An interesting discussion, with some links, by philosopher Parableman Jeremy Pierce: Muslims Worshiping God But Not Worshiping God. His view, as against some recent pastors and other folks, is that yes, Muslims do refer to the being that Christians acknowledge as the one true God, when they use the word “Allah”.
[Saith Jeremy]…it seems completely ludicrous to me to claim that this being that is falsely and ungenuinely worshiped by Muslims is not God. Muhammad intended to refer to the God long worshiped by Jews and Christians… when he said all those false things about God. The being he misrepresented and twisted all sorts of things about is the God of the Bible. (emphasis added)
He also throws in a point about the Trinity.
Those who say that denying the Trinity means one’s terms for God don’t refer to God have to say the same about Jews. Do Christians want to say that we don’t worship the God of the Jews? It’s very clear that the New Testament authors thought they were worshiping the God of the Jews, and they didn’t think the Jews suddenly were worshiping some fictional being once Jesus appeared and Jews started denying essential properties of God that hadn’t previously been revealed. The way the NT speaks of this is that they were worshiping God but just not doing so properly. It was still God that they weren’t worshiping properly. (emphasis added)
Jeremy repeatedly makes an excellent point – just because one doesn’t believe in (or even denies) some essential property of X, it doesn’t follow that one can’t refer to X. Thus, if being triune (or tripersonal, etc.) is an essential property of God, it doesn’t follow that non-trinitarians can’t refer to God.
But I wonder if it matters who Muhammad intended to refer to, or who he thought he was referring to. Here’s a parable for the parableman. 🙂
Once upon a time, I discovered an isolated tribe, living on a remote tropical island, isolated from the rest of the world. I showed up, declared that I’m the King of America, gave my name as “George W. Bush”, and insisted that they pay homage to me in weekly ceremonies. Now, when they say “King George”, they’re intending to refer to the current leader of America. Later, they heard a few more things from other visiting Americans, e.g. that George Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, and they believe (falsely) that this ruler is the same one who visited their island. They’re vigilant in their weekly ceremonies, because they’re afraid the King of America will invade them if they slack off. Now, aren’t they referring to me in all this, and not Dubya? Isn’t it irrelevant (1) whether or not they assume that Dale = George, (2) how many properties they think I have, which in fact Dubya has? (e.g. being the commander-in-chief) Isn’t this, in short, where the “baptism” view of proper names leads?
The suggestion, then, is: maybe it matters who (if anyone) Muhammad was actually interacting with, when he allegedly received divine revelations from the Angel Gabriel. Was it God or one of God’s messengers? Then, “Allah” refers to God. Was it some other being? Then “Allah” refers to it. Was it no being at all (i.e. Muhammad was hallucinating)? Then… I don’t know. Don’t have developed views on fictional discourse. But I take it that in this case the referent wouldn’t be God either.
Incidentally, IF this is right, it might make room for a different answer re: Jews and Muslims.
update 3/18: Right as I posted this, Jeremy continued the discussion, again with more linkage. I agree that “God” is typically a name, a singular referring term, whether or not it counts as a proper name.
update 3/19: I’m not convinced that my suggestion above is very relevant even if it’s right. See below, comment #3.
Pingback: trinities - Goofus and Gallant, Grok and Sophie (Dale)
Pingback: trinities - Linkage: Corcoran on the God of Muslims and the God of Christians (Dale)
Scott, I’m not sure Aquinas applies this to Islam, though. Is there somewhere where he clearly treats Islam as idolatry rather than something else? If he calls the God of Islam an idol, then this applies. But that’s the issue that’s under dispute here, and I don’t see how this answers that question even though what it goes on to say does follow if he answers it in the affirmative.
Scott – for us lazy/busy folks, care to tell us Aquinas’s answer? 🙂
Jeremy – I certainly agree with your last sentence. Any Muslim can say, “O Creator of the World…”, or address the “God of Moses and Abraham” – by means of these descriptions, it seems to me, they’d be referring to the one God.
It seems to me that a difficulty with the baptism view about proper names is that we want to say that names can be “re-baptized”. Go back to my parable. At the beginning, it is clear that the term “George W. Bush” refers to me, even though these people falsely assume that this person (me) is the current ruler of America. But, why couldn’t this change. A hundred years on, say, people there are still talking about “Bush” and confusedly thinking that he is me. But now they’ve conversed a little more with outsiders – say, tourists – and have been told a lot about (the real) Bush. Despite how their usage of “Bush” began, won’t it eventually refer to Dubya, and not to me? Does it go through a stage of referring to both of us? I don’t know.
Whatever we say about the reference of their singular terms, I doubt the religious relevance of the issue. Suppose, as is implausible, that Muslims couldn’t refer to God – they’re in a situation like the people on my island, soon after my initial visit. Now, suppose that the real Bush shows up, on a friendly state visit. He’s aware that these people have been honoring me – the person they falsely believe is the president. Won’t Bush, at some point after contacting them, sort of accept this honor (at least some of it), or rather, act as if it had been given to him? After all, if they knew *he* was the president, they, or some of them, would have (eventually) given it to him. Of course, when he first shows up, they may all scream “That’s not the President! It’s an impostor. We met the president, and he’s pasty white philosophy prof who lives in New York!” So even if (we assume what I think is false, that) Muslims can’t refer to God, it isn’t as if God ignores them, has nothing to do with them, or fails to love them, or doesn’t hear (and sometimes respond to) their prayers.
For those interested, Aquinas discusses this issue somewhat in ST 1a.13.10: ‘Whether this name “God” is applied to God univocally by nature, by participation, and according to opinion?’ http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1013.htm#10
Dale, I’d hesitate a little if Muhammad interacted with a demon or Satan to get the information that he thought was being given to him by God. But I don’t think that would be decisive, precisely because he wrote down all the stuff in a book and presented it to a group of people, all of whom continued to speak those things about the being historically worshiped by Jews and Christians.
It’s an interesting case of competing potential referents. I suppose it would be like someone showing up disguised as me and taking my place for a year, with everyone thinking they’re speaking of me but really speaking of the imposter. At times, though, they’ll speak of me when they think they’re speaking of the person in front of them. So wouldn’t the scenario you propose both involve true statements about God, false statements about God, true statements about the imposter-demon, and false statements about the imposter-demon? It just makes the picture more complex. It doesn’t mean there is no way in which Muslims ever speak of God.
Comments are closed.