Chowk Special
Chowk P Room January 13, 1999
#81 Posted by RanaRansher on January 21, 1999 10:10:30 pm
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.
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.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#82 Posted by maTha on January 22, 1999 10:27:10 am
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
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
#83 Posted by Kafir on January 22, 1999 11:14:03 am
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
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
#84 Posted by Anita Zaidi on January 22, 1999 11:16:54 am
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
``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
#85 Posted by wasiq on January 22, 1999 6:09:42 pm
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
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
#86 Posted by maTha on January 23, 1999 12:41:36 am
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!
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!
#87 Posted by noor on January 23, 1999 8:53:45 am
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
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
#88 Posted by SaimaShah on January 23, 1999 9:59:43 am
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
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
#89 Posted by Anita Zaidi on January 23, 1999 12:33:34 pm
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: 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
#90 Posted by Goga on January 23, 1999 12:59:02 pm
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)
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)
#91 Posted by Goga on January 23, 1999 12:59:02 pm
Re: Wasiq
First part of my previous message is addressing you.
First part of my previous message is addressing you.
#92 Posted by Kafir on January 23, 1999 8:52:44 pm
Re: Wasiq
I think I understand your argument regarding subjective and objective knowledge. I also agree that nature at different levels (subatomic, cosmological) may behave in ways contrary to our assumptions about our human-scale environment, and that we should keep an open mind about this Unknown. My problem arises when human beings, as social and political creatures, try to appropriate meaning to this mystery (under the guise of religion and mysticism), very subjectively and with glaring contradictions across cultures, where no meaning may inherently exist. And the political ramifications of this appropriation of meaning.
BTW, I`m fascinated by the inherent discordance between Quantum theory and the General theory of relativity that you mentioned. Could you briefly explain it, or if it`s too complicated for a brief explanation, could you refer me to a source (keeping in mind that I`ve only had two semesters of college physics:))? Thanks.
Re: Saima Shah
I agree that belief underlies any epistemology, whether humanistic, religious, mystical, or whatever. Humanists base their knowledge on materialist, scientific assumptions; religionists on prophetic, historical personalities and their teachings; mystics on some mysterious spiritual source. We could argue til the cows come home about which view is correct, but that wouldn`t be very fruitful. As a pragmatist, I`m more concerned about how each affects our lives socially and politically and which is the best for the age in which we live, ensuring both individual and collective well-being.
Re: Anita Zaidi (and Goga)
``...the inherent morality in this passion for globalization is consumerism and unbridled capitalism, my friend, not our common good.``
My friend, I think there are two distinct issues here: historical process and moral principle. Comsumerism and capitalism are the historical, political engines that are bringing about a globalized world where we are all increasingly dependent on each other for food, livelihood, information, security, etc. Consumerism and capitalism are not moral principles, they are methods of economy. My argument is that moral principles like justice, compassion, homesty, equity, sacrifice, etc., that were previously restricted to the tribe will eventually have to expand to include the whole world because we will all depend on each other for our collective survival and well-being. Obviously, the majority of humankind hasn`t come to this understanding, but I think that`s where we`re heading (if we want to survive long-term).
As for divinely-inspired prophets motivating us to expand the meaning of `us` to include the whole world lest we be sent to Hell, yes, that is a powerful tool for social manipulation and action. But the real Hell we should fear now is not a fiery pit with a horn-headed Shaitan poking us with a pitchfork, but a world torn apart by war, racism, pollution, resource depletion, poverty, famine, because we couldn`t resolve our problems as one global tribe. Modern day prophets should be able to spur us to action with this hellish scenario, and WITHOUT divine inspiration, thank you very much.
I think I understand your argument regarding subjective and objective knowledge. I also agree that nature at different levels (subatomic, cosmological) may behave in ways contrary to our assumptions about our human-scale environment, and that we should keep an open mind about this Unknown. My problem arises when human beings, as social and political creatures, try to appropriate meaning to this mystery (under the guise of religion and mysticism), very subjectively and with glaring contradictions across cultures, where no meaning may inherently exist. And the political ramifications of this appropriation of meaning.
BTW, I`m fascinated by the inherent discordance between Quantum theory and the General theory of relativity that you mentioned. Could you briefly explain it, or if it`s too complicated for a brief explanation, could you refer me to a source (keeping in mind that I`ve only had two semesters of college physics:))? Thanks.
Re: Saima Shah
I agree that belief underlies any epistemology, whether humanistic, religious, mystical, or whatever. Humanists base their knowledge on materialist, scientific assumptions; religionists on prophetic, historical personalities and their teachings; mystics on some mysterious spiritual source. We could argue til the cows come home about which view is correct, but that wouldn`t be very fruitful. As a pragmatist, I`m more concerned about how each affects our lives socially and politically and which is the best for the age in which we live, ensuring both individual and collective well-being.
Re: Anita Zaidi (and Goga)
``...the inherent morality in this passion for globalization is consumerism and unbridled capitalism, my friend, not our common good.``
My friend, I think there are two distinct issues here: historical process and moral principle. Comsumerism and capitalism are the historical, political engines that are bringing about a globalized world where we are all increasingly dependent on each other for food, livelihood, information, security, etc. Consumerism and capitalism are not moral principles, they are methods of economy. My argument is that moral principles like justice, compassion, homesty, equity, sacrifice, etc., that were previously restricted to the tribe will eventually have to expand to include the whole world because we will all depend on each other for our collective survival and well-being. Obviously, the majority of humankind hasn`t come to this understanding, but I think that`s where we`re heading (if we want to survive long-term).
As for divinely-inspired prophets motivating us to expand the meaning of `us` to include the whole world lest we be sent to Hell, yes, that is a powerful tool for social manipulation and action. But the real Hell we should fear now is not a fiery pit with a horn-headed Shaitan poking us with a pitchfork, but a world torn apart by war, racism, pollution, resource depletion, poverty, famine, because we couldn`t resolve our problems as one global tribe. Modern day prophets should be able to spur us to action with this hellish scenario, and WITHOUT divine inspiration, thank you very much.
#93 Posted by wasiq on January 24, 1999 12:15:07 am
Re: Goga (91,92)
Thanks for looking for the references. I was hoping someone would go and cross-check the references I have been spewing.
In fact the Hadees of Paper (Qartas) is mentioned SEVEN times in Sahih Bukhari. Here are the explicit references. I went to the web-site that you mentioned, and stopped looking after I found it FOUR times.
References for The Hadees of Paper in Sahih Bukhari:
1) The Book of knowledge
2) The Book of Jihad
3) The Book of Khumus
4) The Chapter on the Illness of the Prophet and his death
5) Same as (4)
6) The Book of Illnesses
7) The Book of Holding on to the Quran
I found the Hadees in these 4 places in this web-site:
Vol. 9, Book 92, Number 468
Vol. 1, Book 3, Number 114
Vol. 4, Book 52, Number 288
Vol. 4, Book 53, Number 393
For other explicit mentions of Hadrat Umar see:
1) Sahih Muslim, Kitab-ul-Wassiya. (This reference is very interesting because it mentions the first use of the slogan ``Hasbuna Kitab Ullah`` and also the words ``Haza Rajlun La-Yahjur`` -- which translates into ``This person is spewing nonsense``)
2) Musnad Imam Hanbal, Al-juz Ul-Awwal.
3) Tabaqat-e Ibne Saad
The fact that Hadrat Umar uttered these words has been accepted by, Imam Hanbal, Ibne Saad, Ibn Ul-Atheer, etc. It will be quite hard to get a better set of Islamic scholars.
I will await your response until you have gone through these sources, otherwise we will be going in circles.
Your point about the Shia-Sunni comparison of who ``respects`` the Prophet more is faulty. The Shias believe that the Prophet completed his mission supremely, what happened later was the fault of his power hungry companions. Even the most anti-Shia Sunni scholars do not come to the conclusion that you came to. However, I believe that bickering over this point is useless, after all you have access to the sources and have your own intelligence. The question relevant for us today is what really happened, and whether we can get a clear idea from the sources available to us?
All of the other things (about the faulty ``the Quran could have been re-instated`` argument) are in discussion in other threads on within these responses (Matha, Wasiq, ANita), so I do not wish to repeat myself or others.
However, while we are at the issue of the ``sincerity`` of certain people, you will be hard pressed to explain why these gentlemen abandoned the dead body of the Prophet and instead ran away to Saqeefa so that they could get power? Could they not wait for a day? On the other hand the family of the Prophet (including Ali) and some of the devoted companions remained with the Prophet and buried him. These gentlemen who ran away were NOT present in the bathing, funeral prayers or the burial of the Prophet.
References for the circus of Saqeefa are very illuminating:
1) For an introduction to the incident of Saqeefa see Vol 5, Book 57, Number 19 in Sahih Bukhari.
2) The History of Ibne-Khaldun, Part 2.
3) Abu Muhammed Abdullah bin Muslim bin Qaitba (died 270 A.H) in Al-siyasat wa Imamat.
4) History of Ibne Asakir (Tareekh ul Kabeer)
5) Abu Jaffer bin Jarir At-Tabari in Tareekh-ul-Umam wal Malook, Part 3.
AGain, maybe we should talk about this after you look at these references.
best regards,
Wasiq
Thanks for looking for the references. I was hoping someone would go and cross-check the references I have been spewing.
In fact the Hadees of Paper (Qartas) is mentioned SEVEN times in Sahih Bukhari. Here are the explicit references. I went to the web-site that you mentioned, and stopped looking after I found it FOUR times.
References for The Hadees of Paper in Sahih Bukhari:
1) The Book of knowledge
2) The Book of Jihad
3) The Book of Khumus
4) The Chapter on the Illness of the Prophet and his death
5) Same as (4)
6) The Book of Illnesses
7) The Book of Holding on to the Quran
I found the Hadees in these 4 places in this web-site:
Vol. 9, Book 92, Number 468
Vol. 1, Book 3, Number 114
Vol. 4, Book 52, Number 288
Vol. 4, Book 53, Number 393
For other explicit mentions of Hadrat Umar see:
1) Sahih Muslim, Kitab-ul-Wassiya. (This reference is very interesting because it mentions the first use of the slogan ``Hasbuna Kitab Ullah`` and also the words ``Haza Rajlun La-Yahjur`` -- which translates into ``This person is spewing nonsense``)
2) Musnad Imam Hanbal, Al-juz Ul-Awwal.
3) Tabaqat-e Ibne Saad
The fact that Hadrat Umar uttered these words has been accepted by, Imam Hanbal, Ibne Saad, Ibn Ul-Atheer, etc. It will be quite hard to get a better set of Islamic scholars.
I will await your response until you have gone through these sources, otherwise we will be going in circles.
Your point about the Shia-Sunni comparison of who ``respects`` the Prophet more is faulty. The Shias believe that the Prophet completed his mission supremely, what happened later was the fault of his power hungry companions. Even the most anti-Shia Sunni scholars do not come to the conclusion that you came to. However, I believe that bickering over this point is useless, after all you have access to the sources and have your own intelligence. The question relevant for us today is what really happened, and whether we can get a clear idea from the sources available to us?
All of the other things (about the faulty ``the Quran could have been re-instated`` argument) are in discussion in other threads on within these responses (Matha, Wasiq, ANita), so I do not wish to repeat myself or others.
However, while we are at the issue of the ``sincerity`` of certain people, you will be hard pressed to explain why these gentlemen abandoned the dead body of the Prophet and instead ran away to Saqeefa so that they could get power? Could they not wait for a day? On the other hand the family of the Prophet (including Ali) and some of the devoted companions remained with the Prophet and buried him. These gentlemen who ran away were NOT present in the bathing, funeral prayers or the burial of the Prophet.
References for the circus of Saqeefa are very illuminating:
1) For an introduction to the incident of Saqeefa see Vol 5, Book 57, Number 19 in Sahih Bukhari.
2) The History of Ibne-Khaldun, Part 2.
3) Abu Muhammed Abdullah bin Muslim bin Qaitba (died 270 A.H) in Al-siyasat wa Imamat.
4) History of Ibne Asakir (Tareekh ul Kabeer)
5) Abu Jaffer bin Jarir At-Tabari in Tareekh-ul-Umam wal Malook, Part 3.
AGain, maybe we should talk about this after you look at these references.
best regards,
Wasiq
#94 Posted by SaimaShah on January 24, 1999 12:16:17 am
Re: Noor (89)
Yes. Agreed utterly. My only contention is that
some belief is always needed, morals or values or ethics...because of the imperfection of knowledge. A point sometimes made by many religious scholars to defend religion.
To,
Noor, Anita, Wasiq, RR, MaTha, all thanks for a great discussion.
Yes. Agreed utterly. My only contention is that
some belief is always needed, morals or values or ethics...because of the imperfection of knowledge. A point sometimes made by many religious scholars to defend religion.
To,
Noor, Anita, Wasiq, RR, MaTha, all thanks for a great discussion.
#95 Posted by wasiq on January 24, 1999 12:40:14 am
Re: Saima (88)
Actually I think you misread me, I said ``Islamic view of ``justice`` is not separate from its view of ``morality``, the latter derives from the former``, and not the other way around.
On another related point, Plato`s Republic was anything BUT freedom of thought. Who said Plato believed in freedom of thought or speech? In an ideal city, the rulers were philosophers who were to be specially trained for their special job. The works of poets for example were to be carefully regulated, for according to Plato the false moral notions of the traditional poets had a powerful and negative impact on the general public. Philosophical reflection was to replace popular poetry as the force that guided moral education.
regards, and thanks for being a key member of this interesting debate.
Actually I think you misread me, I said ``Islamic view of ``justice`` is not separate from its view of ``morality``, the latter derives from the former``, and not the other way around.
On another related point, Plato`s Republic was anything BUT freedom of thought. Who said Plato believed in freedom of thought or speech? In an ideal city, the rulers were philosophers who were to be specially trained for their special job. The works of poets for example were to be carefully regulated, for according to Plato the false moral notions of the traditional poets had a powerful and negative impact on the general public. Philosophical reflection was to replace popular poetry as the force that guided moral education.
regards, and thanks for being a key member of this interesting debate.
#96 Posted by SR on January 24, 1999 1:59:42 pm
General Comment:
Congratulations to the Chowk for having achieved a remarkable standard of civility in this debate. This has, so far, been the most `mature` discussion about Quran and Islam we`ve seen on this forum. My spirits are uplifted because the fundies did not spew a torrent of irrational vitriol and poison the climate. Perhaps they`ve written off the inhabitants of this forum and this has become a haunt of apostasy.
Also, the fact that no one has made any caustic remarks against the Naqvis, Jafareys, Zaidis and Bokahris, for fostering their Shia agenda, is most encouraging. Thankfully, the sipah-e-sahaba and sipah-e-rasool are not on-line.
I salute the restraint of faithful Muslims here for not getting bent out of shape and resorting to fatwas against us, wayward Muslims, who are not impressed with Mohammed`s claims of prophethood or the Quran`s divinity. Here, let me single out Rehan and thank him for having the decency to add the ``caution`` (that his arguments will not suffice for those who do not have an a priori faith in Islam) before getting into his tirade in the defense of Quran`s divinity and authenticity.
To my friends, Noor ul Islam and Kafir, I want to pay a special tribute for being eloquent in the pursuit of reason and in their unrelenting arguments against myth and superstition. You gentlemen have my utmost admiration for laying it out for all to see and making no bones about it.
Saima, Anita and maTha, though not as unabashedly eager to claim that `the emperor wears no clothes`, have nonetheless, made superb and valid contributions and said essentially the same things (while hedging their bets against a direct fatwa of `murtad` and `vajib-ul-qutal`). Mr. maTha it`s good to see your name on-screen after a long time. I`ve missed your convoluted, twisted and perverse humor. Thank you for your valuable insights.
Wasiq,
My friend, your are the banner carrier and star of this debate. Your passion surprised me and your fervor is impressive. As the debate raged on your heart took over your head and I`m afraid you went a bit out of your way to represent a particular view, not always with the same incisiveness that we`ve all come to associate with your name.
The only reason I want to bring the following up is because you stated at one point that your views were `still evolving`. In other words you are not a committed partisan, but an open minded person who is willing to rise above clan loyalty and be objective.
In this entire debate, I`ve been unable to ascertain whether you actually believe in the divinity of Quran and Mohammed`s claims to prophethood, you only indirectly imply that you do. Yet there is no mistaking your Shia sympathies, and your slant of the historical interpretations.
You treat Mohammed and Ali with kid`s gloves while taking the others to task. This is not fair if one is to be objective.
Though I will not go so far as to allege that Mohammed was an opportunistic charlatan and a fraud I will, however, suggest that he was an astute politician, who adapted his strategies with effective expediency. He was intelligent and well ahead of his times. I do not treat him any different than the other contemporary characters. They were, after all, products of their time and culture, which, according to today`s standards, makes them primitive barbarians. It is unreasonable to treat Mohammed and Ali as if they were angels descended from heaven while Abu Bakr, Omar, Usman and Mauwia were demons. This is an oversimplistic, two-dimensional caricaturization to which the faithful are apt to subscribe.
You decry the evil of nepotism practiced by the likes of Usman, Mauwia and Mirwan, yet you are willing to allow, what you call, `Mohammed`s family` to be treated as `special` and thus more qualified to ascend to the top of the Islamic society. I find that an internal contradiction in your values.
It is easy to see that they were all nepotistic and the one side prevailed while the other was marginalized. Had circumstances been different, the reverse would have been the case and the other party would have been crying `foul`. ``Sour losers`` is what you`d be calling them today.
The second point to which I take exception is your assertion that Islam was `saved` because of the sacrifices of Ali and Hussein, and had it not been for the tragedy at Karbalah we would not see Muslims today. This is, to put it mildly, a fantastic claim, which stretches the imagination, and unless one has been hammered with this idea since childhood, one is unlikely to arrive at this conclusion.
Let us not kid ourselves, Islam spread through the sword. Period. This is not unique to Islam. All world religions that survive and thrive have had state sponsorship. Throughout history, including our own times, prophets come at a rate of dime a dozen. As Kafir pointed out, David Koresh and Jim Jones are recent examples. In the time of Mohammed, too, there were competitors (Tulaiha of Beni Asad, and Musailima of Beni Haneefa). What separates the successful religions from those that die off into obscurity is state sponsorship. Cyrus sponsored Zoroastrians, Constantine sponsored Christianity, Ashoka sponsored Buddhism, etc.
For Islam to have been the widespread religion that it is today, those early conquests were an absolute essential. Mohammed, himself was the empire builder, he just didn`t get enough time to do more than he did. MaTha has already pointed out the examples of his aggressive and expansionist policies. Even the conquest of Mecca itself is proof positive of his grand designs.
If anyone is to be blamed for the marginalization of Ali and the ascent of the House of Abu Sufyan, it is none other than Mohammed himself. (Anita Zaidi, in one of her replies said ``Allah and Mohammed are to be blamed``, but I`ll leave poor old Allah out of it, since he`s been falsely accused of everything that has happened since the Big Bang any way.) Ali, as we know, was Mohammed`s loyal and devoted follower. Almost like a younger brother, he lived under the shadow of this more capable man and developed a kind of relationship of servitude with Mohammed. Ali risked his life by sleeping in Mohammed`s bed the night the later escaped (in Abu Bakr`s company) to Medina. Ali was always handy to do the grunt work and never questioned Mohammed. My contention is that Mohammed USED Ali as one would a loyal servant. Until the conquest of Mecca, Ali was also Mohammed`s main scribe or secretary. However, the funny thing is that after Mecca fell and Abu Sufyan recanted, Mohammed `marginalized` Ali and took on Abu Sufyan`s young son, Mauwia, as his personal secretary. This obviously must have hurt Ali`s feelings, but the obedient servant that he was, he never rebelled.
Furthermore, it is easy to visualize that Fatima, who adored her father, must have been somewhat unseay with this feisty young woman Ayesha who shared his bed and did not accord him the same reverence that everyone else did. Ayesha took liberties that others didn`t and having a soft corner in Mohammed`s heart, she assumed an air which was, at least of a while, pretentious. It is therefore natural to see Fatima`s husband begrudgingly taking a lower place to Ayesha`s father, whom the couple must have viewed as a usurper to their `family rights`. Human nature, I`m sure, has not changed much in 14 centuries.
Abu Bakr and Omar were not wealth seekers, though they may be intoxicated with power. Abu Brk is said to have 40,000 dirhams in Mecca before he joined Mohammed, yet when he moved to Medina with is friend, he was only worth 5,000 dirhams. He is said to have spent money freeing Muslim slaves, but only seven slaves are mentioned in literature and they cost only 400. His financial decline was due to the losses suffered because of the economic sanctions imposed by the Mecca elite. Omar was also a very spartan man. During his reign, prisoners of war that were brought to Medina expecting to see pomp and pageantry as they had in Constantinople and Ctesiphon would see a modest and dusty town of mud houses with a bunch of old men in tattered clothes sitting around in the middle of the town square. One of those bare foot shabby old men would, to their shocking surprise, turn out to be the world`s most powerful emperor.
Contrary to your assertion Omar was not a very successful expansionist. He was a hotheaded simpleton who bumbled into expansion due to the competence and over zealousness of his generals. Moreover, Byzantium and Persia were exhausted after 26 years of continuous war and were ripe for the picking. Emperor Heraclius was dead and Constantinople was rife with intrigue and the empire was in paralysis. In Ctesiphon, Yezdegird was a young and inexperienced ruler who had not had enough time to consolidate his rule after the death of Chusro Perveiz..
In the six years since the Prophet`s death, Muslim warriors had never been paid. Their reward was plunder. Mohammed himself had set the precedence. One fifth was loaded up and shipped back to Medina. The remaining four fifths was distributed among the troops. If, therefore, peace was to prevail, the troops would have had to be paid. However, as yet there was no civil service nor any organized economic administration and it was necessary to keep the `revolution and fervor` going or it would all collapse like a house of cards.
The only ones to see this necessity were Mauwia and Mirwan.
Omar is not one who supported his generals as a true expansionist should have. His reign would have not seen the expansion in the empire it did, had it not been for extremely favorable geopolitical atmosphere and competent field commanders whom the Khalif never appreciated nor backed up.
Example: (1) Amr ibn al Aasi, who practically on his personal initiative conquered Palestine (including Jerusalem) and went on to take Egypt, was unreasonably and disgracefully dismissed. (2) Khalid ibn Waleed was `marginalized` for no good reason. (3) Saad ibn Abi Waqas, the first `modern` general in Islamic history, and one most competent, was dismissed for totally stupid reasons.
(The reign of Usman, is de facto the reign of Mirwan, and that is when we see, for the first time, the beginnings of state structural organization.)
Ali`s brief reign was another interruption that did more to retard the consolidation of the empire than anything else. These idealists were more hindrance than help. As we saw in the history of early Soviet Communism, the struggle between Stalinists (who wanted to consolidate first) and the Trotskyites (who wanted to `export` the revolution) was resolved in the favor of Stalin and less than a century later the empire collapsed. In Islam, the `Trotskyites` won out and the empire lasted much longer. (Please don`t dwell on this example, its been given more for effect than anything else.)
Mauwia, and Mirwan, on the other hand, were extremely efficient and capable administrators. These two, along with Mirwan`s son, Abdul Malik, are the reason we see Muslims far and wide in the world today. They were the true builders and consolidators of the empire which Mohammed started but could not finish.
…SR
Congratulations to the Chowk for having achieved a remarkable standard of civility in this debate. This has, so far, been the most `mature` discussion about Quran and Islam we`ve seen on this forum. My spirits are uplifted because the fundies did not spew a torrent of irrational vitriol and poison the climate. Perhaps they`ve written off the inhabitants of this forum and this has become a haunt of apostasy.
Also, the fact that no one has made any caustic remarks against the Naqvis, Jafareys, Zaidis and Bokahris, for fostering their Shia agenda, is most encouraging. Thankfully, the sipah-e-sahaba and sipah-e-rasool are not on-line.
I salute the restraint of faithful Muslims here for not getting bent out of shape and resorting to fatwas against us, wayward Muslims, who are not impressed with Mohammed`s claims of prophethood or the Quran`s divinity. Here, let me single out Rehan and thank him for having the decency to add the ``caution`` (that his arguments will not suffice for those who do not have an a priori faith in Islam) before getting into his tirade in the defense of Quran`s divinity and authenticity.
To my friends, Noor ul Islam and Kafir, I want to pay a special tribute for being eloquent in the pursuit of reason and in their unrelenting arguments against myth and superstition. You gentlemen have my utmost admiration for laying it out for all to see and making no bones about it.
Saima, Anita and maTha, though not as unabashedly eager to claim that `the emperor wears no clothes`, have nonetheless, made superb and valid contributions and said essentially the same things (while hedging their bets against a direct fatwa of `murtad` and `vajib-ul-qutal`). Mr. maTha it`s good to see your name on-screen after a long time. I`ve missed your convoluted, twisted and perverse humor. Thank you for your valuable insights.
Wasiq,
My friend, your are the banner carrier and star of this debate. Your passion surprised me and your fervor is impressive. As the debate raged on your heart took over your head and I`m afraid you went a bit out of your way to represent a particular view, not always with the same incisiveness that we`ve all come to associate with your name.
The only reason I want to bring the following up is because you stated at one point that your views were `still evolving`. In other words you are not a committed partisan, but an open minded person who is willing to rise above clan loyalty and be objective.
In this entire debate, I`ve been unable to ascertain whether you actually believe in the divinity of Quran and Mohammed`s claims to prophethood, you only indirectly imply that you do. Yet there is no mistaking your Shia sympathies, and your slant of the historical interpretations.
You treat Mohammed and Ali with kid`s gloves while taking the others to task. This is not fair if one is to be objective.
Though I will not go so far as to allege that Mohammed was an opportunistic charlatan and a fraud I will, however, suggest that he was an astute politician, who adapted his strategies with effective expediency. He was intelligent and well ahead of his times. I do not treat him any different than the other contemporary characters. They were, after all, products of their time and culture, which, according to today`s standards, makes them primitive barbarians. It is unreasonable to treat Mohammed and Ali as if they were angels descended from heaven while Abu Bakr, Omar, Usman and Mauwia were demons. This is an oversimplistic, two-dimensional caricaturization to which the faithful are apt to subscribe.
You decry the evil of nepotism practiced by the likes of Usman, Mauwia and Mirwan, yet you are willing to allow, what you call, `Mohammed`s family` to be treated as `special` and thus more qualified to ascend to the top of the Islamic society. I find that an internal contradiction in your values.
It is easy to see that they were all nepotistic and the one side prevailed while the other was marginalized. Had circumstances been different, the reverse would have been the case and the other party would have been crying `foul`. ``Sour losers`` is what you`d be calling them today.
The second point to which I take exception is your assertion that Islam was `saved` because of the sacrifices of Ali and Hussein, and had it not been for the tragedy at Karbalah we would not see Muslims today. This is, to put it mildly, a fantastic claim, which stretches the imagination, and unless one has been hammered with this idea since childhood, one is unlikely to arrive at this conclusion.
Let us not kid ourselves, Islam spread through the sword. Period. This is not unique to Islam. All world religions that survive and thrive have had state sponsorship. Throughout history, including our own times, prophets come at a rate of dime a dozen. As Kafir pointed out, David Koresh and Jim Jones are recent examples. In the time of Mohammed, too, there were competitors (Tulaiha of Beni Asad, and Musailima of Beni Haneefa). What separates the successful religions from those that die off into obscurity is state sponsorship. Cyrus sponsored Zoroastrians, Constantine sponsored Christianity, Ashoka sponsored Buddhism, etc.
For Islam to have been the widespread religion that it is today, those early conquests were an absolute essential. Mohammed, himself was the empire builder, he just didn`t get enough time to do more than he did. MaTha has already pointed out the examples of his aggressive and expansionist policies. Even the conquest of Mecca itself is proof positive of his grand designs.
If anyone is to be blamed for the marginalization of Ali and the ascent of the House of Abu Sufyan, it is none other than Mohammed himself. (Anita Zaidi, in one of her replies said ``Allah and Mohammed are to be blamed``, but I`ll leave poor old Allah out of it, since he`s been falsely accused of everything that has happened since the Big Bang any way.) Ali, as we know, was Mohammed`s loyal and devoted follower. Almost like a younger brother, he lived under the shadow of this more capable man and developed a kind of relationship of servitude with Mohammed. Ali risked his life by sleeping in Mohammed`s bed the night the later escaped (in Abu Bakr`s company) to Medina. Ali was always handy to do the grunt work and never questioned Mohammed. My contention is that Mohammed USED Ali as one would a loyal servant. Until the conquest of Mecca, Ali was also Mohammed`s main scribe or secretary. However, the funny thing is that after Mecca fell and Abu Sufyan recanted, Mohammed `marginalized` Ali and took on Abu Sufyan`s young son, Mauwia, as his personal secretary. This obviously must have hurt Ali`s feelings, but the obedient servant that he was, he never rebelled.
Furthermore, it is easy to visualize that Fatima, who adored her father, must have been somewhat unseay with this feisty young woman Ayesha who shared his bed and did not accord him the same reverence that everyone else did. Ayesha took liberties that others didn`t and having a soft corner in Mohammed`s heart, she assumed an air which was, at least of a while, pretentious. It is therefore natural to see Fatima`s husband begrudgingly taking a lower place to Ayesha`s father, whom the couple must have viewed as a usurper to their `family rights`. Human nature, I`m sure, has not changed much in 14 centuries.
Abu Bakr and Omar were not wealth seekers, though they may be intoxicated with power. Abu Brk is said to have 40,000 dirhams in Mecca before he joined Mohammed, yet when he moved to Medina with is friend, he was only worth 5,000 dirhams. He is said to have spent money freeing Muslim slaves, but only seven slaves are mentioned in literature and they cost only 400. His financial decline was due to the losses suffered because of the economic sanctions imposed by the Mecca elite. Omar was also a very spartan man. During his reign, prisoners of war that were brought to Medina expecting to see pomp and pageantry as they had in Constantinople and Ctesiphon would see a modest and dusty town of mud houses with a bunch of old men in tattered clothes sitting around in the middle of the town square. One of those bare foot shabby old men would, to their shocking surprise, turn out to be the world`s most powerful emperor.
Contrary to your assertion Omar was not a very successful expansionist. He was a hotheaded simpleton who bumbled into expansion due to the competence and over zealousness of his generals. Moreover, Byzantium and Persia were exhausted after 26 years of continuous war and were ripe for the picking. Emperor Heraclius was dead and Constantinople was rife with intrigue and the empire was in paralysis. In Ctesiphon, Yezdegird was a young and inexperienced ruler who had not had enough time to consolidate his rule after the death of Chusro Perveiz..
In the six years since the Prophet`s death, Muslim warriors had never been paid. Their reward was plunder. Mohammed himself had set the precedence. One fifth was loaded up and shipped back to Medina. The remaining four fifths was distributed among the troops. If, therefore, peace was to prevail, the troops would have had to be paid. However, as yet there was no civil service nor any organized economic administration and it was necessary to keep the `revolution and fervor` going or it would all collapse like a house of cards.
The only ones to see this necessity were Mauwia and Mirwan.
Omar is not one who supported his generals as a true expansionist should have. His reign would have not seen the expansion in the empire it did, had it not been for extremely favorable geopolitical atmosphere and competent field commanders whom the Khalif never appreciated nor backed up.
Example: (1) Amr ibn al Aasi, who practically on his personal initiative conquered Palestine (including Jerusalem) and went on to take Egypt, was unreasonably and disgracefully dismissed. (2) Khalid ibn Waleed was `marginalized` for no good reason. (3) Saad ibn Abi Waqas, the first `modern` general in Islamic history, and one most competent, was dismissed for totally stupid reasons.
(The reign of Usman, is de facto the reign of Mirwan, and that is when we see, for the first time, the beginnings of state structural organization.)
Ali`s brief reign was another interruption that did more to retard the consolidation of the empire than anything else. These idealists were more hindrance than help. As we saw in the history of early Soviet Communism, the struggle between Stalinists (who wanted to consolidate first) and the Trotskyites (who wanted to `export` the revolution) was resolved in the favor of Stalin and less than a century later the empire collapsed. In Islam, the `Trotskyites` won out and the empire lasted much longer. (Please don`t dwell on this example, its been given more for effect than anything else.)
Mauwia, and Mirwan, on the other hand, were extremely efficient and capable administrators. These two, along with Mirwan`s son, Abdul Malik, are the reason we see Muslims far and wide in the world today. They were the true builders and consolidators of the empire which Mohammed started but could not finish.
…SR
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- tahmed32: #129 well said again,... The Correct Turn
- nb: Tahmed, are you saying... The Correct Turn
- hamidm2: Re: # 112 shankar mian, ........ The Correct Turn
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 120 You... The Correct Turn
- tahmed32: nb #124 where were... The Correct Turn
- stuka: Is Kashmir key to... The Correct Turn
- tahmed32: Kaalchakra: ever thought that... The Correct Turn
- KaalChakra: Look, one understands the... The Correct Turn
