The Case for De jure Legalization

I am going to receive a lot of flak for this one. It may not even get posted. But, this information has been collected from various sources.

Islam is a fundamentalist religion. Every religion has fundamentalists. But, the difference between Islam and the other religions is that Islam has a basic tenet that it claims is inviolable. The inviolability of Islam is that the Koran IS the only, absolute, unchanging word of God (Allah). Most book-based religions did start out with similar fundamentalist tenets, but along the way, as more research into their history was allowed, have detracted to a more universal position. Modern research and secular historians have established that the Koran was compiled much after the death of Mohammed.

Mohammed, not being literate or scholarly, conveyed his message only verbally to his followers. A number of his followers did record this, but there was no attempt to collect and compile the various recordings into one book until much later. Given that humans are prone to error and personal prejudices, combined with the fact that the Koran is very literary and poetic and the fact that changes and additions continued to happen until much later, it is very hard for any reasonable person to accept the Koran word for word. This simple reasoning is disallowed because it questions the basic tenet of Islam.

All religious books including the Bible have had a similar history. The early Roman church had to choose 4 gospels from as many as 14 before they placed the seal of approval and inviolability on the New Testament. In fact, modern historians agree that only the `Q` gospel is close to the verifiable truth. The `Q` gospel is the collection of common elements from as many as 5 available gospels. Even among the 4 gospels there are many differences even in the narratives. The Bible in its complete form was widely available (at least to literary persons) much before the Koran was even envisaged. The Jewish books (Torahs) preceded the Bible and were also available to literary persons in the courts and libraries of Kings and rulers. Arabic poetry precedes the Koran by a 1000 years. Arabian and Jewish, i.e., Semitic literature, is among the oldest in the world and the `Books`, including the Koran are products of this rich literary culture.

Even as Jewish scribes were recording their culture and history, in the subcontinent of India there was enormous religious and spiritual activity. Historians call it the `Enlightened 6th century BC`. Yes, this century, 500 years before Christ, had Sidhartha, the founder of Buddhism and Mahavira, the founder of Jainism found religions and propagate their spiritual ideas. The basic concepts of denial of material pleasure and love for fellow humans is a very 6th century B.C concept. It is believed that even Jesus Christ got his ideas of universal brotherhood and love for thy neighbor from the Buddhists and Jains who were by his time taking their message far and wide. In 262 B.C Ashoka had risen to the throne of one of the oldest and largest kingdoms of Asia. His patronage of Buddhism caused the religion to overtake Jainism and reach far off countries.

Let us not leave Hinduism out. Hinduism in its present form did not exist before the Bhakti movement. The Bhakti movement (much later than Christianity and Islam) was an effort to bridge the North and South to fight the onslaught of non Vedic religions. Christians in the form of Thomas, one of the apostles of Christ, had landed on the shores of South Western India in about 58 A.D. The Bhakti saints (who were primarily South Indian, by the way) in their infinite wisdom, borrowed from the Christian concept of Trinity to create the Hindu Trinity of Vishnu, Siva and Brahma. They switched from polytheism to monotheism by inventing the `avatar`. Using this concept they were able to unite gods and godesses. They created a pan-Indian Hinduism of all tribal and Vedic religions. The religious books got integrated as an after thought. The centuries old epics of Ramayana and MahaBharata were epic battle poems that got elevated to religious books and deal with only North Indian Gods - primarily Vishnu or avatars of him (Krishna). The South Indian Gods like Shiva and Murugan have no mention in the epics. Well there is no need because in Hinduism there is not just one religious book, but countless. The Vedas are the oldest. Indira the high god of the Vedas does not even have a temple for him in modern India.

Hinduism is a very flexible, non-fundamentalist and truly universal in its form and content. Modern Christianity, other than the rabid sects, is very progressive and universal. The same can be said for almost all other religions, except one. You know which one.

The Koran is in this long line of literary / religious books only yet another literary and religious book. It is not the absolute and unchanging word of God.

Ref SameerJB #: 116

You ask {....some of these kids started rioting, vandalizing the liquor stores and night clubs, demanding a ban on alcohol and closure of night clubs during Ramazan. What next?}

This guy Abdul Wahid was running peserans (religious schools attached to mosques) in Indonesia where children got indoctrinated into the Koran. That, I guess, qualifies him as a moderate in an Islamic country. Why even ask what is next? Obviously, it will be things such as vandalization of the Buddhist monument at Borobudur, attacks in Bali on Hindus and their temples, people being forced to adopt Islamically-correct names from the Middle East (Abdullah -- slave of Allah -- would be perfect!) as opposed to traditional Indonesian names, changing the name of the national airline from Garuda (that being the mythical vehicle of Lord Vishnu) to JinnAir, perhaps even stop buying planes in favor of flying carpets. We will have to wait and see but the wait wouldn`t be too long.

Oh, oh, oh! How can I forget the burqua? I got to log off now and go to e-Schwab; got to invest in some textile company stock.

Reformation Indonesian Style

A moderate religious cleric and currently the President of Indonesia, Abdul Rehman Wahid has been a champion of reformation movement in Islam. So as a first step to this end, he closed down all schools for 36 days so that children can devote most of their energy to fasting and praying during the month of Ramazan. Well some of these kids started rioting, vandalizing the liquor stores and night clubs, demanding a ban on alcohol and closure of night clubs during Ramazan. What next?

BAHMAD # 113

Dear Bilal Ahmad:

You are right that I was too casual in my post # 111 about a topic I did not know enough and which is very sensitive to a large number of people. I am very sorry and RETRIEVE MESSAGE # 111 completely. It was unwise on my part to bring up this topic in the context of reformation.

Thanks Bilal for a long and detailed reply. I actually bought Hourani`s book but could not read it beyond first few pages. My comments in message # 111 were actually from a textbook of asian philosophy currently taught at a US university. I should actually be much more comfortable talking about alcohol scientifically.

regards,

Sameer

In response to SameerJB (Reply #: 111)

Dear Sameer:

I am not sure if I should really say anything about the topic that you have started. I am also not sure if any debate on the Chowk would do any justice (or injustice) to it. I am also not convinced that such an effort would be useful at a time when we need to focus our attention toward more immediate and mundane issues faced by the state and people of Pakistan. Having said this, I feel obliged to say something because your post may create some difficulties in the mind of a casual students of Muslim history and philosophy.

Abu Hamid Muhammad Al-Ghazali (1058-1111) was a great scholar, though we may not agree with some or many of his views (remember the context has changed too). In order to both elaborate and refute some aspects of your casually written post, I want to quote a few excerpts from Albert Hourani (1991), A History of the Arab People (Cambridge: Belknap Press) for your kind consideration.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

On Relationship with the Ruler

``Even if the ruler was unjust or impious, it was generally accepted that he should still be obeyed, for any kind of order was better than anarchy; as Ghazali said, ``the tyranny of a sultan for a hundred years causes less damage than one year`s tyranny exercised by the subjects against one another.`` Revolt was justified only against a ruler who clearly went against a command of God or His prophet. This did not mean, however, that the ulama should look on an unjust ruler in the way in which they looked on a just one. A powerful tradition among the ulama (among the Sunnis and Shi`is alike) was that they keep their distance from the rulers of the world. Ghazali quoted a hadith: ``in Hell there is a valley uniquely reserved for ulama who visit kings``. The virtuous alim should not visit unjust princes or officials. He could visit a just ruler, but without subservience, and should reproach him if he saw him doing anything reprehensible; if he was afraid he could keep silent, but it would be better not to visit him at all. If he received a visit from a prince, he should return his salutation and exhort him to virtue. It would be better, however, to avoid him altogether. (Other ulama, however, held that they should support the ruler in everything that was licit, even if he were unjust.) (Hourani, 1991: 144-45).

Philosophy, Islam and Qur`an

``In mosques and madrasas, fiqh and its ancillary sciences were the main objects of study, but outside them other kinds of thought were carried on. One which was of lasting importance was the thought of the philosophers, those who believed that human reason, working according to the rules of operation laid down in Aristotle`s logic, could lead to the attainment of a truth which could be demonstrated`` (Hourani, 1991: 172).

``In the most famous controversy in Islamic history, Ghazali criticized with force the main points at which such a philosophy as that of Ibn Sina ran counter to his understanding of the revelation given in the Qur`an. In his Tahafut al-falasifa (Incoherence of the Philosophers), he laid emphasis upon three errors, as he thought them, in the philosophers` way of thought. They believed in the eternity of matter: the emanations of the divine light infused matter but did not create it. They limited the knowledge of God to universals, to the ideas which formed particular beings, not to the particular beings themselves; this view was incompatible with the Qur`anic image of a God concerned for every living creature in its individuality. Thirdly, they believed in the immortality of the soul but not of the body. The soul, they thought, was a separate being infused into the material body by the operation of the Active Intelligence, and at a certain point in its return towards God the body to which it was attached would become a hindrance; after death, the soul would be liberated from the body and would not need it.

What Ghazali was saying was that the God of the philosophers was not the God of the Qur`an, speaking to every man, judging him and loving him. In his view, the conclusions to-which discursive human intellect could reach, without guidance from outside, were incompatible with those revealed to mankind through the prophets. This Challenge was met, a century later, by another champion of the way of the philosophers, Ibn Rushd Averroes (1126-98). Born and educated in Andalus, where the tradition of philosophy had come late but had taken firm root, Ibn Rushd set himself to a detailed refutation of Ghazali`s interpretation of philosophy in a work entitled, by reference to Ghazali`s own book, Tahafut al-tahafut (The Incoherence of the Incoherence). In another work, Fasl al-rnaqal (The Decisive Treatise), he dealt explicitly with what had appeared to Ghazali to be the contradiction between the revelations through the prophets and the conclusions of the philosophers. Philosophical activity was not illegitimate, he maintained; it could be justified by reference to the Qur`an: ``Have they not considered the dominion of the heaven and the earth, and what things God has created?`` It was clear from such words of God that there could be no opposition between the conclusions of the philosophers and the statements of the Qur`an:

``Since this religion is true and summons to the study which leads to knowledge of the Truth, we the Muslim community know definitely that demonstrative study does not lead to [conclusions] conflicting with what Scriptuie has given us; for truth does not oppose truth but accords with it and bears witness to it.``

How to explain, then, that they might appear to contradict each other? Ibn Rushd`s answer was that not all the words of the Qur`an should be taken literally. When the literal meaning of Qur`anic verses appeared to contradict the truths to which philosophers arrived by the exercise of reason, those verses needed to be interpreted metaphorically. Most human beings, however, were incapable of philosophical reasoning or of accepting the metaphorical interpretation of the Qur`an. It should not be communicated to them, but only to whose who could accept it:

``Anyone who is not a man of learning is obliged to take these passages in their apparent meaning, and allegorical interpretation of them is for him unbelief because it leads to unbelief... Anyone of the interpretative class who discloses such [an interpretation] to him is summoning him to unbelief... Therefore allegorical interpretations ought to be set down only in demonstrative books because if they are in demonstrative books they are encountered by no one but men of the demonstrative class.``

Philosophy was for the elite (khass); for the generality (amm), the literal meaning was sufficient. Prophecy was necessary for both: for the khass in order to keep them on the right moral path, and for the `arum to express truths in acceptable images. Dialectical reasoning, kalam, was for minds in an intermediate position, since it used logic in order to support the level of truth appropriate to the amm; but it had its dangers, since its rational principles were not adequately proved.

The work of Ibn Rushd does not appear to have had a widespread and lasting influence upon subsequent Islamic thought, although the Latin translations of some of his books were to have a deep impact upon western Christian philosophy. The thought of Ibn Sina, however, remained of central importance in religious as well as in philosophical thought. By the twelfth century there was beginning, in spite of Ghazali, a kind of rapprochement between kalam and philosophy. From the time of Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (1149-1209) onwards, works on kalam began with the explanations of logic and the nature of being, and proceeded from there to a rational articulation of the idea of God; in this way a logical structure was erected to defend and explain the revelations of the Qur`an, and it was only after this that such works dealt with matters which should be accepted entirely on the basis of revelation`` (Hourani, 1991: 174-75).

RE. Mr. J.Alam: #106

[ Hey I did not say revelation! Every religion has books; old books, Even Shintos in the far east.]

You`re right, sir. You didn`t use the word `revelation` at all. However, do you find no contradiction in, on the one hand, subscribing to absolute veracity of the Koran, in which case there are only three other `true` (or once-true) scriptures, and on the other hand using Hindusim, and now Shintoism, to support your claim that only atheists don`t have or follow a book. As a Muslim, it logically follows that following a `false` book such as the Vedas could not be better than following no book at all.

But it is not the book I wish to throw at you. Sir, one possible reason that none of the Jews you`ve known (or Christians, or Taosits) ``has ever said that they r thousands and thousands of years old and it would not b appropriate to follow them in this age.`` might be because their belief in the Torah (or whatever book they hold holy) is not comparable to yours in the quran. The Torah is NOT absolute and literal truth for all but the most orthodox Jews.

However, I have difficulty seeing how a reformation in Islam paralleling that of Christianity 450 years may take place. Or even if one NEEDS to. The Reformation was more a protest against the Institution of the Organized Church and its monopoly on doctrine. Islam, however, is in the unique postion of having a scripture that claims incontrovertable, literal, truth. Islam, is thus, by defintion, a fundamentalist religion.

The big reformation will not, cannot, come from the outside, even if Ijtema *were * to be reopened. There are only so many ways of interpreting the verses quoted by Mr. Alam, after all.

The real reformation, however, may take place all the time at the individual level, hinging on the aacceptance of the `literal truth` belief in the first place. For Muslims, the leap is especially difficult because so much seems to rest on this premise. There is the unarticulated fear that the pulling of one card will send the whole tower crumbling-- always an insecure place to be. That insecurity is not helped by the threat of hellfire for `the greatest of sin`: kufr.

Tough situation to be in, I would imagine! Been there. Kinda.

PEACE



PEACE.

Re: PM #112

Quite right in that the the Protestant Reformation was more against the power of the Catholic Church than it was about updating Christianity but Luther did do one great thing that made the Enlightenment possible. He argued that it was up to every man to read and interpret the Bible for himself. And I believe that his message was not that the Scriptures were the literal word of God but that they were to be seen as parables that gave us God`s philosophy.

Your post is a perfect illustration of my point. Koran is God`s literal word, hence no need for change.

I refer you to my earlier posts on the need for change. BTW, are you also in favor of harnessing Jinn power in order to solve our current energy crunch?

Regards.

[The true tragedy of Islam (whether Sunni or Twelver Shia) is that it has been able to marginalize and exclude any and all reform movements. Our (Sunni, can`t say for Shias) belief is that Ijtima ended in about the 12th century or so and whatever modifications/reinterpretations were to be done, had been done.]

I have read somewhere that a fellow named (Imam)Al-Ghazali is most responsible for the exclusion of any reforms. He was patronized by the royal court because of his interpretation of Khalifa as one chosen by God. His famous book, ``Nonscense of the Philosophers`` is perhaps the basis of many of current predicaments of Islamic faith. He rejected the free-thinking about any issue alredy etched in stone according to his interpretation of the Islamic faith.

It is also said, ``had Muslims followed Al-Razi and another philosopher, Al-Rushd in Andalusia, they might have been reformed much sooner than Christian Reformation``. Too bad, it did not happen!!!

But hey, this is KORAN, and it says that these r the actual words of ALLAH. And he will not let anyone change it until the day of judgement.

As far as Ijtima is concerned, no one has made any illegal thing legal. The things that were prohibited in ISLAM in the days of the Prophet, were untouched.

So if Koran says that intoxicants r prohibited, they were prohibited until 12th centry and even to this day.

And ofcourse there r people who have tried to change ISLAM over the period of time and tried to align it with western religions. Examples r the Ahmadies, Ismailies etc. etc. (NO OFFENCE, just a fact)

Fuzair:

You are right on.

Re: J.Alam #104

Again, sigh. Every non-fundamentalist Christian and non-Orthodox Jew considers the Bible and the Torah to be broad guidelines for human behavior and NOT the literal word of God. The idea is that these books were divinely inspired but not literally God`s words. Therefore, the message can retain its broader philosophical meaning without tying current society irrevocably to the mores of our primitive ancestors.

So, my friend, it is not just some self-hating Muslims who think its time for a complete rethink of Islam and the Shariah. Incidentally, mainstream Christianity went through its primitive belief that the Bible was the literal word of God several hundred years ago. The triumph of the Protestant Reformation (the Martin Luther version and its various descendants) eventually freed Christianity of Church dogma and the Pope`s pretensions to be a secular and religious ruler. It effectively created the separation between church and state and put into motion the ideas of what ultimately became the Enlightenment.

The true tragedy of Islam (whether Sunni or Twelver Shia) is that it has been able to marginalize and exclude any and all reform movements. Our (Sunni, can`t say for Shias) belief is that Ijtima ended in about the 12th century or so and whatever modifications/reinterpretations were to be done, had been done. As long as we stick to the ridiculous idea that rules applicable for 7th century society (and not an advanced one even by 7th century standards) are completely relevant today, we are doomed to rot in poverty and ignorance.

So, is it any wonder that I want to forget? Wheres the bottle? I need another stiff one.

RE:105

``Kamalist`` That is infact a very good one!

I guess its made very simple:

following KORAN makes u MUSLIM &

following ATA TURK makes u KAMALIST

Thanks for bringing this up.

I happened to know couple of Turks too, they r very proud of being very close to Europeans. But the irony is that they r still one of the most hated ones in all over Europe!

PEACE

Sigh. I believe because it tells me to believe. And we wonder why the West overtook us several hundred years ago and we are relegated to being their hewers of wood and drawers of water. Let us withdraw into our cocoons of imbecility and wait for the day of judgement to prove us correct.

Fundamentalists of any and all stripes (whether Christians or Muslims or whatevers) are by definition incapable of original thought or critical reasoning. I am not being deliberately insulting but simply stating a fact. That is why it is called ``faith.`` To take something on faith means that one does not question it in any way shape or form.

As long as people are willing to not use their God-given mental faculties, I fear that the only difference between us and the apes is that we are more vicious and have fewer redeeming qualities.

As long as we do not accept that the Koran merely gives us broad philosophical guidelines instead of the literal word of God, the entire muslim world will be intellectually at the same level as the Pentecostal snake-handling crazies found in certain US states. It continually amazes me that so many muslims have such an atavistic reaction to Jews. We are so similar to the Orthodox Jews in the complete rejection of science, rationality and reason and clinging to the WORD that we might as well have been cut from the same cloth. Oh, thats right, we are cousins, aren`t we? At least the Arabs are.

All I can say is what a Turkish friend of mine quoted his uncle as saying, ``Al-hamdulillah, I am a Kemalist.``

RE #104

Hey I did not say revelation! Every religion has books; old books, Even Shintos in the far east. I happened to know quite a few Jews, no one has ever said that they r thousands and thousands of years old and it would not b appropriate to follow them in this age.

It is only us, the MUSLIMS who think like this about our book. That is sad! WE question its authority and say that it was revealed to address the people of that century and not us.

and hey I did not say anyone ``athiest`` All I said that people who follow any religion, look back to there old books and the people who dont follow any book dont have any religion and r called athiest. and ofcourse there r other terminologies too out there.

So I think that the following verse in Quran is addressing the Muslims also:

They ask you concerning alcohol and gambling.

Say: In them is a great sin, and some benefits for men,but the sin is far greater than the benefit. Holy Qur’an 2:219

PEACE.

J.Alam (#96):

So, the `rest of the humans` comprise the Jews, Muslims and (oddly enough) the Hindus, eh?

Would you please step a little out of your 7th. century Arab worldview and take a little wider look at religious demographics?

And a Muslim citing the Hindus `holy book` (?!?) as revelation is a little disingenuous, don`t you think?

re. (#101) ``[Following the Koran literally] is what the Lord says we should do in the BOOK?``

with all due respect, sir, that argument is a little circular, and quite frankly, is the very contention being called into question by those calling for ``more liberal`` intepretations.

Finally, I hate to break this to you, but you could do worse than to accuse people of being `atheist` here on chowk. Many would take greater offense to being labelled `fundamentalist`.

IMHO, you fail to see that, for many chowkwallay, ``because IT says so`` just ain`t good enough a reason to accept a `moral` position.

You see, it doesn`t matter to many of us what you believe in, or even what you eat or drink, as long as your are not harming anyone. As for harming oneself, there are many worse ways to do so than drinking moderately.

regards,

PM

Sameer #102

H2+O=God Willing, H2O

This has to be the funniest thing I have heard coming from chemistry. Actually, this is quite true, when you think about it, although a bit redundant to add I would think.

And harnessing Jinn power as an alternate energy source seems a great way to cut down on fuel costs (except the Jinn may have a mind of it`s own and take you for a real wild ride).

The Islamic Scientific Conference where these wonderful thoughts were put forward must have been one for the history books. Did anyone comment on the theory of evolution, incidentally (where they would have found fellow thinkers in Kansas)?