Islam in Crisis - Part 3

Let us get down to a ``common sense`` view of the revellations from a prophet. We need to look at the politics of compiling and interpreting purported sayings and revellations by a prophet because the world views and ideologies of life are expounded changes the very existing relations of power between men.
I would request for some geneological exposition of the revelled truths of Islam as well from some scholars please.

Re: mijope`s personal msg to me #43
Mikael and Lena: Such a pleasant surprise to get this msg from you - thanks of course to Chowk where ``ideas and identities intersect``. When you were in Delhi, I thought I had given you copies of the first two my `Islam in Crisis` pieces. One more - part 3 - is now posted on Chowk as are parts 1&2. There are some sequels and I shall send these to you or if the editors of chowk agree to carry them, you will be able to see them posted here. My e-mail is rasheedtalib@hotmail.com

Dearest Mr. Talib

This is Mikael Pedersen, the danish student who spend last summer with CDR and met you and your wife twice with my girlfriend.

I have followed you writing on `Islam in Crisis` and find it very interesting as well as the following debate. I am at the moment writing my final thesis and would really appreciate to hear your comment on some issues.

If you are interested then please drop me a line with your email address:

mjp@ruc.dk

Hope to hear from you and say hello to your wife and CDR from Lena and me.

#34 by Manjit

Yes, I believe the ummah.org site. But I accept that there are many atrocities committed by some actors in Kashmir that are not reported on ummah.org. For, example this website has not mentioned the Chittisinghpora, Nadimarg and Kaluchak incidents.

On the other hand, there are also pro-India sites that focus entirely on the Kashmiri Pandits and deaths of Indian paramilitary forces.

There is no single source of information on Kashmir. Each site presents only one side of the picture.

No, I don`t justify the killing of innocents. I have already indicated that in an earlier post (see #26).

re. #6:
``It is Qura`n that stipulates the concept of reward for good deeds and punishment for misdeeds, which means that man has been given some degree of autonomy to chose between right and wrong. God doesn`t interfere in that choice, but since He is All-Knower He knows what that man will choose.``

This has the appearance of a rationally tenable proposition. I do not mean to debate it at this juncture. (What could be (and has been) debated is whether you may reasonably posit the existence of an omniscient, wholly good being AND allow for existence of evil-- even through freedom of choice.)

But even if we accpeted the argument above, that is, that the All-Knower knows in advance what man, exercising free will, will choose, is there not a refernce or two in the QUran to God being not only the All-Knower, but indeed the All-Planner-- the active enforcer Predestination?

References or corrections by those better versed in Islamic scriptures would be appreciated.

rgds,
PM

re. #2:
``Al-Ash`ari is reported to have rebutted the Mu`tazilist identification of God`s attributes with his essence in this manner, ``Abul Hudhayl Allaf says that God`s knowledge is God, and so he makes God knowledge. He must be asked to invoke knowledge instead of God, and say in his prayers, `O Knowledge Forgive Me!`.`` ``

The idea that God is not A being but Being is really not at all alien to many of the Eastern Religions. Just goes to show how so much of the question of what constitutes blasphemy is to be found on the laps of the adults from whom, as kids, we imbibed our sacred `beliefs` about God and religion.

rgds,
PM

re. #1:
``Why bother?``
er.. Becuase we (truly) don`t live on bread alone?

`freethinker` Mohammad Gill,
Sir, your posts, like your articles, are as refreshing as they are enlightening.
rgds, and appreciation,
PM

Hobbes,

By `literal truth` I was referring to truth in the non-fiction sense. I also mentioned historical truth, that is, pertaining to events and personalitlies. I gave some examples. Yes, I do, personally, see maintaining adherence to `truths` falling in this category as above as different from `Faith`, though I grant that this is due to my peculiar understanding of that term. For others-- perhpas for most-- though, faith may be just about this adherence. It`s not the `absence of confirming circumstances` that bothers me - heck, that be the essence of faith! It`s really the `maintenance` in the absence of any sound reason (and even of intuition) or, in fact, the presence of contrary evidence, that I find more than a little hard to swallow.

I agree that the opposing arguments in this piece are not amenable to proof. I was not trying to prove one or the other; merely attempting to demonstrate what IMHO are some pitfalls in the author`s Method.

PM

``More importantly, is it possible to reasonably and honestly maintain a belief in the literal truth of the Qur`an``

``Literal truth``??? I`m not sure I understand that; what does that mean?

``Maintain a belief``?? Do you see this differently from ``Faith``? As in maintained in the absence of confirming circumstances??

I don`t think the opposing arguments in this piece are ammenable to ``proof`` - it`s really a question of being more convinced of the validity of one position over the other, What problems do you see with maintaining such a position?

Talib sahib, all serious interactors,

If I may play Devil`s Advocate:

``since the Quran is in some parts, particularly its narration of the lives of the earlier prophets and other such happenings, less scripture and more history, the verses recounting them must be treated as historical, not gospel, truths.``

Is there no usch thing as historical truth? (I am not referring to interpretation of history, but the recounting of events/happenings. For instance, was Noah/Noe fictional or real? What about the Deluge? Was Mary/Mariam, mother of Jesus, the daughther of who the Quran says she was?

It helps little (in fact, obfuscates more) that ``In making [that] point, the Mutazilites were in no way denying the sacrosanct doctrine that the Quran was both literally and metaphorically ‘the Word of God’ or that ``They were merely making the point that the Quran must be interpreted in a manner that conflicts with human reason.``

We`d all like to think it `must`. the issue has always been CAN it?

``Adopting such an interpretation should pose no problems for even the most orthodox of Believers: for, it is generally agreed that the Quran was revealed to Muhammad at different times of his life and at different stages of his embattled career as Prophet with some situations ``

Talib sahib, if the issue pertains to general attitudes and approaches, then yes, the ambiguity and history-boundedness of many passages of scripture may inform and moderate. But what about cases in which no ambiguiuty exists, or where historicity is irrelevant, such as with the questions asked above? More importantly, is it possible to reasonably and honestly maintain a belief in the literal truth of the Qur`an?

``As to the factor of reason: there should be no difficulty for us in the modern world to give it the important place accorded to it in scriptural exegesis by the Mutazilites. In fact, Islamic being a practical, eclectic faith, the Quran itself recommends the use of reason for the promotion of a proper understanding of it.``

Talib sahib, as the saying goes ``just sayin its so, don`t make it true``. The Quran`s (commendable) recommending of the use of reason does not rule out the possibility of reason discrediting it on rational grounds. It is odd that you should mention this in an otherwise intellectually rigorous exposition. Surely you have come across the concept of internal inconsisitency?

Quoting the verse: ``We have revealed the Quran in Arabic so that you may understand it with wisdom (or reason).``, you conclude:
``I believe, therefore, that adopting Mutazilism as part of our credo would not only help us Muslims come to terms with the imperative of modernity, it would clear up much of the misconception that justifiably exists about certain aspects of our religious ideology.``

Talib sahib, the word ``therefore`` is used when one has clearly established, by way of REASON/logic, the truth, or at least the plausability, of a contention. I`m afraid this sequel, informative as it is on the history of the debate, falls seriously short in proving the tenability of Mutazalism without jettisoning the `literal truth doctrine`. Please note: I am not stating that the two are necessarily exclusive; just that your thesis has failed to provide a truly credible case that the two are marriageable, in the face of apparent inconsistency.

----------------

On the issue of predeterminism vs free-will, you write that ``Al-Ashari finally ended his arguments with the assertion that Man derives (or acquires, as he put it) his freedom to choose between good and evil from God’s power. God in this sense equips Man with the power to choose between good and evil at the point of decisionmaking. Man’s free will arises not from his own capacity, but from the power which God bestows on him. (This doctrine is sometimes referred to as ‘acquisitionism’). ``
I am not sure how this doctrine settles the matter at all. Whether or not the power of man`s free -will derives from another entity or not, the omniscience of that entity (and predestination/predeterminism) ends the INSTANT IT IS GRANTED. Otherwise, free will means, well, not-really-free will, no matter how fancy a name anyone gives this line of (un)reasoning.

``Ashari argued that [the idea that predetermism conflicted with free will] was not necessarily so. Humans certainly possess the capacity of free will and will be held accountable for any misdeeds they commit on earth. But it is God who possesses an unlimited power to act, not Man. Not to accept this was to deny God`s sovereignty.``

Seems to me that, like many a Christian philospher/theologian, Al-Ashari was unable to accept the clear and simple outcome of logically inconsistent beliefs, and so decided to engage in what would otherwise be readily recognized as sophisty. His defence above seems to hinge on the term ``[grants freewill] at the point of decisionmaking.`` It is, however, not evident at all that the particular point at which this ethical capacity is granted alters argument in any way.

It has, by the way, long been established in Western philosophical tradition-- rigorously, I might add-- that (as you knew self-evidently when you were thirteen) that predestination and free will are simply incompatible. `Pre-` and `free` just don`t gel.

regards,
PM

# 30

Earlier you justified these killings by refering to what ummah.com was showing on its web page. I asked you whether you believed that ummah.com was showing you the full truth.

Now you justify these killings of Hindus because `India made a promise to Kashmiris and Pakistani at the UN and then decided not to honor it.` I will ask you again, do you have the full truth about the role of Pakistan and India in Kashmir`s history? Do you support the killing of people under such similar situations?

dost-mitter #27 Are you etc

If I know whom you have in mind, yes I am. Rasheed Talib

Dear Mr. Talib

A most excellent and necessary exposition. This debate is the heart of the matter for all Muslims and also non-Muslims; on the outcome of this debate, that is to say, which side is able to educate and generate dedicated minorities, rests the content of the answer to the question ``What does it mean to be a Muslim``.

Asharite thought, to the degree that it is discernable as much, is predicated on the non-existence of ``natural reason``. In it, constructs such as free moral agency, justice, good and evil, do not exist as other than a literal reading of Quran designate. That is to say, Justice is only that which the scirpture says it is, good is only that which a literalist (with qualifications) reading of scirpture says it is; that values have no foundation but the will of God -- It`s almost as if we can argue that any connection between the words ``God`` and ``Good`` exist only to the degree that we can discern the scripture as having made them ( a barren and futile pursuit to be sure - one is reminded of wittgenstein`s quietism)

Such a construct is a blue print for arresting change, for a arrested, totalitarian society and for, in my opinion it can be argued most credibly, a cultural imperialism which is time, geography and ethically bound to the traditions of a 6th century Arabia.

I encourage you to amplify the scope of this debate and the arguments used to promote each sides point of view. The arguments have a tremendous impact on other constructs such as interpretation,

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: #29

It is not clear who killed whom. Too many actors are at play in Kashmir including Indian intelligence services. Kashmiri freedom fighters are a militia, not a trained army. While most of them view Kashmir as a struggle for self-determination, some of them view this as an opportunity for murdering Hindus. The latter are neither freedom fighters nor jihadis from a religious point of view. They are simply terrorists serving their own cause, not the Kashmir movement.

How can we condemn the death of 24 Hindu innocents and overlook the death of 40,000-60,000 Kashmiri innocents at the hands of Indian occupation forces?

India has left the Kashmiris no peaceful choices. India doesn`t even want to accept that Kashmir is an issue. India made a promise to Kashmiris and Pakistani at the UN and then decided not to honor it. Do the Kashmiris have any option of accomplishing their right of self-determination without resorting to violence?

# 26

Jihadis killed and mutilated more Kashmiri civilians yesterday.

To support the brutal cutting the throat of a person and expressing delight in the slaughtering of Hindus you should have very good cause.

To what extent do you trust http://www.ummah.org.uk/ to give you full facts about Kashmir?

In response to Urstruly’s post #23, I would like to say that the exchange of ideas even on subjects where you hold different views, is a healthy exercise. I don’t believe anybody has spoken the last word on the origins of the universe or how it will end, if it ever does. The explosion or collapse of our puny planet, the Earth, wouldn’t be the end of the universe although it would certainly end the human life. What science has provided us are the means to test the veracity or truthfulness of a logical statement. For instance, there was a common belief in the past that Earth was flat. Scientific investigations showed otherwise. Unless a scientific statement is supported by actual data, it is not credible. So should all the other statements be. Divine component of all the religions is beyond such a test. It is left then to the individuals to do whatever they want to do with it. Trouble begins and multiplies when a group of people insists that others should believe in such questionable theses as they do. For instance, Imam Ahmad Hanbal believed that God literally does sit on a throne and those who do not believe like him are deviants. Others thought that this was simply an allegorical description. It cannot be reasonably proved or disproved one way or the other. There was a lot of trouble and strife on this issue.

I personally believe that there shouldn’t be any heated debate on such an apocryphal issue. We have no means of knowing with our finite minds what God, the Infinite Being, is? Why should then we argue if He is or isn’t material and does (or doesn’t) sit on a throne?

However, science cannot flourish under the threat of Blasphemy Laws. Science deals with verifiable facts; it doesn’t say any thing about the unverifiable things. But it certainly has shaken the foundation of religion.

Urstruly has also mentioned the limits of human knowledge. True, human knowledge is limited but these limits are movable. We now know a great deal more than our forefathers knew. Will man ever be able to determine the essence of God? It is very unlikely because the definition of God has also changed and keeps on changing with the passage of time. There was a time when God was quite accessible and was there like a good neighbor. He was there whenever man in distress needed him. It can be verified by reading the old scriptures, which also describe a number of epiphanies. Gradually, man has pushed Him yonder and yonder because he wanted his God to remain a mystery and a conundrum. Now God is completely transcendental, beyond our space and time. He is out and beyond our universe and hence our comprehension.

I have written in one of my essays that much of philosophy is rational speculation. Speculation indeed it is.

Talib Saheb:
Thanks for a really enlightening article. Articles like these serve dual purpose - they encourage muslims to think out-of-the-box and they help non-muslims get a better understanding of how islam got to where it is.
p.s. Are you the father of one of the most-liked persons on Chowk?

re: #21 by arjun_m

Despite the gory details narrated by this particular Jihadi, lets not forget that General Haman was a combatant, not a civilian. He chose to participate in India`s suppression of Kashmiris, raping of women, custodial killings and various human rights abuses that continue to this day. You can visit the following link to see a glimpse of how the Hindu occupation force has treated Kashmiri civilians:

http://www.ummah.org.uk/kashmir/atroc/

The rules of armed conflict in Islam are very clear on this. Killing of enemy combatants is legitimate; killing of civilians is not.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

rigtht now Islam is NOT in crisis -- it`s Christian Morality respresent by two WAR CRIMINALS -- BUSH & BLAIR -- that is in Crisis.

sawaale digger... jawabe digger

Folks -- the two MONSTER CRIMINALS are destroying the ancient cpital of Islamic Sciene and Antiquity -- Baghdad -- with MOABS and Daisy Cutters -- and we pathetic Muslims are discussiing Islam --

shame on us

right now we should be discussing -- LETHAL BORN-AGAIN Christianity and its MURDEROUS COLONIALISM -- (I hought we had buried the goddam thing half a century ago)

Today -- it is the British and American CHRISTIANITY that is in CRISIS --

NOT Iraqi ISLAM.

freethinker #22

Good rebuttal. But puting the lives of ancient Islamic scholars or even the article of Mr. Qureshi aside; we may come to a conclusion just by our mere observation that the skeptical world view of science by the religious orthodoxy has come and passed just as it came to the christianity and passed. And since there was never a ``doctrine of infalibility`` in Muslim orthodoxy and never it was organized as that of Christian orthodoxy, it did not have to face the embarassment and later downright anymosity as the christianity faced. The post Darwinism era came and went away probably along with Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. Today the attitudes towards science and technology have changed drastically. Today even those parents who never saw even a primary school want to have first priority for their kids in the field of science and technology. And if the child cannot make it in some field of science and technology, it feels like if an elder has died in the household. Times have changed. It is time that skeptics must change too.

As for Qura`n being created or eternal is more of a question of logic rather than that of philosophy or religiosity. It is exactly as one of the questions that you posed in your last article, which was, ``If God is absolute in all respects, then can He create a stone which even He cannot lift``. The question is no more an enigma. Those who know the science of logic know that this sort of questions fall into logical fallacies called ``circular logic``, where the first part of sentence puts forth a statement and the last part of the sentence is so chosen that it rejects the contention in the first part. Such statements are not a shortcoming or weakness of Divinity, but rather it presents to us the limitations that the science of Logic and Reason has. Which means that the reason and logic can take us only so far and in order to tread into the realm of beleif, you need a total paradigm shift. In other words you cannot do electricians work with the toolset of a plumber or vice versa. Similarly, the question of Qura`n being created or eternal falls into the realm of same catagory of logical fallacies. According to a Hadith, Holy Prophet forbade us to engage in discussions based on logical fallacies. And wouldn`t you agree with me when I said that I fail to see how a debate on Qura`n being created or eternal can uplift the conditions of Muslims, as the author of this article contends?

This is in reference to Urstruly’s post #17 in which he has reproduced a piece by Nadeem Qureshi. Mr. Qureshi raised a couple of interesting questions in his piece. For instance, he asks, “So the Muslims of old drew their inspiration from exactly the same texts that is (are) read today. Why is it then, that working from the same material, they were able to create a civilization that dominated the world, while the Muslims of today remain mired in obscurity and ignorance?”

The Islamic Scientists who advanced the front of the scientific knowledge in medieval times were born factually in the Muslim households but they were not orthodox in their beliefs at all. I had tried to explain this point in my “Skeptical and Counter-Skeptical Trends in Medieval Islam” which was posted on Chowk on November 28, 2002. One of the greatest names among the Muslim medical scientists was Ibn Sina who was declared apostate half a century after his death by Imam al-Ghazali, for his philosophical theories and beliefs. Ibn Sina had preceded al-Razi who was the greatest medical scientist in the world of his time. He regarded the knowledge of Geometry more important than that of the Holy Book. He believed that the Prophets were impostors. Ibn Rushd who was a great Philosopher and whose work is still cherished in the western world had constructed a doctrine of ‘double truth’ to protect himself from the wrath of the orthodox Muslims but could not succeed in doing so. He died in exile. So if one wants to really comprehend what role, if any, religion played in the creative work of the Muslim scientists, one should probe and research into their life stories. I do not mean to suggest that one has to be necessarily an agnostic or atheist in order to do meaningful work. All that I am saying is that many of the scientists, Muslim and non-Muslim, are liberal in their outlook and beliefs and they are not hindered by their religious beliefs, whatever they are.

For instance, if a Muslim scientist wants to contribute meaningfully in Quantum Mechanics, he would most assuredly read and understand the latest work published in the research journals and not go to the Holy Book for new theories and ideas for development pertaining to Quantum Mechanics. Many of us however do believe that the Holy Book is the source of all knowledge. If a Muslim scientist entertains this belief, his definition of ‘knowledge’ will certainly be different from the conventional.

Professor Abdus Salam had a staunch faith in Islam (his brand) and he was a top of the line Quantum Physicist. He drew his inspiration from the spirit of Islam and the Holy Book but for his scientific work, he went back to research journals.

There is some confusion in comprehending the true essence and origin of the Holy Quran also. If it (Quran) is eternal and ‘uncreated’, then it cannot be the word of God because if it is, then it is the creation of God. The only uncreated being in the whole universe is God, as majority of the monotheists believes. It is only God who was not created by any other being and is the creator of every thing. Is Quran included in every thing? If the Holy Quran is eternal and uncreated, then it has to be another God. Is It? Think over it.

But why rake up these old issues? Lot of water has already flowed under the bridge.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Remember,
Ethics and rules listed in the Koran are not a goal in themselves. They are the path to the goal, which is the salvation. This abolishes the concept of absolute ethics, and allows 1.3 billion different interpretations of Islam, all being 1.3 billion different paths to God.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#4: Thank you, `Freethinker`` Mohammad Gill, for your corrrection. You are right while summarizing the Mutazilites` view on the Quran in a very early para of my piece, I erred. I did mean to write that a `created` Quran meant for them a `non-eternal` Quran, and an `uncreated` Quran an `eternal` Quran. My principal point, however, whichTI believe must have come through in my piece, warts and all, was that the Mutazilites believed that the Quran was `created` scripture, therefore `non-eternal`, as against the Asharite view that the Quran was `uncreated` meaning an eternal scripture, in fact one that was co-eternal with God. There are many flaws in thislatter argument which I hope to spell out one day. For the moment, let me say that I have apologised to the editors of Chowk for my egregious error. May I add here that I very much look forward to reading your erudite essays on Chowk from which I derive a great deal of benefit. Rasheed Talib

MU`TAZLEEN, NIETSZCE & MODERN MUSLIMS

The following article pretty much sums up, all that there is regarding the place of Mu`tazleen thought in the modern (Islamic) world. The last paragraph is worth reading. I can attest to that. The thought process is in motion, whether it is Dr. Israr Ahmad`s lecture or a mosque in North America.

-----------



Educating people about religion

By Nadeem Qureshi


Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy in a recent article has referred to Islamic history to argue that a sect called the Mutazilites (Mu`tazila, in Arabic) were responsible for spectacular developments that took place in learning and science from the 8th to the 13th centuries, and that this process came to an end when the Imam Al-Ghazali `spearheaded` the reawakening of `Muslim Orthodoxy.`

However a closer look at Islamic history does not support the conclusions he has reached.

The Mu`tazila were a fringe sect whose origins go back to the Umayyad period when a student of the `Aalim Al-Hassan of Basra separated from him over a question concerning the status of a Muslim who has committed a major sin. And hence the name Mu`tazila comes from the verb `itazila - to separate from, dissociate from etc.

The central plank of the Mu`tazila doctrine hinged on the arcane question of whether the Quran was `created` or `uncreated`. The Mu`tazila held that it was `created` whereas orthodox Islamic doctrine to this day holds that it is `uncreated`.

And so the Mu`tazila remained an obscure fringe sect for more than a century after their founding until caliph Ma`mun succeeded his brother Amin in 813 A.D. Ma`mun strongly embraced the Mu`tazila and made their doctrine a matter of state policy to the extent that an inquisition was set up and people could be flogged, or worse, if they failed to display their allegiance to it. After Ma`mun`s death in 833 A.D. the Mu`tazila lost favour and were declared heretical a few years later by the Caliph Mutawakkil (847 A.D - 861 A.D).

Be that as it may Ma`mum was a man dedicated to learning and science. A story in Ibn Al-Nadeem`s `Fihirist`` relates how he had a dream in which he saw Aristotle sitting on a throne. Following this vision he had an emissary dispatched to the then Roman Emperor to collect as many books on science as he could so that they could be translated. Clearly it was Ma`mun`s personal love of knowledge rather than the views of the Mu`tazila that caused him to strongly sponsor learning.

While it is true that Ma`mun`s reign was a particularly fertile period for science and learning, the same can be said, in general, of the whole Abbasid period which extends from the defeat of the Umayyads, in 750 A.D. to the sack of Baghdad by the Mongols in 1258 AD - a period of 500 years. The proof of this is that some of the greatest scientists of the Abbasid period the likes of Ibn Sina, Al-Razi, Ibn-Al Rushd, Ibn Hayyan, Al-Biruni, and countless more did their work decades or centuries after Ma`mum and the Mu`tazila were distant history.

Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali was born in 1058 A.D., more than two centuries after Ma`moun`s death. He was a man of extraordinary brilliance and had an intense thirst for knowledge. He studied the natural sciences, philosophy and religion and wrote extensively on his research. He had an open mind and was committed to the search for truth. In the end his search led him in 1095 A.D. to embrace Sufism - a tradition that has never been regarded to be part of Islamic orthodoxy. He died in 1111 A.D. The Abbasids continued to rule for another century and a half and learning continued to flourish.

Islamic orthodoxy remained essentially unchanged throughout the Umayyad and Abbasid periods, and indeed remains much the same today. So if we have to seek an explanation for why the Muslims fell behind in learning and science after the 13th century we have to look elsewhere.

One does not have to look further than the Quran and the Hadeeth to see the emphasis that Islam places on learning. The fact that this did not happen earlier - in the Umayyad period for example - is because the Muslims were preoccupied with spreading Islam to the edges of the known world and building an Islamic state. Their work done, the Umayyads left the stage and the Abbasids then focused their attention on learning for half a millennium.

As Muslims seek to find their way in the modern world it is useful for them to bear in mind that the only time in history that they had held a place of influence and power on the world stage was during the Islamic rule of the `Khilafat` - the Umayyads from 661 A.D to 750 A.D. and then the abbasids from 750 A.D. to 1258 A.D.

It is easy for us to blame our backwardness on our adherence to an ancient religion and to ascribe the success of the West to embracing secularism. Yet in the post-colonial period secular governments have ruled most Muslim countries and they have not succeeded in lifting their people out of poverty and backwardness.

Islam has been favoured amongst all the other divine religions by having in its possession a scripture - the Quran - acknowledged to be unchanged from the time it was revealed. And while they cannot match the absolute authority of the Quran, it is generally accepted that the sayings of the Prophet (the Hadeeth) as reported in the two Sahihs - Bukhari and Muslim are authentic.

So the Muslims of old drew their inspiration from exactly the same texts that is read today. Why is it then, that working from the same material, they were able to create a civilization that dominated the world, while the Muslims of today, remain mired in obscurity and ignorance?

This question admits of no simple answers. It is clear however, that there is no going back to the past. Those who believe that a `khilafat` can be re-established - and there are such people - are actually having dreams. But it is also clear at the same time, as we have seen from a cursory glance at our history, that we cannot blame our religion. The fault then rests squarely with us, with our ignorance of what our religion is, of who we are and of where we have to go.

We in Pakistan suffer especially from this ignorance. The sectarian violence of the recent past is ample evidence. People in the Arab world shake their heads in disbelief when they learn of shootings in Pakistani mosques. They just cannot believe that Muslims would kill other Muslims, let alone do it in a place of worship. Gai Eaton refers to the malaise that afflicts us in the introduction to his excellent book `Islam and the Destiny of Man` in which he says: ``Where human beings are concerned, good men and good women are by no means thick on the ground, but vice always pays its tribute to virtue by masquerading behind the mask of religion - or more recently - of some political ideology, and both wickedness and stupidity walk the streets more confidently when decently clothed.``

``It would be foolish``, he continues, ``and, to say the least, counter productive to seek arguments to excuse divisions within the Ummah, wars between Muslim states, the brutality and hypocrisy of certain nationalist leaders, the corrupt practices of the rich or the hysteria of zealots who have forgotten the fundamental (Islamic) law of mercy and the binding obligation (in Islam) to make use of the gift of intelligence.``

Mr Eaton is an Englishman who has become a Muslim. He has written his book to explain Islam to westerners. But it is also written for those Muslims whose minds have been shaped by a western system of education. Those of us who are exposed to this education, either in Pakistan or abroad, develop, without perhaps realizing it, a certain scepticism of all things religious. The system focuses on guaranteeing success in this world. It is not concerned with what may happen in the next.

The most vexing problem we face in Pakistan is unequivocally this: How do we educate our people, the majority of whom are illiterate, about their religion? Literacy is of course of paramount importance and it must be addressed with extreme urgency. But this is a separate issue. Our concern here is with religious knowledge. And the majority of Pakistan`s people get their information about Islam from the Imams of their local mosques. Here we have a problem. Many of these Imams do not have the necessary training or knowledge to inform the people about the truth of Islam. The sectarian upheaval that we now see is a direct consequence of this unfortunate situation.

I attend jum`a prayer at my neighbourhood mosque in a suburb of the city of Dammam. The Imam there is a manager in corporate planning at the Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Saudi Aramco). He is well versed with the Quran and the Hadeeth. In a typical khutba it is not unusual for him to refer to people such as Freud, Nietzsche, Sartre, to name just a few. It is rare that I emerge from one of his khutbas without having learned something new. Indeed it is an event that I look forward to and ensure that I arrive early to get a good place. How many people in Pakistan would be able to make a similar assertion?

Thanks for taking the time to write about this subject Rasheed Talib.

There is a little bit more to it than this but with the taking over of

``Islamic`` activism by fascists in the past few decades, thanks in part

to the assistance provided to them by the West, Islam has become

a profession instead of a religion.

It is time we go back to religion again.


Ras

#9
Sameer

you had to say something, even if its the most superficial thing to say. I was expecting something more educated from you. FYI, most of these philosophical debates raged at a time when the intellectual center of islam had already moved to `Ajam. The Abbasids, though headquartered in Baghdad, were originally an Ajami phenomena. Add egyptians and Andulusis to the mix and you have a potpourri of philosophies, many of which endured, some as `deviant` as the ex-fatimids Druzes`, and some as puritanical as latter day wahabis..

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

...yes and when they were debating these........I read it did create such heated debates...with so much involved...the opposite camps were some time trampled over by horses.. being run over them....

...correct me if I am wrong.... the Shite Sunni rift was consolided becouse of it....Yes...that rifts origin were not new....but this kind of debate did augumented this rift... Maybe I am wrong.. but still

...so let Islam remain a pure and simple way of life... acedimic debates asside.... its time to act not debate....

...Let the Muslim re start the process of Tehqeek and Takhleeq instead of Tanqeed and Taqleed.... it will result only in Takhreeb

re: sameerJB and nazarhayatkhan

Another question for the knowledgeable out there:

Under Mutazilite thought, anyone can use his/her reason to distinguish between vice and virtue. But two people may not think the same way, thereby they may arrive at different conclusions about vice and virtue. Since there are more than 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, we may potentially have 1.3 billion different interpretations of vice & virtue.

Doesn`t this result in a decentralization of theology and therefore its corruption?

For example, one Muslim may reason that since he has a high metabolic rate, he can still 2 bottles of beer and offer prayers. Another Muslim may have a slow metabolic rate that would result in intoxication from even half a bottle of beer.

Unless there is a central authority to interpret these issues, religious edicts will run into chaos. Hence we need the institution of ulema.

Given the nature of traditions in Arab society, Mutazililites had no chance to succeed, the challenge from Asharites notwithstanding. The Mutazilites, by the very nature of their reliance on reason, were a challenge to the norms of traditional tribal society that demanded absolute and unquestioned submission and obedience to leadership, be it tribal, political, religion or nationalistic as int he case of Saddam Hussein and other Arab rulers in modern world.

The reason challenged unquestioned authority of the authoritarians. The reason about god or quran would have naturally spilled over into normal lifestyles of people thus weakening the heirarchies of various kinds. The asharites beliefs supported the status quo of the authorities by very nature of eliminating reason from certain esteemed areas of life. Later Ghazali sealed the fate.

The Mutazilites had better chance of succeeding in India or China but the variants of Islam that came to India on the heels of invaders had been compromized and the purpose of Islam in subcontinent was to weaken or soften any resitance to minority culture and rule of Islamic Empires of India. Beyond that point Islam had no use for its promoters in both political and religious heirarchies.

Now in free societies, one does not need to invoke Mutazilites to free themselves from the shackles of medieval and dark age practices of beliefs. One can wake up to reason and logic through looking the world around him/ her. Obe can wake up to reason by actually accepting liberal education and believing in it. One can even completely disregard religosity and all thoughts associated with it or reject everything by simply rejecting the presence of anything like god.

Therefore, except for studying history or for intellectual curiosity, the debate between Mutazilites and Asharites has no meaning for the contemporary Muslims. Not drinking from the polluted river is first step towards cleaning the river. Much less chance of decontamination and more arduous task if the water is consumed with the same intensity and holy fervor as before. Disagreeing to the virulent traits in Islam is not sufficient until they are considered reprehensible.

Re: #3 by HisExcellency

Reason may not be as important as Revelation in percepting the nature of God, but it certainly is a fundamental requirement to percept Revelation itself.

The fact that the Koran often gives logical/philosophical reasons behind the rules it dictates, depicts that God forbids sins because they are bad.

They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: ``In them is great sin and some profit for men; but the sin is greater than the profit.`` (Koran 2:219)

Osama ben Laden and 6000 deaths in NY are a perfect example of literal following of the text of revelation and ignorance of the reasoning required to percept it.

TALIB sahib,it``s very masterly topic.the more you learn ,the more you will confuse.i am living in confusion and contratation.the only thing i am known so far is,god created this world and send messengers ,time to time to keep the world in order.the basic message of all the messengers is love,peace and truth.we at present time need it badly.different school of thoughts are not going to help us.may be i am wrong.may be some one educate my poor soul?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Unfortunately the author is non-interacting type - so probably I would be talking to myself. but anyhoo...

First of all I fail to see the connection between the 9th century philosophical thought and the thought process that is going on today. The questions that were faced by philosphers at that time were open ended questions, which do not have definite answers. If we compare the same questions in the Western thought process we come across what started from the Aristotle`s Prime Mover, progressed to Occam`s Razor, to St. Anselms Ontological Proof, to Pascale`s Wager, to Kant, to Nietscze to Russel and the list just goes on and on. Similarly in Eastern or Islamic thought process what started from Mutazalites & Asharites was passed on to Hanbalis, to Malilkis to Bu Hanifa to Al-Ghazali, to Abdul Qadir Jilani, to Mujadid Alif Saani, to Shah Waliullah to Ali Hajwari, to Allama Iqbal to may be Soroush and then list just goes on and on. The point is that philosophical thought process based on reason and logic did not stop with Mutzallites, but it progressed, it was diversified geographically, liguistically, and culturally. I will post a seprate write up about Mutazalites, which addresses some of the misconceptions reiterated in this article.

One such misconception about Mutazallites is that they reject Hadith or the authority of Hadith. This assertion is not correct. At the time when Ahadith were being collated question was raised to those who were taking part in that endeavor. The question was how a hadith is considered authentic. Mutazallites argued that Ahdith can only be taken authentic if it is verified by at least two independent sources (narrators). The others, especially, Imam Malik, however, argued that a well known hadith which is un-contested may be considered authentic if narrated by one source only. malik`s argument was that when divine order of prohibition of liquor came there was one town crier who roamed around the city of Medina and announced the order of prohibition. People, took his word, and broke down all the containers without verifying from a second source. [Dr. Mohammad Hamidullah, Khutbaat-e-Bahawalpur, he also quotes several other arguments based on ancient sources]. During that time it was a big issue because fiqah (law & jurisprudence0 was being established based on Qura`n and Hadith, and if Mutazzalite approach was taken a good volume of well known ahadith would have been rendered useless.

Another issue that writer has raised is the issue called ``Qaza-o-Qadr`` -i.e. when everything happens by God`s permission then why man should be held liable for his misdeeds. Philosophically, it is a good question. But since acts of deeds and misdeeds may fall into the realm of fiqah (law) so the faqih (jurists) found the answer with in Qura`n. It is Qura`n that stipulates the concept of reward for good deeds and punishment for misdeeds, which means that man has been given some degree of autonomy to chose between right and wrong. God doesn`t interfere in that choice, but since He is All-Knower He knows what that man will choose. And if one looks at the structure of Quran`ic verses one might notice that with each and every verse where there is a mention of a punishment for misdeed there is also a mention of God being Rehman (Compassionate) and Rahim (Forgiver). So man is also given an option to seek forgiveness for his misdeeds, which we all know that it is purely our own prerogative.

I would like to write one more post, separately, that will discuss the issue of lietral vs metaphorical meaning of Quranic verses.

Is Quran `` Hadis `` or `` Qadeem `` ? Hadis like incidental or something which will correspond to all the times. Its narrated that Iqbal was once told by his father to read Quran as it is being revealed on urself!!!

I think eternal is not ``Qadeem`` . Eternal should be `` Baqa ``
Qadeem like its one and for all. It was created in the very beginning and will reamin like this . No Cahnge. `` Jamood ``

I agree with #1 sameerJB

At times I wonder whether such debates really serve a purpose and are productive except perhaps for a reaserch paper for some seminary.

For an average everyday person, religion is simly a faith to keep his sanity intact and provide him some kind of a basic frame work of good and bad as sanctioned from the heavens.

Religion is a blind belief and has no logic about it. Otherwise there would be only one religion in the world - the religion that has the best logic to prove it.

Muhtram Talib Sahib:

Just a point of clarification. In the opening line under Introduction, it was stated, ``..that it (Quran) was created (meaning by it `eternal`), rather than uncreated (i.e. non-eternal) scripture.`` The word created does not mean eternal; it means created. Created is temporal, i.e. created at a certain particular time. Uncreated is eternal. I believe the Arabic word for `created` is `khalq` and for eternal is `qadeem`.

Please do not consider it as adverse criticism. Your article is well researched. With regards.

A very insightful and well-researched article indeed!

I have a few questions of my own for the author.

Does Mutazilite philosophy acknowledge the limitations of reason? We all know that human beings use the 5 senses to collect data, perform experiments and then prove/disprove theories. Unlike God, humans do not possess knowledge of future. We can only predict an outcome based on past experiences and knowledge, but every now and then predictions go astray because of unforseen/unexperienced phenomenon.

My point is: the Mutazilites exaggerate the power of reason to discover truth. Can we use our 5 senses, scientific methods and reasoning to figure out the exact nature of God Himself? Not really.

Consider the following dilemma: Does God forbid adultery because it is bad? Or is adultery bad because God forbids it?

A Mutazilite would answer ``Yes`` to first question and ``No`` to the second. It would be vice versa for an Asharite.

What we need is a marriage between the two extreme positions. Asharite thought breeds fatalism. Mutazilite thought breeds ``analysis paralysis``. Neither school of thought provides a complete road to truth.

I prefer the Al-Ghazali approach. This offers a compromise between reason and revelation.

In essence, he said that human beings should apply reason to all worldly matters, but not to the nature of God and His explicit commandments.
This is because knowledge of the latter is ``unknowable through human intellect``. Soren Kiekegaard, the famous theologian-philosopher said that some aspects of truth can only be discovered through faith, not reason.

Dear Mr. Talib,
Your deep insight on these issues is remarkable. You are doing the contemporary Muslim philosophy a great favour by writing down your feelings and sharing your views with all of us.
Here are some of my own abstract thoughts:


- The beginnings of Ash`arism are shrouded in obscurity. It was a gradual shifting of attitude and there was no formal recognition of the existence of this philosophy in the beginning. It is a tendency of human mind to ascribe broad movements to single men. This is the reason why I think this philosophy has been ascribed to the name of Abul Hassan `Ali Ibne Islma`il alAsh`ari.


- Other schools of thought that shared similar philosophy with Ash`arism include Zahirism in Spain, School of Al-Tahawi in Egypt, and Maturidism in Samarqand.


- The above article does not mention a very important content of the debate between the two philosophies i.e. The relationship of attributes of God to his essence. Mu`tazilism insists that the attributes of God such as Knowledge, Power and Life are not independant qualities possessed by him apart from his essence, but are a part of his essence. Al-Ash`ari is reported to have rebutted the Mu`tazilist identification of God`s attributes with his essence in this manner, ``Abul Hudhayl Allaf says that God`s knowledge is God, and so he makes God knowledge. He must be asked to invoke knowledge instead of God, and say in his prayers, `O Knowledge Forgive Me!`.``

Why bother? Just live out a normal life without worrying about it and instead worry about education, healthcare, human rights, peace, justice and prosperity. Why carry unnecessary burden, a burden for no end.

As a human being, a Panjabi, a Pakistani and an American are enough identities for me to be contented with or to worry about.