Perfidy, Qur’anic Apostasy or Hermeneutics?

The only thing i Found in your article which disturbed me a lot was you have given reference of the scholars who were merely based in the western part of the world. This is a sophisticated issue and in order to under one is supposed to refer not only the western scholars` work but also the middle eastern and sub continents` scholars` work. As far i Have understood Quran is not a book of simplicity there are words with 1000s` of meaning, in order to understand Quran one has to understand life itself, none of us is in the position to question Quran especially when the question arises whether Quran is only for Arabs` or not.

Quran is a book of knowledge & its a miricle book, In surat Toobah Allah had clearly mention that this book is for all living thing, if Quran was only for arabs then maybe i am not a living thing. At the time of Prophet Muhammad (p.B.U.H) population density of the human world negligible compare to our present time, there is however no historic proof of great pepople living in sub continent and remember there was no america at that time and europe did not care about the world at that time. Living and reading in west Do have a wrong impression on muslim community because it is psycological for people to ask question about their own faith.

Quran is for every living creature, man and jinn, its just people do not under its presence.

I reached a similar conclusion while reading Quran. My simple understanding is that Allah is the most merciful and the most benevolent, hence loving and kind towards people, then I read 4:34 and was surprised that Allah would allow beating women. My late grandfather told me never to raise voice or hurt women and here I was holding a Green Card towards violence towards a fellow being. This was a few years ago.
Now recently I came across the Millenium Biograpghy of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and while reading about the pre-Muhammad era of Arab peninsula in this fine book and the striking resemblance to laws and rights mentioned in Quran leads me to believe that may be Quran / Islam maybe more geared towards a certain people (Arabs). For instance polygymy was rampant in pre-Mohammad days and post-Mohammad it was just legalized under a different context.

Regarding the Following Quote from the above article:
``Muqtader Khan of Adrian College says “In an Islamic democracy every individual is a vicegerent of God (Qur’an 2:30) and therefore has the legitimate authority to act in God’s name. Thus every citizen has the right to interpret and claim what is law (divine or otherwise). Though sovereignty is always God’s in principle, human agency is what matters in practice”.``

Now this got me thinking about 6:159 where Allah tells muslims to leave people with sects alone. Now we are all well aware of sectarian violence in and about muslim countries. Considering the above verse 2:30 and comparing it with 6:159 seems like a slight contradiction in a perfect book.
Quran today and the way it was revealed is not same since during the time of Muhammad the verses /chapters were shuffled around, which makes the context (historical) in which Quran was delivered out of sync with events that took place while reveleations occured.
Regarding Jesus`s death which is a big event recorded in Roman and Jewish history is only worth a verse or two in Quran.

I reached a similar conclusion while reading Quran. My simple understanding is that Allah is the most merciful and the most benevolent, hence loving and kind towards people, then I read 4:34 and was surprised that Allah would allow beating women. My late grandfather told me never to raise voice or hurt women and here I was holding a Green Card towards violence towards a fellow being. This was a few years ago.
Now recently I came across the Millenium Biograpghy of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and while reading about the pre-Muhammad era of Arab peninsula in this fine book and the striking resemblance to laws and rights mentioned in Quran leads me to believe that may be Quran / Islam maybe more geared towards a certain people (Arabs). For instance polygymy was rampant in pre-Mohammad days and post-Mohammad it was just legalized under a different context.

Regarding the Following Quote from the above article:
``Muqtader Khan of Adrian College says “In an Islamic democracy every individual is a vicegerent of God (Qur’an 2:30) and therefore has the legitimate authority to act in God’s name. Thus every citizen has the right to interpret and claim what is law (divine or otherwise). Though sovereignty is always God’s in principle, human agency is what matters in practice”.``

Now this got me thinking about 6:159 where Allah tells muslims to leave people with sects alone. Now we are all well aware of sectarian violence in and about muslim countries. Considering the above verse 2:30 and comparing it with 6:159 seems like a slight contradiction in a perfect book.
Quran today and the way it was revealed is not same since during the time of Muhammad the verses /chapters were shuffled around, which makes the context (historical) in which Quran was delivered out of sync with events that took place while reveleations occured.
Regarding Jesus`s death which is a big event recorded in Roman and Jewish history is only worth a verse or two in Quran.

I reached a similar conclusion while reading Quran. My simple understanding is that Allah is the most merciful and the most benevolent, hence loving and kind towards people, then I read 4:34 and was surprised that Allah would allow beating women. My late grandfather told me never to raise voice or hurt women and here I was holding a Green Card towards violence towards a fellow being. This was a few years ago.
Now recently I came across the Millenium Biograpghy of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and while reading about the pre-Muhammad era of Arab peninsula in this fine book and the striking resemblance to laws and rights mentioned in Quran leads me to believe that may be Quran / Islam maybe more geared towards a certain people (Arabs). For instance polygymy was rampant in pre-Mohammad days and post-Mohammad it was just legalized under a different context.

Regarding the Following Quote from the above article:
``Muqtader Khan of Adrian College says “In an Islamic democracy every individual is a vicegerent of God (Qur’an 2:30) and therefore has the legitimate authority to act in God’s name. Thus every citizen has the right to interpret and claim what is law (divine or otherwise). Though sovereignty is always God’s in principle, human agency is what matters in practice”.``

Now this got me thinking about 6:159 where Allah tells muslims to leave people with sects alone. Now we are all well aware of sectarian violence in and about muslim countries. Considering the above verse 2:30 and comparing it with 6:159 seems like a slight contradiction in a perfect book.
Quran today and the way it was revealed is not same since during the time of Muhammad the verses /chapters were shuffled around, which makes the context (historical) in which Quran was delivered out of sync with events that took place while reveleations occured.
Regarding Jesus`s death which is a big event recorded in Roman and Jewish history is only worth a verse or two in Quran.

#73 and #76

masadi

Thank you dear Masadi. That is what I wanted to point out that Quran can be distorted, not only by changing its wording but also by subjective interpretation or selection. The Mullah says Allah has guaranteed its protection. But how can one know about the correction when the Mullah has blocked all communication with Allah.

For example, the Soora in question (Maoon) has been subjected to somewhat contradictory interpretations. In fact the Mullah is allergic to this Soora as it questions his `dhanda` of ritualism even at the expence of human welfare.

One unfinished thought that I want to complete before I begin my protest against CHOWK:

#81, einsteinwallah; in my post #51 I wrote

Quote <<< #32, #33- Great going you use fictional tales to disprove something you know nothing about- great going; amazing methodology to decipher the truth. >>>

This should have read #30, #31, It did NOT refer to your posts but to the posts about Mullah Nasruddin made by Sailen to prove his points; those were the ``fictional tales`` I was referring to; your post #33 was answered in the same post #51 which I reproduce below:

Quote<<<

#33 you write <<>>

Great methods of argumentation, define the opposing argument yourself as a straw man, and then dismantle the straw man. Religion doesn’t give a complete system of thought it just points you in the correct direction, so that you see the inter connectedness between all things- there is nothing unscientific in that. The universe began as a singularity. >>>>

Sorry about the confusion. Any and all concerns/questions referring to my posts should henceforth be directed to Asadi@asadi.org

Thanks.

Thank you for your time everyone and goodbye to you all. It was fun, I learned quite a bit hopefully you all did too. Since CHOWK is baselessly censoring all of my articles, in protest, I will not be posting here anymore, until they get rid of their biased pro-US elite stance. You all are welcome to visit http://www.asadi.org and use the forum over there

Here is an extract from the CBC news report (Jan 12, 2004) on American inspired Islam of the Mujahideen:

The whole report quotes the man behind the text book project, Tom Goutier, and can be read at http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/schools.html

Quote <<
But the Mujahideen had a lot of help to create this warrior culture in the school system from the United States, which paid for the Mujahideen propaganda in the textbooks. It was all part of American Cold War policy in the 1980s, helping the Mujahideen defeat the Soviet army on Afghan soil. The University of Nebraska was front and center in that effort. The university did the publishing and had an Afghan study center and a director who was ready to help defeat the ``Red Menace.`` >>>>

In addition to the below, I would like to say that ``lack of decision`` when you have the power of decision in the region, like the US did- amounts to complicity. When the US tolerated the Taliban and implicitly helped them in that civil war-something that almost led to an Iran/Pakistan skirmish, if you remember with Iran gathering troops on its border- it states complicity. ``Action`` or ``lack of action`` is equal when you have the power of decision.

#83, the timing was discussed in post #79, and it does contradict what you said since US support for the Mujahideen and creating trouble for the Afghan government started long before any ``Hind`` helicopters. It is prepostrous to state that the US had nothing to do with the ten years of war in Afghanistan, a situation that led directly to the emergence of the Taliban, who were the same people under a different label. The US is most definitely to blame, along with the Soviets for creating a mess in Afghanistan and Pakistan and implanting the US/Saudi version of radical Islam in that region~ They are culprit #1, even more so than the Soviet Union. How come whenever a government tries to undertake land reforms and help the people, the US starts trouble and civil wars- this is a pattern not only restricted to Afghanistan.

The Truth About the Origin of Man.

In the beginning God created Eve. And she had 3 breasts.
After three weeks in the garden, God came to visit Eve.

How`re things,Eve? He asked.
``It is all so beautiful, God,`` she replied. ``The sunrises and sunsets are breathtaking, the smells, the sights, everything is wonderful but I just have this one problem. It`s these three breasts you`ve given me. The middle one pushes the other two out, and I am constantly knocking them with my arms, catching them on branches, snagging them on bushes, they`re a real pain,`` reported Eve.
``That`s a fair point,`` replied God, ``but it was my first shot at that you know. I gave the animals, what, six? So I just figured you`d need half, but I see that you are right. I`ll fix that up right away!``
So, God reaches down and removes the middle breast, tossing it into the bushes.
Three weeks passed, and God once again visited Eve in the garden.
``Well, Eve, how`s my favourite creation?`` He asked.
``Just fantastic,`` she replied, ``but for one small oversight on your part. You see, all the animals are paired off. The ewe has her ram, the cow has her bull, all the animals have a mate, except me. I feel so alone.``
God thought for a moment. ``You know, Eve, you`re right. How could I have overlooked this! You do need a mate and I will immediately create Man from a part of you!``

``Now, let`s see ....... where did I put that useless tit?``

On #82, just to summarize: while there is no conflict between religion and science IN THEORY, there is indeed a conflict IN PRACTICE. And this is a result of the fact that what is practiced in Pakistan is not the message of the Quran, but the message cooked up by individuals in their quest for a living (in case of the run of the mill maulvis) or power (in case of the more ambitious mauvlis).

masadi #79/80: thanks for the references, but they really dont address the points i made. #79 merely refers to one aspect of what i discussed in #74 (namely, the timing of US involvement), and if you read my post carefully you will see that this does not contradict anything I wrote. #80 presents one man`s view (and a partisan one at that - a Republican trying to discredit Clinton) which is in clear contradiction to the facts as we know them now.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to cut and paste these references.

einsteinwallah #81 The only reason you see a conflict between the ``Weltanschauung of Science`` the Freud puts forwards and the ``Weltanschauung of Religion`` as you describe it is in my view a result of the way you define the latter.

To use your example: ``Supposing in present times somebody came to you and said that he has been receiving these messages from God. What would you think? Would you not think that the person is hallucinating? Where is any diagnosis at all? Seeing things other cannot see is hallucination. The concept of hallucination does not need any deep knowledge of psychology. Why judgment we would pass on somebody of present times should not also be passed on Muhammad?``

The above assumes that you fully understand what gives rise to ``hallucinations``. Actually you dont. Freud did not either, btw (and indeed his entire approach to psychoanalysis is today not just discredited but blamed for diverting the focus of psychiatry away from drug-based treatments whose effectiveness was understood only by chance through use of lithium). Nor does biological science today understand the full workings of the mind that give rise to hallucinations (or any other mental functions for that matter).

And even as and when we understand the biological processes (which is decades away at the least), we still would not not understand the molecular and sub-atomic processes that underlie the biology. And significantly, as string theory indicates, the sub-atomic world itself seems to have not just four (length, breadth, hight, time) dimensions but nine! And what we perceive, per the string theory, is merely a four dimensional PROJECTION of processes occurring in these nine dimensions (see the latest issue of the Scientific American which has a cover story on this, and it had another one on this concept of the universe as a hologram projecting from a knowledge source outside our known dimensions).

The bottom line, therefore is, that we humans can understand the ultimate reality no more than a dog can solve difference equations. We simply lack the wiring to do that.

This resolves the conflict you see between the ``Weltanschauung of Science`` and the `` ``Weltanschauung of Religion``: In its own domain (i.e. in matters that we know - including all of science, politics, and so forth), the ``Weltanschauung of Science`` reigns supreme. However, in matters that we dont know and cannot know according to religion - God - the `` ``Weltanschauung of Science`` is no longer interested. Put simply, we are free to conjecture what happened in that cave 1400 years ago as long as we dont claim to know what actually happened. This also provides the basis of what I said in an earlier post below about religion being a personal matter - something that should not be mixed with politics or science.

This is fully consistent with the teachings of the Quran as well, as I understand them. Allah is supreme over everything, but is also unknownable. He resides outside the realm of science. Thus, IN THEORY, there is no conflict between the two.


I will now sadly admit that the above discussion is, however, quite irrelevant IN PRACTICE. This is because this is not the Islam that is practiced or promoted in Pakistan. The Islam that is promoted seeks to see Islam as a substitute for Science (or Political Theory), rather than as something an inspiration for something much, much higher - namely the Unknowable on the one hand, and as means for the individual to build character and self-respect.

Re: # 51

{#32, #33- Great going you use fictional tales to disprove something you know nothing about- great going; amazing methodology to decipher the truth. }

In #33 I just wrote what Sigmund Freud wrote in Lecture 35 in ``New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis.`` What I wrote was paraphrase of what he writes. Let me quote his exact words. This is from English translation of ``New Lectures`` published by Penguin Books as Volume 2 in Penguin Freud Library. I reproduce first three paragraphs of this lecture. The lecture title is ``The Question of a Weltanschauung``.

``Ladies and Gentlemen, - At our last meeting we were occupied with little everyday concerns - putting our own modest house in order, as it were. I propose that we should now take a bold leap and venture upon answering a question which is constantly being asked in other quarters: does psychoanalysis lead to a particular Weltanschauung and, if so, to which?

```Weltanschauung` is, I am afraid, a specifically German concept, the translation of which into foreign languages might well raise difficulties. If I try to give a definition of it, it is bound to be seen clumsy to you. In my opinion, then, a Weltanschauung is an intellectual construction which solves all the problems of our existence uniformly on the basis of one overriding hypothesis, which accordingly, leaves no question unanswered and in which everything that interests us finds its fixed place. It will easily be understood that the possession of a Weltanschauung of this kind is among the ideal wishes of human beings. Believing in it one can feel secure in life, one can know what to strive for, and how one can deal most expediently with one`s emotions and interests.

``If that is the nature of a Weltanschauung, the answer as regards psychoanalysis is made easy. As a specialist science, a branch of psychology - a depth-psychology or psychology of the unconscious - it is quite unfit to construct a Weltanschauung of its own: it must accept the scientific one. But the Weltanschauung of science already departs noticeably from our definition. It is true that it too assumes the uniformity of the explanation of the universe; but it does so only as programme, the fulfilment of which is relegated to future. Apart from this it is marked by negative characteristics, by its limitation to what is at the moment knowable and by its sharp rejection of certain elements that are alien to it. It asserts that there are no source knowledge of the universe other than the intellectual working-over of carefully scrutinized observations - in other words, what we call research - and alongside of it no knowledge derived from revelation, intuition or divination. It seems as though this view came very near to being generally recognized in the course of the last few centuries that have passed; and it has been left to our century to discover the presumptuous objection that a Weltanschauung like this is alike paltry and cheerless, that it overlooks the claims of the human intellect and needs of human mind.``[page 193-4]

How can you say that this is ``fictional tales``?

In fact you are the one who is using Ad Hominem argument. Your argument is as follows:

einsteinwallah is writing about something he knows nothing about.
einsteinwallah is writing ``fictional tales``.
einsteinwallah is therefore trash.
We are trying to have serious discussion.
We are discussing this brand new concept called ``Hermeneutics`` (which, forget einsteinwallah, even Albert Einstein would not understand).
Since einsteinwallah is writing non-serious fictional tales, his post is trash.

Islam is allegedly a most complete religion and as such it is alleged to have this property of being a Weltanschauung. Science is bound to have conflict with any Weltanschauung because it recognizes sovereignty of reason and observation. A scientist says what Muhammad sees I cannot see therefore Muhammad is wrong. The very fact that, a person of science will necessarily become an apostate of Islam and expose him/herself to ire of current executives and executioners of Islam, means Islam is already outmoded. Christianity solved this problem by taking wise advice of St. Augustine and Galileo. (Read Oxford University Press published book on Galileo in their ``A Very Short Introduction`` series. Author is: Stillman Drake)

{#33 you write <<>>

Great methods of argumentation, define the opposing argument yourself as a straw man, and then dismantle the straw man. Religion doesn’t give a complete system of thought it just points you in the correct direction, so that you see the inter connectedness between all things- there is nothing unscientific in that. The universe began as a singularity. }

I am defining nothing. The straw man has come into existence with works of Galileo and those who followed him. March of history cannot be stopped. You cannot say, okay, let us go back to pre-Galileo times. Science and its methods are here to stay.

{#36~ amazing move, from being a philosopher of science you move into the realm of psychology and give your diagnosis. That is the sorry case of you Quran deniers- which is that you have no case besides illogical Ad Hominem arguments. }

Let me ask. Supposing in present times somebody came to you and said that he has been receiving these messages from God. What would you think? Would you not think that the person is hallucinating? Where is any diagnosis at all? Seeing things other cannot see is hallucination. The concept of hallucination does not need any deep knowledge of psychology. Why judgment we would pass on somebody of present times should not also be passed on Muhammad?

Here also you yourself are using Ad Hominem method. First you are trashing me by saying that I am moving from being philosopher of science into realm of psychology as if this is some kind of clever maneuver some kind of ``move`` with ulterior motive. I am not a philosopher of science. Just as Shakespearewallah is not Shakespeare, einsteinwallah is not Einstein. ``einsteinwallah`` is just my userid. I am not moving from anything to any other thing.

Ad Hominem arguments are here in chowk everywhere. It is the content of messages you are supposed to reply. And my posts do not have Ad Hominem arguments. OTOH your post is full of it.

Here is some documentary evidence that goes to the heart of the matter:
<<<

July 12, 2000
Hearing Of the House International Relations Committee on ``Global Terrorism And South Asia.``

Chaired By: Representative Benjamin Gilman (R-NY)

Witnesses: Michael Sheehan, State Department Coordinator For Counterterrorism; Alan Eastham, Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary Of State For South Asian Affairs

REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R-CA): Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and thank you very much for holding this hearing.

As we discuss terrorism in South Asia, I think it is important to renew the members of this committee`s and the public`s acquaintance with the request that I have made for the last three years concerning American policy toward the Taliban, because as we examine -- as we examine terrorism in South Asia, one can`t help but recognize that if it weren`t for the fact that the Taliban are in power, there would be a different equation going on.

It would be whole different situation in South Asia.

After a year of requesting to see State Department documents on Afghan policy -- and I would remind the committee that I have -- I have stated that I believe that there is a covert policy by this administration, a shameful covert policy of supporting the Taliban -- the State Department, after many, many months -- actually, years -- of prodding, finally began giving me documents, Mr. Chairman. And I have, in the assessment of those documents, I have found nothing to persuade me that I was wrong in my criticism. And I might add, however, that there has been no documents provided to me, even after all of these years of requesting it, there have been no documents concerning the time period of the formation of the Taliban. And I would, again, I would hope that the State Department gets the message that I expect to see all those documents. And the documents that I have read, Mr. Chairman, indicate that the State Department, time and again, has had as its position that they have no quarrel, or that it would give them no heartburn, to have the Taliban in power. This, during the time period when the Taliban was struggling to take over Afghanistan.

And although the administration has denied supporting the Taliban, it is clear that they discouraged all of the anti-Taliban supporters from supporting the efforts in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban. Even so much as when the Taliban was ripe for being defeated on the ground in Afghanistan, Bill Richardson and Rick Inderfurth, high-ranking members of this administration, personally visited the region in order to discourage the Taliban`s opposition from attacking the Taliban when they were vulnerable, and then going to neighboring countries to cut off any type of military assistance to the [opponents of the] Taliban. This, at a time when Pakistan was heavily resupplying and rearming the Taliban.

What did this lead to? It led to the defeat of all of the Taliban`s major enemies except for one, Commander Massoud, in the north, and left the Taliban the supreme power in Afghanistan.

So what we hear today about terrorism and crocodile tears from this administration, let us remember this administration is responsible for the Taliban. This administration has acted in a way that has kept the Taliban in power.