Al-Radd al-jamil : a fitting refutation of the divinity of Jesus
著者
書誌事項
Al-Radd al-jamil : a fitting refutation of the divinity of Jesus
(The history of Christian-Muslim relations, v. 28)
Brill, c2016
- : hardback
大学図書館所蔵 全1件
  青森
  岩手
  宮城
  秋田
  山形
  福島
  茨城
  栃木
  群馬
  埼玉
  千葉
  東京
  神奈川
  新潟
  富山
  石川
  福井
  山梨
  長野
  岐阜
  静岡
  愛知
  三重
  滋賀
  京都
  大阪
  兵庫
  奈良
  和歌山
  鳥取
  島根
  岡山
  広島
  山口
  徳島
  香川
  愛媛
  高知
  福岡
  佐賀
  長崎
  熊本
  大分
  宮崎
  鹿児島
  沖縄
  韓国
  中国
  タイ
  イギリス
  ドイツ
  スイス
  フランス
  ベルギー
  オランダ
  スウェーデン
  ノルウェー
  アメリカ
注記
Text in English and Arabic
Includes bibliographical references (p.[195]-200) and index
内容説明・目次
内容説明
al-Radd al-jamil attributed to al-Ghazali (d. 1111) is the most extensive and detailed refutation of the divinity of Jesus by a Muslim author in the classical period of Islam. Since the discovery of the manuscript in the 1930's scholars have debated whether the great Muslim theologian al-Ghazali was really the author.
This is a new critical edition of the Arabic text and the first complete English translation. The introduction situates this work in the history of Muslim anti-Christian polemical writing. Mark Beaumont and Maha El Kaisy-Friemuth argue that this refutation comes from an admirer of al-Ghazali who sought to advance some of his key ideas for an Egyptian audience.
目次
Foreword
The Context and Authorship of al-Radd al-jamil
- The Context of al-Radd al-jamil
- The Authorship of al-Radd al-jamil
- Arguments supporting the authorship of al-Ghazali
- al-Radd al-jamil and the Sufi writing of al-Ghazali
- Arguments against the authorship of al-Ghazali
- When was al-Radd al-jamil written?
- Who wrote al-Radd al-jamil?
- Appendix
Outline of al-Radd al-jamil
al-Radd al-jamil in the Context of Muslim Refutations of Christianity
- Jesus' miracles do not confirm his divinity
- The Gospels provide evidence for the fact that Jesus was a messenger sent from God. Passages in the fourth gospel that Christians propose as literal proof for the divinity of Jesus should be interpreted metaphorically
- The Jacobite belief that the union of the soul and body is an analogy for the union of the divinity and humanity of Jesus is inappropriate
- The Melkite separation of the divine and human natures in Jesus at the point of his death is irrational
- The Nestorian conviction that the will of Jesus was united with the will of God is not supported by the Christian gospels
- Christian scriptures show that titles given to Jesus that Christians believe point to his divine status should be taken as symbols of his spiritual eminence as a messenger of God
- Christian appeal to the Qur'an to support the divinity of Jesus is mistaken
- Conclusion
Quotations and References from the Bible
Quotations and References from the Qur'an
Index
「Nielsen BookData」 より