[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: orion Re: Response to Harrison

 >Dear Mr. Sodtke,
>I must apologize. It never occurred to me that a description of Islam
>as supersessionist would be understood as a slur, extremist or
>fundamentalist. Is it really such a sensitive issue?
> I merely wished to point out that in any politics of
>supersessionism, Islam has the superior claim. Perhaps I might sight
>my own teacher of Islam, al-Farukhi, who made this very point in an
>ecumenical discussion some twenty years ago.

I rarely find myself in agreement with TLT, but here I would say he is
correct.  Supersessionism is a technical term in the study of religion.
While  normally used of Christianity, there is no reason why it should not
be used to describe the parallel phenomenon  in Islam.   Supersessionism is
the doctrine/belief that a particular religion has superseded an earlier
religion or religions because it is (a) truer (indeed, uniquely true) and
(b) better (which, for a believer, would necessarily follow from (a) ).

One of Islam's basic doctrines is that it is not only a historical
successor to Judaism and Christianity but has also superseded them because
it is uniquely true:  in other words, where its doctrines diverge from
those of the earlier monotheisms, Islam is uniquely correct and the other
two are simply wrong.

Islam is just as entitled to that view as is Christianity in its claim to
have superseded Judaism.  Supersessionism  is a neutral word in itself.  If
a Christian or Muslim is upset by someone else's use of the word in
relation to them, this is probably due (subliminally, perhaps) to
discomfort stemming from the cognitive dissonance involved in the fact that
any religious doctrine of supersessionism  is by definition based on a set
of unproven and intrinsically unprovable  beliefs masquerading as "facts."

Judith Romney Wegner