November 16, 2008

Muslim Scholar at German University Voices Doubts About Prophet

A Muslim scholar at a German university was told to stop teaching secondary-school instructors about Islam after he publicly voiced doubts about whether the Prophet Muhammad really existed.

Muhammad Sven Kalisch, a professor of Islamic theology at the University of Münster, ran a program directed at secondary-school teachers with Muslim students, The Wall Street Journal reported this weekend. The university said it would look for another scholar to do that job when Mr. Kalisch’s doubts became public several months ago, after a series of interviews and publications. The university retains him as a professor.

The controversy and headlines began swirling around Mr. Kalisch this past summer, as the news organization Spiegel Online reported in September. Mr. Kalisch, who converted to Islam as a teenager, said in newspaper interviews that he doubted that the historical existence of Muhammad could be proved or disproved, but he leaned towards the latter side. Among things that bothered him, according to the Journal: The first coins bearing an image of the prophet did not appear until decades after the religion did.

Islamic groups in Germany initially embraced Mr. Kalisch’s teaching program, but then argued that a person who doubted the fundamental tenets of a religion was not the appropriate person to train other teachers about it. Mr. Kalisch says he will continue his research — and his skepticism — and the university will search for someone else to train teachers. Mr. Kalisch also says that, despite concerns for his safety, he has not received specific threats since publicizing his views. —Josh Fischman

Comments

1. How strange it is ..How can anyone be a Muslim and deny the founder of a religio-political and social order never existed?

   — Ahmad    Nov 16, 08:30 PM    #

2. “The first coins bearing an image of the prophet did not appear until decades after the religion did.”

   Coins bearing an IMAGE of the Prophet??? Were these used to purchase Halal wine??? Ha ha ha ha ha … (what ignorance)!!!

   — Abdul Bob Jones    Nov 16, 10:20 PM    #

3. Watch it dude.

   — johnson    Nov 17, 06:14 AM    #

4. In response to Ahmad’s question: It’s quite easy. The Christian equivalent are called “Anglicans.”

   — Gustave    Nov 17, 07:51 AM    #

5. Gustave’s reponse is way off the mark! The majority of the world’s Anglicans believe not only in Christ, but in the divinity of Christ. The same may not be true of the Church of England or the Episcopal Church in the U.S.

   — Carl    Nov 17, 08:05 AM    #

6. Why is this topic exempt from alternative perspectives? Why aren’t the academic freedom whiners rushing to this help this man?

   — Jim    Nov 17, 08:08 AM    #

7. Unfortunately, mohamed probably did exist. There seems to be enough documentation that this genocidal sociopath was around and did the damage we are all suffering from today. No doubt the good professor’s doubts have placed him on a deathlist and his change of teaching duties reflect the pathetic state of european weakness in the face of islamic intimidation.

   — Marty    Nov 17, 08:43 AM    #

8. Actually, #2 the earliest Islamic coins did bear images. It wasn’t until the reign of the Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik that coinage was switched to words only (image free). The earliest coins depict the Caliphs (looking very much like Byzantine or Sasanian Emperors, depending on where minted). I don’t think this supports Prof. Kalisch’s argument very much. However, it does highlight that one needs to remember that Islam is not as image phobic as the Wahabbis would lead one to believe.

   — J    Nov 17, 08:44 AM    #

9. Carl:-

   You’re entirely right, of course. Temptation just got the better of me, in light of the endless succession of theological-oddities-du-jour emerging from ++Cantuar or 815 in recent years.

   — Gustave    Nov 17, 09:54 AM    #

10. Referring to a figure, historical or mythological, revered by the believers in a religious tradition is hardly conducive to civil discourse, No. 7. Since Islam is not going to go away, you might find it more constructive to seek common ground with moderate Muslims, who, like the believers of any religion, are reasonable folks.

    — Eulenspiegel    Nov 17, 09:56 AM    #

11. Gustave went astray in going for a laugh line, but many mainline biblical scholars and church leaders throughout the 20th century held that the faith and hope embodied in the teaching about Jesus was worth holding, even if the stories on which it was based were non-historical myths. “What mattered was not what became of Jesus body, but the miracle of the awakening of hope in the apostles’ hearts.”

    Some seemed to believe that this open-mindedness would win adherents from the larger culture. In fact, it the reverse seemed true: people concluded that if the gospel were merely a nice story, they could fine other (and more congenial) stories outside the church. Many hold these events as a major cause of decline in members and influence of mainline churches. At the same time, Evangelical (and other) churches that believed the gospels to be generally historically reliable guides to events grew dramatically at the same time and at the expense of those mainline churches.

    The German teacher should be free to explore and teach his views. but not necessarily in his present role. However, a religious body should have the right to expect its teachers, and those who train its teachers, to hold to its beliefs. (Non-religious analogy: do Democrats have the right to strip Joe Lieberman from his positions in light of his support for John McCain? You betcha’. Any organization has to be free to define it’s membership.)

    — drj50    Nov 17, 10:42 AM    #

12. If I may offer four comments:

    First, in agreement with Comment #1: The Islamic profession of faith has but two articles: there is no god but God and Muhammad is his messenger. One who holds to the first article alone is not a Muslim in the normally accepted sense of the term.

    Second, it seems that there may be a problem with the report that “Among things that bothered him, according to the [Wall Street] Journal: The first coins bearing an image of the prophet did not appear until decades after the religion did.” As I read the Journal, it says, “He was struck, he says, by the fact that the first coins bearing Muhammad’s name did not appear until the late 7th century — six decades after the religion did.” An image and a name are not at all the same thing.

    Third, I have to respond to Comment #6’s asking why the academic freedom “whiners” are not rushing to this help this man: They/we are; as the Journal also reported, “Ursula Spuler-Stegemann, an Islamic studies scholar at the University of Marburg, set up a Web site called solidaritymuhammadkalisch.com and started an online petition of support.”

    Finally, in response to Comment #11: I agree that, all other things being appropriate, a religious organization has the right to define itself and its membership. But the issue here is not that at all, but the University of Münster’s removal of Kalisch from his position as the director of a program training “teachers in state schools to teach Muslim pupils about their faith.” This seems very much to be a matter of academic freedom.

    — Richard Hennessey    Nov 17, 11:05 AM    #

13. I applaud Professor Kalisch for attempting to put his study of the religion in place with actual history. The reality is that most of those figures including Jesus were not historical! Rather, they were amalgamations of several myths surrounding the advent of their respective religions. Much like King Arthur did not actually exist, neither did Jesus, Isis, Osirus, Odin, Thor and many others, and now we learn possibly Mohammed. Right on Professor, and shame on the university for removing him. Why must one who teaches about a religion be required to practice that religion. I am not a christian and yet I know far more about that religion than any of my students. this is another example of the non-thinking,knee-jerk reaction that many true believers have when faced with history versus faith. Please, those of you who chose to beleive, realize your beliefs are based in faith not fact. The historical record – including anthropology and archeology – do not support your beliefs. Get over it and keep your faith.

    — Forrest A. Straley    Nov 17, 11:59 AM    #

14. I think what’s going on is parrallel to the differences between the historical Christ and the religion (formerly) known as Chrsitanity, formulated in large measure by the Apsotles and St. Paul – after Christ’s death.

    Since Jesus never wrote down his religious doctrines or the design for the structure of what became the Catholic Church, that we know of of course, everything we know about Him and the “faith” is historical evolution.

    That whole papal infallibility thing came in real handy when it came to things powerful and spiritual. It virtually gave Italian rich people control over the magic. But people of faith wisely take that into consideration. There is a difference between religion and faith. You can have one without the other,as the Catholic Church has again, wisely, admitted.

    I’m sure there was a guy named Mohamed in the Mid-East a long time ago. Whether he ever actually said there is one god and and I am his prophet we will never know. No Memorex available then. The important thing is whether other people believe it, act on it, and make policy and law based on that belief. They do. Hence, things precieved as real are real in their consequesnces. (I.A. Thomas) There’s nothing inherently atheistic or controversial in teaching that in a religion class.

    — Muap Conners    Nov 17, 12:18 PM    #

15. What’s all the crying about? Christians have doubted the existence of Christ, Confucius questioned the existence of Buda, and Hindus have questioned the idea of a second life. If one does not question your belief, how will it become stronger?

    — Dr. Bill    Nov 17, 12:44 PM    #

16. “Muhammad SVEN”???!!!
    yeah..you can’t follow a prophet that never existed

    — dutch163    Nov 17, 01:29 PM    #

17. Was Jesus’s image ever coined I wonder? Muhammad, to me, has little to do with the nobler tenets of Islam. In a sense, he is the ‘perfect’ Anti-Christ, in that Jesus was the Messiah the prophets foretold and made it clear he was ‘Son of God’ – ergo, none could top his ‘act’. Why, 600 or so years later a sword-wielding Arab claiming to be the ultimate divine spokesman has been believed long since is the debating point. Add to this the apostasy ‘sin’ of Islam, and you have the post-mortem slash of the sword of the’peacebringing last prophet’! For me there is greatness in the Koran quite contradictory of the persona and deeds of the man it lionises. No offence intended!

    — tony    Nov 17, 04:00 PM    #

18. Quoting #7. Watch out, “the pathetic state of [American] weakness in the face of Islamic intimidation is upon us.” Be prepared to spend your days in court every time you make some allegedly offensive remark about Islam. Mr. Kalisch you are one thousands running for their lives. Good luck.
    click on:
    www.thethirdjihad.com

    — Watch Out    Nov 17, 09:59 PM    #

19. Yea the first coin bearing the IMAGE of the prophet used to purshase halal porc..ha..ha ..ha..ha..

    — bahos    Nov 18, 01:21 AM    #

20. In response to Forrest A. Straley,

    You state as if it was a fact that Jesus was not an historical person, however, do you not realize that this is merely an opinion? Even so, this is a minority opinion. The overwhelming majority of historians and scholars maintain that Jesus was most likely an historical person because of the evidence set forth. I am appalled at your blatant disregard of academic research, even though you are supposedly a member of academia. I am also appalled at your defective methodology. Your meager evidence is fundamentally flawed in several respects. First, anthropology cannot determine the historicity of a person. That is not the goal of anthropology and, therefore, outside its scope of investigation. Second, lack of archaeological evidence does not guarantee the non-existence of an individual. In fact, there are numerous historical figures for which we have no direct archaeological evidence, yet historicism deems their existence probable. I find it sad that you disregard the overwhelming textual evidence that provides substantial evidence to assert the existence of an historical Jesus. I certainly hope that you do not model this methodology within the classroom.

    — Religion_Professor    Nov 19, 01:49 PM    #

Previous: Advisory Panel in India Suggests Major Changes to Improve Research
Next: Advocacy Group Says Racial Incidents Are Increasing on Campuses