Interreligious Polemics

When the Muslim statement "A Common Word between us and you" appeared on the internet in October 2007, I found it to be dissonant to what I had read in early Muslim commentary on Q 3.64. I decided to investigate the interpretation of this "common word" verse across a wide range of commentaries on the Quran. Though interpretations vary, none of the commentaries understands Q 3.64 to refer to a theological concept held "in common" with non-Muslims.

Передмова до видання книги архиєпископа Мелетія Смотрицького "Apologia" (1627) з паралельним перекладом українською мовою розглядає твір як зламний етап у творчій еволюції полеміста, простежуючи передумови цього зламу та його вияви на рівні трансформації образної мови.

Christians have encountered theological challenges from the beginning. Listening carefully to the voices that question and object had significant impact on the articulation of theology. In like manner, fresh theological insights come from making listening to today’s voices a priority.

The volume "New Directions in Spiritual Kinship: Sacred Ties Across the Abrahamic Religions," edited by Todne Thomas, Asiya Malik and Rose Wellman, undertakes a comparative analysis of "spiritual kinship" (such as God-parenthood) in Christianity, Judaism and Islam. My chapter, "Kinship as Ethical Relation," starts by questioning the usefulness of spiritual kinship as a category for the understanding of Judaism and expands that critique into an alternate model that might be more useful for comparative purposes. I argue that the idea of "Spiritual Kinship" emerges precisely from an a set of Christian taxonomies that are often implicitly or explicitly anti-Jewish (kinship of the flesh vs. kinship of the spirit, the letter and the spirit of the law, etc.) which makes it unsuitable as an "Abrahamic" category. Moreover, the specific ways in which it is unsuitable for comparative purposes actually demonstrate the importance of this category for understanding of Christianity and of the anthropological kinship categories (affinal, consanguineal and fictive)  that were in large measure adapted from European Christian sources. Viewing kinship as a set of ethical relations, by contrast, does indeed allow for useful comparison across these religious divides and makes better sense of the ethnographic and textual data. Examples are brought from both modern and medieval Jewish life.

Learning Interreligiously: In the Text, in the World is a fascinating series of about one hundred blog posts written from November 2008 to December 2016 by Francis X. Clooney, a global scholar known for his work in the field of Comparative Theology. Clooney was invited to write on interfaith dialogue for “In All Things," a blog hosted by America, a Jesuit journal of opinion (xi). The blog posts include a wide range of topics such as “interreligious happenings in the Catholic Church,” “Vatican documents and related controversies involving theologians,” “reports on occasional travels,” “provocative news items related to religion appearing in the American press,” “items related to teaching and programming at Harvard,” and a “few personal posts” (xi). Such is Clooney's commitment to interfaith learning that, although he is not an expert in Islamic or Mormon studies, he engages the Qur'an and the Book of the Mormon.

In exploring two different kinds of early modern institutional religious discourses, i.e. catechisms and exposition of discussed matters, this article highlights two modes of enunciative fading off. On the one hand, catechisms look like dialogues, but they are actually full of apparently “autonomous” utterances. On the other hand, exposition, a supposedly neutral presentation, proves to be pervaded by a subdued but clearly partial subjectivity, a chiaroscuro presence very much in tune with the mediate and transitive Christian regime of authority.

L’étude de deux types de discours religieux institutionnels, les catéchismes et l’exposition de matières controversées, permet de mettre au jour deux modes d’effacement énonciatif : les catéchismes miment le dialogue, mais multiplient les énoncés « autonomisés » ; l’exposition, qui se veut présentation neutre, s’avère constellée de marqueurs d’une subjectivité certes pacifiée mais partiale – présence en demi-teinte conforme au caractère médiat et transitif de l’autorité en régime chrétien.

In exploring two different kinds of early modern institutional religious discourses, i.e. catechisms and exposition of discussed matters, this article highlights two modes of enunciative fading off. On the one hand, catechisms look like dialogues, but they are actually full of apparently “autonomous” utterances. On the other hand, exposition, a supposedly neutral presentation, proves to be pervaded by a subdued but clearly partial subjectivity, a chiaroscuro presence very much in tune with the mediate and transitive Christian regime of authority.

El estudio de dos tipos de discusos religiosos institucionales, los catecismos y la exposición de temas sometidos a controversia, premite presentar dos modalidades de borramiento enunciativo : los catecismos miman al diálogo, pero multiplican los enunciados “autonomizados” ; la exposición, que se pretende presentación neutra, se presenta constelada por marcadores de una subjetividad, a su vez pacificada pero parcial – presencia esbozada conforme al caráter mediato y transitivo de la autoridad bajo un regimen cristiano.

In this presentation Samaw'al al-Maghribi's Ifham al-Yahud is considered as a contested space, apologetical and a frontier space. The Samaw’al charged against his fellow Jews as heretics, at the same time displayed as multiple narratives: narratives of Jewishness (e.g. diaspora) and an altered version of Jewish messianism, and Islamic civilization as the fulfilment of Jewish messianism

The author explores the differences in the ways of knowing God, with a particular focus on the rational proofs of God’s existence as perceived by noteworthy authors from Christian and Hindu traditions. He deepens the study with insights put forth by Raimundo Panikkar in his seminal work on the encounter between both religions. A possible blend of the two traditions is proposed.

"Megaleh Temirin (Revealer of Secrets), ed. Jonatan Meir, Three volumes, Mosad Bialik, Jerusalem

Megaleh Temirin (Revealer of Secrets), first published in Vienna in 1819, is one of the sharpest and wittiest pieces of Jewish literature written in the first half of the nineteenth century, and is perhaps the most important piece of Hebrew prose composed before the stories of Mendele Mocher Seforim. A sly and complex story deriding Hasidism and Hasidim, it is told through the correspondence between the beadles of Hasidic courts and contemporary rabbis, and it presents a dark picture of  avaricious frauds and swindlers whose main concern was control over territory and the souls of believers, a goal achieved by beguiling the authorities and attacking all opponents. Perl lends his book a ‘Hasidic’ feel both in its physical design and in its language, presenting a Maskilic version of In Praise of the Ba’al Shem Tov that lays Hasidism bare so that no reader will ever be able to look at that, or any other Hasidic book, in the same way again. In addition to the book’s satiric sting, which would have been enough to bring its readers a dual pleasure, Perl’s hints at contemporary people and places, hidden within anagrams and numerological tricks. With the unraveling of these clues, which also include the use of actual Hasidic sources, the book is a valuable, contemporary view of historical reality. A meticulous reading of the book may therefore open a window on the hidden worlds of Hasidism and the Haskalah at the start of the nineteenth century.


The first volume (Imagined Hasidism) serves as an introduction to the complex satirical writings of Josef Perl of Tarnopol (1773-1839). At the center of the book stands an analysis of the satires, Megaleh Temirin (1819) and Bochen Tzadik (1838), including a systematic treatment of the ‘characters’ in the central works and a discussion of the dozens of manuscripts to be found in the Perl Archive in Jerusalem. Perl’s writings are analyzed here in the fuller context of Hebrew and Yiddish literature in general and Maskilic and Hasidic literature in particular, as well as other polemical writings and governmental records critical of Hasidism. The study thus presents a complex and nuanced picture of the relationship between literature and history, between the anti-Hasidic reports and the more complicated historical reality, and lays the groundwork for further research into the genre of nineteenth-century Maskilic satire.

The second and third volumes (Megaleh Temirin) present for the first time an annotated edition of Megaleh Temirin. It is based on the first edition and the scattered manuscripts and it includes a comparison to its Yiddish translation. The book is accompanied by appendices on its origins and contents, including fundamental treatments of several passages: an explication of the encoded names, the Hasidic sources used by the author, and the variants found in the manuscripts and in the only edition of the book in Yiddish.

The editor of the book, Professor Jonatan Meir, teaches in the Goldstein-Goren Department of Jewish Thought at Ben-Gurion University. He has published several articles on the Haskalah of Eastern Europe, Hasidism, and a number of varied topics in twentieth-century Kabbalah.


Contents

Volume 1  - Critical Edition

Concerning this edition
Key personalities
Sefer Megale Temirin – Critical Edition


Volume 2 - Appendixes:
1. Glossary, Abbreviations, Acronyms
2. Explanation of the Speaking Names
3. Perl’s Hasidic Sources
4. Manuscripts of Sefer Megale Temirin
5. Yiddish Introduction to Sefer Megale Temirin
Bibliographic Abbreviations

-------------------------------
Reviews:
(1) Dan Meron, 2013, ‘Megaleh Temirin’, Kivunim Hadashim 29, 55 pages (Hebrew)
(2) David Assaf, 2014, ‘Hasidim will not Read it but Tear it’, Haaretz, Tarbut ve-Sifrut, p .6 (Hebrew) http://onegshabbat.blogspot.co.il/2014/04/blog-post_18.html
(3) Eliezer Brodt, 2014, 'New book Announcement- Megale Temirin', The Seforim Blog http://seforim.blogspot.co.il/2014/01/new-book-announcement-megale-temirin.html
(4) Matan Hermoni, 2014,  הסבתא המופקרת של הספרות העבריתHaaretz, Sfarim (Hebrew) http://www.haaretz.co.il/.premium-1.2382365
(5) Shinichi Yamamoto, 2015, 山本　伸一, "ヨナタン・メイール編著『想像のハシディズム』", ユダヤ・イスラエル研究　第28号  http://www.waseda.jp/assoc-jsjs/jistudies.html
(6) David Biale and David Assaf,, 2015, 'Revealer Revealed', Jewish Review of Books, pp. 17-21  http://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/1454/revealer-revealed/
(7) Hillel Halkin, 2015, "Sex, Magic, Bigotry, Corruption- and the First Hebrew Novel', Mosaic Magazine,  http://mosaicmagazine.com/observation/2015/05/sex-magic-bigotry-corruption-and-the-first-hebrew-novel/
(8) Tomer Persico, 2015, "Interview", Lula'at haEl Blog, http://tomerpersico.com/2015/08/10/meir_perl/

One of the best reviews of my book "Narratives of Tampering in the Earliest Commentaries on the Qur'an" (Brill, 2011) is by Cornell University professor David S. Powers. A good review seeks to thoroughly understand the work under consideration, to summarize it well, to acknowledge any virtues, and to clearly indicate mistakes and shortcomings. It seeks to be fair and balanced, and veers toward neither flattery nor personal attack. Authors whose books are reviewed in respected journals need to first of all be very thankful that other scholars take the time and trouble to read their works carefully and write helpful evaluations.

Imagine taking a document written in the Middle Ages, available only in European languages, then insisting that it is a long lost "Gospel" from the First Century AD written by the Barnabas of the New Testament. From a scholarly academic perspective it seems unthinkable, impossible. Yet this is exactly what many Muslim polemicists and authors have done for a hundred years and continue to do today! The claim is so absurd that many non-Muslims decline to dignify the claim with an answer. But when one takes time to research the matter, one finds quickly that the claim falls like a house of cards. We need to do better in our Christian-Muslim discussion of the truth about Jesus.

In his Epistle to Yemen, Moses Maimonides answers an anonymous Jewish apostate's polemical claims about the truth of Islam. This apostate challenged the Yemenite Jews by presenting quotes from the Torah that Muslims considered proof of the future advent of Islam and Muḥammad (dalā'il). The identity of the apostate, however, has been disputed by researchers. This article proposes that the apostate Maimonides had in mind was Samaw'al al-Maghribī, the Jewish convert who authored Ifḥām al-Yahūd. The reasoning is based on unique characteristics of Samaw'al's tract that distinguish it from other polemical works. Samaw'al discussed the dalā'il with much greater sophistication than any earlier polemicist and used an advanced manner of presentation, in response to which Maimonides provided well-conceived refutations. This combination of Samaw'al's sophisticated polemical arguments and Maimonides's replies demonstrates that the two appear to be matched.

The paper analyzes material on Persians and their beliefs as presented in the 7-th century universal history “The Book of the Main Points, of The History of the Temporal World” by the East Syriac monk John bar Penkaye.
The first part deals with so-called Zurvan myth in Syriac literature: its documentation, perception, sources, interpretations, and significance for the students of the religious landscape of Sasanian Iran. When Syriac authors write about Persian beliefs, it is usually the myth of Zurvan that they retell: a story how certain Zurvan engendered two sons, Ohrmazd and Ahriman, who created the world, the former -- all that is good and beautiful, and the latter -- all that is malign. Does this story that we find in Syriac sources reflect the actual religious practices of Sasanian Iran; can it be regarded as an example of the intercommunal relationship; how is it related to Theodore of Mopsuestia's lost tractate "Contra Magos": do they share a common source, or the tractate itself is the source? These and related questions are discussed in the first part of the paper.
The second part presents excerpts from the History on Cyrus II and Shapur II.

Studies of Christian-Muslim polemics often disregard medieval Mediterranean Muslim contributions to the analysis of the biblical tradition. An early golden era of Muslim-Christian engagement in Baghdad is replaced by a decline in the Middle Ages which is only to be reversed with the advent of modernity. In this article, I contend that Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328) and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (d. 751/1350) critically engage the biblical tradition based on their backgrounds as hadith scholars. Both question whether the Bible was accurately narrated by pointing to perceived gaps in its transmission. Similarly, drawing on theological underpinnings of hadith, they make an analogy between the Disciples of Jesus and the Companions of Muhammad. Just as the Disciples spread the message of Christ, the Companions disseminated the message of Muhammad. Nevertheless, even though the Disciples and Companions were favored by God and spread their Prophet's teachings, they were not divinely protected messengers (rusul) and could have erred in transmitting the message.

Ces documents inédits-et semble-t-il uniques-intéressent à la fois l'étude du latin médiéval et celle des relations entre juifs et chrétiens, en Ashkénaz, au XIIIe siècle. Ils offrent plusieurs pages de latin translittéré tout en se distinguant par leurs diverses caractéristiques des autres écrits destinés, dans la littérature hébraïque médiévale, à la controverse avec les chrétiens. L argumentation se fonde exclusivement ici sur des emprunts à la tradition latine chrétienne invariablement restitués dans la langue originale (en caractères hébreux), généralement accompagnés d une ébauche de traduction hébraïque et fréquemment précédés, en hébreu et en ancien français (caractères hébreux), d'indications relatives à leur utilisation polémique. Cette stratégie argumentative s apparente à celle des chrétiens invoquant à la même époque, sur des questions analogues, la tradition rabbinique. Ces deux florilèges sont manifestement le fruit d un travail collectif, encore inachevé, dont ils ne représentent que deux étapes distinctes et sans doute deux témoins parmi beaucoup d autres. Ils attestent la réalité d un débat judéo-chrétien qui n était en aucune manière réservé à une élite, et l'imminence de ses enjeux. Ils sont la preuve d une réaction concertée à l entreprise chrétienne de conversion. L édition et la traduction s accompagnent d une analyse codicologique, paléographique, linguistique et textuelle. Les commentaires de la seconde partie situent le détail de l'argumentation dans l ensemble des écrits de controverse judéo-chrétienne. Les conclusions, fondées sur la complémentarité des approches, s achèvent par une mise en contexte prenant en compte les perspectives de recherche encore offertes par ces deux documents exceptionnels.

The War of Human Beings against the “duxi zloby podnebesnye” in the Works of Ivan Vyšens’kyj. A Statement of the Issue The article is based on the work of Harvey Goldblatt Godlike “Simplicity” versus Diabolic “Craftiness”: On the Significance of Ivan Vyshens’kyi’s “Apology for the Slavic Language, which points out the importance of the biblical verset Eph 6:12 for an in-depth understanding of his works. This verset is a biblical key, according to the termin used by the Italian slavist Riccardo Picchio. It refers to the struggle of Christians against the Devil and its forces. The paper states some research topics resulting from a hermeneutic approach to the texts: 1) how the action of the Devil is presented in Ivan Vyšens’kyj’s works; 2) the role of quotations of Eph 6:12, their context and function; 3) the names and epithets for the Devil and its forces; 4) the struggle of human beings against the Devil and the role of monastic life in it. After an overview of the actions of the Devil depicted in the monk’s works, the Author considers the role of quotations of Eph 6:12. This verset occurs in marked positions. The presence of this verset in contexts related to the core of Ivan Vyšens’kyj’s philosophy proves of its strategical role in the comprehension of the polemist’s works. The translation from Greek of Eph 6:12 and the words used to define the forces of the Evil are an issue to investigate, too. Finally, the Author presents the ways proposed by Ivan Vyšens’kyj to fight against these powerful enemies.

No previous full-scale study has been undertaken so far to study the polemical writings of the Muslim reformist Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā (1865-1935) and his associates in his well-known journal al-Manār (The Lighthouse). The book focuses on the dynamics of Muslim understanding of Christianity during the late 19th and the early 20th century in the light of al-Manār’s sources of knowledge, and its answers to the social, political and theological aspects of missionary movements in the Muslim World of Riḍā’s age. The basis of the analysis encompasses the voluminous publications by Riḍā and other Manārists in his journal. Besides, it makes use of newly-discovered materials, including Riḍā’s private papers, and some other remaining personal archives of some of his associates.

One of the most frequent arguments in Islamic polemical writings is that allusions to Muḥammad exist in the Bible but were obliterated by the Jews in what Muslim polemicists call taḥrīf—falsification. One verse in particular, Deut. 33:2, is so commonly treated by these polemicists as to occur literally or in paraphrase in almost every anti-Jewish Islamic tract. The last of three place names that appear in this verse, Paran, Muslim polemicists claim, refers to Muḥammad and to Mecca and Islam. In this article, a review of the treatment of Deut. 33:2 in four Midrashic and two Targumic sources raises the possibility that the Paran–Muḥammad/Mecca/Islam nexus owes its origins to the Muslim polemicists’ appropriation of Jewish sources that either predate Islam or, perhaps, coincided with the dawn of Islam.

Jewish sources commonly refer to Muslims as “Ishmaelites” and to Islamdom as “the Kingdom of Ishmael” due to an alleged biblical genealogy that both Jews and Muslims accept. Other classic Jewish sources, however, associate pre-Islamic Arabs as well as Muslims with two other biblical nations, Ammon and Moab, even when, and even though, the “standard” appellations are at hand. The Ammon and Moab nexus is mentioned in academic literature but without much elaboration. This article investigates several Jewish mentions of the nexus – most of Hispano-Jewish provenance – and proposes five explanations for its use.

Résumé
Les sources juives qualifient généralement les musulmans d’Ismaélites et le domaine de l’Islam en tant que “royaume d’Ismaël”, et ce au nom de généalogies bibliques reconnues autant par les juifs que les musulmans. D’autres sources juives classiques, cependant, rattachent les Arabes préislamiques ainsi que les musulmans à deux autres nations mentionnées dans la Bible, Ammon et Moab, et ce indépendamment de leur traditionnelle appellation d’Ismaélites. Jusqu’à présent, le lien avec Ammon et Moab n’a été que sommairement évoqué dans la littérature scientifique. La présente étude examine plusieurs sources juives, pour la plupart d’origine hispanique, évoquant un pareil lien.

Resumen: Gilberto Crispino († 1117) ha escrito más de diez obras entre las que se encuentran la Disputatio Iudei et Christiani y la Disputatio Christiani cum Gentili. Cada una de ellas presenta rasgos excepcionales que las convierten en dos piezas insoslayables de la literatura dialógica altomedieval. Dado que el autor no es aún suficientemente conocido, la intención de estas páginas es introducir al lector no sólo en estas dos obras sino también presentar los datos más destacados de su biografía y un breve estado de la cuestión. Con la esperanza de sumar aportes al estudio de su pensamiento y que, a su vez, él contribuya a enriquecer el nuestro, el presente artículo se completa con la traducción de la epístola dirigida a Anselmo de Canterbury que da comienzo a la primera de sus disputas. Abstract: Gilberto Crispino (†1117) has written more than ten works, among which are the Disputatio Iudei et Christiani and the Disputatio Christiani cum Gentili. Each one has exceptional features that make them into two unavoidable pieces of high medieval dialogic literature. Since the author is not yet sufficiently known, the intention of these pages is to introduce the reader not only to these two works but also to present him with the main details of his biography and a brief status quaestionis. With the hope of bringing a contribution to the study of his thought and that, in turn, it helps to enrich our own, this article is completed with the translation of the epistle to Anselm of Canterbury that opens the first of his disputes.

More than 20 years after presenting his first interpretation of the mosaic from the House of Aion in a paper entitled “Uwagi na temat mozaiki z Domu Aiona w Nea Paphos (Cypr)” (Meander 9/10, 1987, p. 421-438, in Polish, and translated to English: « The Immortality of the Human Soul and the Dionysiac Mysteries in the 4th Century Allegory [in Connection with the Interpretation of the Mosaic from the “House of Aion” at Paphos in Cyprus]»), where he proposed reading the five mythological panels (1. Leda and Zeus; 2. Dionysus on Mount Nysa; 3. The Dionysian thiasos; 4. Apollo and Marsyas; 5. The Apotheosis of Cassiopeia) as an allegory of the destiny of the human soul and body, starting with conception and ending with the liberation of the soul and its apotheosis, the author now enhances his initial interpretation with numerous reflections concerning the historical context of this work of art, created in the years 320-360.
If, according to the author, the mosaic is a “Hymn” in honour of the pagan gods, Man (his soul) and his place in the (pagan) universe, then at the same time it polemicises with the Christian faith and its God, Jesus Christ.
The author puts forward numerous new solutions relating to the mosaic’s iconography and iconology. Analysis of the mosaic also leads him to propose a solution to the as-yet unanswered question regarding the absence of images of the crucified Christ in Christian art of the 3rd and 4th centuries, up until 420/430, when the first images of Christ on the cross appear.
CONTENTS:
Introduction
1. Research to-date (recap)
2. Description of mosaic (recap)
2.1. Composition of five mythological scenes
2.2. Brief iconographic description of mythological panels
2.3. Outline of individual iconographic elements and their respective roles
2.4. The pagan gods’ air of majesty and dignity as an expression of piety
3. A few words about the pagan reaction
4. An apology of pious human life according to pagan principles and a polemic on the Christian model of Man and his theological idol, Jesus Christ
4.1. Divine intervention in the act of human conception (allusion to/polemic on the Annunciation to the Virgin Mary)
4.2. The Epiphany of Dionysus (an allusion to the Epiphany of Christ – Theou Pais)
4.3. The procession and dissemination of Dionysian order (allusion to/polemic on Christ’s entry into Jerusalem)
4.4. The error of Marsyas (polemic on/allusion to the error of Jesus the Messiah): arrest, sentencing for arrogance and lack of piety (asebeia) and condemnation to a martyr’s death
4.5. The anabasis (or anagoge psyches) of a ‘beautiful soul’ (allusion to/polemic on the Ascension of Christ)
5. A few words on the mosaic programme prior to final conclusions
Final conclusions
Key words: mythological mosaic, House of Aion, Nea Paphos, Late Antiquity, Roman art, allegorical narrative, allusive language of mythological pictures, wordplay (Marsyas-Messias), Jesus Christ, anti-Christian polemic, Dionysos, Cassiopeia, Apollon, Nereides, Abstract Personifications, Greek Mythology, ΚΥΠΡΟΣ

The Beta Israel, the Ethiopian Jews, have suffered from a negative or complete misrepresentation in the written and oral sources of pre-modern Ethiopia. The term “Jew” was deliberately chosen to stigmatize heretic groups, or any other group deviating from the normative church doctrine. Often no difference was made between Jewish groups or heretic Christians; they were marginalized and persecuted in the harshest way. The article illustrates how Jews are featured in the Ethiopian sources, the apparent patterns in this usage, and the polemic language chosen to describe these people.

Ahmed Deedat has been one of the most prominent contemporary Muslim polemists that have focused on Jesus, the Bible & Christianity.  He is worthy of a systematic analysis, as even though he is not especially academic or deep in thought, his approach & materials feature around the globe.  This Master's thesis uses a systematic analysis to assess the key theological concepts: this comprises of researching the genealogy of his ideas, together with an analysis of his argumentation, in particular, how he conceives the 'Word of God'; how he reasons; his intended audience; & his expected goal.  This includes a textual analysis: analysing the text of his works, taking into account both the form & the content, for different meanings on different levels & exploring the internal logic in his arguments.
  Deedat has connections to the Islamist agenda.  He has formed his polemics for Muslims living in Dar al-Ahd or from his perspective Dar al-Harb.  He is concerned that Muslim immigrants would both maintain their Muslim identity & undertake da'wah.  His agenda is not just restricted to South Africa.  He considers dialogue/encounter, as an opportunity for proclamation.  He addresses his polemics to the whole of Christianity, from the marginal groups to Roman Catholics & Protestants.  His focus is predominantly on scriptural & doctrinal issues.  Therefore, there is a need to analyse his treatment of the 'Word of God.' 
  Deedat's materials partly originate from a long line of Muslim polemics from the scholarly debates in the Middle Ages.  He follows their same polemical methodology of taking controversial questions from among Jewish & Christian scholars & making them known to a Muslim audience, & using them to advance Islam.  He has become aware, through Muslim literature from the Indian subcontinent, of ideas from Western radical liberal scholarship & higher criticisms of the Bible.  He has failed to realise that this is a double-edged sword for Islam.  It invites the same methodology to be applied to the Qur'an.  He may unknowingly have weakened the reasonableness of Islam.  Nevertheless, he has used them to form his polemics against Christianity & the Bible.  Therefore, his works are similar in content to Protestant liberal theology & Catholic modernism.  However, his view of the Bible is ambiguous.  On one hand, he utilises these criticisms to prove that the authors of the Bible are human & so on the basis of the Qur'an, he designates the Bible as worthless.  On the other hand, he attempts to construct an Islamic Biblical context for the Qur'an.  He engages with rational speculative works from the quest for the historical Jesus & on this basis, he tries to create an Islamic speculated Jesus i.e. an Islamic prophet & a jihadist.  He develops a swoon theory account of the crucifixion.  This account makes Jesus a sinner, deceiver, conjurer & facilitator of a crucifixion conspiracy. Deedat's attempts at trying to form acceptable content in Judeo-Christian Scripture so that the Qur'an can be in continuity with it, has highlighted one of the dilemmas for Islam: its discontinuity.  The dilemma of continuity or discontinuity is especially apparent in his treatment of the Holy Spirit.  Furthermore, he evidently does not know biblical Hebrew & Greek, or even adequately Arabic.  He has picked & mixed ideas with no thorough treatment.  Essentially, he is unqualified to undertake the 'comparative' study' of scriptural texts.  Interestingly, his lenient copyright marketing strategy has aided his global brand name.  His use of video & audiocassettes has also aided his accessibility & his 'victorious' performances have inspired some of his Muslim audience to try to replicate him.  He also has an accessible tabloid style, with catchy slogans, that help him to communicate to the average person on the street.

In this article it is argued that the Qiblah passages in the Qur’an, which are commonly understood as referring to the direction of the prayer, are directly engaging with and interpreting the Shema passages in Deuteronomy and their Talmudic commentaries. By defining and applying the method of intertextual polysemy, nine points of intertextuality are identified between the various Qur’anic, Biblical, and Talmudic passages. Against this background, the article implies that narrations from traditional Qur’anic commentaries are lacking in their interpretation of these passages, since they do not employ any extra-Quranic contexts to explain their meaning. Through the method of intertextual polysemy, the alternative thesis propounded here is that the historical reference for the Qiblah passages is the Shema.

Abbasid society in ninth-century Iraq faced the challenge of reconciling the role of its many non-Muslim citizens with Islamic norms and governance, as seen in “The Refutation of Christians” by al-Jāḥiẓ (d. 868/869 [255 A.H.]). Al-Jāḥiẓ moved in circles only one step removed from those of the Christian and Jewish intellectuals he came to criticize in the work, and he likely composed it just prior to Caliph al-Mutawakkil’s watershed reforms in non-Muslim policy. Thus, the “Refutation” is a primary source for understanding shifting Muslim sensibilities toward Christians’ societal role in a religiously diverse realm, but its polemic approach makes it problematic to analyze historically. This dissertation seeks to make “The Refutation of Christians” more accessible as a historical source by performing a contextual analysis of its argumentation.

Al-Jāḥiẓ’ rhetorical strategy is to explain away factors behind popular Muslim preferences for Christians over Jews, and then to advance positive reasons for considering Christians more harmful than Jews. Argumentation analysis using the pragma-dialectical approach highlights salient social points at issue between Christians and Muslims of the time. First, al-Jāḥiẓ’ dispute is not directly with Christians, but with Muslims who show them too much respect and liberality. Second, he must reframe certain facts about Christians that are too generally accepted to contradict, including memories of Arabs’ pre-Islamic and early Islamic contacts with Christians, and Christian intellectuals’ crucial role in perpetuating Greek scientific works. He turns these favorable perceptions into liabilities, arguing that Christians’ intellectualism diverts weak Muslims from the faith and their social position violates Christian-Muslim agreements. Finally, in contrast to the jurists’ approach, he argues for enforcing the original intention of these agreements rather than trying to demonstrate specific historical stipulations.

Al-Jāḥiẓ’ ideology aligns with al-Mutawakkil’s Qurʾanically charged edicts, in that Christians, far from being “closest in friendship” (5:82), are those with whom believers must not make any alliance (5:51). As such, the “Refutation” reveals the battle lines between more lenient, popular Muslim attitudes and a stricter position promoted by al-Jāḥiẓ and enforced by al-Mutawakkil.

In his stigmatization against believers in Christ, Celsus reminds that I Enoch was re-read like a very ‘living’ Christological tradition in contemporary proto-Christian groups. With his response, Origen stresses that there is a disagreement between such a Christological interpretation and the ‘true’ faith. This article underlines that the ‘extremities’ involved in such polemical statements seem to implicate, on the one hand, the so-called ‘Judeo-Christian’ angelomorphic Christology and, on the other hand, its re-readings carried out by the so-called ‘Gnostic’ groups of Third Century CE. Origen seems to connect the complex universe of the so-called ‘angelomorphic Christology’ to the polemical construct of ἰουδαϊσμός/ ἰουδαΐζειν. A further conclusion can be drawn from the article: the references to Enochic literature carried out by Origen could be better explained as ‘functional’ re-readings. In some cases, Origen seems to reject the authority of Enochic writings (for example, see Cels. 5, 53, Comm. Jo. VI 25, 217, Hom. II in Ps. 15); but in other cases, the Alexandrinian is impelled to confirm his exegetical statements on the basis of Enochic literature (for example, cfr. Princ. IV 4, 8).

One of the earliest Muslim authors to make use of biblical material in Arabic translation was ʿAmr b. Baḥr al-Jāḥiẓ (d. 868/9). In his " Refutation of Christians " (Al-Radd ʿalā al-Naṣārā), he attempts to discredit Jewish translations of the Old Testament as a source for Christian arguments that Jesus was the Son of God. His position assumes two distinctive points regarding scriptural texts: (1) that the text of the extant Hebrew Bible was trustworthy but that the Christian Gospels were not, and (2) that the anthropomorphizing content of existing Jewish versions resulted from poor translation. Research into al-Jāḥiẓ's text so far has explored its discussion of anthropomorphism and its potential impact on Saʿadya Gaon's Bible translation, but has left open the translation source of the longest passage al-Jāḥiẓ quotes, Isaiah 42:10–16. Although it has earlier been suggested that the translation of this passage ultimately stems from the Peshitta Syriac version, this study compares al-Jāḥiẓ's text to the Hebrew, Syriac, and other versions, and demonstrates that the cited translation must have been made from the Hebrew. It also examines the translation techniques observable in the passage, showing a more Arabo-centric approach than typically attested in early non-Saʿadyanic versions. The study concludes (1) that as a Muslim polemicist, al-Jāḥiẓ had real contact with the Jewish community and its texts, and (2) that his quotation evidences a pre-Saʿadyanic attempt to translate the Bible from Hebrew into Arabic using a less literal approach than is previously attested.

The satirical writings of Lucian of Samosata had a tremendous influence on the literature of the Eastern European Haskalah, shaping its criticism of the burgeoning Hasidic movement in the nineteenth century as if there were no gap between it and the Roman Empire of the second century. Lucian’s criticism of false prophets, self-proclaimed philosophers, and common fools and frauds, like his satirical dialogues with the world of the dead, provided the perfect model for those Maskilim who opposed the revelations of the Hasidic movement in both theological and social realms. One particularly salient testimony to the classical satirist’s influence is the astounding translation of his story “Alexander the False Prophet” by the Maskilic writer Meir Letteris, the first translation of Lucian’s work into Hebrew. The translation, printed in full below, was based on the German edition of Christoph Martin Wieland and published in the journal Ha-Tsefirah, which Letteris edited in 1823. As with every translation, it is a new product, shaped in and by its own context. This essay discusses the tendencies and apparent goals of the translator, the additions and omissions he made to the text, and the influence of Lucian’s satirical style on the Haskalah.

Tulisan ini memberi ulasan umum wacana, praktek dan komunitas Ṣūfī Yahudi sepanjang sejarah, khususnya di abad pertengahan dan era moderen. Ṣūfī Yahudi adalah wacana Yudaisme dan komunitas mistik Yahudi di Mesir, Afrika Utara, Yaman, dan Andalusia yang mengadopsi beragam tingkat teologi, filsafat, metafora Islam dan Ṣūfīsme bagi pengembangan spiritualitas mereka. Perhatian diarahkan pada tokoh Yahudi Ibnu Paqudah (abad 10) melalui karyanya Kitāb al-hidayāt ‘ilā farā‘iḍ al-qulūb, yang menampakkan pengaruh Ikhwān al- Ṣafā’. Yang kedua, Nathan’el al-Fayyūmī (abad 11) melalui kitabnya, Bustān al-uqūl sebagai karya perjumpaan teologis dengan Ismā‘īlīyah. Selanjutnya komunitas Ḥasidim Mesir (abad 12-13) melalui karya-karya mereka seperti Kitāb kifāyat al-‘ābidīn, Al-maqālat al-ḥawḍiyyah, dan Al-mursyid ilā al-tafarrud waal-murfid ilā tajarrud. Dan pada akhirnya penelusuran ini menyinggung perkembangan mutakhir di Israel melalui kehadiran Ṭarīqat Ibrahimiyyah (derekh Avraham), komunitas persaudaraan Yahudi-Arab yang belajar bersama Ṣūfīsme sebagai ruang jumpa lintasiman yang mendalam dan basis perdamaian kedua bangsa tersebut. Ulasan sederhana ini kiranya dapat memperkaya diskusi lintasiman dalam bingkai tradisi keagamaan Ibrahimi di mana Prof. M. Machasin memberi pengaruh yang besar dalam perkembangannya di Indonesia.

A more developed version of this work has been published in 2023 as a the book: Religious Pluralism: Toward a Comparative Metaphysics of Religion (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc., 2023). "This study examines the plausibility of a genuine religious pluralism in the form of John B. Cobb, Jr.’s Deep Religious Pluralism. Working through a variety of conceptions of religious pluralism in analytic, process, and South Asian philosophies of religion the dissertation argues in favor of the authenticity of a plurality of the world’s major religious traditions. Cobb’s Whiteheadian-based hypothesis is argued to offer a plausible explanation of the compossibile veridicality of different religious traditions because the ontological pluralism he employs functions as a generic schema that serves to inform a sensible narrative of compossible religious ultimates, heretofore thought to be mutually exclusive. By shifting to a process metaphysics our horizons of pluralistic understanding shifts as well, because a Whiteheadian metaphysics allows for a multiplicity of efficacious religious praxes, soteriologies, and ontological cum religious ultimates—such as God, Dao, Brahman, and śūnyatā—to obtain simultaneously. What is more, these ultimates can co-exist in a non-hierarchical relationship, thereby avoiding inclusivist tendencies and enabling the claim that one’s own religion is a true tradition, rather than the true tradition.
After arguing that neither ontological nor religious ultimates are axiomatically singular, the dissertation argues for the viability of Cobb’s Whiteheadian religious pluralism as a middle-path between relativist resignations and absolutist “solutions” to the philosophical challenges of religious diversity. Relevant aspects of process philosophy and process theology are then explained in detail in order to demonstrate how a Whiteheadian schema of multiple ultimates can serve as an adequate framework for a genuine religious pluralism. Pluralistic meta-theologies from classical and contemporary South Asian philosophy are also critiqued, and non-dualism is argued to be just as problematic a basis for a genuine religious pluralism as previously discredited Western attempts at formulating a viable pluralistic hypothesis. Within the context of the first English language philosophical critique of Pope Benedict XVI’s writings (as Joseph Ratzinger) in opposition to religious pluralism, an argument against religious absolutism is made by way of the need for faithful adherents of religious absolutisms to engage in open inter-religious dialogue, which, in turn, is argued to necessitate an assumed meta-theological position of religious pluralism."

This study explores the previously unstudied anti-Jewish Persian polemic Anbāʾ al-anbiyāʾ by the Jewish convert to Twelver Šīʿī Islam, Ismāʿīl Qazvīnī, the father of Ḥāǧǧī Bābā Qazvīnī Yazdī. It examines Ismāʿīl Qazvīnī’s discussion of a medieval Jewish controversy concerning the four-kingdom schema in the book of Daniel and Ibn Ezra’s interpretation of the dream-vision in favor of Islam as the fourth kingdom. The study shows that Ismāʿīl Qazvīnī, besides his reference to Muslim works in Persian, relied on different (partly printed) Jewish textual sources in the original Hebrew and Aramaic (Miqraʾot Gedolot, Neḇuʾat ha-yeled, Sefer haš-šorašim, Sefer Josippon), from which he quoted in his own Persian translation/adaptation. He thus made internal Jewish debates accessible to native Muslim scholars, such as Mullā ʿAlī Nūrī, who borrowed from Anbāʾ al-anbiyāʾ. Ismāʿīl Qazvīnī was a cross-cultural intermediary and go-between who expanded the traditional range of Šīʿī polemical arguments against Judaism in pre-modern Iran.

This introductory article follows one of the most widely read and used Qur’an editions in Christian Europe, Theodor Bibliander’s Machumetis Saracenorum principis, eiusque successorum vitae, ac doctrina, ipseque Alcoran, printed in Basel in 1543 and in a second edition in 1550. The article analyses some of the interpretations, appropriations, and polemical uses that this Qur’an version was exposed to during an age of confessional rivalry and political fragmentation. By doing so, the article tries to show the deep entanglement of the Qur’an in European religious and political discourses. It argues that with regard to the transformations that the Qur’an underwent in its transition from the Islamic-Arabic world to the various Latin and vernacular versions in Europe, as well as with regard to the ways that the Qur’an is read, used, and adapted in Christian and Jewish European contexts, we are confronted with a text genre sui generis–—the European Qur’an.