Mohamed El-Hawwari, head of the university's Centre for the Study of Contemporary Civilisations, stood up for his 'round-the-world colleague.
Interviewed by Al-Ahram Weekly, El-Hawwari stressed that Firestone, while entitled to call himself a "rabbi", does not work in the religious field. "He is an American academic professor and it was in this capacity that he was invited to deliver his lecture."
In a statement issued once the row had become public, El-Hawwari described Firestone as a professor of Jewish history at Hebro Union College, California, and the author of many books on both Jewish and Islamic history.
"I have known the guy for more than 20 years. He has never attacked Islam, which he respects and appreciates," said El-Hawwari. "His lecture was based on texts derived from the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Talmud.
"When I invited Firestone to offer his lecture I did not expect him to utter the two testimonies of Islam and announce that he had become a Muslim. It's natural for him to adopt religious concepts different from our own," said El-Hawwari, commenting on Firestone's reference to Isaac.
"Our main problem is that we still cannot accept the other. Whoever differs with us becomes our enemy," El-Hawwari continued.
6 comments:
what? totally lost, Firestone became Muslim? So they are upset that he declared he became Muslim at the conference?
Idiots? Maybe, the jury is still out.
No, Firestone didn't convert. El-Hawwari was being sarcastic and saying that because Firestone didn't share the other men's beliefs, they snapped.
okay, i get what is going on. I agree, unfortunately the general religious trend for the past century maybe even longer is this literalism/fundamentalist interpretation of religious doctrine.
For example speaking from my faith background- in Islam there is rich history of theocratic debate and dialogue, then you get to this point in history where it all disappears and it becomes ritualism and literalist interpretation. Almost to the point where scholars have to go and talk about the "etiquettes of disagreement" between religious schools of thoughts. Everyone was kicking each other out of Islam because of difference of opinions. Then we got these fanatics who proclaim all Muslims as non-Muslims because they do not follow Islam the way they see it- i.e. Egypt, Algerian civil war, Pakistan and Afghanistan to name a few.
So I am not surprised the this is how scholars took things. I do miss the days of Moses Maimonides and Ibn Hazem.
What exactly happened? Is there a newspaper article that refers to it?
Brother Affad, I agree! If these type of scholars actually paid attention to the fundamentals of Islam, they'd have much better adab, insha'Allah.
Post a Comment