HTR(9): Two conceptions of Holy Scripture

With this post I want to outline my understanding of the Islamic doctrine of Holy Scripture, ie how it understands the Koran. I could be mistaken in this; if someone can show that I am, I would be immensely grateful.

The Christian understanding of Holy Scripture is not what people like Richard Dawkins would have you believe, ie that it is seen as infallible. That is an Islamic conception of Holy Scripture. The contrast can be put like this: in Christianity Scripture points outside of itself to something more holy, which is the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ. Whereas in Islam the man Mohammed points beyond himself (or is a channel for) something more holy, which is the Koran.

So in Christian understandings the Bible is complex and multi-form. The very word 'Bible' simply means library. In other words within the Bible there is a large variety of voice, of genre, of theology. It contains within itself both a critique of literalism and an assertion that there are proper authorities outside of the text. It says that it is incomplete, and that there are things that will be learned that have not been learned yet. I have often said to parishioners that the best way to understand the Bible is to think of it as a conversation, and our task is to listen to that conversation for long enough that we can then start to join in with it, to have learned 'what it is on about'. In the end, in Christianity, the ultimate authority is not a text but a person. We are enjoined to pray until Christ is born in us, not until the text lives in us. The words point to the Word.

In Islam, it is the Koran itself which is holy. Mohammed is the instrument, the amanuensis, but not the originator of the Koran. Rather the Koran was dictated by the Archangel Gabriel and the acme of religious devotion is the recitation of the text. The Koran is literally God's speech. Translation is always a diminishment, a falling short – to understand the Koran correctly it is essential to learn to speak Arabic, for that is the speech of heaven. The Koran was formed in the world perfectly and has been preserved without change or error. This is why the Koran must always be placed on the highest shelf in a room, why casting it to the floor is a sin, and why burning a Koran is particularly offensive to a Muslim, in a way that burning a Bible is not to a Christian. It is desecration because it is the Koran itself which is sacred.

I sometimes tease Christian fundamentalists that they are suffering from 'Muslim envy' when they treat the Bible as if it were the Koran.

The point I want to bring out here, for this sequence, is that, if your doctrine of Scripture is Islamic then your room to manoeuvre is distinctly limited. Christianity is open-ended, it is a tradition that contains within itself the potential to change and develop. Whereas in Islam the gates of ijtihad are closed. So if there are elements in the Koran that are challenging to a Christian sensibility then that is a real challenge to achieving a common purpose (and I follow Aristotle in believing that a common purpose is a precondition for friendship).

Possibly the most important and challenging example of this is when the Koran denies the reality of the crucifixion.

This is not just a matter of disagreement over an historical event; no, this cuts right to the heart of the distinct visions and traditions between Islam and Christianity. It bears directly upon how believers are to conduct themselves within the world, and on questions like the relationship between church and state, the legitimacy of violence, and how to discern the actions of the satan (and therefore resist them).

Unpacking that last paragraph will likely take the next couple of months!