Samir Khalid Samir, S.J. has devoted half a century to Islamic studies, and the English translation of his 2002 interview book on Islam is a welcome reminder that the subject of Islam can elicit more than shrillness. As an introduction to the subject and as an antidote to anodyne apologies, 111 Questions on Islam (Ignatius Press) is strongly recommended. The Italian version appeared in 2002, in the form of answers to queries submitted by journalists Giorgio Paolucci and Camille Eid. It is a model of serious and scholarly response to Islam without apologizing for the author’s Catholic faith. Fr. Samir continues to advise Benedict XVI, and readers will find supportive background for Benedict’s Regensburg comments on Islam.
It is misleading to speak of Islam as one of three Abrahamic religions, Samir observes, because Islam understands Abraham in an entirely different way.
“The notion of the promise or covenant with Abraham, like that of the ‘history of salvation’, which is common to Judaism and Christianity, is practically absent in Islam,” he writes, noting that an early draft of Nostra Aetate stating that Muslims pray to the God of Abraham was qualified to read that Muslims “profess belief” in that God. The Qur’an cannot be compared to the Jewish or Christian Bibles. “For Muslims, the Qur’an can be compared to Christ: Christ is the Word of God made ?esh, while the Qur’an—please forgive my play on words—is the word “made paper.” Unlike Biblical revelation, in which the human witness is a participant, the Qu’ran was “sent down” to Mohammed. “If the Qur’an was indeed ‘sent down’ by Allah, there is no possibility of a critical or historical interpretation, not even for those aspects that are evidently related to the customs of a particular historical period and culture. In the history of Islam, at a certain point, it was decided that it was no longer possible to interpret the text. . . . The weight of the tradition and, above all, the fear of questioning the acquired security of the text have created a taboo: the Qur’an cannot be interpreted, nor can it be critically rethought.”
Fr. Samir, along with Fr. Christian Troll S.J., was a participant at Benedict XVI’s Islam seminar at Castelgondolfo. Another participant, the American Jesuit Father Joseph Fessio, had remarked to a radio interviewer that Benedict XVI thought that Islam was incapable of reform. This prompted stern denials by Frs. Samir and Troll, as reported at the time in Sandro Magister’s web site. In a 2006 “Spengler” essay, I had contributed to the controversy by quoting Fessio’s remarks. Fr. Fessio later conceded that he had overstated the case, and that Islam was indeed capable of reform. Hair-splitting seems a fair characterization of the issue, however. Fr. Samir doesn’t say that reform is impossible, only that it is a very remote possibility.
Here is what Father Samir has to say:
Many Westerners fear Islam as a “religion of violence”. Muslims often call simultaneously for tolerance and understanding as well as for violence and aggression. In fact, both options are present in the Qur’an and the sunna. These are two legitimate manners—two distinct ways to inter pret, to understand, and to live Islam. It is up to the individual Muslim to decide what he wants Islam to be. . . . (p 18)
. . . Consequently, in the Qur’an there are two different choices, the aggressive and the peaceful, and both of them are acceptable. There is a need for an authority, unanimously acknowledged by Muslims, that could say: From now on, only this verse is valid. But this does not—and probably will never—happen. . . . (p. 71)
. . . If the Qur’an was indeed “sent down” by Allah, there is no possibility of a critical or historical interpretation, not even for those aspects that are evidently related to the customs of a particular historical period and culture. In the history of Islam, at a certain point, it was decided that it was no longer possible to interpret the text. Hence, today, even the mere attempt to understand its meaning and what message it aims to communicate in a certain context is regarded as a desire to challenge it. . . . (p. 42)
. . . In modern times as well, many efforts have been made in this direction but almost always in vain. The weight of the tradition and, above all, the fear of questioning the acquired security of the text have created a taboo: the Qur’an cannot be interpreted, nor can it be critically rethought. . . . (p. 43)
. . . I speak about the violence expressed in the Qur’an and practiced in Muhammad’s life in order to address the idea, widespread in the West, that the violence we see today is a deformation of Islam. We must honestly admit that there are two readings of the Qur’an and the sunna (Islamic traditions connected to Muhammad): one that opts for the verses that encourage tolerance toward other believers, and one that prefers the verses that encourage con?ict. Both readings are legitimate. . . . (p. 65)
[Samir quoting the Qu’ran] “If we abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, we will replace it by a better one or one similar. Did you not know that God has power over all things?”
. . . In the short run, we must admit that the pleas of the reformers have very limited in?uence over the Muslim mentality or social organization. But over time, their work is extremely precious because it proposes a model of reference for those scholars who seek instruments in order to reconcile Islam with the tensions and questions that characterize the social and cultural evolution of Islamic societies. . . . (p. 99)
Christianity and Islam view Abraham from two very different perspectives. In Islam, Abraham is the witness of the most radical monotheism, and like the other biblical ?gures, he is the model of perfect submission to God. The notion of the promise or covenant with Abraham, like that of the “history of salvation”, which is common to Judaism and Christianity, is practically absent in Islam. . . . (p. 206)
