Chowk Special

Re: Wasiq

First part of my previous message is addressing you.

I hate to make it Shia-Sunni argument (which I find heart-breaking) but for the sake of facts I have to raise some questions. I did some search in Bukhari and did not find any so-called Hadith of Paper not did I find any thing resembling the hadith you cite about close compitation between the Prophet, Abu Bakr, and Umar for the prophethood like horses in a close race. Complete Bukhari can be found at:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/

Let us see if you can find these hadiths.

I contend that Sia`ite views does reflect poorly on the Prophet. If Shia`ites are 100% correct then the Prophet did not complete his mission successfully; right after his death ``real`` (as Shia`ite define) Islam ceased to exist. Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman ran things as they wanted (if it were true then they were worldly people) without regard Prophet`s ``original`` teachings. I find it highly cynical. Abu Bakr was known as Siddiq, Umar as Farooq and Uthman as Ghani because of their character and devotion to Islam and the Prophet. Contrary to what you cite as so-called Hadith of Paper, following passage shows that the Prophet`s death was a very tramatic event for both Umar and Abu Bakr:

Al-Zuhri said, and Sa`id ibn al-Musayyib from Abu Hurayra told me: When the Messenger was dead Umar got up (in the mosque) and said: ``Some of the disaffected will allege that the Messenger is dead, but by God he is not dead: he has gone to his Lord as Mosses son of Imran went and was hidden [on Sainai] from his people for forty days. By God the Messenger will return as Moses returned and cut off the hands and feet of men who allege that the Messenger is dead.`` When Abu Bakr heard what had happened he came to the door of the mosque as Umar was speaking to the people. He paid no attention but went into Aiasha`s room to the Messenger, who was lying cover by a mental on Yemeni cloth. He went and uncovered his face and kissed him saying, ``You are dearer than my father and mother. You have tasted the death that God had decreed; a second death will never overtake you.``

Then he replaced the mental over Messenger`s face and went out. Umar was still speaking and Abu Bakr said, ``Gently, Umar, be quite.`` But Umar refused and went on talking, and when Abu Bakr saw that he would not be silent, he went forward himself to the people who, when they heard his words come to him and left Umar. He said, ``O men, if anyone worships Mohammad, Mohammad is dead; if anyone wiorships God, God is alive, immortal.`` Then he recited this verse ``Mohammad is nothing but a Messenger. Messengers have passed away before him. Can it be that if he were to die or killed you would turn back on your heels? `He who turns back does no harm to God and God will reward the grateful.`` (Quran 3:144). By God, it was as if people did not know that this verse had not come until Abu Bakr recited it that day. The people took it from him and it was constantly on their tongues. Umar said. ``By God, when I heard Abu Bakr recite those words I was dumbfounded so that my legs would not bear me and I fell to the ground realizing that the Messenger was indeed dead.`` (Ibn Ishaq 1955: p. 678-683)

Futhermore, if there were changes made to Quran to deny the rights of progeny of Mohammad or more like progeny of Ali to the Imamate, Ali who came after Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman could have restored it to it ``original`` shape. But Ali did no such thing.

Kafir:

I think Anita is right on point that there is no coming together of poeple in the modren age to seek a utopian image. Modern world is run by self interests, and agendas hidden and otherwise. There have been no less tragic happenings in the modern world, for which humans are solely responsible, than in the distance past. The rise of facism in Europe after all is the part of the legacy of the modern world. Darwianly speaking, the highly ``evolved`` (technologically) human race would ultimately snatch all the resources and eradicate any competition.

Anita:

``These are all debatable ethical issues, where Western countries, especially the US have chosen to take a Christian position.``

Not entirely true: I see several counter examples like abortion and death penalty.

I think Siama is saying that before Islam woman Arab women were freer than early or later in Islam which is debatable. In any case, there were other reasons: Muslim empire was rapidly exanding and people became Muslim but they did not change their old ways of treating women.

``Indeed Allah has heard the statement of her (Khaulah bint Tha`labah) that disputes with you (O Muhammad SAW) concerning her husband (Aus bin As­Samit), and complains to Allah. And Allah hears the argument between you both. Verily, Allah is All-Hearer, All-Seer.`` (Quran 58:1)

I have to run, so this should be short.

Re: Kafir

``now we are entering the global phase of affiliation through telecommunications, an international economy, and global environmental concern. The morality for the next millennium will be one that views all of mankind as one, interconnected and sharing a common destiny.``

I wish the above were true. But the inherent morality in this passion for globalization is consumerism and unbridled capitalism, my friend, not our common good. Sadly, five years after the agenda formulated at the International Conference on Development - Cairo, articulated in Bruntland`s `Our Common Future` (sustainable development, inequities in resource sharing between rich and poor countries, human and environmental exploitation by corporate giants operating in poor countries, and on and on) it is patently obvious that no one in power cares two hoots about ``OUR common destiny``.

``I think we have been biologically programmed to preserve both the self and the group, and human history has been a great drama about finding the balance between the two``

I agree to an extent. However, I am of the view that we have been biologically programmed to place self above group. And then again, we get into the problem of the definition of `group`. Humans seem to have a natural tendency to form tribal associations. Now wouldn`t it be nice if some person comes along and is perceived to be divinely inspired and says ``group means all the people of the earth - the rich and the poor, and if you don`t take the group`s well-being in account, then you go to hell``. Too simplistic?

Also, at some level, as a woman the concept of collective societal good worries me. This is what women have been fed for millenia to subsume their own interests for the welfare of society. Now that there is some chance (albeit a remote one), that we may have a matriarchal world, collective societal good comes along again to confuse us. Okay, okay, I try to fight this tendency for wanting a matriarchal world:).

Re: MaTha (#87)

``History claims that after the compilation in Uthman`s time the HQ was accepted, all other copies were disposed of...``

Here`s what I am saying. and I stress that it is my personal belief.

After Uthman, Islam went through a period of civil war, in which Ali`s side lost. It is possible that the History written by the victors does not represent what actually happened. That`s all.

Re: Saima

``Morality derived from Ethics led to democracy and humanism, whereas Religious Morality led to feudalism and class divides. This is an inductive conclusion. Big leap?``

I agree with pretty much everything you say. However, Western morality is not solely derived from ethics - there are strong Christian underpinnings. For example, polygamy (male or female)is not allowed, neither is euthanasia, suicide is considered ``wrong``, embryonic research is frowned upon, and may be outlawed, even if its done for the benefit of humankind. These are all debatable ethical issues, where Western countries, especially the US have chosen to take a Christian position.

``Some writer here (RR) said that Islam was pro-women and was an improvement over the previous system. why is it then that Hazrat Khadija was a business woman in those days before Islam and then there is no tradition of women in business etc immediately after or later?``

For this you have to thank our esteemed khalifas. Life for women was looking up in the early days of Islam - participating in many public spheres of life (I can detail these later, am short of time right now). Then came the incident of the teasing of the Prophet`s wives in the bazaars and they were asked to veil themselves. Umar extended this to all women, and basicly curtailed any role for women outside the house. And then there is the unfortunate incident of the start of the first civil war under Ayesha`s command. Instead of looking at the underlying causes of this, from here on, women were to blame for any disunity among the Ummah. Ali`s views were also heavily colored by this. And that was the final nail in the coffin.

Anita

Re: Wasiq

Religions strive to fulfill this desire for justice, and try to set up societal level institutions that
realize the concept of justice as understood within the context of the religion.
Islamic view of ``justice`` is not separate from its view of ``morality``, the latter
derives from the former``. ``

Therein lies the problem. To my mind freedom of thought is Just. In the point of view where the concept of justice derives from religious morality, freedom of thought is considered Just up to a point where it challenges the morality code. Plato`s Utopia was about Freedom of Thought. Not just the pursuit of morality. Morality is not an unchanging concept and is dependent on our level of understanding/as well as the tilt of political /economic power which is legitimized by the prevalent Morals. I think that is what Anita Zaidi, Matha, Noor and Kafir must think also. That is why poor Socrates ended up drinking poison. It is a fine difference, but as history has shown us, Morality derived from Ethics led to democracy and humanism, whereas Religious Morality led to feudalism and class divides. This is an inductive conclusion. Big leap?

``Even when you talk about ``justice`` and ``morality`` you are talking within some
context, with some prototypical (or typical) model in your head, perhaps a Western
or secular or Islamic or Platonic or whatever model of what constitutes justice.``

I have not found the perfect model of justice and neither has the rest of the world. I believe that given freedom of thought each age will designate Justice differently. The concept of Absolutes and An Underlying perfect Truth can be believed to explain constant change in our definitions of morality, justice. But whether it is `really there` is itself a derived truth and deductive not inductive.

Regarding your comment about the famous levels of Quranic understanding, maybe the Quran is a Crystal Ball which takes care of the changing nature of justice in different ages; which again says nothing for having one interpretation of the Quran or one Absolute Justice out there or under there. I keep thinking that Religion Morality serves the need for stability and anti-thesis for change/creativity.

Re: Kafir

Rationality changes from age to age. Reason is itself dependent on how human beings define it from age to age. Before Galileo it was perfectly rational to view the Earth as centric. Newton`s laws were rational too, till along came some one else with a deeper understanding. I agree that rationality is change friendly therefore a good way to view the world; but rationality is not a perfect method by definition. No, I am not advocating belief as an automatic alternative, just saying that it does not entirely serve all human needs. Needs of passion and power are prey to belief. Not to mention the need to cover the obvious gaps in reason; the need to believe a constant reality underlying the obvious. Without some beliefs we would all be irrational/mad and give up the pursuit of reason/ thought in the broader sense, because a simple rational explanation would suffice. In other words, belief has an important role to play in the pursuit of reason itself. So have said tons of great thinkers, philosophers, psychologists etc.

I agree with whatever you said, just thought this was important too. The view that rationality derives itself from belief-what we believe or disbelieve is what makes us what we are, whether superstitious or rational or a believer. My rationale for rejecting a moral code which excludes my participation is because I believe I am important; therefore I find the code of behavior unfair. Whether this is considered immoral or democratic, is a question of what people in different cultures believe. Like AZ, maybe this is the age of humanism where all humans are believed important and good, until proven otherwise. The otherwise seems to be a tough one.

Whether one believes in something or not is still belief either way. Even though you may think your belief is a rational belief and justified, it is still belief. Also our belief in rationality justifies our rejection of perceived irrational beliefs. We are what we believe or doubt. What is perhaps of immense importance is the idea that without the moderation of the intellect the human need for power and sensuality dominates. Religion over the ages, seems to have severed the intellect at the cost of human development and led to whole regions fighting over power as well as sunk in sensualist pursuits (call it by any other name; polygamy for one). Jihads and harems are hardly non-militarist or progressive.

Some writer here (RR) said that Islam was pro-women and was an improvement over the previous system. Why is it then that Hazrat Khadija was a business woman in those days before Islam and then there is no tradition of women in business etc., immediately after or later? BTW, whatever happened to her business?

I hear that girl children used to be buried alive before and not after Islam. Can we have more light why this was done? Was it because of gender or poverty? From what I have read, Islam achieved the virtual removal of women from sources of power, public life and material independence.

Regards.
PS: maybe the debate has spent itself by now, but anyway here is prob my last bit`s worth

Short reply this time..and hopefully my last on this thread ;) All of you will be spared from reading my bakwaas for at least two days.

Saima Shah:

``Rationality changes from age to age. Reason is itself dependent on how human beings define it fromage to age. Before Galileo it was perfectly rational to view the Earth as centric. Newton`s laws were rational too, till along came some one else with a deeper understanding. ``

I think you are confusing the body of information obtained by the use of reason and reason in and of itself. So it was perfectly rational to believe in Newton`s laws insofar as they agreed with physical observation. And they did so remarkably well. And it was this very same rationality and reason that demanded that Newton`s laws are only approximations to something more universal. And so as we stand contemplating string theories and supersymmetries, we hold them under this same scrutiny, and should be willing to change them if they prove to be false.

The beauty of reason as a method is that it seeks to improve and expand the body of human knowledge, which will probably never be perfect. And even if it is, how would we know?

Thanks everyone, Saima, Wasiq, Temporal, Ferozk etc., for a stimulating discussion.

Mohammad Noorul Islam

RE: Anita (#83)

History claims that after the compilation in Uthman`s time the HQ was accepted, all other copies were disposed of. I`m sure a textual

catharsis of unacceptable copies found anywhere

since then is a must to keep HQ standardized

(they may have been blamed on Jewish conspiracies to undermine Islam, for example). The debate (at least in Lester`s article) is NOT about whether this HQ was the correct version or not, but whether this HQ has been evolving since then, at least till the 10th century. Is it? Is the proof of it a find in Yemen about 1400 years later of a text which is from around that time and whose

differences with the HQ are NOT elucidated in any

way helpful to this argument in the article, if there are any. Maybe, it`s just a different script. Did Puin discover that this text was different because he could comperhend a little more (or less) than 20% of it?

It seems to me that people have a certain viewpoint about these issues which was solidified BEFORE exposure to this Lester article or knowledge of the Yemen find, and now it serves as a perfect excuse to voice this opinion under the

libada of intellectual curiosity etc. Mr. Lester is as competent to talk about these matters as the Pakistani govt. is of facilitating social change in the country, yet his article is ``interesting``.

Maybe all this band-wagon exposure will make him a great scholar. Good luck to him!

Re: Kafir (77)

I think we will disagree on this issue, simply because (as I see it), we do not have enough understanding.

Maybe I should clarify that by making the distinction between objective and subjective knowledges, I am referring to their epistemology. That is, the bases of these knowledges and the methods employed for their enunciation. I am not stating that the boundaries between these knowledges are static, and therefore making no statements about the eventual reach of the scientific process. We have to after all, in all honesty, regard the possibility that the future generations will improve upon our current methods of acquisition and classification of knowledge.

I gave the example of a person crying, because I feel that we do NOT have an underlying model of the human mind. Although we hypothesize that the mind is a by-product of the immense complexity of all the neurons and their inter-connections, an emergent complex state from simple local rules, the fact of the matter is that it is merely a hypothesis which has neither verifiable nor falsifiable implications. Within the mind itself, it is not known what exactly are the agents that give rise to this complex phenomenon, much less trying to define this complex phenomenon. Honestly then, this explanation does not classify as a theory.

I wanted to point out to another thing. You said: ``Also, objective knowledge is coherent across time and cultures.`` Let me give you a counter example from our times. If we consider Quantum theory and the General theory of relativity to be representative of ``objective`` knowledge, then you have to explain the fact why these two theories are inherently and completely discordant with each another. One finds that something has to be replaced at a very fundamental level before these two theories can be reconciled. Ironically, these two theories form the foundation stones of modern physics, and that points to the level of ``subjectivity`` even in an ``objective`` discipline.

Finally you said, ``Could you entertain the idea that this belief in the Underlying Unknown is itself the result of your biological and cultural heritage, and not a transcendent, independent truth?``

And my answer is yes. I am fully aware that my mind may be deceiving me by silently reverting back to what I learnt at my mother`s knee.

I also observe the following:

Nature has consistently outwitted us. Our senses and thoughts are attuned to the familiar, which are the conditions that we see in every day life. There is absolutely no reason to assume that nature at the sub-atomic level, or in the presence of strong gravitational/electro-magnetic field, or during the first few instants of the universe, or in some strange combination of different circumstances should correspond to the environments that I am used to. Therefore, I do not expect my usual assumptions to be valid everywhere, and I expect to find stuff that is outrightly weird to be a closer explanation of nature. My notion of the Underlying Unknown encapsulates this realization of mine, for it frees my mind from the box of my current concepts.

regards

Re: Mohammad Noorul Islam

``However, REGARDLESS of whether our genes are coded with some sort of ethic, there is an independent foundation for morality; our collective survival and happiness... This principle should lie at the center of our debate to shape our social contract.``


Noor, a morality based on our collective good is of course instinctively appealing. But the problems are a)whose collective good - the rich, the poor, men, women, Muslims, individual nations, the entire human race, all living things, who falls under ``our``, and b)doesn`t such a system predicate that individuals assign greater utility to the collective good rather than individual good, and if so, requires humans to overcome biological programming designed to ensure survival and happiness of self above others?

Isn`t a morality based on promise of reward in after-life or another life by far the best tool available to manipulate people`s behavior with? Isn`t that why religions exist?

Re: Rehan and MaTha

This debate is about whether there is a POSSIBILITY that variant versions of the Quran have EVER existed. I think any reasonable mind would conclude that such a POSSIBILITY exists, given the manner in which the Quran was collected and the extensive schisms within the Muslim community that appeared very early on in Islam`s history. This would explain any textual differences that may be found in the Yemeni Qurans, without being as big a disaster for Islam as many Muslims are thinking. In fact, it may be great to see some differences because it would force us to re-examine our heritage in the light of history, rather than continue our present illogical stance of Quran as immutable dogma.

Anita

Re: RanaRansher

I agree generally with your thesis of the ``evolution of humankind.`` But I don`t think your argument is a reconciliation of religious belief with scientific knowledge. It is the SUBSUMING of religious belief into a scientific worldview. Religious belief is explained as a product of human evolution rather than as an inherent truth or transcendent reality.

Re: Wasiq

I admire your endurance in keeping up with two intense threads of discussion! Yes, I think we did discuss science and religion earlier under the Dawkins article (mainly you and Venki), but I think previously you were taking the materialist position and Venki the metaphysical one. You seem to now be arguing the metaphysical side (correct me if I`m wrong). Anyway, we`re obviously not going to resolve this anytime soon, so take a well-deserved break my friend. :) And show us some more of your brilliant fiction writing when you get a chance...

Re: Anita Zaidi

Your Qs were addressed to Noor, but I`ll butt in.

``a morality based on our collective good is of course instinctively appealing. But the problems are a)whose collective good - the rich, the poor, men, women, Muslims, individual nations, the entire human race, all living things, who falls under ``our``?``

I think human history has been a story of the expanding circle of ``us.`` First it was the family, then the tribe, then the village, the city, the state, the nation, and now we are entering the global phase of affiliation through telecommunication, an international economy, and global environmental concern. The morality for the next millennium will be one that views all of mankind as one, interconnected and sharing a common destiny.

``and b)doesn`t such a system predicate that individuals assign greater utility to the collective good rather than individual good, and if so, requires humans to overcome biological programming designed to ensure survival and happiness of self above others?``

I don`t agree that the survival of the self is contradictory to the survival of others. Self-preservation often implies group-preservation since we rely on others for so many aspects of our happiness and well-being (especially in modern societies where economic activities are so specialized). I think we have been biologically programmed to preserve both the self and the group, and human history has been a great drama about finding the balance between the two.

``Isn`t a morality based on promise of reward in after-life or another life by far the best tool available to manipulate people`s behavior with? Isn`t that why religions exist?``

Yes, religion-based morality does operate by this system of reward of punishment. But if there is an inherent biologically-derived ethics and morality, then we act according to what FEELS right, what both ensures individual survival and happiness as well as group survival and happiness. Heaven and hell need not be part of the equation.

Regards,

K

RE: Wasiq (#80 and #81)

OK! I am calm now! This medication really works!

Dear Bokiman, it is irrelevant whether somehow I am satisfied or not (I usually am, even though my outward appearance belies the situation). This whole debate was under the elusive context of whether the HQ is what it really, truly etc should be. Frankly, to ask that question today, when one can only make speculative gestures based on umpteen ultimately contradictory statements by people who may or may not have made the statements in the first place, is utterly a waste of time.

Especially, when the one-fifth of it all doesn`t make any sense (I`ll come to Mr. Lester later)!

Which is why I called for scientific discourse. I may not be as well-versed in the intellectual diversity which is associated with your person, but I can somehow (I take the 5th on how) identify with the lack of scientific discourse when I see it (this remark is for personal gratification only, all criticism to /dev/null).

Of course, Ali didn`t fail, as a whole (or we wouldn`t have gems like Mun Kuntu Maula).

Speculation starts * * *

But, he failed on one account, which is that he saw the loss of an essential part of the HQ, perhaps an ayat in Surah Tauba which called for allowing minorities to live without paying jugga tax.

Speculation ends * * *

Aap nay farmaya:

Would it satisfy you if he had revolted earlier and been killed in the process? Would you be happy if the whole of Banu Hashim was enslaved or exiled and Banu Umayya had taken over immediately after the Prophet`s death? Instead of the house of the Prophet beingbutchered in Karbala, it would have happened much sooner and much closer to Makkah. You propose your solution, what would you have done ... :)

Main farmata huN:

I repeat. My satisfaction is necessary though irrelevant.

I`ll only give your own medicine, so to speak.

Aap nay famaya (in #52):

In these circumstances, Hussein`s adamant stand NOT to give in to state pressure clearly defined the separation of the religion from the

state. It clearly said that the moral core of a religion CANNOT be defined by fiat by the state. Obviously he and his believers believed

thoroughly and deeply in this, they sacrificed their lives for this. But in doing so, due to the sheer tragedy of their sacrifice, due to their

stature in Islamic tradition to that point and due to the subsequent realization of the importance of Karbala, he saved Islam from the

whims of the State.

Main farmata huN:

* * Warning: Fable boundary, cross at your own risk *

So how come when Hussain did what Ali could also have done, he becomes a savior. But Ali is a savior as well. Seems like these people were saviors by default, independent of whether something was saved or not. If they had waited another century or two for the final performance, maybe we could have had the whole affair at Panipat (which is clearly a more popular venue).

I digress again!

But based on YOUR argumentation (and you quote Iqbal, since we all love him so much), it could have been Ali and Muawiya in the poem instead of Yazid and Hussain. On second thoughts, maybe Ali would have won and the Marsiya industry would suffer irreparable losses.

More recently, aap nay farmaya:

The issues that you bring up are interesting but they in my opinion are a result of taking an unnatural look at history. If an intelligent

person, sits down calmly and reads just the recorded history from the time of the Prophet to the time of Karbala, keeps the customs and

traditional rivalries of the people in view, and thinks about how things could evolve, it all makes sense.

If it helps at all, put yourself in his shoes, read through what is recorded and imagine what was going on. Then decide what course of

action you would have chosen and what he chose.

Main farmata huN:

Did I imply that I want my name to be chanted constantly be Qawwals?

OK, I`ll try.



I have become a person.

I have become intelligent.

I am sitting down calmly.

I am reading just the recorded history from the time of the Prophet to the time of Karbala.

I am keeping the customs and traditional rivalries of the people in view.

I am thinking about how things could evolve.

Wow! I have become a Shia. Hallelujah..err, I mean, ya Ali madad!

Now, I want a bagel!

A lot of people have tried this exercise over the centuries, but the recorded results seem to suggest that to succeed a catalyst called ``collective Kufan guilt`` really helps.

The 12th imam disappeared a while back, and I think he took human intelligence with him.

This ends our discussion on ``other`` ``related`` belief-systems, which compare to certain branches of mathematics for their strict adherence to logic. If you don`t agree with any of the beliefs (historically proven of course) just introduced, you are

A. Stupid

B. Not a person.

C. In an agitated state.

D. Standing.

E. All of the above and more.

A related issue:

Did Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Co. add to the HQ, or just delete stuff? If they added stuff (like Ayat 9 in Sura Tauba to justify their practices of expansionism) then they defied this claim by Allah

Surah 2 Ayat 23

And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant then produce a Surah like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (if there are any) besides Allah if your (doubts) are true.

Surah 10 Ayat 38

Or do they say ``He forged it``? Say: ``Bring then a Surah like unto it and call (to your aid) anyone you can besides Allah if it be ye speak the truth!``

Surah 11 Ayat 13

Or they may say ``He forged it.`` Say ``Bring ye then ten Surahs forged like unto it and call (to your aid) whomsoever ye can other than Allah! if ye speak the truth!

// Comment: The number increased from on to ten, I // wonder why?

Well, maybe they did only a few ayats, not a whole sura.

* *paintra badalna mathay ka aur baat karna kisee aur mauzoo par * *

Coming back to Mr. Lester, his ``interesting`` article has been justly identified by the likes

of RR (#3), SA (#17), Wasiq (#19) and Goga (#22), as bad scholarship and utter nonsense as far as I am concerned.

Who exactly finds this piece of journalistic scatological remains interesting?

Were the Muslims in such supreme control of the world that every time an addition or subtraction in the HQ was made (especially after amazingly erudite comments from truly civilized people who were non-Muslims, who just happened to be not so supreme) uptil the 10th century, each and every one of the older, now faulty copy, even in people`s minds, was either correctly edited or disposed of? Keep in mind that information control methods were primitive and Muslims were really all over the world. I look forward to the sci-fi thriller What is the Koran: The Movie!

I am going to go eat a bagel now!

Baqee aayenda,

baChoN ka pasandeeda,

baroN ka aazmooda,

maTha

re: reconciling religious beliefs with scientific knowledge

Sorry if you feel this is off the topic, but it is really in context to some threads by Kafir, Wasiq and Saima.

If you look at a `society` as a living organism undergoing CONSTANT evolution to instintively BETTER itself and gaurantee its survival under changing conditions, it ALL gives you a very good nights sleep.
What a cell is to a body, a human is to society. Just like the physiology and makeup of cells change to evolve a body, more suited for survival; societies evolve to adapt to changes in prevailing conditions.
Humans `created` different subjects to study, analyze and finally shape their own behaviour as groups and individuals. All subjects like science, medicine, sociology, psychology, history, religion, philosophy, etc.) help in BETTERING ourselves for tomorrow. Each subject has its own role in building better societies.
Religion has played a major part in evolving different societies around the world at different times. A Prophet can be seen as an agent of evolution often bringing a `new` message to better our lives as humans (and collectively as a society). As humans, when we are presented with anything that falls outside the realm of our understanding we have one of two reactions:
1) we perceive it as a threat (against survival instinct) and possibly persecute it
2) we see it benefitting us and possibly proceed to put it on a pedestal
So when a Prophet brings a message(s) to people, it addresses the prevailing evils of society. Based on its appeal it becomes a group movement with people accepting those changes. To explain this sociologically, we could say that a Prophet forms a `sect` which often challenges and reforms the prevailing `Church`. A sect is dynamic while a `Church` is a decaying, oppresive institution.
THe Quran can be seen as a `divine revelation` to Prophet Mohammad which he interpreted for people around him. Divinity being something outside our accepted realm of understanding. It addressed evils of society at that time and place. Now this is not to say that those same ideals are not good or applicable at a different time and in a different place. However, the evils of society are always morphing while the definition of society is also getting broader and broader for humans. Now if two individuals read the same text, it is completely possible that each one may get a slightly different interpretation of it, inspite of reading the same original text. That is human nature. So for example, when the Quran prescribes certain ways for women; I look at the prevailing conditions for 7th century women in Arabia and see it as a major social reform benefitting women. Likewise, hakmehr - it is nothing but modern day alimony. Jihad - a classic example of where different people interpret it differently. Even a lot of the Islamic history that is being discussed here can be explained and rationalized by this method. An argument I often receive is that Quran is not for anybody to interpret, it is absolute. But all that really means is that the text is possibly original. Lets assume that is true, even then you cannot deny that two individuals can interpret something differently. Just follow all the replies within this article. And it also does not mean that every individual DOES interpret it differently. There are groups of people who follow certain clerics and clergy and leave the implementation details to them.
Getting back to the sociological explanation. Any reforming `sect` has a tendency to become a `Church` over time. A `Church` can be seen as old and oppressive. The very ideals it set out to reform get diluted with passing generations and new evils may plague it. Almost in reaction, a sect is born again often evoking a move back to the `fundamentals` of that religion, hence the name `fundamentalists`. The sect seeks to reform the `Church` again. Not necessarily changing the religion itself but reforming the way it was being interpreted by prevailing `Church`.
At a macroscopic level it is like some sort of `evolution of humankind`. Where the bounds and definitions of `society` are constantly changing the evils plaguing it are changing. And of course time is of the essence. The ideals of any movement can be best understood by understanding the conditions that prevailed at that time and at that place. Quite like a scientific enquiry. The ideals may be good forever, but the movement(s) themselves are prone to becoming `Church`s over time only to give way to reforming `sects`.
I see different religions, secularism, people discussing the Islam, Quran, Islamic history, other political/social movements all within `evolution of humankind`. The discussion is pretty much each one of us presenting our `sects` to others for greater acceptance. We are looking for the `fittest` ideals to help our evolutionary journey.

Re: Noor (79)

Oh boy!

I am sorry if you have a problem with how I see this. That is why I warned at the very beginning that all of this should be taken with caution, since it is all subjective.

I am kindof tired, so maybe I will post a reply tomorrow.

best regards.

Re: Kafir (77)

I am sure we will disagree on some things. ACtually I believe that we have been through this discussion before, Venki and myself in response to an article by Dawkins.

Maybe tomorrow friend.

Re: Matha (78)

Dear friend, calm down ... remember the context of this discussion.

``Did Ali fail after a similar effort? I`m not sure.``

Would it satisfy you if he had revolted earlier and been killed in the process? Would you be happy if the whole of Banu Hashim was enslaved or exiled and Banu Umayya had taken over immediately after the Prophet`s death? Instead of the house of the Prophet being butchered in Karbala, it would have happened much sooner and much closer to Makkah. You propose your solution, what would you have done ... :)

However to say that he failed outright is wrong again. After all if he failed, how come I am sitting here typing all of this to you? Hmmm ....

:)

W

Re: Matha (64)

Well, from what one can gather from his own sayings and from the records that are with us today (in whatever form) that I have been exposed to, it appears that the situation was the following.

I think in all of this, many people commit the cardinal mistake of expecting something superhuman from these people. But Muhammed and Ali were flesh and blood, not comic story mythical characters, who felt no pain, suffering etc.

He always claimed to be the rightful successor and started the job of compiling the Quran after the Prophet`s death but was marginalized. The powers above him refused to entertain the protests of a group of ``leftists`` including Ali. Immediately after the death of the Prophet, Abu Bakr snatched away the only piece of property that provided the sustenance of Fatima, the Garden of Fidak. She died due to complications of child birth sometime later.

Ali, after all was human. He saw major tragedies in quick succession, the death of the Prophet, the abandoning of the dead body of the Prophet by his companions so that they could get power, the loss of their family`s sustenance (he had two young sons to raise remember?), intense political pressure and harassment, and on top of it a growing realization that Islam, as he understood it, was being distorted and lost. Focussing on the time of Uthman only from the point of view of the compilation of the Quran is naive, after all the deed had already been done the day a certain coterie of companions had usurped power. Uthman came about twenty years later, when Islam was no longer a provincial religion, but the ideology of a huge empire filled with nouveau rich. The dedicated companions of the prophet were literally paupers, the only following they had were of like minded idealists who were inconsequential to the state.

In this situation, he never relented his claim but at the same time correctly saw that if he were to lead a pro-Hashim counter offensive then not only would he lose, but Islam itself would be eliminated. It was after all unnecessary, and would have been completely eliminated once it had been branded as a pro-Hashim religion started by Muhammed. Remember, old Makkans, never accepted Muhammed, they always considered him to be the misguided ``orphan of Abdullah``.

I think by sacrificing his claim and his own self, Ali ensured that Islam itself would not be destroyed. At least today people know of the Quran, Muhammed and his teachings. Can you completely with a clear conscience say that such a sacrifice is not possible? He repeatedly confirmed his position vis-a-vis this (Nahjul Balagha contains his sentiments on this issue) and clarified that he had opted to take the back seat so that Islam itself may not become a victim of the deep seated tribal jealousies and Makkan politics.

The issues that you bring up are interesting but they in my opinion are a result of taking an unnatural look at history. If an intelligent person, sits down calmly and reads just the recorded history from the time of the Prophet to the time of Karbala, keeps the customs and traditional rivalries of the people in view, and thinks about how things could evolve, it all makes sense.

If it helps at all, put yourself in his shoes, read through what is recorded and imagine what was going on. Then decide what course of action you would have chosen and what he chose.

cheers

Re: Kafir (61)

I would warn you not to take my thoughts on this matter too seriously, since thankfully, they are in a process of constant evolution. Also, by definition, they are subjective.

I think the issue of religion versus science is an issue of knowledge. That is, we as human beings, for some reason, desire to understand. In the process, we have discovered that there is knowledge that is subjective (regardless of what is its source) and knowledge that is objective. Our methods for attaining subjective knowledge fall under the rubric of religions whereas our methods for attaining objective knowledge fall under the rubric of sciences.

As a simple example, I can describe, scientifically, the chaotic trajectory of a mass in the gravitational field of multiple massive bodies yet I cannot explain why someone cries. However, from within the subjective side of knowledge, I can not only define the process of crying, but also present a reason why it happens.

Clearly, the scientific knowledge and its associated intellectual weaponry is not complete. One can subsequently ask whether all knowledge is in principle assailable by the current scientific method? I do not know the answer to that, but clearly any knowledge that is not (a) definable (b) verifiable and (c) falsifiable would not be tackled by the current scientific method.

I believe that there is more than what begets the eye, that there are unknown knowledges, both objective and subjective, which I call the Underlying Unknown. This knowledge is not passive, because it forms the warp and woof of our existence, but rather it is active because it, through its incremental revelation, changes us irrevocably. This reminds me of the saying of the Prophet that there are multiple levels of interpretation of the Quran -hence the esoteric tradition in Sufism.

I also believe that both in the arena of objective and subjective knowledge, people have varying capabilities. Objective knowledge sees giants like Dirac, Gauss, Einstein etc. and other lesser people. Similarly, subjective knowledge sees giants like Buddha, Muhammed, Rumi etc. and other lesser people.

In this quest, what is more important is the Underlying Unknown itself, not the particular individuals who have also strived for it. This Underlying Unknown in my opinion is also called Allah, or God, or Brahman, and is the common denominator of all systems of knowledge, subjective or objective. To quote the beautiful parable from the Quran: ``There is nothing at all like him``. Being in the field that requires continual paradigm shifts, I am convinced that this is an apt description of the Underlying Unknown.

I am very happy for you that you have let your heart lead your mind. To me, just that instinctive distinction within us between the heart and the mind, shows that we still have a long way to go before we say we understand.

regards

Wasiq:

I think the issue of religion versus science is an issue of knowledge. That is, we as human beings, for some reason, desire to understand. In the process, we have discovered that there is knowledge that is subjective (regardless of what is its source) and knowledge that is objective. Our methods for attaining subjective knowledge fall under the rubric of religions whereas our methods for attaining objective knowledge fall under the rubric of sciences.

So you have put `knowledge` into two categories. The distinction between the two is not very clear to me. Let`s say we take your example of someone crying. You can VERY WELL describe the process of crying, objectively. If a person is crying, EVERYONE can see that. It is in my opinion objective rather than subjective. The reason for their crying is a little subjective. On this matter people might differ, depending on how well they know the crying person. Their OPINIONS (not knowledge, mind you) is then subjective; in the sense that it is dependent on the individual`s perception.

Now somehow you tie this example with Buddha, Muhammad and Rumi, implying that they possessed this queer form of knowledge. Certainly there is such a thing as the understanding and appreciation of human emotion. Without this we`d be robots. But it is NOT knowledge. It is a capacity to FEEL. Things and creations that inspire human emotions are not knowledge. Anees` marsia is not knowledge. Da Vinci`s Mona Lisa is not knowledge. It is something different, with it`s own merit and place in human life. I think part of what you are calling `subjective knowledge` is this aspect of human capability.

I believe that there is more than what begets the eye, that there are unknown knowledges, both objective and subjective, which I call the Underlying Unknown. This knowledge is not passive, because it forms the warp and woof of our existence, but rather it is active because it, through its incremental revelation, changes us irrevocably. This reminds me of the saying of the Prophet that there are multiple levels of interpretation of the Quran - hence the esoteric tradition in Sufism.

I also believe that both in the arena of objective and subjective knowledge, people have varying capabilities. Objective knowledge sees giants like Dirac, Gauss, Einstein etc. and other lesser people. Similarly, subjective knowledge sees giants like Buddha, Muhammed, Rumi etc. and other lesser people.

So you are saying that there is this `Underlying Unknown` heretofore inaccessible by scientific inquiry that was accessible by some other methods. Muhammad, Buddha and Rumi were, according to you, masters of this methodology. And they all left this body of alleged knowledge for us. Let`s set aside for the moment, the absurdities that are a part of this knowledge. The Nujoomi sitting on the sidewalk on Bandar Road also claims that he has access to subjective knowledge. How is his method different from Muhammad`s? Why is he not listed among masters of this knowledge, which by your own definition, is subjective? I think there are two reasons. People around you seem to accord more respect to these three gentlemen, and for a reason. They were not just your regular frauds and charlatans. There are streaks of great wisdom in what they said or did. Millions of people live their lives according to the principles laid out by these gentlemen. They were great students of human nature. Prophets or Mystics with some special communication channel to the Transendent Being, _ they probably weren`t. And that they claimed to have Divine knowledge and inspiration is what they have in common with the footpath nujoomi on Bandar Road.

Let me side-track here and respond to Temporal as well. I said rational reason is not perfect. When I said that, I had in mind the unimaginable possibility that for example, logic is not universal. You are hearing from the agnostic in me. But in our human context, in our daily lives rationality IS perfect and sufficient to attain knowledge. Any other method, like tossing coins and drawing lotteries or just starting imagining things is imperfect and is likely to lead to information that is demonstrably fase. For the same reason that you disbelieve nujoomis, saadhoos, palmists, astrologers etc., you should, if you are to be consistent in your `epistemology`, disbelieve Muhammad; unless of course if Muhammad has appealed to your REASON in believing that he was the prophet of god. I will be very happy to listen to that.

Temporal`s other question:

Why are you so curious about what I think of disbelievers? Since I don`t have a holy book telling me that they are deaf, blind and dumb I make that judgement on a case by case basis. I have not just one opinion of all the believers.

Kafir:

About your question, I don`t know the answer. Yes there seems to be some human instinct involved in determining social morality. But that`s all I can say on this matter. It is for the biologist to figure out what causes it. However, REGARDLESS of whether our genes are coded with some sort of ethic, there is an independent foundation for morality; our collective survival and happiness. Anything that is not detrimental towards this goal should not be outlawed. This principle should lie at the center of our debate to shape our social contract.

Rgds

Mohammad Noorul Islam

Re: Wasiq (# 66 et al)

On the blaming of haalaat: Yes, usually the reference implies trivializing the context, but in this case I only meant to elaborate that the ``conditions`` cannot stictly justify the outcome. If Ali was incapacitated (for whatever reasons) to not do what should have rightly been done then he failed on this account. I am not challenging his motivations, but the question remains if he actually saved Islam by choosing to not create this rift at that time. If true Islam died anyway and the true message was burnt/lost then what exactly was saved?

Aap nay farmaya:

We see a person A intending to do something, yet does not do so. If I were to say that his circumstances prevented him from doing so,

then I am not to be taken seriously since if the person A REALLY wanted to do it, he/she would have done it regardless of the circumstances.

This reasoning in my view is naive and spurious, befitting of a fantastic children`s fable, but not a history book.

Main farmata huN:

You claim that Ali wanted to do so but was unable to because his hands were tied, and therefore it was unfortunate that as a result the true message was lost. Does this mean that we celebrate this man for WANTING to introduce the true message, especially when we never have (or will) be exposed to it? From what I can conclude, he HAD the only chance to save true Islam and he blew it. Warning people of Imperialism in khutbas is not enough to save an ideology! So, yes, it does seem like a children`s fable. Maybe, he should have compiled the true message himself, taken a sabbatical, and come back when conditions were favorable (this would obviously be in the spirit of a children`s fable).

Aap nay farmaya:

... the list is long but you get the point.

Main farmata huN:

No, I don`t get the point. All these individuals did a lot to promote their ideas and then failed.

Did Ali fail after a similar effort? I`m not sure.



RE: Chowkwalay

About this saving rift in the Muslims business:

It is overused and over-rated! When was there not a rift in the Muslim community: at the battles of Siffin and Jamal? At Karbala? At the Prophet`s death-bed? Today? How did Ali`s decision to allow the loss of some relevant/important/indispensable part of the divine revelation ultimately produce unity in the Muslims? How did Ali`s decision to condone these power-hungry people`s (Abu Bakr, Umar) acts of Imperialism (he didn`t accept them but he didn`t reject them either) help in promoting the true anti-Imperialist spirit of Islam? Did Ali never partake of the booty during these dark times of Islam?

NOTE: I am asking all these questions so I don`t have to read all those books!

About the business that there were no offensives during the lifetime of the Prophet (keep in mind, however, that we are talking of a grand total of less than two years after fatah-e-Makka in which talking of such offensives makes any sense).

All from Sahih (or ghalat depending on the mood of the audience) Bukhari:

Some ghazwas during that time:

Hunain.

Autas.

Taif (definitely offensive, a siege was invloved).

Dhu-Al-Khalasa

Dhat-ul-Salasil

Sariyas:

Army sent to Najf.

Sariya of the Ansar.

Army sent to the sea-coast under Ubaida ibn-al-Jarrah.

And wasn`t it Ali who was the governor of Yemen around that time?

The ahadith from Bokhari regarding Dhu-al-Khalasa are rather interesting, and I`ll just reproduce some of them, carefully chosen of course to make my point (none of them is by Abu Huraira):

Narrated by Qais

5.643

Jarir said ``Allah`s Apostle said to me, `Won`t you relieve me from Dhul-Khalasa?` I replied, `Yes, (I will relieve you).` So I proceeded along with one hundred and fifty cavalry from Ahmas tribe who were skillful in riding horses. I used not to sit firm over horses, so I informed the Prophet of that, and he stroked my chest with his hand till I saw the marks of his hand over my chest and he said, `O Allah! Make him firm and one who guides others and is guided (on the right path).` Since then I have never fallen from a horse. Dhul-l-Khulasa was a house in Yemen belonging to the tribe of Khatham and Bajaila, and in it there were idols which were worshipped, and it was called Al-Ka`ba.`` Jarir went there, burnt it with fire and dismantled it. When Jarir reached Yemen, there was a man who used to foretell and give good omens by casting arrows of divination. Someone said to him, ``The messenger of Allah`s Apostle is present here and if he should get hold of you, he would chop off your neck.`` One day while he was using them (i.e. arrows of divination), Jarir stopped there and said to him, ``Break them (i.e. the arrows) and testify that None has the right to be worshipped except Allah, or else I will chop off your neck.`` So the man broke those arrows and testified that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah. Then Jarir sent a man called Abu Artata from the tribe of Ahmas to the Prophet to convey the good news (of destroying Dhu-l-Khalasa). So when the messenger reached the Prophet, he said, ``O Allah`s Apostle! By Him Who sent you with the Truth, I did not leave it till it was like a scabby camel.`` Then the Prophet blessed the horses of Ahmas and their men five times.

5.641

Narrated by Jarir

In the Pre-Islamic Period of Ignorance there was a house called Dhu-l-Khalasa or Al-Ka`ba Al-Yamaniya or Al-Ka`ba Ash-Shamiya. The Prophet said to me, ``Won`t you relieve me from Dhu-l-Khalasa?`` So I set out with one-hundred-and-fifty riders, and we dismantled it and killed whoever was present there. Then I came to the Prophet and informed him, and he invoked good upon us and Al-Ahmas (tribe).

There was booty collected from Yemen as well of which even Ali partook (5.637).

Basically, I don`t find the assertion that the Prophet (and later Ali) would have never used military means to accomplish the spread of Islam not very convincing.

They may have distributed each and every bit of material wealth which came through the war-booty channel but it did exist even during the life of the Prophet (and let`s not even go towards the topic of slave-girls). They were indeed human

and perhaps it WAS allowed even in the true spirit of Islam!

Aap nay farmaya:

Looking at the first category now, even during military campaigns within Arabia, the condition that people convert to Islam for sanctuary was never employed.

The tradition ``Islam, Jizya or war`` was an unfortunate invention during the time of military expansionism after the death of the Prophet.

Main farmata huN:

And how do you get to this self-evident truth?

It`s NOT Sahih Boakhari or the HQ if you ask me.

According to the doctored HQ:

Surah Tauba, Ayat 29.

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His apostle nor acknowledge the religion of truth (even if they are) of the People of the Book until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.

La ikrah fid diN? Sure, whatever you say (maybe THIS part was doctored!)

Baqee aayenda,

maTha