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?