone said to me, "Why have a Marx or a Weber tell us what our religious history means, to us?" [2]

Outside the dry and dusty writings of scholars and academics of today, this work needs to offer something to the Muslim 'laity' (if I am allowed to use such a term); something much more than the arcane theologies of Islamic history have done so. How many adherents to a particular school of theology, actually understand the often verbose, hair-splitting, logomachies of theologians? What does it mean to 'acquire' an act, yet be fully responsible for it? I confess, it means absolutely nothing to me; not in any real moral-religious sense. But an ethics ought to address the conscience of the individual believer, because it will help rationalise the believer's actions by linking them to ultimate moral values. And since we are creatures who live in 'societies' or 'communities', and societies require 'ethical behaviour' from its individuals in order to function, we will end up with proper "Islamic societies", which will not just be the false utopia offered by the manipulative power-seeking, and covert materialism, of modern 'political Islam'. In addition, since the legal system of a society is the outcome of its moral and ethical stance, then law in these Muslim societies ought to remain "Islamic", in the proper sense that it is related to taqwa.

It is my sincere hope that an Islamic ethical theology would offer the common Muslim something fresh, and perhaps create an Islamic ethical culture. [3]

Notes
[1] As a side note, al-Muhajabah rightly asks what does the term "Judeo-Christian God" mean?

[2] The writing of historical narratives in contemporary times has been the sole preserve of 'Westerners'. This has often led to, sometimes justifable, criticisms that people like Weber were Eurocentric. This was probably the whole point of criticisms of Orientalist writings (opitmised by Edward Said's Orientalism): to ask contemporary 'Easterners' to write their own narratives. Sadly the whole project seemed to turn into a rather lazy method of acsribing blame.

[3] For those interested, a similar attempt was made in the Lutheran tradition by the German, Trutz Rendtorff. See T. Rendtorff, "Ethics: Basic Elements and Methodology in an Ethical Theology", Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Of course a Muslim approach must be different, in order to reflect the differences in the core Qur'anic tenants, and the intellectual traditions of Islam.

Comments

[islamoyankee]

I'm really intrigued by the argument. Theology clearly needs to keep up with the times. However, I'm curious as to what you think the ethics of Islam are that should frame the discussion.

I've personally found the following site fairly useful:
http://www.iis.ac.uk/learning/life_long_learning/akdn_ethical_framework/akdn_ethical_framework.htm

[Haroon]

Salam.

I wholeheartedly agree that theology can be a misguided and sometimes unnecessary venture. What I find especially intriguing is that Judaism shares, with Islam, a view that some Muslims (incorrectly) abscribe to Christianity alone.

Namely, Judaism teaches that the Children of Israel told Moses that they would "obey and [then] understand." This is a lot like the Islamic idea: Islam comes first and then Iman (faith). That is, one can obey and must obey, but one may not understand why one is obeying until one begins to obey?

It's a complicated issue, but certainly, there is some room for ethical exploration. If we do not fully understand something, should we practice it? If not, is that a legitimate excuse? What about a religion both appealing to our intellects yet beyond it?

Too many questions!

It would be more interesting I think for ethical theologies to explore Islam and Iman and the relationship to the two, based on action and works...

(PS: If anyone has the time, I recommend reading Melvin Konner's "Unsettled: An Anthropology of the Jews". It's quite long and makes sometimes ridiculous assertions, a la the "righteousness" of Zionism, but it is nonetheless a helpful and informative read).

[Ali Eteraz]

With ideals of "taqwa," "iman," and "ihsan," - and others like it which cannot be realized in this life - can it really ever be possible

The Islamic ideals: taqwa, iman, ihsna, etc. cannot be perfectly realized in this life. But pursuing them engenders the same kind of idealistic pursuit that Enlightenment Rationalists and Marxists have been pursuing. It seems the Utopic impulse cannot be divorced from our theology. And until then we will always be susceptible to power mongerers, and promise-fulfillers. Who really cares if one comes up with a system of "ethics" (whatever that is) and calls it "Islamic Ethics." I say we accept that and stop philosophizing (or theologizing).

[Thebit]

Salaam,

"The Islamic ideals: taqwa, iman, ihsna, etc. cannot be perfectly realized in this life."

Then we may as wll give up being Muslims. No one is suggesting that we can reach a "perfect" stage of taqwa, or iman or ihsan. That is the folly of some forms of Sufism. Life - the flesh-and-blood world - is a constant "struggle".

"But pursuing them engenders the same kind of idealistic pursuit that Enlightenment Rationalists and Marxists have been pursuing."

You're right that as Muslims we are required to pursue "the one Truth", just as Enlightenment Rationalists did, and just as Marxists still do. Religion is bound inspire some form of idealism. That is the whole point, no?

"And until then we will always be susceptible to power mongerers, and promise-fulfillers."

So we might as well give up all hope in life then?

"Who really cares if one comes up with a system of "ethics" (whatever that is) and calls it "Islamic Ethics.""

You're welcome to your opinion, of course. But I thought a religion like Islam, with its emphasis on "good acts", would require some sort of ethical base.

"I say we accept that and stop philosophizing (or theologizing)."

Unless you believe in the "death of philosophy", then I doubt we can stop "philosophising".

Salaam `alaykum

[Ali E]

I understand I can't philosophize out of philosophy. Otherwise I would have just stayed silent. My point is that there is no need for institutionalized metaphysics.
Because the only way to convince everyone to believe in them is by dangling carrots in front of them. And then you're not really convincing people based on the beauty of your ideas but on the beauty of your rewards. A wholly inauthentic way of convincing. And even if you convince others based on the beauty of your idea, I'd still have a problem, because someone else would've then become under your thrall and given up their own innate autonomy. If they believe in your stories they might as well become your slaves. And make you god.