Scholars

Subjects

E-Books

Towards the Construction of a Contemporary Islamic Educational Theory 
Fathi Malkawi     
  
Islamization of Knowledge: Conceptual Background, Vision and Tasks       
Salisu Shehu

Economic Guidelines in the Qur'an  
S.M. Hasanuz Zaman    

Contribution of Islamic Thought to Modern Economics  
Misbah Oreibi    

An Introduction to Islamic Economics       
Muhammad Akram Khan

Islamic Thought and Culture       
Isma'il R. al Faruqi

Islamization of Knowledge: Background, Models and the Way Forward
Malam Sa'idu Sulaiman

More books... 

Worlds of Difference: European Discourses of Toleration C. 1100-C. 1550 PDF Print E-mail

Cary J. Nederman,University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000. 157 pages.

This is an appealing and clearly written account of how European thinkers from late medieval to early modern times reflected upon and explored the question of what to do about people of different religions and cultures. In other words, how should their divergent opinions be understood and, eventually, what practical dispositions should be taken toward them? Cary Nederman devotes the introduction and first chapter to an excellent, detailed explanation of the book’s focus and goals. Simply put, he is intent upon challenging two currently dominant views: that toleration emerged in Europe only at the time of the Reformation, and that it is ineluctably linked with the kind of political liberalism usually associated with John Locke. To this end, he calls the reader’s attention to expressions of religious, and even somewhat political, toleration that appear early in the twelfth century and continue well into the sixteenth century. Unfortunately, he does not succeed in this ambitious, even appealing, stratagem as fully as he would have wished, for he admits in passing that he is content to “offer illustrations,” instead of a “comprehensive account,” of this phenomenon.

Thus, while the exposition demonstrates the author’s broad awareness of the relevant secondary literature, it tends to treat the primary sources in a cursory and almost superficial manner. Ever willing to take issue with the different interpretations set forth in the secondary literature, Nederman tends  to refrain from engaging the primary sources directly. Rhetorical considerations seem to guide this choice, for he is clearly knowledgeable about the principal teachings of the primary sources. Yet throughout the book, he contents himself with summaries, rather than analyses, of those teachings. He does devote some attention to the writings of William of Rubreck, Marsilius of Padua, Nicholas of Cusa, and Bartholomé de Las Casas, to be sure. But even with these authors, general summary prevails. Although such a procedure allows Nederman to state and restate his central thesis, it exposes him to fundamental problems of interpretation from which he cannot extricate himself.

Thus, in order to present Peter Abelard’s Dialogue between a Philosopher, a Jew, and a Christian as an example of interfaith toleration, Nederman stresses the work’s unfinished character and the fact that it ends without Abelard explicitly passing judgment on the relative claims of the philosopher and the Christian. However, he does not acknowledge how easily the Christian disposes of the Jew’s arguments. Nor does he say anything about how the Christian goes on to engage the philosopher in a spirited and quite learned exchange leading from an inquiry into true ethics to the issue of how to recognize God’s existence and characteristics. The Christian’s rejection of the philosopher’s attempts to argue that virtue is the same for all people also facilitates his giving precedence in such matters to Christianity.

More important, the Christian easily persuades the philosopher of the insufficiency of natural law or natural right on the grounds that Christian revelation has rendered it irrelevant. The dialogue ends with the philosopher being obliged to admit the merit, even the superiority, of Christianity. Clearly, an explicit statement or judgment from Abelard would be superfluous.