| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Ayaan Hirsi Ali explains why moderate Muslims have little or no traction in the Islamic world -- in, of all places, the New York Times, in an interview about her new book Infidel.
Does this point sound familiar?
Q. Have you seen any ideology coming from within Islam that gives young Muslims a sense of purpose without the overlay of militancy?A. They have no alternative message. There is no active missionary work among the youth telling them, do not become jihadis. They do not use media means as much as the jihadis. They simply — they’re reactive and they don’t seem to be able to compete with the jihadis. And every time there is a debate between a real jihadi and, say, what we have decided to call moderate Muslims, the jihadis win. Because they come with the Koran and quotes from the Koran. The come with quotes from the Hadith and the Sunnah, and the traditions of the prophet. And every assertion they make, whether it is that women should be veiled, or Jews should be killed, or Americans are our enemies, or any of that, they win. Because what they have to say is so consistent with what is written in the Koran and the Hadith. And what the moderates fail to do is to say, listen, that’s all in there, but that wasn’t meant for this context. And we have moved on. We can change the Koran, we can change the Hadith. That’s what’s missing.
Posted by Robert at February 4, 2007 9:03 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
This has been said, repeatedly, by Robert Spencer from the very beginning of this site, in October 2003. It was insisted upon by him before the site came into existence, in articles, books, and speeches. It is not a complicated point. It should be obvious. Islam is a powerful, coherent, all-embracing Belief System. It rests on several texts: the Qur'an, which is the uncreated (that is, it has always existed, forever) and immutable word of God. Any internal contradictions are, through the interpretive doctrine of "naskh" or abrogation, settled in favor of the later, much harsher verses. The full meaning of the Qur'an can be gleaned from what Muhammad said and did, as recorded in stories written down, the hadith (or "ahadith"), about what he said, and did, and even when he was silent. Those stories, the tens or hundreds of thousands of them, were collected, and studied, and their isnad-chains )(A told B who told C etc. -- well, who was C, and B, and A, that make us trust, or not trust, their versions?) examined this way adn that, that the hadith-scholars or muhaddithin could finally assign different levels of "autheniticy" and winnow down the vast number of hadith to those deemed "authentic." Of all the collections of Hadith, six are deemed most reliable, and two in particular - those of Bukhari and Muslim -- deemed authoritative. When someone, for example Karen Armstrong, quotes such a hadith, in support of her crazed view of Islam, for example that Muhammad returned from a war to home saying he had come from "the lesser Jihad to the greater Jihad" (i.e., the "Jihad" of mastering himself at home), few stop to ask -- and Karen Armstrong clearly has no idea --as to where that hadith appears, and what level of authenticity has been assigned to it by Bukhari, by Muslim.
This excerpt from the interview simply makes clear what all those who have left Islam know perfectly well, for what Ayaan Hirsi Ali says here would be said, has been said, by Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina and hundreds of others, and thought by tens or hundreds of thousands of apostates who have gained their mental freedom, and possibly thereby the ability to lead not double-lives riddled with deception and self-deception, among others who are now fellow Infidels, and no longer those enemy Infidels from whom one must, at all costs, hide the reality of Islam. And it has been said by Robert Spencer whose perfecty straightforward view is immune to the concerns -- vanity of some, desire to keep getting well-paid audiences by others, or an inability to come to grips with the problem because of this or that personable Muslim whom one knows, likes, cannot bear to alienate, or any number of other reasons, including careerism of every sort. By now visitors to this site are able to distinguish the unswayable from those who were swayed long ago, with their their book deals, and their lecture fees, and their think-tank or university appointments that must be kept, and those donors to one's empire-building who must under no conditions be scared off.
And that is why there are so very few, outside of the apoostates, on whom one can thoroughly rely.
Posted by: Hugh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 4, 2007 9:30 AM
Let's face it, Hugh, we live in a phony world. Sure, Robert has said all of the same things Hirsi Ali has, at least as long and emphatically, but...and let me be non-PC here..Robert is not a woman of color.
I'm afraid the New Duranty Times is going to give a lot for credence to Ms. Ali for that very reason. Those freaking numbskulls...
at February 4, 2007 9:41 AM
That's why building mosques in the west is counterproductive to integration.
With the mosques come the imams. With the imams comes the manual for religious warfare - the quran.
And with the manual in hand this warfare - jihad - starts. The more muslims are encouraged to live by and with their religion the more desastrous are the consequences for the rest of the society.
There is no moderation in islam. There is only islam, submission to islam or war. It's an all or nothing thing.
at February 4, 2007 9:46 AM
People don't leave anything to go to nothing. They must have a place to go to. If there are no places to go to then there is only Jihad. "Moderate Muslims" are like battered wives with no shelters. That's why Islam must dominate. Any equality with other belief-systems cannot be tolerated by Islam.
Posted by: Frank at February 4, 2007 9:53 AM
the overlay of militancy
The overlay. The substrate. The it ain't quite really real.
Howabout the sinew. The muscle. The essence.
The NYT is an awful newspaper, the ultimate coagulation of intellectual dishonesty. Finishing school ganglia inter-wrapped with finishing school ganglia, a perfect stupidity. Harvard Yale. Go team. Rah.
To wit: They're still asking questions about Islam. How dumb it that.
Duh.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at February 4, 2007 10:01 AM
filibuster: You are right on the money!
But Ali Hirsi is also wrong:
"...the moderates fail to do is to say, listen, that’s all in there, but that wasn’t meant for this context. And we have moved on. We can change the Koran, we can change the Hadith..."
It was meant for exactly this context: To make the world islamic, nothing else, otherwise it doesn't make sense.
We moved on, but THEY never will. Change the 'immutable Koran?' A Muhammean kills for much much less than that.http://sheikyermami.com/2007/02/04/afp-sux-mobs-of-whites-attacked-lebanese-australians/
at February 4, 2007 10:07 AM
"We can change the Koran, we can change the Hadith. That’s what’s missing." (from above)
The problem with Islam is Islam itself. Like Communism, it is fatally flawed from within and can't be "reformed" without destroying it in the process. Therefore, that is the only solution. The "reformers" of Islam, like Gorbachev, may eventually find that without force and the threat of force to hold it togeather, Islam cannot stand and will collapse under the weight of its' own bile and contradictions. Let us hope that will happen as history will take a happier, brighter turn than it seems fated to right now.
at February 4, 2007 10:30 AM
About as PC as the MSM gets, but Mr Spencer's 'The Truth about Muhamed' has gotten itself reviewed in the Observer. And a good - if short - review at that.
We are getting there folks.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2005391,00.html
at February 4, 2007 10:30 AM
The excerpt above is the best part of the interview. Elsewhere the answers are not quite all that Hirsi Ali wanted to say, or could have said. For example, she is asked about the differences between Muslims in Canada and those in Europe. She mentions that the Muslims in Canada all speak perfect English, and that they do not shout down with quite the same vehemence and violence those who oppose them. Had she more time, she might have added that 1) in many cases in Canada Muslims have shouted down and threatened speakers -- twice at Concordia University alone and 2) if Muslims in North America are better at English this may merely mean that they are better able to propagandize and to mislead -- cf. Tariq Ramadan's knowledge of French simply making him a more dangerous opponent, in all his slitheriness (a slitheriness that seems to have impressed the impressionable, and less-and-less-impressive, Ian Buruma, in the same issue of The Times, but since he managed before he started to display his self-assured misundersanding of Islam, he'd already locked in a job from Leon Botstein so he can be just as misleading, and misled himself, as he wishes) and 3) if Muslim behavior is here and there toned down, in Canada, or the U.S., it is a function of realizing that there are too few Muslims, as yet, compared to Western Europe, and the Infidels, as yet, relatively uncowed and, in the United States at least, where Infidels are much more ready to use violence, thank god, than they are in Western Europe, possibly permanently un-cowable.
And the business of the Qur'an and Hadith needing to be changed -- well, I don't think for one minute that Hirsi Ali believes they can be. She was simply throwing that out, and the interviewer did not choose to follow up. She knows perfectly well that they cannot be changed (this is not surmise, this is based on more intimate knowledge). She leaves it up to you to draw your conclusions.
Posted by: Hugh at February 4, 2007 10:32 AM
Here's the room for maneuver. The koran may be immutable, fixed forever in heaven, but the "koran" we have here on earth is not. It's a copy, and an imperfect one. How else can it have "abrogations". Does God change his word from minute to minute? Hardly. What we have is a corrupted version, written down long after the original revelations to Mo , and filtered thru several generations of fallible human memory. Surely there were other "Satanic" verses. If Mo were fooled once, he might have been fooled other times. And then there are the transmitters -- who's to say their memories were not tamperd with by Satan? How can one chain of transmission include tales that others do not?
Back to the abrogations. The koran is there in heaven, uncreated and eternal. Therefore, both the verse and its abrogation are co-equal. There is no logical way to choose between them. Maybe both are Satanic.
These are a few questions I'd be asking a jihadi were I a "moderate moslem". They are similar to questions that have been asked of Christianity and the New Testament, and which Christian scholars have had to deal with.
at February 4, 2007 10:40 AM
"Because what they have to say is so consistent with what is written in the Koran and the Hadith. And what the moderates fail to do is to say, listen, that’s all in there, but that wasn’t meant for this context. And we have moved on. We can change the Koran, we can change the Hadith. That’s what’s missing."
Money Shot. In the NYT.
Which why there is no such thing as a moderate community, because while their are millions of kind and decent and moderate people who are Muslim, there is no moderate Islam.
I told the NYT country chief of a major country last year that they were not living up to their responsibilities in reporting about Islam last year. He looked at me like I was a nut.
Shame on you Karen Armstrong and others who have given a pass the least progressive ideology known to our present day.
Shame on those who write Ms. Ali off as a "conservateive" for articulating classic Liberal values.
It suprises me not at all that an African born woman would lead on thia issue as she does not suffer from the liberal racism it takes to see Muslims as poor helpless victims not to be taken at their word or held responsible for their actions.
If the MSM lives up to its tradition, I say better late than never, but there is no question that if Muslims were not thought as blameless and helpless minorities, if Islam was thought of as a white man`s religion, the MSM would have been on it long ago.
Posted by: tokyobk at February 4, 2007 10:59 AM
Another problem with Islam, and a clue to why it may be embraced by so many, is that it feeds man's base passions. It is much easier in this hard work-a-day world we live in to not have to check yourself when anger rises to the surface and you'd like to lash out at someone. If your religion says it's okay to hit your wife in the face if she doesn't cook your dinner properly or if she's not interested in having sex, it makes it much easier for you not to control your temper, give into it, give her a good beating and then sleep like a baby because Allah said it was O-tay! You don't even have to use the old concept of "the devil made me do it." It also teaches men in Islam that they can have any material thing they want, and if they are unsatisfied or if they are embarassed by some bad behavior on their own part, they can blame it on the woman or the infidel and let them be punished in his place.
The thing I'm having trouble with is why any woman would be an advocate for it, unless she really believes that killing her kids or allowing them to kill themselves will get her a ticket to heaven. If so then she is just as selfish as the men.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 4, 2007 11:05 AM
In the past couple of days here in the UK we've had the Times, the Mail and the Telegraph - all leading members of the MSM - seriously dissing Islam. Today we even have a good review of Mr Spencer's book in The Observer, another leading member of the MSM.
Now it seems the NYT, yet another leading member of the MSM doing the same.
I see progress ... just gotta get al-Beeb on board now.
Posted by: Sir Henry Morgan at February 4, 2007 11:13 AM
"Another problem with Islam, and a clue to why it may be embraced by so many, is that it feeds man's base passions. It is much easier in this hard work-a-day world we live in to not have to check yourself when anger rises to the surface and you'd like to lash out at someone. If your religion says it's okay to hit your wife in the face if she doesn't cook your dinner properly or if she's not interested in having sex, it makes it much easier for you not to control your temper, give into it, give her a good beating and then sleep like a baby because Allah said it was O-tay! You don't even have to use the old concept of "the devil made me do it." It also teaches men in Islam that they can have any material thing they want, and if they are unsatisfied or if they are embarassed by some bad behavior on their own part, they can blame it on the woman or the infidel and let them be punished in his place.
The thing I'm having trouble with is why any woman would be an advocate for it, unless she really believes that killing her kids or allowing them to kill themselves will get her a ticket to heaven. If so then she is just as selfish as the men.
Isabellathecrusader,
You said it beautifully.
The bottom line is that all men are naturally inclined to sinfulness. We hold ourselves in check by our belief in a higher power that mandates certain moral standards that we must hold ourselves to in order to be moral human beings.
Islam has turned everything up-side-down. It caters to mans lower nature. In Islam, good is evil, and evil is good.
As to Muslim Women, they are a testament to the power of brainwashing and fear.
at February 4, 2007 11:37 AM
If we the few that are preoccupied with this clash of civilizations are so clear about what we are facing, then we must be clear on our course of action. We must support an immediate redeployment of our troops into an independent Kurdistan, and let the Shiite murder the Sunni and viceversa. Let the whole middle east join in the festivities, and maybe even our good friends in France, Spain or Italy will get to feel the love.
cheers
at February 4, 2007 11:39 AM
"Here's the room for maneuver. The koran may be immutable, fixed forever in heaven, but the "koran" we have here on earth is not."
That's your opinion, obviously not theirs.
at February 4, 2007 11:42 AM
"the J.W. watch people are here with such debtication..."
-- from a posting above
A slip, forsooth, but how right you are.
Posted by: Hugh at February 4, 2007 11:46 AM
So we have a moderate Muslim, at long last, in a very leftist publication. That is good. Identifying the problem is a necessary first step, however, I agree with Hugh. I don't think she believes reformation of Islam will actually be achieved and supports that belief by offering no solutions.
Posted by: awake at February 4, 2007 11:47 AM
"Let's face it, Hugh, we live in a phony world".-JD
You bet. And Muslims make a religion of it. At the Times, its a lifestyle.
The truth is that an honest Muslim would say, "Look, you can't change the will-to-domination inherent in Islam via its doctrines, you can't ask us to really accept other belief-systems as equal, to give people alternatives (in Saudi Arabia, e.g.)you can't ask us to give up the rationalizations that confer on us our sense of superiority, that entitle us to dominate or even kill unbelievers. Do you want us to stop being Muslims"? Muslims can't face the truth.
I think you are part right about why Robert doesn't get same treatment. But I think there is another factor. Robert scares phonies (and their power and income) because he gets right at the truth of things. They run from him. They fear him and the truth. I'm certain of it. (I'll bet Ibby Hooper runs like hell when he sees Robert-LOL.)
I admire Robert for his steadfast honesty re the facts. It takes a lot of guts. (Frankly, he has more faith in people than I do. Most people are not honest-not worth it.)
Posted by: Frank at February 4, 2007 11:48 AM
A bit off topic:
Dinesh D'Sousa will be on C-SPAN 2 at 12:00Pm EST --promoted as a call in show while he promotes his book that has been critically panned by Fitzgerald, and Spencer over the past 2 weeks__
at February 4, 2007 11:57 AM
Well said awake! And I agree with Hugh too:
"knows perfectly well that they cannot be changed (this is not surmise, this is based on more intimate knowledge). "
Those Muslims who would agree with "ebony" aren't the problem, aren't the ones strapping bombs on themselves.
at February 4, 2007 12:06 PM
After the tsunami, I wondered why moderate Muslims did not flood Aceh province to preach that Allah had punished the people for being too radical. No moderates appeared, but the Jihadis poured into Aceh as soon as the water had receeded to preach that the tsunami was punishment for not being radical enough. As Aceh and other Indonesian provinces have grown more and more radical, they have suffered a series of natural disasters. Ba'ashr is released and they suffer more natural disasters.
If ever there were an opportunity for moderate Muslims to challenge the radicals it is in Indonesia after each natural disaster.
Hirsi Ali is correct when she says: "They have no alternative message. There is no active missionary work among the youth telling them, do not become jihadis. They do not use media means as much as the jihadis. They simply — they’re reactive and they don’t seem to be able to compete with the jihadis."
Posted by: FirePig at February 4, 2007 12:43 PM
Telling Muslims not to be Jihadists is like telling a Baptist not to be a Fundamentalist. They are choosing fundamentalism as a method to promolgate their religion.
I have never doubted the missionary zeal of the fundamentalist christain churches. They have a lot of adherents. One problem that is rather evident, however, is that the fundamentalist christain churches when entering a county, do not get in line with the government as did the early Catholic church.
Here is where Islam has an upper hand. It is a theoracy as well. Thus as it enters a governmentally weak area, it surplants the government. Not only do you have to believe, you have to obey, because the rule of the belief has the rule of law behind it.
I see no way you can tell Muslims not to take up the sword. You can warn them not to, because of the consequences, but it is the core of their beliefs. I have never seen a fundamentalist church prohibt any outspoken leader and attempt to shut him up when he knew the bible and used it to bolster his view. I have seen the congregations not follow his leadership and rhetoric but never shut him up.
Posted by: credit man at February 4, 2007 12:54 PM
From what I understand, the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the writings in the Bible, not detract from it. No matter what the Koran says or doesn't say, there are many who take it literally and infallibly.
To convince these Muslims that they believe in nothing more than a man-made myth would be a task of monumental proportions. I do not believe that can be done any more than you could convince observant Jews that the Talmud is just some ink on paper.
The best that could be hoped for, in my opinion, is with those Muslims who do not take all of the Koran as infallible. They could be convinced by pointing out various inconsistencies, passages taken out of context, etc. But the die-hard radicals are a different story altogether. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Some will always come to their senses but I think they will be few in number.
The problem I have always had with Hirsi Ali (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) is not that she is a woman of color (for pete's sake!), is that not only will she speak out against the Koran (which is a good thing), but she will also speak out against all other religions too. That is what I have heard. I would be delighted to be wrong about that.
at February 4, 2007 12:57 PM
Hugh
"Debtication": You are so right; I've never come across a more innocent and heart-warming malapropism in its context. This is one guy I can trust my life with.
Posted by: ovidius_naso at February 4, 2007 1:00 PM
I do not see all religions as oppressive. Islam is, to be sure, but I have seen much good produced by Christianity for example.
at February 4, 2007 1:04 PM
Stephen Hawking once came up with a mathematical equation that postulated that black holes in the universe may disappear. Only one scientist (at that time)got the implications. That scientist realized that if Hawking was right then the universe (matter-energy-data) can be lost and the universe unpredictable, even an atomic reactor might have data disappear and suddenly go into a funky state. Hawking's theory required scientists to examine all the facts and come up with equations. It took decades to examine the data. (I think the final result is that Hawking and other physicists have concluded that black holes do not disappear.)
Adressing "the truth about Mohammed" may imply that Islam is unreformable. The truth-facts logically lead to that conclusion. However, in this matter, there is no cool, rational discussion on the matter.
Posted by: Frank at February 4, 2007 1:20 PM
Lilly
Hirsi Ali is an atheist. I don't know whether she's spoken against all religions, but, unlike Ali Sina, another apostate, she doesn't seem to see the need for a religion in order to build a just society. She thinks that society can be built on secular, classical liberal values
only.
at February 4, 2007 1:21 PM
"Hirsi Ali is an atheist. I don't know whether she's spoken against all religions, but, unlike Ali Sina, another apostate, she doesn't seem to see the need for a religion in order to build a just society. She thinks that society can be built on secular, classical liberal values
only."
-- from a posting above
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an atheist.
But there is no evidence that Ayaan Hirsi Ali thinks that "society can be built on secular, classical liberal values only."
Isn't it possible that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is
1) an atheist and
2) has concluded that a great many people, for all kinds of reasons that need not be gone into here (but start with "The Varieties of Religious Experience" by William James), need religion and should have it, as long as the forms it takes are not dangerous to others. Islam does not meet that definition. Most other belief-systems-cum-traditions we call "religions" at this point -- do.
Posted by: Hugh at February 4, 2007 1:27 PM
Frank
Robert is one of a kind. He came out of the 80's academia with a doctorate but also--and mercifully--with a passion for truth instead of an opportunistic will to twist and "deconstruct" truth to death, until truth vanishes or is turned on its head, which is still the norm in universities.
Robert's and Hugh's work here, at JW, is quietly revolutionary, or maybe not so quietly anymore. Their word seems to be getting out there, for I believe D'Souza's book is an uncounscious polemic with thinking like Robert's.
at February 4, 2007 1:46 PM
IMO, IsabellatheCrusader, Muslim females are 100% powerless individuals in a super-patriarchal "culture" in which men hold sway over everything. Everything. In addition, the majority are undereducated or uneducated, they're brainwashed, and they live in constant fear of their male relatives having the power to murder them with impunity for the slightest perceived infraction in this "honor" culture. Basically, they're slaves, total chattel belonging to the males, having less worth in Muslim males' eyes than a camel.
Considering all of the horrific living conditions for them as cited above, I can't blame them too much for behaving in the way they do. They don't know any better, and they can't do anything about the deeply-enmeshed Muslim males complete power over them.
Posted by: darcy at February 4, 2007 1:46 PM
One more thing.
Ibn Warraq said all this a decade ago in "Why I Am Not a Muslim." But perhaps it takes the deaths and death-threats that are part of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's personal history, not to mention her fabulous physical allure, to get things finally, to the point where her views are recorded by that self-appointed newspaper of record.
Posted by: Hugh at February 4, 2007 1:59 PM
Ali said this:
“And every time there is a debate between a real jihadi and, say, what we have decided to call moderate Muslims, the jihadis win. Because they come with the Koran and quotes from the Koran.”
And then she says this:
“The[y] come with quotes from the Hadith and the Sunnah, and the traditions of the prophet. And every assertion they make, whether it is that women should be veiled, or Jews should be killed, or Americans are our enemies, or any of that, they win.”
A real jihadi? Would that be opposed to a quasi-jihadi? The term is not clearly defined and can include anyone who even minimally fits Ali’s rubric, whatever that turns out to be. Anyhow, I don’t know if ‘every time’ there is a debate between a real jihadi wins. Consider the discussion on whether Jews should be killed. Using the Qur’an, what can a jihadi say to ‘win’ the debate? I presume she means Q9:5. However, Q9:5 says that mushriks should be killed, not Jews (or Americans). When the Qur’an speaks of Jews it refers to them either as ‘yehuds’ or ‘people of the book’. And the ‘people of the book’ are not mushriks, but are dubbed kafir. Any jihadi who considers Jews mushrik backs him/herself into a tough corner with the Qur’an.
Of course, Ali can recourse and suggest that the jihadis will follow the tafsir tradition and/or Hadith tradition. Two responses are due. Firstly, tafsir tradition was (is?) never in unanimity. The classical commentators rarely agreed on anything in the Qur’an. (Read Q93:7 and the ‘traditional’ interpretations of this verse. The diversity is apparent) So such recourse would prove little since there is no single position to stand with. Secondly, the golden rule in Islamic legal tradition is that the Qur’an trumps tradition. If there’s a Hadith and/or legal edict that contradict the Qur’an the Qur’an is given primacy. That is sin qua non of Islamic legal tradition, and thus makes “Qur’an and Hadith” a mysterious couple.
Perhaps Ali will suggest that jihadis believe that the Qur’an abrogates certain verses. The problem with this maneuver is that it relies on tradition for it, not with the Qur’an. The Qur’an doesn’t discuss the theory of abrogation. Thus, the move would begin with a legal tradition back on to the Qur’an, which is backwards. Moreover, which verses are to be abrogated? The ‘traditional’ answer is, again, diverse and of little assistance.
Best wishes,
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
Posted by: Derrick_abdulhakim at February 4, 2007 2:03 PM
Hugh
The greater and Lesser jihad hadith appears only one place that i am aware of. It and other often quoted hadiths like, " seek knowledge even unto china," all come from the book: "The Revival of Religous Sciences." by al Ghazali. You will find almost all the pleasnt sounding hadiths that apalogist like to quote. There are many schalorly books writen agianst al Ghazalli's work, that show almost all his hadiths (up to 80% to 90%) are fake. I think Al Ghazalli's authorship of the work is even in doubt. The book is banned in some muslim countries. I know there alot of arabic books condeming the work and showing the hadiths to all be fake. Ghazalli doesn't provide proper chains of transmission for any of them either. He most likely picked them up during his Sufi days. Its also fun to read the stuff he says about women. I think these are the only hadiths that are right in the work.
at February 4, 2007 2:03 PM
As William F. Buckley used to say: "The ultimate enemy of myth is circumstance", which is what we see happening little by little as people read about outrages like the latest soldier-beheading conspiracy in Britain.
Eventually, Robert and Hugh and Ms. Ali will be in the mainstream because people will know that they're just telling it like it is.
at February 4, 2007 2:12 PM
Isn't it possible that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is
1) an atheist and
2) has concluded that a great many people, for all kinds of reasons that need not be gone into here (but start with "The Varieties of Religious Experience" by William James), need religion and should have it, as long as the forms it takes are not dangerous to others. Islam does not meet that definition. Most other belief-systems-cum-traditions we call "religions" at this point -- do.
Posted by: Hugh at February 4, 2007 01:27 PM
That would be nice! There are people for whom religious beliefs are a great comfort to. I know of one person that was on the brink of suicide until she found religion.
Also, agree with what s_sgt7 said re communism. Hopefully, Robert's new book will bring some light onto this topic.
at February 4, 2007 2:43 PM
jewdog writes: "let me be non-PC here..Robert is not a woman of color."
Even with Ali being a woman of color, she has still been marginalized if not outright ignored over the years. That's how strong PC MC is. For its mainstream dominance to finally be broken (non-violently), it would take a Million-Man March of a Rainbow of People of Color + Feminists + Gays, all protesting Islam.
Posted by: remote_control at February 4, 2007 2:49 PM
Hugh wrote:
"But there is no evidence that Ayaan Hirsi Ali thinks that "society can be built on secular, classical liberal values only."
Isn't it possible that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is
1) an atheist and
2) has concluded that a great many people, for all kinds of reasons that need not be gone into here (but start with "The Varieties of Religious Experience" by William James), need religion and should have it, as long as the forms it takes are not dangerous to others. Islam does not meet that definition. Most other belief-systems-cum-traditions we call "religions" at this point -- do.
Good God, Hugh, you are challenging my Chile Shiraz-soaked memory here--oh so mean and unfair of you! I know for sure Hirsi Ali's expressed her belief in secular morality without religious commandments, somewhere, in an interview or on her website. I'm going to search for the relevant quote.
Yet, in the same vein, what makes you so sure her argument is based on William James's view of religion? Can you quote to any such endorsment?
at February 4, 2007 2:52 PM
Hugh,
Regarding your observations with respect to Muslims in Canada. I concur. I don't know what's happened with regard to Canada's immigration laws, but something seems to have changed. In the past, an applicant was required to speak (with fluency) either English or French. Now, though, this doesn't seem to be required (is this due to "family immigration?"). More and more frequently, when these "Canadians" come to get their passport pictures, they arrive with a translator in tow. They can't speak a word of English or French, but, hey, they're getting their Canadian passports, and are deemed "citizens."
Posted by: J.S. at February 4, 2007 3:07 PM
"has concluded that a great many people, for all kinds of reasons that need not be gone into here (but start with "The Varieties of Religious Experience" by William James), need religion and should have it"
Or, as Voegelin pointed out, not only do a great many people "need" religion, but religion is, in fact, an unavoidable existential constant (which Camus seemed to be coming to realize before his untimely death), and reasserts itself even in putatively atheist systems (Voegelin subsumed the German Nazi ideology under the category of Religionsersatz, and performed a similar analysis on Marxism). If religion is an unavoidable constant in the psyche and in society at large, that doesn't mean there are not pernicious permutations of it which we can adjudge -- whether of the "ersatz" form (Nazism, Communism) or of the more inveterately virulent form (Islam) or of various types in-between (the dangerous, but historically and sociologically marginal "cults") -- and whose effects we can work to minimize or eliminate, if possible, in society.
at February 4, 2007 3:12 PM
A.I. Steamroller wrote: The problem with Islam is Islam itself. Like Communism, it is fatally flawed from within and can't be "reformed" without destroying it in the process.
Absolutely correct. The entire nutshell premise of Islam is this: "God/Allah sent us a "prophet" who gave us God's/Allah's complete word in the Qur'an (indirectly) which is absolute and pure, as opposed to the Torah and Gospels (injeel) which were corrupted over time."
If a Muslim dares to say, "maybe this part/that part is no longer relevant, historically correct, has been changed..." etc, then in the Muslim mindset that means the Qur'an is no better than the Torah or Bible, and Islam is just another religion. It would mean the Qur'an they follow is not in fact the direct dictation word-for-word from God, and THAT takes away the sole basis for its superiority.
Educated Muslims today live in a type of schyzophrenia (very much like educated Mormons) in that they know the Qur'an says the world is flat, they know it says the earth was made before the stars and they know it says the sun revolves around the earth. Yet they comfort and convince themselves with a myriad of excuses, double-talk and even blatant lies to explain away these passages (the most common excuse is, "You need to understand classical Arabic to fully grasp the passage.")
Posted by: Qualis Rex at February 4, 2007 3:14 PM
Sir Henry Morgan wrote:
"About as PC as the MSM gets, but Mr Spencer's 'The Truth about Muhamed' has gotten itself reviewed in the Observer. And a good - if short - review at that.
We are getting there folks.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2005391,00.html
"
The Observer (the Sunday version of The Guardian) is as liberal as liberal can be. Yet in today's edition there is not only a highly positive review of Spencer's 'Truth about Muhamed', but also an interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali herself, where the interviewer is thoroughly supportive of her views. And what's more there is also an article (by Henry Porter) deeply critical of those who tolerate Islamic intolerence.
Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2005258,00.html
Article on Islamic intolerance:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2005511,00.html
Maybe there is hope that anti-Jihad consciousness is rising amongst liberals.
at February 4, 2007 3:24 PM
Hugh
Here is a good webiste to follow up on the, "Revival of Religous Sciences," by all ghazalli. This website has a list of all the classical refutations in arabic. It also includes a fatwa issued by the saudi uleama. Pure gold to shut down people using these hadiths to paint islam in a good light. Here is the website:
http://www.ghazali.org/site/ihya.htm
Posted by: American_soldier at February 4, 2007 3:39 PM
So Darcy, what you are saying then is that a Muslim woman, like Ali Hirsi's grandmother, gets a pass when she does something as despicable as waiting until her daughter is away from home for several weeks and then proceeds to circumcise all of her daughter's children? Or when a Muslim woman's son rapes and impregnates her daughter and after suggesting to the daughter that she might want to kill herself because SHE has dishonored the family, and then the daughter doesn't do it, is it the brainwashing and patriarchal male dominated society that makes her kill her daughter?
I used to think the same way as you, until I saw a picture of a Muslim toddler with blood dripping down his face, being held by his mother from behind and she peering around to catch a glimpse of his face, she smiling proudly, while holding the knife that caused his wound. It's not just the men.
And maybe they abuse because they are abused. But we are all going to answer for our actions, sooner or later. And to say that Muslim women don't have a choice in how they conduct that last thing that they own, their conciences, is pure bullshit. There is something that many of these women get out of being Muslim, and it is probably sick and demented because I can't for the life of me figure out why a woman would not resist in some way, even unto death. If a woman has the true maternal instinct she would die rather than have her child harmed to save herself. The behavior of Muslim women is absolutely bizarre.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 4, 2007 3:58 PM
s_sgt7 wrote:
"Hirsi Ali enjoys the freedoms of a society based on Judeo Christian beliefs in Europe (I think she has since moved to the USA, but I don't remember). Either way, atheism is allowed to her to practice because of our Judeo-Christian society. "
The last sentence of this statement is not true. When our society was 'Judeo-Christian' atheism was not allowed, and its exponents were burnt at the stake.
Our society is based on the secular Enlightenment (America explicitly, in the form of its constitution), the principles of which Hirsi Ali believes in.
Posted by: schmegel at February 4, 2007 4:02 PM
Doing the math of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's age -- her father arranged her marriage with a stranger he met at the mosque when Ayaan was 20 years old.
I wonder how many young Leftist women aged 20 in the West would put up with their fathers telling them who they will marry, and foisting a complete stranger on them to boot. The perverse thing is that most of these young Leftist women aged 20 in the West instinctively defend Islam and Third World cultures, at the very least with the old cultural relativity argument, and usually intermixed with more incoherently complex overlays to that tinged with vaguely anti-Western and anti-American pathologies.
Posted by: remote_control at February 4, 2007 4:06 PM
From the above post: "If a woman has the true maternal instinct she would die rather than have her child harmed to save herself." Apparently, you haven't heard about what goes on in a certain Muslim african state which has female children forced to drink gallons and gallons of milk -- this is to make them fat. The girl children are tortured (there are wooden implements used to squeeze the feet of the children -- done by the mothers) so that the child drinks the milk. This practice is OK by Islamic standards...no problem... Another cultural practice I trust the UK will not soon be adopting...then, again, one never knows given their deep love, strong admiration for, not to mention, adoption of Multi-Kulti Kults.
Posted by: J.S. at February 4, 2007 4:10 PM
"...the moderates fail to do is to say, listen, that’s all in there, but that wasn’t meant for this context. And we have moved on"
I understand the woman to mean by this phrase:
"This koran isn't meant for these times,- the world has evolved - we're in the 21st century."
Isn't that wht she meant?
at February 4, 2007 4:15 PM
schmegel, where did the Enlightenment come from? Did it drop from the blue sky? Did it not grow out of the soil of Christendom? What were its roots? Some alien culture from China, or from another planet perhaps?
Posted by: remote_control at February 4, 2007 4:21 PM
How can you "change" the uncreated word of God? How can you amend something that is said to be perfect, down to every last dot and letter? How can you alter a book whose master copy is said to be somewhere up in Heaven?
Can't be done.
Posted by: scaramouoche at February 4, 2007 4:33 PM
As I see it, all the major religions promote brotherhood and for very practical reasons, since people need to get along. Islam also promotes brotherhood (in a dysfunctional family sense), but for members only.
I don't know if any of you have read about it, but Danish linguist Tina Magaard analyzed 10 major religious texts over a three year period and concluded that Islam was egregiously intolerant toward other religions, and contained "straightforward calls for terrorism". As she noted: If people take those texts as a contemporary guide, then "we have a problem".
Yes, Tina, we have a problem.
at February 4, 2007 4:42 PM
Mr Spencer- hope you see this post
The other side of the Prophet
Robert Spencer's The Truth About Muhammad provides a timely riposte to common misconceptions about the prophet.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2005391,00.html
And this is in the The GUARDIAN!
Posted by: DP111 at February 4, 2007 5:02 PM
And what the moderates fail to do is to say, listen, that’s all in there, but that wasn’t meant for this context. And we have moved on. We can change the Koran, we can change the Hadith. That’s what’s missing.
That would be pigs doing an aerobatic display.
at February 4, 2007 5:07 PM
wow...Just watched Fox news....Radical Islam:Terror,own words....Powerful.....One segment broke my heat....the brain washing of children.....Voice:What are you holding? Child:A rifle . Voice: what are you going to do with it? Child: Kill the Jews!...he looked about 5 or 6 years old...I read about this stuff everyday...but on my T.V. screen it stunned me...They showed the Jihad cartoons...I didnt like the fact that E.D.Hill lets an Imam lie to her.....but over all a powerful show...GOD BLESS FOX NEWS...THAT WAS A BRAVE SHOW.
Posted by: storagemanager at February 4, 2007 5:08 PM
SHM
Sorry - didnt see your post.
As you say - step by tiny step, we're getting there, and even the Guardianstas are having to assess their positions in the light of reality. They need, as a first, to stop listening to the blandishments of in-house Muslims, who have been feeding them Taqqiya prime cut, since 9/11.
Posted by: DP111 at February 4, 2007 5:11 PM
"schmegel, where did the Enlightenment come from? Did it drop from the blue sky? Did it not grow out of the soil of Christendom? What were its roots? Some alien culture from China, or from another planet perhaps?"
As a matter of fact, it did come from the influence of Mysticism - you could say another world.
From the influence of the notes of music - vibrations upon the brain. Vibrations - enrgery waves from another Reality.
I can site just a few examples, as a reminder:
Church music written religious men and women, such as Hildegard von Bingen, and there are the gregorian Chants,
Then there was Francis of Assisi that communicated with animals
again I say,
Juan de la Cruz and Teresa de Avila, julian of Norwich, Catherine of Siena. Aquinas, Bacon, Eickhard, Jacob Boehme, and so many other like them
so that while the church hierarchy, the popes and cardinals rolled in the filth of their acts, the common people - in spite of the tightening of Canon Law -
these people ignored and rebelled and
rose and practiced communication with the Highest God
These were of the church and were out of the church.
-----------------
and there were the Jews before that, which accepted the Kabalah,
Maimonides -
de Spinoza -
bar-Hillel.
And others that I can't recall.
ANd back in Fiarenze - these of the common people and of the new sprung MERCHANT CLASS/MIDDLE CLASS. The revival of Ancient knowledge that spread outward.
Yeah, this was brought back from the Holy Land - but it WAS STRANGE - UNEARTHLY information that had originated from India, to Ancient Egypt - to Greece.
You KNOW something about MA'AT?
Don't forget that while the Cathars were slaughtered in Aquitaine, their teachings and ideal were disbursed all over Europe. The Other Worldly Teachings was a fire that could not be put out.
Such as Giordano Bruno's philosophy.
The minute something is repressed, and authorities try to stamp it out, little sparks fly through the air to catch other flammables.
There were the pilgrimages to
But above all, they did not do it alone, they came at a time that the PRINTING PRESS was "invented." in Europe.
And don't forget that the rebellion against the christian church began - for whatever reason, personal or otherwise, like Henry Tudor.
There was the strange appearance of the Virgen de Guadalupe - out of NOWHERE - and this was accepted by the church.
All this was ongoing, HELL - even Albert Einstein (that clown), Bohr, etc. were dealing with stuff from ELSEWHERE.
So - you can see - all the advances and evolutions have come out of the Blue.
Posted by: allat at February 4, 2007 5:23 PM
Derrick Abdul-Hakim, abrogation is a Qur'anic concept-- 2:106 16:101. Without "nasikh" Muslims would have stayed with the Meccan teachings, there would have been no Jihad conquests, they would never have left Arabia.
So difficult to know which insult applies to oneself, isn't it? A mushrikun is not a kaffir who is not exactly an Infidel. Except they are all "disbelievers" when you come down to it. You think kaffir is a kinder, gentler term? "Kaffir, the worst word that can be written, a sign of infidelity, disbelief, filth, a sign of dirt." --Sheikh Feiz, Saudi-trained UK preacher.
The term "mushrikun" is pretty elastic. Polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers, those guilty of "shirk." Idolaters (mushrikun) can be applied to almost anyone who rejects Islam including Jews and Christians (who are guilty of "shirk" for ascribing partners to God). Muslims insist this verse did not apply to People of the Book, on the other hand at the time of this revelation most of the "idol worshippers" had accepted Islam, only Jews and a small group of Christians remained opposed so who was he discussing? Regardless, every Islamic terrorist uses 9:5 as their command to fight Jihad against Infidels (all-inclusive). The war was clearly extended to People of the Book in 9:29, with the 'tolerance" provision, though not paying the jizya or causing "mischief" in the land returns a Jew or Christian to the status of "prisoner of war" and again facing death, just like a mushrikun. Poor Jews who could not pay the tax were killed, in fact. That Allah despises and curses the Jews and Muslims should too is a true attitude of Islam. It is Qur'anic and very much in the Sunnah. You might deny the validity of the ahadith-- Muhammad's acts, words and judgments-- but this is not true of the vast majority of the Muslim world, is it?
Posted by: Nick Danger
at February 4, 2007 5:27 PM
DP111 wrote: "They need, as a first, to stop listening to the blandishments of in-house Muslims, who have been feeding them Taqqiya prime cut, since 9/11."
Very true. Before 9/11 the overwhelming majority of the West thought Qur'an was something pre-schoolers used on colouring books. And after 9/11 there was a scrable for information on Islam and the Qur'an. Most news and media outlets turned to staff or "trusted sources" for information, which was often blatantly biased and distorted to the point of losing all credibility.
I can't tell you how many times I have read the words "the Holy Qur'an" written in the Guardian, (as well as USA today in the US). When describing the bible or the torah, they say just that. So, you can tell exactly who was behind writing their articles.
Posted by: Qualis Rex at February 4, 2007 5:27 PM
Well, Fox's report on Islam was an eye-opener. They went into the details of the idiots blowing themselves up for paradise. Amazing ! Good work FOX ! Tell the truth, they're brain-dead and will never change. If they come to America, it's only to Over-throw our country for Islam !
Posted by: Jeff at February 4, 2007 5:31 PM
"schmegel, where did the Enlightenment come from? Did it drop from the blue sky? Did it not grow out of the soil of Christendom? What were its roots? Some alien culture from China, or from another planet perhaps?"
Bingo, remote_control. That is why I'm hoping Robert's new book will cover some of these issues.
All I am saying is not to "throw the baby out with the bath water." I don't have a problem with anyone being an atheist as long as they are equally tolerant of those who believe in God, or a "Higher Power" if you will (not talking about Hisri here). And who express those beliefs in a peaceful way.
I cannot prove the existence of God anymore than the atheist can disprove that there is a God. Minds far greater than mine were also deeply religious like Isaac Newton for example. Not one I would think to follow fairy tales. But, some people have agendas for attacking traditional Judeo-Christian morality right along with Islam. Usually they are on the far Left but not always.
at February 4, 2007 5:33 PM
Well, I can't agree with you, Isabella. IMO, the black-shrouded ones are total victims of sociopathic super-misogynist Muslim men. Of course there are exceptions like Hirsi Ali and Dr. Wafa Sultan who are more intelligent and more courageous than the average Muslim female. There must be something written about the slave existence of Muslim women and why they don't all rebel their way out of it, on the 'net. Maybe it's mass Stockholm Syndrome as they most certainly exist as captives. When scenes of Iraq are shown on TV the humans you see outside are men and boys. Only occasionally a female. That's because the females live, for the most part, as prisoners inside their homes. They're so oppressed they can't even go outside unless a male relative OK's it or accompanies her. Sheesh. What a nightmare existence.
Posted by: darcy at February 4, 2007 5:40 PM
And what the moderates fail to do is to say, listen, that’s all in there, but that wasn’t meant for this context. And we have moved on. We can change the Koran, we can change the Hadith. That’s what’s missing.
Its probably missing because the revisionists would have a really, really hard time finding affordable life insurance.
at February 4, 2007 5:50 PM
Darcy,
Are the women "victims?" I don't think so. I recall reading about jihadi women in Iraq who told the men-folk to "get out there and fight! you flipping cowards!" or words to that effect (actually, as I recall, it was more along the lines of "Get out there and blow yourselves up, you lazy, cowardly dogs!") What you hear of "hate" preached by Imams at mosques is taken up as a rallying cry for the females to their men folk. Ditto for the female "mothers" in "Palestine" -- they all brag about how many sons have blown themselves up and tell their surviving sons to emulate their dead siblings. So, I don't consider them "victims."
Posted by: J.S. at February 4, 2007 5:59 PM
Also, remote_control, here are just a few who have helped us all along:
Simon Greenleaf
The foremost expert on legal evidence and one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School became a Christian when he set out to disprove it.
Michael Faraday
The son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but has led to so much in our lifestyles today which depend on them (including computers and telephone lines and so Web sites).
Kelvin (William Thompson)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics.
Louis Pasteur
French chemist and biologist who proved the germ theory of disease and invented the process of pasteurization.
Gregor Mendel
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism".
Max Planck
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which has revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds.
Rene Descartes
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy.
John Napier
The first prominent Scientist from the British Isles. Not only was he a well noted scientist, he was also one of the greatest men that Scotland ever produced(Great Christian Mathematics).
Nicholas Copernicus
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun.
Johannes Kepler
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun.
Robert Boyle
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gasses, and also wrote an important work on chemistry.
There are many more.
Posted by: Lilly at February 4, 2007 5:59 PM
Oops, that should have read "Great Christian Mathematician"
at February 4, 2007 6:08 PM
Agree with J.S. and others about the women of Islam -- they can be just as deranged as the men. Just as deadly too.
at February 4, 2007 6:15 PM
"We can change the Koran, we can change the Hadith. That’s what’s missing."
How can the non-existent "moderate" Moslem change what is supposedly the word of their god in the koran, and what the one who received that word is supposed to have said?
"Reform" of Islam is wishful thinking--a pipe dream, as much of an impossibility as G. W. Bush's dream of two states living side by side on Israeli land.
Islam must be defeated. We cannot wait, hoping that it will reform itself from within.
http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com
Posted by: unicorns62000 at February 4, 2007 6:56 PM
If you removed all violence, slavery and oprression from their faith, would there be anything left that wasn't clearly borrowed from the great faiths that came before it? That hollow shell of a religion would not give them the world. Posted by: CatawhumpusI wouldn't state that it gave nothing. Where in the Bible, or associated scriptures, or book of Avesta, or the Upanishads (take your pick) would one find recommendations on how to clean oneself after taking a dump? Where else would one learn whether semen stained clothes are okay to venture out in? Where else would one learn which animal excrements are okay for human consumption and which ones are not? Or which direction not to face when reliving oneself?
I disagree with you. Islam is perfect - a comprehensive package of solutions that no other religion ever compiled - be it a pre-Islamic religion like Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, or be it a post-Islamic religion, like Sikhism, Scientology (I think), Mormonism, et al. No infidel can learn their toilet habits from their holy books (where in the Torah or the Puranas does it say anything about toilet paper?), while Muslims can. That's a major advantage they have over us.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 4, 2007 7:33 PM
"Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an atheist. But there is no evidence that Ayaan Hirsi Ali thinks that "society can be built on secular, classical liberal values only. Isn't it possible that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is
1) an atheist and
2) has concluded that a great many people, for all kinds of reasons that need not be gone into here (but start with "The Varieties of Religious Experience" by William James), need religion and should have it, as long as the forms it takes are not dangerous to others. Islam does not meet that definition. Most other belief-systems-cum-traditions we call "religions" at this point -- do.
Posted by: Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 4, 2007 01:27 PM
I admit I am struggling with this one. You have to admit it has an awfully elitist ring to it. Hirsi Ali is an atheist (like Hugh I presume) but Hirsi Ali (again like Hugh I presume) also acknowledges that religion may in fact be necessary for the vast bulk of (may I presume the ignorant and morally obtuse?) masses. But it is also clear that Hirsi Ali and other atheists would presumably prefer to live in (at least some) societies created by those ignorant masses who somehow need religion, while the atheists who dwell safely amongst them, don't.
Again, I have a problem with this. It would seem more honest to me if Hirsi Ali and Hugh merely defined themselves as agnostics - the honest "don't knowers" as opposed to the atheists who are certain that there is no God. If they lived in a society of people who were certain that there were no God, like themselves, would it be the sort of society they would want to live in? Presumably not, since the admission here seems to be that religion is a hoax that a few select people don't need but that the ignorant masses do, otherwise the whole society could quite possibly become a nightmare. But if there is no God, on what grounds could they complain that there was something morally amiss in such an atheistic society?
Again, I admit that I am struggling with this one. Mainly because I feel it comes from the perspective of people who have actually reaped the benefit of certain concrete religious traditions but who also feel that such traditions are merely for the ignorant, even though those very traditions have created the societies in which these people want to live (whether Christian, Hindu or Buddhist, e.g). There's an incongruity there which I find difficult to resolve.
at February 4, 2007 7:42 PM
Caroline,
That incongruity on an important level is neither here nor there insofar as it exists in the wider context of a sociopolitically neutral vehicle of modern Western secularism, since that vehicle aims for -- and has tended to attain with admirable success -- an optimal (not perfect) harmony among competing visions of truth.
Paradoxically, that neutrality itself grew organically out of the synthesis of the Graceo-Roman philosophoumena of truths and the Judaeo-Christian theologoumena of truths; and that synthesis was medieval Christendom -- paradoxically, because there is no Archimedean point where any single truth (including the truth of neutrality) enjoys the lucid blueprint of apodictic truth. The Western genius has been to work out -- not without a lot of debate, argument, strife and violence along the way -- the paradox of the "Unseen Measure" which indeed measures, but remains hidden from possessive view.
at February 4, 2007 8:33 PM
Caroline-
I've met too many fanatical atheists not to think it too is a "religion". Anything that involves belief should not be treated as a fact by a rational man or woman. A belief is not a fact. Atheism is just another belief system. I am as skeptical of atheism as I am of organized religion.
Posted by: Frank at February 4, 2007 8:38 PM
remote_control-
You write-sound (above post) like my favorite educator, Dr. Irwin Corey. He's "the world's greatest expert on everything". I do a great imitation of him. Really. In fact, I have a talent for that. I do a terrific Jackie Mason and Marlon Brando as Vito Corleone. I really have a gift for that.
Posted by: Frank at February 4, 2007 8:47 PM
Remote and Frank - because I am quite serious in raising this question I truly welcome both of your responses. I share Frank's impression that "Atheism is just another belief system". (How could it not be?) And remote - isn't what you describe as the product of western civilization actually agnosticism, rather than atheism? Because really, there's a major difference between the two. And what is "the paradox of the unseen measure"? Never heard of it but inquiring minds want to know...
Posted by: Caroline at February 4, 2007 8:57 PM
Storagemanager and Jeff.
I also watched it and I think there is another screening later today. Hope that many others get to watch it.
I found the links to youtube.
(I hope they work - my pc is acting wierdly).
If not go to the homepage and search for the titles.
Radical Islam: Terror in it's own words Part I
Radical Islam: Terror in it's own words Part II
Radical Islam: Terror in Its Own Words (Part III)
Radical Islam: Terror in Its Own Words (Part IV)
Radical Islam: Terror in Its Own Words (Part V)
Posted by: Gramfan
at February 4, 2007 9:01 PM
Sorry. The links didn't come up live.
Now I am really confused!
at February 4, 2007 9:02 PM
Why should I define myself as an "agnostic"? That would be weaselling out. I'm an atheist. Period.
As for the charge that my friendly acceptance of religion "has an awfully elitist ring to it" -- why do you think that word "elitist" describes something bad? It is the absence of a self-confident elite, defined not in terms of money (the only kind of "elite" we now have) but in the coin of something else, that has helped bring things to the pretty pass, the one that leads between the two mountains and right into a deep canyon from which there is no exit.
Far more disturbing than that kind of gentle and jsutified "elitism" is the official levelling of the age, an "Equalism" or, as Nabokov put it in his novel "Bend Sinister" the ideology of "Ekwilism" that is killing everything, beginning with art and education.
I'm not some heartless and humorless Richard Dawkins, taking offense at belief, and feeling the need to go around knocking Bibles out of hands, and beliefs out of the heads, of inoffensive Christian everywhere. Not at all. I like hymns. I like Gospel music. I like madonnas and bambinos and Biblical scenes from both the Old and New Testaments, in art galleries everywhere. I like peoiple to recognize Biblical allusions. I like people raised on the rhythms of the King James versio of the Bible. I think American children should be taught Biblical stories, and that Bible readings in school would be a good thing.
Yes, I'm an atheist but go ahead, give me that Old-Time Religion, and the Old-Time Gospel Hour, and don't tell me that American history can possibly be understood without taking into account the central role of Christianity, and especially the Protestantism of 18th and 19th century America. But I can't believe what I can't believe.
And the only elite we need listen to, but we need listen to that elite, is the one described by Keats, as being made up of the Noble Living and the Noble Dead.
Posted by: Hugh at February 4, 2007 9:07 PM
Caroline-
I love this one..
http://www.irwincorey.org/agam.html
Posted by: Frank at February 4, 2007 9:09 PM
Salaam Mr. Pride:
Very specific and useful laws for ritual ablution and hygiene using water can be found in Deuteronomy, as well as in the Vishnu Puranas. Both religions are complete ways of life and this is why Jews are considered "people of the book", and why it has been argued that monotheistic Hindus should also be considered "people of the book".
with Catawhumpus i have to agree that Islam does not offer anything new in the way of religion, and that the practices of violence, slavery and oprression by Muslims need to be stopped. However, I am dubious that following the practices of religions that have lasted thousands of years leads to hollowness in one's faith.
I also have to ask, if Islam is destined to failure, why hasn't it disappeared yet? Why didn't it disappear after our prophet Mohammed died without appointing a successor, or when Hulagu Khan sacked Baghdad, or after the fall of the Ottoman Empire? This seems to be a very slow kind of failure, please clarify.
Anyhow, I was happy to see some words from Sister Ali here, inshahallah they will be far reaching and she will be very successful in her teachings. Long live the jihad of Ayaan Hirsi Ali!
Posted by: jehana at February 4, 2007 9:11 PM
Actually Hugh - I "can't believe what I can't believe" either. But to me that's agnosticism. (And I for one, am not troubled by the humility of stating that I don't know.) An atheist, by contrast, is one who has a certain belief - namely that God does NOT exist. Can you state THAT belief with certainty?
Posted by: Caroline at February 4, 2007 9:45 PM
Hugh,
You and that other atheist Socrates (the "atheist" who believed in one God) would both go on trial in Athens together. I would vote to acquit both of you. It's the people who put Socrates on trial that are the danger with their damned dogmas and dogmatism. The fanatics are always there ready to harm anyone with a skeptical mind re atheism, theism or some damn belief that they treat as a scientific-proved fact.
Posted by: Frank at February 4, 2007 10:02 PM
Hugh-
It is impossible to prove that there is no God. It is impossible to prove the existance of God. Both are beliefs. A person may believe whaht they desire-either way-so long as they keep their beliefs on a personal level and don't demand that others believe as they do.
Posted by: Frank at February 4, 2007 10:08 PM
P.S. Hugh - Please drop "the heartless and humorless Richard Dawkins" stuff. I'm not the least bit interested in that sort of prejudice. I did indeed bring up the "elitist" angle. But if any "elitist" thinks its a good thing to teach those old-fashioned Christian values to the next generation, while at the same time feeling that those values have no absolute validity and are merely the opiate for the masses - that's the sort of dichotomy I am questioning.
I certainly don't mean to be disrespectful to the co-host of the site that permits me to post here in an open forum. I can only reiterate that I raise it as an open question that truly gives me pause. I happen to think that it's a very important issue to raise in terms of the fight for our civilization that we face and it's been my experience in my 47 years that if I am seriously wondering about some things, then I am quite likely not alone.
Posted by: Caroline at February 4, 2007 10:13 PM
Caroline,
"isn't what you describe as the product of western civilization actually agnosticism, rather than atheism?"
Yes, but the point is, it best allows for the freedom and dignity of atheists as well as of religious people of every stripe, so long as the stripe doesn't seek to undermine or destroy that freedom and dignity.
"And what is "the paradox of the unseen measure"? Never heard of it but inquiring minds want to know.."
The "unseen measure" was a term purportedly used by the great Athenian lawmaker, Solon, which Plato appreciated, and then Voegelin noticed it sounds the same note that has reverberated throughout Western history (with varying tonalities), of the paradox that's clear from the meaning of the two words: how can you measure anything with a measure that's "unseen"? And yet, not only do we -- in fact it's the only way we do.
The paradox exposes the fallacy of the polar extremes of which it is the tensional spectrum in between: the atheist would deny -- would not "believe" -- in a measure for truth about the meaning of life and the concomitant ground for ordering society that radiates out from that meaning; the theist would deny that it's "unseen", since he has been privileged to see it so clearly, after all. But those fallacies are permitted, and their full dignity, freedom and equality (along with any annoying features they might bring along as well) respected, by the agnostic, within the neutral secular system.
Posted by: remote_control at February 4, 2007 10:15 PM
Frank: "It is impossible to prove that there is no God. It is impossible to prove the existance of God. Both are beliefs."
Exactly. But that supports agnosticism rather than atheism. The bottom line is that We don't know.
Posted by: Caroline at February 4, 2007 10:18 PM
I can see Hugh and Socrates being charged with "Atheism". Socrates is charged with belief in one God, Hugh with belief in no God, and both are tried by an elite that believes in a bunch of gods that live on a mountain. Socrates and Hugh get along fine, but the clowns who invoke the gods make them drink Hemlock.
Beliefs are not facts, and are a matter of opinion with those who use reason, but are a matter of fact to those who are demented. The demented made Socrates drink Hemlock.
Posted by: Frank at February 4, 2007 10:20 PM
When I said: "how can you measure anything with a measure that's "unseen"? And yet, not only do we -- in fact it's the only way we do."
Of course, I wasn't referring to physical measures: I'm talking about existential questions that ground ethics and laws.
Posted by: remote_control at February 4, 2007 10:40 PM
Caroline-
If all agree that it is impossible to prove with certainty either the existence or non-existence of God "I don't know" will be the logical position of all rational people. Since agnosticism is defined here as "I don't know" then it must apply to atheist, theist and "agnostics" in a rational world. There is no certainty on the matter. Anyone who says there is certainty on the matter is a liar or a fanatic.
Anyone who says they know for certain, as if it is proved scientific fact, that God either exists or does not exist know that they cannot produce any objective absolute proof to support their belief. It's all a matter of opinion. We are all agnostics if we are honest and rational.
Posted by: Frank at February 4, 2007 10:40 PM
"Hirsi Ali is an atheist. I don't know whether she's spoken against all religions, but, unlike Ali Sina, another apostate, she doesn't seem to see the need for a religion in order to build a just society.'
I don't know whether the woman said this - but people do switch back and forth - atheism is not written on stone.
At any rate, let her take a breather from a religion. The grip of islam is so pervasive ( I think) that - I would think - she needs to stand aside from anything.
But anyway, people don't need religon to do right - it's within them.
Posted by: allat at February 4, 2007 10:48 PM
"Hirsi Ali is wrong then. Communism is a failed adventure."
Thing is being an atheist doesn't mean one is a communist. There's a lot of atheists that choose it as a personal way, and don't go out and try to convert others.
Also, mind you, religion and spirituality are two different things. Someone that tries to commit suicide then "finds God" doesn't necessarily mean, in a formal, dogmatic way.
Posted by: allat at February 4, 2007 11:08 PM
remote_control: "But those fallacies are permitted, and their full dignity, freedom and equality (along with any annoying features they might bring along as well) respected, by the agnostic, within the neutral secular system."
So if I read you correctly, it appears that what you are saying is that it is the agnostic, rather than the theist or atheist, who provides for the equal dignity of all men, on whom the continuity of western civilization depends? If so, I won't argue with you there.
Posted by: Caroline at February 4, 2007 11:11 PM
Posted by: Frank [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 4, 2007 10:40 PM
Everything you said in that post - I second. It's indeed the only position an honest person can take.
Posted by: Caroline at February 4, 2007 11:16 PM
in the NYT article quoting her, and in many other places, Hirsi Ali also calls herself "a Muslim" and stands up for the rights of Muslims.
She's a great politician for sure. I'd vote for her.
Posted by: jehana at February 4, 2007 11:22 PM
Are the women "victims?" I don't think so. I recall reading about jihadi women in Iraq who told the men-folk to "get out there and fight! you flipping cowards!" or words to that effect (actually, as I recall, it was more along the lines of "Get out there and blow yourselves up, you lazy, cowardly dogs!")..............'
IT's unfathomable. We need to catch a couple of 'em and put them under phychiatric observation- do a study on them. What makes them tick. I kid you knot.
Poor twisted minds.
at February 4, 2007 11:27 PM
Frank/
"A person may believe whaht sic] they desire-either way-so long as they keep their beliefs on a personal level and don't demand that others believe as they do."
Precisely. And that is the fundamental difference between islam and almost any other belief system which you care to name. Even the mildest and most 'moderate' believer in islam demands that one believes as he/she believes whereas most other belief systems merely ask and are prepared to accomodate variance and difference.
Islam, and its adherents, believe that it, and theirs, is the immutable and final belief status for all humankind. Most other belief systems agree that revelation is an ongoing wisdom and that beliefs will necessarily change, in some respect or another, as knowledge - God given - changes. Almost all other belief systems, except islam, believe that there are distinctions between values, moralities, beliefs and motivations and that some type of evolution involving all four of these aspects will lead us all to a closer understanding of God and His will. Only islam, and the wilder, marginalised and lunatic fringes of other faiths, states that this is not so and that everything is finished and that we cannot change a single interpretation or belief - that such an authority, as they see it, is absolute, unchangeable and given by some great man/woman, who may, or may not, have had a unique and privileged access to God's mind in the past - and that the further, for many such people, into the past that such a 'prophet' can be viewed to have existed then the greater his/her authority seems to be for such people.
However, for believers in any belief system, probably including the pernicious and evil system of islam, agnosticism is not an option. The cop out, so to speak, is the human sense of the numinous - a sense of the presence of a Divinity which we detect with our minds - this is more than belief, it is the feeling that suffuses the whole being that there is something greater than we; in moments of particular religious clarity (or delusion) we believe that we can even hear, or see, this greater thing/being.
This 'sense of the numinous' may be nothing more than an artifact of the mind at work in a confusing multiverse, or a mind at work but carrying some psychological, authority seeking, trauma, or a mind working and perceiving the sheer cosmic vastness and attemting to organise the chaos thereby engendered, or a mind which, carrying the ability to believe in things (an essential ability for any being in a complex society where personal verification of every fact is impossible) has, quite simply gone too far (into overdrive, as it were); but, there is an outside possibility, and one asserted by all believers, that since so many of us sense the numinous, the Divine, that our minds have evolved to sense that which is really there, just as our bodies connected to that mind have, because, just like the physical phenomena upon which the more prosaic minded rely, it is really there.
The true believer in a Divinity will, or perhaps 'should' would be a kinder term, assert that this ability of the mind to detect the Divine, the numinous, the God related presence, is merely the development of a sense - a sense not materially different from those of sight, smell, hearing, touch and taste. Such people would assert, I believe (and there's that word again), aver that the mind's ability to detect God is in no literal way different from the mind's ability to cope with the sensations of seeing, scenting, hearing, touching and tasting. Some would go further and state that the mind's ability to quantify, sift and sort all sorts of evidence about all sorts of subjects makes it illogical to distrust the mind on this one point alone and that those who do so are making an unwarranted and arbitrary distinction between different mind/mental processes.
Obviously, if such an argument is followed to its logical conclusion then agnosticism is not, and cannot be, the default position for a mind which sees itself, rightly or wrongly, as an interpretor of the senses for the possessor being, both adding to and interpreting such senses and also having the ability to sense for itself. Such a mind will, logically, believe the impulse of, and to, the numinous to be a valid sensing of the world(s) around it. By logic, such a mind will not, and cannot, accept agnosticism so, therefore, agnosticism cannot be the default belief system of all of humankind.
In other words, the knowledge of the numinous, the Divine, as provided by the mind, is absolute and certain or completely lacking. Therefore agnosticism is impossible for any believer. One believes or one does not believe - if one comes to rest between those two points then one's mind has failed to operate correctly. If one does not believe then one's mind has failed to operate correctly. The only correct and logical point for a believer is the position of belief - agnosticism doesn't, and cannot ever, enter into it. Q.E.D.
The only question remaining is the one about how one should express that point of belief - certainly not an islamic expression, pray God.
Dominic.
at February 4, 2007 11:57 PM
Well, well, well...Atheism vs theism are these "dichotomies"? Not necessarily. I recall a practicing orthodox fellow (Judaism) who's also an atheist. Although this might cause considerable pain for a rabbi, it's not totally out of bounds. You can still be bound by the ethical requirements (and whether or not one believes in a divine entity is not utterly essential.)
Next, I've (personally) thought that if religion is not about ethical behavior, then it's not worth looking into or bothering with. What religion (ideally) should be teaching its followers is what constitutes moral behavior, ethical principles.
What religion should NOT be engaged in is the furtherance of wanton cruelty. (And, here, I suppose I reach a stumbling block with regard to Islam -- there is a passage in the bible which describes the fate of King Zedekiah. The bible illiterates -- King Zedekiah takes on Nebuchadnezzar -- Zedekiah loses. Zedekiah's fate? He is forced to witness the execution of his two sons, then Zedekiah is blinded and taken off to Babylon. Now, that's Babylon. They seemed to excel at devising, perfecting, and honing the art of cruelty. Many times when i read about Islam, I think about Nebuchadnezzar, and how so very, very little has changed...)
Posted by: J.S. at February 4, 2007 11:59 PM
Caroline,
"So if I read you correctly, it appears that what you are saying is that it is the agnostic, rather than the theist or atheist, who provides for the equal dignity of all men, on whom the continuity of western civilization depends?"
I wouldn't quite put it that way: it's not the agnostic (as the best type of person) who provides for the equal dignity (and rights) of all men, but the agnostic system in which agnostic individuals are just participants along with everybody else.
Only one slight tonality bothers me about Frank's articulations, and I would put it in a roundabout way: In my view, the agnostic knows more than the atheist stubbornly insists, while at the same time the agnostic knows less than the theist stubbornly insists from his opposite perch. Frank seems to err towards putting his lack of knowledge on a pedestal, but such a perfect equipoise of knowledgelessness would seem to ignore or bracket out any grounds for laws and ethics, leaving them to relativistic casuistry and no basis to discern and judge good and evil.
Posted by: remote_control at February 5, 2007 12:00 AM
This is a response to Nick Danger’s interesting response to my previous posting.
You state:
“Derrick Abdul-Hakim, abrogation is a Qur'anic concept-- 2:106 16:101. Without "nasikh" Muslims would have stayed with the Meccan teachings, there would have been no Jihad conquests, they would never have left Arabia.”
Ah - yes, verses Q2:106 and Q16:101. I went back and re-read the ‘abrogation’ verses that you posted. I must hesitate at your understanding. First of all, notice the verse begins with a “Ma nansakh min ayatin…” Whenever ‘ayatin’ appears the Qur’an is referring to a message, be it religious or secular. (Read Q6:4, 25, and 35 where ‘ayatin’ functions in both contexts) The term is wide enough to imply any message sent by the divine author. That’s just the nature of God’s message. It can be accepted, rejected, and annulled. Anyhow, my point is this: the phrase ‘Ma nansakh min ayatin’ is not talking about the divine message *specifically* in the Qur’an, but rather a divine message (any divine message in the past or present). When the Qur’an is referring to itself, be it as a whole or a particular verse, it uses the definite article ‘al’ (the), e.g. al-ayatin or al-ayat.
Secondly, the verses you cite do not speak of abrogation but of God’s ability to abrogate any message at His own will. Read Q2:106 in conjunction with Q2:10o-105. The mercurial discussion that the divine author is having with the listener is that He is omnipotent, ready to change (at will) any message. Do not take my words for it. You can read the verses for yourself (All translations are from Muhammad Asad’s):
2:102 and follow [instead] that which the evil ones used to practice during Solomon's reign - for it was not Solomon who denied the truth, but those evil ones denied it by teaching people sorcery; and [they follow] that which has come down through the two angels in Babylon, Hurut and Marut-although these two never taught it to anyone without first declaring, "We are but a temptation to evil: do not, then, deny [God's] truth!" And they learn from these two how to create discord between a man and his wife; but whereas they can harm none thereby save by God's leave, they acquire a knowledge that only harms themselves and does not benefit them - although they know; indeed, that he who acquires this [knowledge] shall have no share in the good of the life to come. For, vile indeed is that [art] for which they have sold their own selves -had they but known it!
2:103 And had they but believed and been conscious of Him, reward from God would indeed have brought them good-had they but known it!
2:104 O YOU who have attained to faith! Do not say [to the Prophet], "Listen to us," but rather say, "Have patience with us," and hearken [unto him], since grievous suffering awaits those who deny the truth.
2:105 Neither those from among the followers of earlier revelation who are bent on denying the truth, nor those who ascribe divinity to other beings beside God, would like to see any good [86] ever bestowed upon you from on high by your Sustainer; but God singles out for His grace whom He wills-for God is limitless in His great bounty.
2:106 Any message which, We annul or consign to oblivion We replace with a better or a similar one. Dost thou not know that God has the power to will anything?
The same can be said for verses Q16:99-108 where God rebukes those who think that He is a sterile monad. Annulling a message is, rather, the Qur’an’s presentation of omnipotence, not verse abrogation.
Lastly, detrimental to the abrogationists is the problem of verse selection. Which verses are to be annulled? The choice seems arbitrary. In any case, it is not my problem.
Moving on…
You state:
“The term "mushrikun" is pretty elastic. Polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers, those guilty of "shirk." Idolaters (mushrikun) can be applied to almost anyone who rejects Islam including Jews and Christians (who are guilty of "shirk" for ascribing partners to God).”
One can apply the term to ‘almost anyone’ without Qur’anic justification. The Qur’an clearly designates the term ahl-al-kitab (people of the book) for Jews and Christians.
You state:
"It is Qur'anic and very much in the Sunnah. You might deny the validity of the ahadith-- Muhammad's acts, words and judgments-- but this is not true of the vast majority of the Muslim world, is it?"
Strawman. I did not deny the validity of the Hadith literature, rather I said that if the Hadith tradition and tafsir tradition are in contradiction with the Qur’an the former are to be rejected, at least that aspect that is in discord with the Qur’an. If Muslims fail to get that…oh well, that’s not my problem.
Best wishes,
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
at February 5, 2007 12:08 AM
jehana,
In the past you have basically asserted that you are a "moderate" American muslim.
Have you ever debated jihadis, or watched debates or discussions among your fellow believers-in-islam (while no non-muslims are around)? If so, is Ayaan Hirsi Ali's observation, "every time there is a debate between a real jihadi and, say, what we have decided to call moderate Muslims, the jihadis win." accurate, in your experience?
What would you suggest should be done to eliminate the supremacism which is so evident within the ummah? Or, preliminary to that question, in your view, should anything be done within muslim belief, theology and jurisprudence, to eliminate islamic supremacism?
Posted by: del at February 5, 2007 12:15 AM
Isabellathecrusader said
If a woman has the true maternal instinct she would die rather than have her child harmed to save herself. The behavior of Muslim women is absolutely bizarre.
Their behaviour is only bizarre from our point of view. If their child led a good life for 75 years, raising children, building a career, helping those less fortunate in their community, etc., and then spent eternity in hell for not following the Qur'an closely enough, that would be much worse than having their child die as a suicide bomb martyr at 19 and be assured of eternity in (remember, this is their point of view) "heaven".
Their mothers do have maternal instinct, they are just following Allah's instructions in the Qur'an, which are different from those in other religious books. Their jihadist child is not being harmed when they explode their bomb, they are not doing something evil when they kill many infidels; on the contrary, their child will be rewarded for eternity for carrying out Allah's wishes.
Posted by: special_guest at February 5, 2007 1:25 AM
Caroline
I tend to agree with you. I accept Hugh's claim that he's an atheist, but he's one of the first that I've seen who's so tolerant of religion. In my experience, Atheists have been almost synonymous with Communists, and I've hardly met any of the Ayn Rand types who would be Atheists from the Right. And much of todays ACLU type Atheists are about as intolerant of religion as were the Soviets.
Jehana
The Vishnu Puranas are a part of the Hindu scriptures that deal with the mythology of Lord Vishnu: as such, that doesn't contain recommendations on how one should bathe. Also, Hindu traditions of how one should pray (e.g. not eating before morning prayers) is not hard coded in any Hindu scriptures, and a lot of things like Yoga, while founded within Hindu culture, aren't part of religious requirements per se. As an analogy, in my above references, I deliberately didn't bring up Unani medicine, which Muslims practice.
I'm not sure about the Jewish references that you brought up. As far as the 'people of the book' myth goes, the reason it was granted to Hindus (after 5 centuries) was that it was proving impractical for the Delhi sultans to massacre all Hindus, and hence, this extension. The idea of Hinduism being a monotheistic religion is a 19th century invention - a Hindu who professes Vishnu but denies Shiva, for instance, is unheard of.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 5, 2007 1:48 AM
Posted by: special_guest at February 5, 2007 01:25 AM
special_guest,
I don't agree on that. It is a natural instinct that is usually stronger than any brainwashing, like those of Islam's.
I do know Muslim mothers and they are the majority who would never let this happen to their kids. By instinkt they know that this is impossible as it is claimed in their book.
The only thing they are never thought is love and that is the reason of where and how islam is today.
Posted by: Arnie at February 5, 2007 1:50 AM
Del:
am i a "moderate" muslim? what does that really mean? as much as ii'm not here to tell bedtime stories about unicorns, just find the site a useful resource and try to say something from time to time.
in my personal experience here in America, Ayaan's observation is not true. However, my experiences with my local community are obviously only only a small sample of the global ummah, and not a representative one at that.
in the larger media/blogspace that i've observed and participated in, her observation appears to be true on average. the jihadi media network is more active and has developed stronger techniques to grab muslim mindshare. for example we see "moderate" type scholars here on jihadwatch all the time, for example Derrick_abdulhakim above, and his arguments hold water, but how long did it take to read? This kind of approach is severely disadvantaged in the age of soundbites and media spectaculars.
in terms of supremacism, there are a number of Islamic injunctions towards humility that can and should used to influence the ummah. Which injunctions work well and which ones don't is something i'm still doing by trial and error, personally. so the play-by-play criticisms that Robert puts up here at Jihadwatch are very useful and much appreciated. education and indoctrination in critical thinking and secularism are also important tools in the West.
Posted by: jehana at February 5, 2007 2:13 AM
alaam Pride:
well, i dunno, i just read about it on the internet, but the Puranas appear to have a pretty intelligent code for sanitary ablutions:
http://www.sulabhtoiletmuseum.org/fact.htm
water and sanitation issues are very important for development, especially when it comes to the water supply.
the Deuteronomy references can be found here:
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/
The site is written by an atheist, and i don't read hebrew so I don't know if this is a fair and accurate representation of Jewish practices.
however the legos might be a fun project for some of the jihadwatchers who wanted to do an online Quran......
Posted by: jehana at February 5, 2007 2:29 AM
The only thing they are never thought is love and that is the reason of where and how islam is today.
Posted by: Arnie
Says it all, really.
No place in Islam for love.
Think about it.
From the time they are born the closest thing to love they know is suicide bombing...in the name of Allah.
Allah, as the Muslims understand him, Satan, or perhaps, hopefully, as they misunderstand him.
Surely, no-one can voluntarily submit to Satan, knowing he will drag them into the depths of Hell, for all eternity.
Maybe it's possible.
Humans are strange.
at February 5, 2007 5:32 AM
Thank you for your reply Derrick. My statement about Islam's attitude toward Jews is no strawman because the Qur'an and Hadith are in accord. Abrogation is a way for Muslims to sort out the contradictions within the Qur'an itself, and there are plenty. The answer given was that angel Gabriel continued to reveal verses over the 22 year period and where there is a contradiction the latter revelation has authority, the former is nullified, mansookh. What exactly is your point here? If you don't believe that the Verse of the Sword abrogates the peaceful verses of the Qur'an toward non-Muslims, congratulations. If you think the Jihadists misinterpret your scripture make your argument-- to them. I encourage you to do so. But if you are trying to obfuscate the jihad imperative whose origins are with the Qur'an, then I question your agenda here.
You cannot reform something that needs no reforming, right?
You know perfectly well much of the Qur'an requires Hadith to be made sense of. Islamic law itself begins with the life of Muhammad, Qur'an and Sunnah. Disputes were to be settled by Muhammad (4:65) and anyone denying his judgments was considered an infidel. His successors gave legal authority to his close companions. What do the important scholars of Islam have to say about abrogation and verse 9:5? Why do all orthodox schools of Islamic jurisprudence affirm violent jihad and the subjugation of non-Muslims? Do any teach against them? Did the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs, companions of Muhammad, misunderstand him when they set out to seize the Arabian Peninsula, the Middle East, Persia, Spain, the whole world, by armed conquest, fighting Jihad in the name of Allah to impose Islamic authority?
"Everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness is abrogated by verse 9:5."
---Jalaluddin Suyuti, 1497
"Islam is unanimous about fighting the unbelievers and forcing them to Islam...or submitting and paying the jizya or being killed. The verses about forgiving them are abrogated unanimously by the obligation of fighting in any case." --al-Shawkani, Saudi scholar
"When the Prophet migrated from Mecca to Medina, God ordered him to fight those who fought him only. Then when the Chapter of Repentence (surah 9) was revealed, God commanded his prophet to fight anyone who did not become a Muslim, whether (they) fought him or not." --al-Jawziyya, Saudi scholar
"Allah revealed in Surah 9 the order to discard all obligations (treaties) and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the pagans as well as the People of the Book if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued." --Mushin Khan, Medina Islamic University
Why does Osama bin Laden quote Verse 9:5 in his letter to the American people?
Posted by: Nick Danger
at February 5, 2007 11:07 AM
"Ma nansakh min ayatin…” Whenever ‘ayatin’ appears the Qur’an is referring to a message, be it religious or secular. (Read Q6:4, 25, and 35 where ‘ayatin’ functions in both contexts) The term is wide enough to imply any message sent by the divine author. That’s just the nature of God’s message. It can be accepted, rejected, and annulled. "
Derrick:
So then the koran can be interpreted anywhich way?
Like one of those "Pagan" ancient Oracles, then?
Posted by: allat at February 5, 2007 11:18 AM
"Allah really is a great Puppet Master who forms all personalities in the universe (as the Koran tells us) and plays with them like little chess pieces on a chessboard in order to keep himself from being bored with utter perfection. How else can you explain why we don't ever just condemn the Koran and all who follow it as 'inherently evil and destructive of meaningful civilizations?'. Hummmm, maybe there is an Allah.., hummmmmm."
Yes, I must insist: Do not confuse the allah with THE GOD!
people here consider the creature a make-believe idol, I see it as a savage high tech humanoid.
But either way, the creature is N O T THE GOD of Love and Compassion towards Its creations: Nature and Humanity.
Posted by: allat at February 5, 2007 11:30 AM
"...scholars here on jihadwatch all the time, for example Derrick_abdulhakim above, and his arguments hold water, but how long did it take to read? This kind of approach is severely disadvantaged in the age of soundbites and media spectaculars."
I agree. Its obvious that the language in the koran is purposely constructed - meandering - right from the beginning - to confuse simple people. The whole koran is very hard to follow- one has to concentrate deeply "so it can get into one's subconscious?"
Whoever made it up - knew what he was doing:
MIND CONTROL.
at February 5, 2007 11:38 AM
To the person who wants to cite Deuteronomy and then claim something with respect to "purity" laws -- the laws regarding "purity" are no longer put into practice -- that's because (in the event you haven't noticed) there's no Temple in Jerusalem. Many people, I suppose, have heard about the 613 commandments (365 negative, 248 positive), but many are not practiced (those concerning sacrifices and purity) because they're related to Temple services. Many, many years ago a compilation was made of those laws still in effect (it's around 300). If you're actually interested in knowing more, then look for legitimate, Torah respectful websites (as opposed to the hate sites, which, obviously, there are a multitude of).
Posted by: J.S. at February 5, 2007 11:54 AM
My atheism is a by-product of (a) a scientific assessment of what theistic religions are and how they originate; (b) a moral assessment of the chief doctrines of the world's major religions showing that they were not produced by entities having higher or better moral principles than the average human, and therefore are not the product of higher moral intelligence; and (c) personal experience available to anyone, which some might call aesthetic, "spiritual" (see William James, which Hugh cites, and other psychologists who have studied these phenomena), etc., which does not require and does not lead me to believe in any of the entities proposed as "gods", nor superstitions or other such constructs.
I do have some questions for those who call themselves agnostics:
Agnostic with regard to what?
Agnostic with regard to Zeus's existence?
Agnostic with regard to the flying spaghetti monster, bogey man, tooth fairy, etc.?
Are you agnostic with regard to Islam? Do you "not know" whether or not Muhammad was really a prophet?
We could go through a list here of all the fantastic supernatural entities postulated, one-by-one, and even the theists on this thread will admit that they do not believe in most of them. (We could go through the list, but it would be tedious).
There is a factually erroneous claim above that states or intends that atheists are absolutely certain that God or gods does/do not exist. Most atheists are reasonably confident that there are no such things as the gods that have been described to them to date, but the vast majority do not claim to have absolute 100% certain first-hand knowledge that no such gods exist in any form whatsoever. Look up the definition(s) of atheism, and look up the definition(s) of agnosticism, and you will see that things are not as you assume.
There is also a statement above, a popular one that seems designed to butcher the English language beyond all recognition, that atheism is a "religion." We also hear such similar nonsense about politics or sports being a "religion." Get serious, get a dictionary. Not every belief system, even if rigidly held, is a religion. (It is curious, though, that people use the term religion to insult atheism).
Do you "not know" whether or not people can make up stories, including fictional stories about gods?
Actually, we all know the answer to that last question. It's a scientific question, and yes, we are very confident that people can make up stories about gods. To say that one does "not know" whether or not people can make up gods would be totally absurd.
In addition, mountains of evidence are consistent with the theory that gods are mythological concepts (a positive claim, not a negative one), whereas there is zero evidence that gods are real in the sense claimed by most theists (another positive claim). Hence, I consider myself a scientific atheist in this respect, and in science there are often not 100% certainties, nor, practically, any need for them (99.999etc.% will do just fine). One thing is 100% certain in science, though, and that is that a theory that is supported by a lot of evidence is favoured over a theory that has zero supportive evidence. One would not choose a theory for which there is zero evidence over a theory for which there is an abundance of evidence.
Would you call yourself agnostic in regards to a god who has no specific location, has no specific properties, can be detected at no specific time and by no person or instrument, and has no specific policies? A god that is so, if I may say, conveniently undetectable...well, perhaps one would be tempted to call oneself an agnostic with regard to that deity. However, the apparent "agnosticism" there is due to the fact that the alleged deity in question is so ill-defined that the statements about such a god are either unintelligible, or rigged so as to be mischievously out of reach of any coherent philosophical (including rational, moral, etc.), phenomenological, or scientific assessment. Are you agnostic with regard to whether or not some undefined or ill-defined thing exists? I suppose everyone is "agnostic" about that--but that's not what's normally meant by the word agnostic in regards to alleged deities.
at February 5, 2007 12:13 PM
Kab bin Ashraf,
Good idea. According to the American Heritage College Dictionary, third edition, these are the definitions for Atheism, Agnostic and Religion:
Atheism: 1.a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness, immorality.
Agnostic: One who believes that there is no proof of the existence of God but does not deny the possibility that God exists. 1. Relating to or being an agnostic. 2. Noncommittal.
Religion: 1.a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A system grounded in such a belief and worship. 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4. A cause, principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Informal meaning: To accept a higher power as a controlling influence for the good in one's life.
Where to begin...Frank, I am neither a liar nor a fanatic but I can say with certainty that God exists because I have experienced Him in my own life and do so on a regular basis. I have read the accounts of others, the saints, who experienced Him on a regular basis and their accounts closely aline with my own. And there is a great comfort and peacefulness that comes from that kind of validation. I've seen the good that comes out of following the ten commandments and the pain, suffering and destruction that can be wreaked when they are not followed, as I have experienced in my own life and the lives of friends and associates. I've seen the healing effects of prayer, including a friend's father who received a kidney within one day of praying for his healing after he had been on the waiting list for two years, but even more amazingly, his old kidneys had begun to work again when the surgeon went in to take them out. That was not a coincidence nor was it something I willed and created with my human power. (I'm not that powerful.) I've seen in my own family the destruction and misery that a child involved with drugs and crime can produce. And I've seen the absolute healing, by the power of God, because I asked Him, in transforming that childs life.
It is difficult to read the posts here where people write with certainty that there is no God, because I know better, having seen it all around me. And I've seen it for almost half a century. But I do understand that some people cannot see what I see and I don't put them down for it. We all have to make our way and different experiences happen to people for different reasons, all throughout our lives, so something I may have been so fortunate to experience at a very young age and then built on with cognitave reasoning, may not happen to another for decades. The thing I can tell you for certain is that if you seek for it, you will find it, if you truly open your heart and mind to it. I know that is true, because the God who tells me that is the same God who has never lied to me and has given me the desires of my heart. (And that in the midst of a very difficult life.)
Because of my experience of God I can also say with certainty that the "god" of Islam is not the God of the Bible. Jesus says in the Gospel that you are either for Me or against Me. He also says that a house divided against itself cannot stand. (Example, Sunnis vs. Shites, and why Hugh encourages the removal of our troops and then letting the cards fall where they may.) If the Trinity admonishes us to love our neighbor as ourself, turn the other cheek and do good to our enemies, and not covet thy neighbors wife or property, then how can Allah, who is supposedly the Father, admonish Muslims to kill the Kafir, kill the Jews, murder captives, steal their property and sell their women into sexual slavery? If God the Father strictly admonishes us not to commit murder, how can Allah encourage honor killings and revenge motivated murders when some poor weak human steps out of line and commits adultery? Why would God the Creator insist that His creatures be maimed and destroyed in the name of Allah?
Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery. He had compassion on her and He said let he who has committed no sin cast the first stone. And then He told her that her sins were forgiven her and to go and sin no more. Wow! Where's the eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth here? Where's the cutting off of the opposite hand and foot? Where's the Inquisition, those damnable Crusades or any other atrocity that people site in the name of Catholicism? It's not here. It's not part of the teachings. And Allah isn't God.
Regarding Muslim women, Special Guest said:
"Their behaviour is only bizarre from our point of view."
I don't think so. Humans inherently know, through natural law, that defense of one's young is of primary importance for the continuation of the species. If we follow the idea of the Golden Rule it becomes easy to figure out what might or might not be beneficial to a human being. I don't like to be hit, slapped, lied about, have my property stolen, be cheated on or have my family members hurt or destroyed. From my experience, no one else I've ever met likes that kind of behavior applied to them either. As a mother, I can assure you, that I would shoot first and ask questions later if someone tried to maim or destroy one of my babes, (who are all taller than me now; it never stops.)
I have been kicking this idea around though, that a Muslim woman who is circumcised when she is a little one, then married off against her will to some stranger when she is a teeny bopper and then told her entire life that she is less than a man, must be ready for sex at any time, can be thrown out of her house on a whim and who has no ability to defend herself in the courts or against her husband probably gets pretty bitter after a while. That bitterness can be directed into out and out RAGE and eventually channeled into some force that can only be used for some destructive purpose. If that woman continues to live under that persistent tyranny then she will probably become what she loathes. And perhaps that is the point of Islam, if it insists on taking over the entire world, with no mercy, no compassion and as Mike W so beuatifully acknowledged, no love, that in order to force a system so devoid of human warmth and anything good that has ever been on this planet, the people who pursue that end would have to turn off their humanity and become like vicious animals to acheive their goal.
I for one cannot turn off my humanity, however flawed I am. And whatever goodness is in me cries out to heaven for vengeance against the crimes and atrocities committed against my fellow man, whether they be Christians, Agnostics, Atheists, or any other manner of religious or racial label, in the name of tyranny. And at this point in history, that name is Islam.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 5, 2007 2:23 PM
Kab bin Ashraf: "There is a factually erroneous claim above that states or intends that atheists are absolutely certain that God or gods does/do not exist. Most atheists are reasonably confident that there are no such things as the gods that have been described to them to date, but the vast majority do not claim to have absolute 100% certain first-hand knowledge that no such gods exist in any form whatsoever. Look up the definition(s) of atheism, and look up the definition(s) of agnosticism, and you will see that things are not as you assume."
Kab - there appear to be such a plethora of definitions of both atheism and agnosticism, that obviously misunderstandings might occur in causal conversation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
For instance that wiki link indeed defines "strong atheism" as "the positive assertion that deities do not exist" in contrast to "weak atheism",, "the simple absence of belief in deities[6][7][8] (cf. nontheism), thereby designating many agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists as well."
So in that definition agnosticism is defined as weak atheism! When someone calls themselves an atheist, I have ordinarily taken them to mean by that strong atheism. Apparently, one shouldn't make that assumption.
The article also notes that "Some religious and spiritual beliefs, such as several forms of Buddhism, have been described by outside observers as conforming to the broader, negative definition of atheism due to their lack of any participating deities." So now we could even subsume Buddhism under atheism as well!
(And of course there is also the distinction between strong agnosticism and weak agnosticism).
Here is an interesting article which notes the further possibility of "agnostic atheism" versus "agnostic theism":
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm
This article notes that "Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not."
So the agnostic theist would be someone who believes in God but could not claim to know for sure if any Gods exist or not, while the agnostic atheist is someone who disbelieves but can not claim to know absolutely that God does not exist. All agnosticism is by that definition, is the claim to not know 100%. Since I am personally suspicious of about 99.99% of the world that claims to know about something so intangible “absolutely”, agnosticism certainly seems the honest position for the majority of people to take, but then according to you and those articles, many atheists fall under that definition as well.
Perhaps when Hirsi Ali and Hugh define themselves as atheists they actually mean agnostic atheism (or weak atheism) as opposed to strong atheism. I'm not sure with Hugh though as he appeared to reject the term "agnosticism" pretty strongly in his comment above. Whatever he is, on the other hand, is hardly my concern and although I appeared to give the impression that I was vilifying atheists that wasn't my intention. I notice that both articles take pains to defend atheists against a general negative sentiment. I don't feel that I share that negative sentiment. I would merely note that strong atheism (which your post essentially states is not what atheism is, but the wiki article at least does substantiate that as one definition of atheism) - is indeed an absolutist belief. But saying so isn’t vilifying anyone unless by calling someone a believing Christian one could be taken to be vilifying them for their absolutist belief either.
My main interest in commenting in the first place on Hugh's comment was in puzzling over the conundrum of adopting an atheistic POV but still feeling that it would be best for society to be largely comprised of believers of certain religions. I believe that Mark Steyn has commented on that to - to the effect that Christian America is the best place in the world for atheists to live (or something to that effect). I suppose the reason I was puzzling over it was because of the categorical imperative. But in my mind I am probably applying it erroneously in thinking that it is problematic to want to live without any belief but at the same time to desire to be surrounded by people who do have belief (and a particular belief at that). In other words, I personally reject this belief system but the world is better off if it is indeed ordered by that belief system that I reject. In restrospect I am probably creating a false dilemma there as the categorical imperative is meant to apply to actions rather than to beliefs. But still, it is interesting to ponder that many atheists would want to live in a society, not of fellow atheists, but of Christian believers. That creates a problem of sorts for western civilization if increasing numbers of people want to live in a society created by something they don’t believe has any objective moral basis. Could people have come up with Christian ethics on their own, without believing in Christianity? And more importantly, will the ethics remain intact over time as the belief in their foundations declines? Is it OK to be elitist and feel that one doesn’t need that belief system but thank God the other fools around me do and they carry on the charade? If one really felt that way, would it be incumbent upon one to at least participate superficially in the charade that keeps the society’s glue intact (i.e. say showing up for church on Sunday even if one can’t really bring oneself to believe). That’s what I’m wondering. That’s what I was getting at in my original comment. That's what I'm still wondering.
As to your question outlining whether or not I am agnostic on various deities, including Allah – no. I am quite certain that some accounts are false. I am quite certain that Charles Manson or the cool-aid guy or the Waco guy or Joseph Smith were no prophets. Ditto for Muhammad. But I think one can say that one version of God is false and that X is a prophet is obviously false and at the same time say that one cannot know for sure whether God exists. As I was raised a Christian (a Catholic actually) I am admittedly quite a bit more agnostic in the particular sense you suggest on whether or not Jesus was divine. I don’t know. I try to evaluate the evidence. Could be. It’s plausible. I haven’t entirely dismissed the possibility. I just don’t know. But unlike Isabella’s testimony, I simply don’t have any personal experiences to take me over the line into faith. (I did have a most overwhelming religious experience once - I can't even begin to describe it - only problem is I happened to have taken an exceedingly large dose of mushrooms and so it cannot be trusted.) But I do listen to the testimonies of other people. And I read with interest about such things as after-death experiences and enlightenment experiences and so on. And I keep an open mind about it. And I also keep an open mind to the alternative material explanations of such phenomena. I call that agnosticism. Apparently, given the plethora of terms out there, others call that atheism. I will admit that I lean more towards the belief–in-God side than the non-belief-in-God-side (a weak agnostic theist?? :-)). If some people think that’s wishy-washy, so be it. Some things simply can’t be forced or falsely invented.
In any case, the lesson I take away from this thread is that I should really shut up entirely about things I do not have sufficient knowledge to discuss. I am entirely regretting having opened my big fat mouth on this thread in the first place. I do, however, quite appreciate your very thoughtful post.
at February 5, 2007 7:15 PM
I would like to respond to Kab bin Ashraf:
You state:
"Agnostic with regard to the flying spaghetti monster, bogey man, tooth fairy, etc.?"
First one thing, the ‘flying spaghetti monster’ objection, or even Russell’s tea pot is an ad hoc objection. I have yet to see someone publish or even come close to mustering an argument for a flying spaghetti monster, while I have seen many arguments for the existence of God. So how are God and the flying spaghetti monster in the same picture? You might reply that arguments for God are insufficient. If so, that is irrelevant. The relevant point is this: *no one argues for the flying spaghetti*. To say God and the flying spaghetti monster are on the same epistemic plane is just sheer nonsense.
You state:
“Would you call yourself agnostic in regards to a god who has no specific location, has no specific properties, can be detected at no specific time and by no person or instrument, and has no specific policies?”
If god-x has no properties then god-x does not exist. There’s nothing to be agnostic about. Most theists, if not all, believe God has some property, e.g. love. Enough said.
You state further:
“In addition, mountains of evidence are consistent with the theory that gods are mythological concepts (a positive claim, not a negative one), whereas there is zero evidence that gods are real in the sense claimed by most theists (another positive claim).”
The problem with this statement is that it is too quick to settle the evidential issue. Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, Stephen T. Davis, et al have spent their scholarly careers arguing that there is good reason (in some cases evidence) for believe in God. I highly doubt there is zero evidence for Him. In spite of that, you also need to be clear on what you mean by evidence and just what does and does not constitute evidence. Can you elaborate?
You state:
“One thing is 100% certain in science, though, and that is that a theory that is supported by a lot of evidence is favoured over a theory that has zero supportive evidence. One would not choose a theory for which there is zero evidence over a theory for which there is an abundance of evidence.”
That’s not entirely accurate. A good scientific hypothesis possesses coherence, consistency, explanatory power, and simplicity; consistency in so far as the hypothesis does not require a large leap in accepting it. We can measure whether God’s properties are coherent; we can measure whether God is consistent (i.e. properties); we can measure if God has explanatory power; and we certainly can measure if God is simple or complex. So, there might not be evidence (I am being careful with the word) for God, but if God possesses the above attributes, then there’s good reason to remain agnostic towards His existence.
Best wishes,
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
at February 5, 2007 7:43 PM
Caroline,
"So the agnostic theist would be someone who believes in God but could not claim to know for sure if any Gods exist or not"
Or an agnostic theist simply doesn't consider knowledge per se to be the possible medium for the communication between God and man. Voegelin, following Plato and Aristotle, distinguished noesis (reason) from gnosis (knowledge), insofar as the former is an intelligent way to make sense of faith, hope and love in the absence of gnosis -- even if that sense ultimately cannot avoid paradox.
at February 5, 2007 7:43 PM
Okay - remote. You've got my attention. According to wiki "gnosis" is:
"a form of spiritual knowledge that is more commonly familiar to people as enlightenment. The word is cognate (from Proto-Indo-European) with the Sanskrit word gnana (pronounced nyana - also spelled jnana) that has an equivalent meaning in Buddhist and Hindu spiritual treatises. In Theravada Buddhism the word for gnosis is añña (lit. 'highest knowledge'). The knowledge to which gnosis refers is that of the unconditioned ground (and source) of phenomenal reality, variously called Brahman (The Upanisads); the Dharmakaya (Mahayana Buddhism); the Tao (Tao Te Ching) and God (Theistic religion). One who having followed a spiritual path in order to return to the origin and arrived at this transcendental knowledge is called a gnostic (Gnani or Jnani in Sanskrit and Hindi)."
I am relatively familiar with this concept of gnosis through my readings in eastern philosophy (and other assorted new age "stuff"). So by this definition, would someone like Jesus, for example, be a gnostic? Or is that a blasphemous suggestion for Christians? Could he be simultaneously gnostic and divine? Do we infer from this definition that agnostic designates someone who has not in fact experienced the sort of direct knowledge (gnosis) attained by enlightenment? If that's the way to understand those terms, then I am curious to understand the distinction between 1) reason and gnosis and 2) between gnosis and faith and 3) why gnosticism is considered such a heresy of the Christian faith (why would the experience of gnosis actually constitute a blasphemy or in any way conflict with a faith in Jesus as divine?).
You have a blue booklet in front of you and 3 hours to complete your essay (channeling Hugh!). :-)
PS Derrick - very nice post. I am wondering if you could provide quotations from Islam indicating that "love" is a prominent and conspicuous property of the Muslim deity "Allah" and that Muhammad as his prophet clearly preached and embodied the central importance of this trait.
Posted by: Caroline at February 5, 2007 9:06 PM
This reminds me of that Stanislav Lem story -- about the Personoids. The Personids were sentient, mathematical entities created by Professor Dobbs (Professor Dobbs frequently eavesdropped on the conversations of the Personoids). The Personoids were fond of debating the existence (and/or non-existence) of an all-powerful Deity; and whether or not the Personoids were a product of a divine creator. Eventually they decide the question in favor of atheism. Lem wrote the story in the form of a non-existent or imaginary book review. Ultimately (sadly) the book reviewer notes that the authorities pulled the plug on Dr. Dobbs research grants, thus ending the existence of the Personoids.
all for now.
Posted by: J.S. at February 6, 2007 12:14 AM
Isabellathecrusader
I've seen the good that comes out of following the ten commandments and the pain, suffering and destruction that can be wreaked when they are not followed, as I have experienced in my own life and the lives of friends and associates.
“the Protestant ten run as follows: (1) no other gods; (2) no making or worshipping of idols; (3) no taking of God's name in vain; (4) remember the sabbath; (5) honor your father and mother; (6) do not kill; (7) do not commit adultery; (8) do not steal; (9) do not bear false witness; (10) do not covet your neighbor's belongings.”
Source: http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/10c.html
The first three at least, enforced by fundamentalists or extremists, have wrought plenty of pain, suffering, and destruction throughout history. I'm not implying that you interpret the first three in that way, as laws to be enforced, but many people do.
“Do not kill” must be understood in light of other commands to kill people for apostasy, blasphemy, adultery, etc.
“Do not steal” does not seem to be fully understood, in principle, by the people who wrote the Bible. Slavery is among other things a form of theft (i.e., forcefully taking someone else’s time and labour), yet the Bible clearly does not ban slavery as an institution and, indeed, includes mention of slavery in those ten commandments (slaves are regarded as property).
It is difficult to read the posts here where people write with certainty that there is no God, because I know better, having seen it all around me.
1. These kinds of discussions are difficult; believers and non-believers get upset when their beliefs are challenged.
2. Regarding certainty that God does not exist, I think its important to distinguish between scientific certainty (which assigns levels of confidence, plausibility, etc.) and absolute certainty.
3. I would not deny people’s genuine phenomenological experiences which are often called religious or spiritual. People do widely report experiences of this nature. What differs are the interpretations, and that is where our disagreements arise.
Caroline,
(your statements in blockquotes)
So in that definition agnosticism is defined as weak atheism! When someone calls themselves an atheist, I have ordinarily taken them to mean by that strong atheism. Apparently, one shouldn't make that assumption.
Re definitions (for atheism and agnosticism)
-there is a lot of conceptual confusion, disagreement, variety, etc., in different people’s definitions of these terms.
-there does seem to be some naturally-occurring overlap, not merely due to conceptual confusion and disagreement, etc., between atheism and agnosticism.
That said, it is still useful to draw a distinction between atheism (basically, lack of a belief in God) and agnosticism (not knowing with any significant degree of certainty whether or not God exists) for the purposes of carrying on meaningful conversations.
The article also notes that "Some religious and spiritual beliefs, such as several forms of Buddhism, have been described by outside observers as conforming to the broader, negative definition of atheism due to their lack of any participating deities." So now we could even subsume Buddhism under atheism as well!
“I believe that Mark Steyn has commented on that to - to the effect that Christian America is the best place in the world for atheists to live (or something to that effect).”
I would dispute that. Given the strong religious feelings of the large Christian majority in the U.S., I would have to say that places like Australia, Canada, Finland, Iceland, etc., might be better. (The U.S. might be better for other reasons; but the issue here concerns freedom of belief in regards to religion). Atheists are strongly discriminated against in the U.S. With regard to some issues, Americans are less tolerant of atheists than Muslims and homosexuals. E.g., Americans would much rather have a Muslim leader than an atheist.
Where I would agree with Steyn is that atheists, if they evaluate the evidence rationally and objectively, (and if the issue is comfort, safety, etc.) would prefer to live in a Christian-majority society as compared to a Muslim-majority society. That is because whatever discrimination atheists might receive in a Christian-majority society is likely to be minor in comparison to what they would receive in a Muslim-majority society.
But still, it is interesting to ponder that many atheists would want to live in a society, not of fellow atheists, but of Christian believers. That creates a problem of sorts for western civilization if increasing numbers of people want to live in a society created by something they don’t believe has any objective moral basis.
I question the assumption. I think this is an exaggeration and oversimplfication to suggest that there is something meaningfully “Christian” or “Judeo-Christian” about moder western society. Greco-Roman, yes; but to say that it is Christian leads to the question of what exactly is it about the society, which contains a majority of Christians, that makes the society in its values, policies, and laws, Christian. Ultimately such questions need to be resolved, and the first step is coming to a definition of what is Christian or Judeo-Christian. A useful analogy here is Islam. What makes all of the so-called great cultural achievements of Islam (i.e., alleged “Golden Age of Islam” etc) Islamic? Simply because some of the people involved with those achievements happened to be Muslims? To make a good case that the achievements were Islamic, one would have to find clear evidence from the core Islamic texts that could inspire, permit, encourage, inform such achievements. But these are not found in the core Islamic texts (Koran and Sahih hadith). Then what is Islamic about them? Likewise, where is the clear evidence from the Bible that leads to the great scientific, philosophical, and moral accomplishments of the west? There’s just not enough evidence, and no clear evidence (i.e., clear statements that are not contradicted by other clear statements in the same book), that these accomplishments are Judeo-Christian.
Could people have come up with Christian ethics on their own, without believing in Christianity? And more importantly, will the ethics remain intact over time as the belief in their foundations declines? Is it OK to be elitist and feel that one doesn’t need that belief system but thank God the other fools around me do and they carry on the charade?
1. It is not entirely clear what Christian ethics are, because the ultimate source document is not clear on what they are. The amount of interpretation used to seemingly “extract” moral principles from the text suggests that much of the “extraction” is in the mind of the reader and is being projected onto ambiguous and contradictory propositions. This results in widely divergent views of what constitutes Christian morality. Disturbingly, there is not a clear disavowal of the old laws (Old Testament laws) in the Gospels, and some indications that the old laws are confirmed. Implementing the old laws would lead to a totalitarian state in which people would be executed for mere disbelief or mere blasphemy. (Of course, it is again, Muslims as a group, not Christians or Jews as groups, who are more likely to implement such laws).
2. Ethics are founded on principles that go beyond whether this or that alleged particular deity is alleged to have said.
3. The “other fools” can carry on the charade as long as it doesn’t impact negatively on people (whether or not those people are inside or outside the group we are designating so eloquently here as those other fools). The question is how serious, how severe and potentially damaging, do the moral violations have to be before we speak out and take specific actions to counter those who are doing or threatening the violations? If it were not for the rise of sharia-and-jihad based Islam, I personally would probably be not bothering much with the topic of religion at all.
As to your question outlining whether or not I am agnostic on various deities, including Allah – no. I am quite certain that some accounts are false. I am quite certain that Charles Manson or the cool-aid guy or the Waco guy or Joseph Smith were no prophets. Ditto for Muhammad. But I think one can say that one version of God is false and that X is a prophet is obviously false and at the same time say that one cannot know for sure whether God exists.
Most people are atheistic with regard to most gods. Most people are, at least nominally, Muslims or Christians; and most of them are atheistic with regard to the gods of other religions.
The God that you are referring in the last sentence to sounds to me like the “God” of Deism (e.g., Spinoza’s and Einstein’s “God”).
“And I also keep an open mind to the alternative material explanations of such phenomena. I call that agnosticism. Apparently, given the plethora of terms out there, others call that atheism. I will admit that I lean more towards the belief–in-God side than the non-belief-in-God-side (a weak agnostic theist?? :-)). If some people think that’s wishy-washy, so be it. Some things simply can’t be forced or falsely invented.”
I think half of the problem is just in navigating through the descriptive labels that people give up front, and finding out what it is that they actually believe (hearing/reading a description in their own words, getting answers to specific questions, etc.), or what degree of confidence they assign to the beliefs.
“In any case, the lesson I take away from this thread is that I should really shut up entirely about things I do not have sufficient knowledge to discuss. I am entirely regretting having opened my big fat mouth on this thread in the first place.”
Oh definitely do not shut up, please! I think people should talk about this stuff more.
Derrick_abdulhakim,
First one thing, the ‘flying spaghetti monster’ objection, or even Russell’s tea pot is an ad hoc objection. I have yet to see someone publish or even come close to mustering an argument for a flying spaghetti monster, while I have seen many arguments for the existence of God. So how are God and the flying spaghetti monster in the same picture? You might reply that arguments for God are insufficient. If so, that is irrelevant. The relevant point is this: *no one argues for the flying spaghetti*. To say God and the flying spaghetti monster are on the same epistemic plane is just sheer nonsense.
It is irrelevant whether the spaghetti monster example is ad hoc, and irrelevant whether or not anyone argues for it sincerely. This is a contrived example, a thought experiment type of construct, used to illustrate a point in principle. The point of the example is to illustrate precisely that God and the spaghetti monster are on the same epistemological plane, whether or not specific properties are ascribed to either. If people leave their god unspecified, we can leave the spaghetti monster unspecified. If people want to ascribe specific properties to their god, we can match all those and ascribe them all to the flying spaghetti monster too. The only difference between the two is the name. You may call this nonsense, but argumentatively, in terms of substance, your hands are tied. Every argument you make in favour of your god can be made in favour of the spaghetti monster; every you argument you make against the spaghetti monster can be made against your god (e.g., if it is the god of Islam, then that is ad hoc).
To your point about no one is arguing, or believing, that the spaghetti monster exists: That is not a valid argument against the spaghetti monster. It is conceivable that there are a set of circumstances in which no one believes in or argues for your god. Indeed, prior to the beginning of Islam, no one believed in your god*. Do you therefore argue that your god did not exist at that time? Do you therefore argue that no one should have discussed such as ridiculous topic at that time? In principle, using that argument, you would have rejected Muhammad’s prophecy if you were the first to hear it, because, after all, no one else believed it at first. *If you wish to say that Judaism and Christianity deal with the same god as Islam, that’s still not good enough because the archeological record indicates that much of human history predates the existence of Judaism and Christianity. Should we say that it is somehow improper or invalid for people to argue about an alleged God before at least one person believes it?
The way out of all of these tangles is to use a systematic empirical approach to the question of god’s existence. Empirical means based on experience, and that includes one’s phenomenological experience as well as what can be handled through objective science. Taking either approach, or a combination of both, one is first confronted with the problem of definitions and specifications. What exactly is the deity, and what is it not? If the deity exists, when and where, under what conditions, should we detect it? Can we, feasibly, set up those conditions (i.e., can it be tested at all)? Until these questions are dealt with in some satisfactory way, theists will keep running into the spaghetti monster and other annoying entities (such as other peoples’ gods).
If god-x has no properties then god-x does not exist. There’s nothing to be agnostic about. Most theists, if not all, believe God has some property, e.g. love. Enough said.
“The problem with this statement is that it is too quick to settle the evidential issue. Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, Stephen T. Davis, et al have spent their scholarly careers arguing that there is good reason (in some cases evidence) for believe in God. I highly doubt there is zero evidence for Him. In spite of that, you also need to be clear on what you mean by evidence and just what does and does not constitute evidence. Can you elaborate?1. I would not say that the accumulation of evidence has been quick, nor was the above conclusion arrived at quickly, but only after much careful consideration of what has been presented as the “evidence” for both sides. What one side is presenting as “evidence” is either empty claims or mere interpretation of something (e.g., some piece of wood is supposedly from Noah’s ark, etc.). I say there is zero evidence for the theistic theory (i.e., that God is real and not just a concept), because for something to constitute evidence for a claim the “evidence” itself must be factual and not merely another claim. I would not count someone’s vision of God as evidence, because we have no reason to believe that the vision (if there was one—which we could possibly assess using advanced neuroimaging, etc., to see if the brain activity corresponds with what happens when people reliably report visions) was of god. Moreover, even if the vision was of god, we have no reason to suppose that God exists outside the vision—anymore than a vision of the spaghetti monster constitutes evidence for the spaghetti monster as a real entity. What we need is objective evidence for the real existence of god, not just as a concept but as a real entity, and that is precisely what we don’t have; hence I say we have zero evidence for the belief that God exists.
2. By evidence, I mean evidence from all the sciences—anthropology, archaeology, the study of myths, psychology, sociology, economics, political science, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics. Evidence judged to be acceptable by the standards of any of these domains (i.e., which would pass peer review and other relevant criteria) (some are stronger than others, e.g., physics is generally stronger than political science), and all are pertinent to the various claims made by theists.
“One thing is 100% certain in science, though, and that is that a theory that is supported by a lot of evidence is favoured over a theory that has zero supportive evidence. One would not choose a theory for which there is zero evidence over a theory for which there is an abundance of evidence.”
That’s not entirely accurate. A good scientific hypothesis possesses coherence, consistency, explanatory power, and simplicity; consistency in so far as the hypothesis does not require a large leap in accepting it. We can measure whether God’s properties are coherent; we can measure whether God is consistent (i.e. properties); we can measure if God has explanatory power; and we certainly can measure if God is simple or complex. So, there might not be evidence (I am being careful with the word) for God, but if God possesses the above attributes, then there’s good reason to remain agnostic towards His existence.
2. We can only measure the things you are talking about if theists commit to some clear, empirically-testable specifications which would allow us to test for god’s existence and know with some confidence that we had in fact detected (or failed to detect) the specified god and not something else. Theists have not yet held to any such commitments, and have generally not been forthright in proposing them.
at February 6, 2007 7:14 AM
Kab - "I suppose, strictly speaking, only those forms of Buddhism which posit the existence of gods would be considered theistic (theos refers to gods). Those which don’t would be atheistic. This seems surprising to many people because they assume that atheists also reject other mystical ideas. While that is often true, it is not necessarily so in terms of the definitions of atheism, and sometimes not true empirically."
Well then I have certainly misunderstood the concept of atheism. What if one proposes that God is akin to some principle like Oneness or Truth or Love or Creativity or Eternity or something like that and one believes it to be likely that consciousness after death somehow participates in that (this would be consistent with the self-reports of many mystics or seemingly credible people who claim to have experienced enlightenment) - I would call this believing in God. I wouldn't call it atheism. But that's because I don't think most people actually think of God as a person (the gray man with the beard or whatever) - well maybe they do. I don't know. That reiterates the importance, as you state, of getting beneath the labels people use in causal conversation. But in terms of the possibility of seeking empirical proof for the existence of God it would seem we might come closer to that over time when we have the tools to better study consciousness, a science which is still pretty much in its infancy.
at February 6, 2007 10:20 AM
The point of this thread seems to have been lost. It's resembling a college bull-session. I would much rather Derrick Abdul-Hakim respond to my questions to him about Jihad than give us his philosophy on God or spaghetti or anything else but what should be the topic. That he'd rather discuss atheism than the violence toward non-Muslims and the subjugation of non-Muslims mandated in the Qur'an is understandable, however.
Posted by: Nick Danger at February 6, 2007 11:10 AM
A bull session indeed! I stopped reading after the said "Kab bin Ashraf" claimed that the 6th Commandment was "do not kill." Yeah, that's what protestants claim. Unfortunately, the original is written in Hebrew. And, "no" it does not say, "Do not kill." The 6th Commandment reads from the Hebrew: "You Shall Not Murder." The Hebrew word for "kill" is haroq, the Hebrew word for murder is "ratzakh". Ratzakh is used in the 6th Commandment -- "Lo tirtzakh". You *can* kill in self-defense.
I also noticed a confusion early on with respect to "evidence" vs "certainty." The two are not synonymous. Look it up.
Posted by: J.S. at February 6, 2007 12:21 PM
Thank you, Kab for you response. I found your response to my post of interest. In spite of that, I felt you peddled down a slippery slope with many of my claims. I will highlight a few instances.
You state:
“The point of the example is to illustrate precisely that God and the spaghetti monster are on the same epistemological plane, whether or not specific properties are ascribed to either. If people leave their god unspecified, we can leave the spaghetti monster unspecified. If people want to ascribe specific properties to their god, we can match all those and ascribe them all to the flying spaghetti monster too. The only difference between the two is the name.”
If the point of the thought-experiment is to illustrate that God and the spaghetti monster are on the same epistemic plane, then the point fails in its objective. Firstly, a spaghetti monster is a material object, a physical entity. It can be touched, viewed, and probably heard with ears and sensed through the nasals. Apparently the same can’t be said about God. God, according to theism, is not physical in any sense; He is immaterial. Secondly, if the spaghetti monster exists, it exists contingently. It is neither eternal nor the cause of its own existence. If God exists (emphasis on ‘if’), then He exists necessarily, thus non-contingently. Immediately we see we’re not dealing with just ‘names’.
Furthermore, pace your view, God is specified. Most theists, at least within Judaic-Christian-Islamic tradition, claim that God is omnipotent and omniscient. These two properties are essential to a deity, coupled with God’s necessary existence. Indeed, the specifics of a particular God might not be apparent, e.g. love, benevolence, et cetera (that is a matter of theological particulars). However, that does not imply that ‘God’ is unspecified, again pace your view.
Lastly, we can make all sorts of arguments for God’s existence. Alvin Plantinga has sketched two-dozen arguments for God’s existence. A good example is the cosmological argument. For if God exists, then God is the cause of the existence of every contingent being and every being distinct from Himself. Can this be said about the spaghetti monster? If such a monster exists, then it exists amid countless other contingent beings. In any case, no argument exists for a spaghetti monster either from a necessary standpoint or from a contingentia mundi.
Moving on…
You state:
“To your point about no one is arguing, or believing, that the spaghetti monster exists: That is not a valid argument against the spaghetti monster. It is conceivable that there are a set of circumstances in which no one believes in or argues for your god. Indeed, prior to the beginning of Islam, no one believed in your god*. Do you therefore argue that your god did not exist at that time? Do you therefore argue that no one should have discussed such as ridiculous topic at that time? In principle, using that argument, you would have rejected Muhammad’s prophecy if you were the first to hear it, because, after all, no one else believed it at first. *If you wish to say that Judaism and Christianity deal with the same god as Islam, that’s still not good enough because the archeological record indicates that much of human history predates the existence of Judaism and Christianity. Should we say that it is somehow improper or invalid for people to argue about an alleged God before at least one person believes it?”
I set up no argument against the spaghetti monster. My argument was that the spaghetti monster is not on epistemic par with God. Read my comments above. The rest of your paragraph is just a red herring.
You state:
“The way out of all of these tangles is to use a systematic empirical approach to the question of god’s existence. Empirical means based on experience, and that includes one’s phenomenological experience as well as what can be handled through objective science. Taking either approach, or a combination of both, one is first confronted with the problem of definitions and specifications. What exactly is the deity, and what is it not? If the deity exists, when and where, under what conditions, should we detect it? Can we, feasibly, set up those conditions (i.e., can it be tested at all)? Until these questions are dealt with in some satisfactory
way, theists will keep running into the spaghetti monster and other annoying entities (such as other peoples’ gods).”
Now read here:
“I would not count someone’s vision of God as evidence, because we have no reason to believe that the vision (if there was one—which we could possibly assess using advanced neuroimaging, etc., to see if the brain activity corresponds with what happens when people reliably report visions) was of god. Moreover, even if the vision was of god, we have no reason to suppose that God exists outside the vision—anymore than a vision of the spaghetti monster constitutes evidence for the spaghetti monster as a real entity. What we need is objective evidence for the real existence of god, not just as a concept but as a real entity, and that is precisely what we don’t have; hence I say we have zero evidence for the belief that God exists.”
Your two statements are inconsistent. If a theist must use empirical reasoning for his/her respective conclusion, then that would mean using experience, right? You cannot rule out experience a priori. In fact, an experiential assessment of God might be a visionary one; after all, a vision is an experience. To say, ‘I would not count someone’s vision of God as evidence’ is to beg the question against the theist. Unless you have a way to demonstrate that his/her first-person experience is false, then I don’t see how you can throw it out. By the way, God is immaterial, so I don’t see how an objective-empirical approach would do any good in the ‘quest’ for God. Moreover, a spaghetti monster is visible – if it exists. Perhaps we cannot track it, but if so, then it is certainly visible. That can’t be said about God. Once again, your comparison crumbles. Someone referenced William James earlier. Indeed, read the second chapter of this ‘Varieties of Religious Experience’. A good read.
And finally:
“We can only measure the things you are talking about if theists commit to some clear, empirically-testable specifications which would allow us to test for god’s existence and know with some confidence that we had in fact detected (or failed to detect) the specified god and not something else. Theists have not yet held to any such commitments, and have generally not been forthright in proposing them.”
You’re stacking the deck. God isn’t a theory or hypothesis. You seem to be confusing God and hypotheses. The distinction must be drawn before we can assess whether there is evidence for God or not. Moreover, I couldn’t help pausing at your smuggled term ‘testable’. Big Bang theory and macroevolution are not testable. Testability is not the measuring stick of truth nor is it the sine qua non of good science.
The problem with your approach is that you want to squeeze God into your scientific hope chest. If God can be tested, then he has plausibility. That’s false. God is not a material object, hence He cannot be tested and/or manipulated. The question is, for the nth time, whether God is epistemically equivalent to the spaghetti monster, not whether God has testability or not. If you want to strike out God, then you must show (i) that His existence is inconsistent or (ii) demonstrate that God is extremely implausible.
Best wishes,
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
at February 6, 2007 1:55 PM
As for Nick Danger...
I did not forget about you. I noticed you cited Suyuti. I believe his exegesis will pose a problem for those who believe in the abrogation theory. I think your post makes an interesting point regarding that issue, which is why I didn't reply; e.g. your post was self-explanatory.
Best wishes,
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
Posted by: Derrick_abdulhakim at February 6, 2007 2:03 PM
Derrick Abdul-Hakim,
Based upon an above comment from jehana, and your apparent knowledge of tafsir, and your screen-name, it seems reasonable to assume that you are muslim.
That is precisely why it is disappointing to see so much effort by you, here, rather than communicating with your colleagues in the ummah. You specifically write above, "Lastly, detrimental to the abrogationists is the problem of verse selection. Which verses are to be annulled? The choice seems arbitrary. In any case, it is not my problem." and then, concerning contradictions between hadith and koran, "If Muslims fail to get that…oh well, that’s not my problem."
Perhaps I am mistaken about your background, or any efforts by you, within the ummah, to oppose supremacism and outer jihad. If so, please correct me, or share examples where you have argued with muslims against the misunderstanderers of islam.
If you are muslim, and if you are opposed to violent jihad and opposed to islamic supremacism, then it [i.e. these "misunderstandings" within islam] is very much your business, and your problem.
The particularly obnoxious point is that it has become the entire planet's problem.
Posted by: del at February 6, 2007 4:08 PM
Nick Danger,
Not much of a response, eh? Derrick implies that abrogation is a minority, eccentric concept in Islam. Indeed, it appears that the deceitful abrogation of abrogation has become mainstream among Muslims in the context of their very new propaganda in the modern West.
Caroline,
"I am relatively familiar with this concept of gnosis through my readings in eastern philosophy (and other assorted new age "stuff")."
While I was including this type of gnosticism in my last post, I was also broadening the term "gnostic" out to simply mean pertaining to knowledge (the "gn-" of the word gnostic and the "kn-" of the word knowledge are the same).
"So by this definition, would someone like Jesus, for example, be a gnostic? Or is that a blasphemous suggestion for Christians?"
Insofar as Jesus is God, he would have to be a gnostic insofar as he would know the absolute truth. However, even the New Testament suggests paradox about this: the Son (Jesus) does not know when the end of history will come -- only the Father knows. So at least about that, Jesus is agnostic.
"Could he be simultaneously gnostic and divine?"
In the classic sense of "Gnostic", that is a term to denote followers of the Unknown God who have rediscovered His reality by having awoken to a divine spark within them that was given to them by God in some previous time but became overlaid with materiality (including corporeality) which was a nefarious way for an evil lower Demiurge who created the evil Cosmos to "trap" that divine spark in bodies and muffle their memory of their former union with God. Certain sects of classical Gnosticism in fact involved Jesus in their mythology, as some kind of superhuman emissary from that Hidden God come to Earth to re-awaken our memory of that divine spark and our true nature.
"Do we infer from this definition that agnostic designates someone who has not in fact experienced the sort of direct knowledge (gnosis) attained by enlightenment?"
The term "agnostic" has not normally been used to be an antithesis to the common (whether classical or New Age) understanding of "gnostic".
"If that's the way to understand those terms, then I am curious to understand the distinction between 1) reason and gnosis and 2) between gnosis and faith and 3) why gnosticism is considered such a heresy of the Christian faith (why would the experience of gnosis actually constitute a blasphemy or in any way conflict with a faith in Jesus as divine?)."
My distinction of reason and gnosis was following Voegelin who follows Plato and Aristotle and many others (like Chrysippus, Cicero, Plotinus, Philo, etc.). First of all, in this context, “knowledge” is knowledge of the meaning of life and of all the existential questions raised by this. In this understanding, reason (noesis in Greek, ratio in Latin) pertains neither to knowledge by itself nor to lack of knowledge by itself, but to a paradoxical condition in between. The term “gnostic”, by contrast, presumes knowledge. Most forms of gnosticism do not necessarily presume omniscience; in fact, they incorporate ignorance of certain things, mostly about God’s essential nature – but the crucial thing is that they presume knowledge about existential meaning and purpose, origins and destiny of humanity. Faith, by contrast, is an existential posture that accepts the problem of our not having knowledge about the meaning of life, etc., while simultaneously affirming reality, goodness and truth -- which in turn implicitly affirm meaning. Reason in the classic sense (which was assimilated later by medieval Christian philosophers & theologians) is simply intelligence applied to the condition of faith with respect to the in-between of knowledge and lack of knowledge.
As for this ongoing discussion of Atheism, some of the problems or seeming lack of clarity that cluster around this issue revolve around the rather simple-minded habit – both on the part of many theists as well as atheists and agnostics – of rather narrowly anthropomorphizing “god” in one way or another. When the atheist Albert Camus, for example, was waxing lyrical about the exigent existential choice of goodness and truth, he was indicating "god" as much as any reasonable theist is (and there are indications that Camus was becoming aware of this in his later years, by his rediscovery of the reality of the "Mediterranean" -- Greek and Roman -- "gods").
at February 6, 2007 4:17 PM
I can assume then that Derrick does not take issue with what I said then. As for Suyuti, he certainly affirms abrogation (just limits the number to 20) most importantly for non-Muslims, the abrogation of the peaceful verses--as virtually all Muslim scholars attest: "The order for Muslims to be patient and forgiving was issued when they were few and weak, but when they became strong, they were ordered to fight and the previous verses were abrogated." (Suyuti). I also want to take issue with Derrick's blanket statement that Qur'an always trumps Hadith. In fact, traditions of Mohammad can abrogate the Qur'an. Sayuti himself says this. An example is the stoning of a married adulterer. Qur'an calls for scouring and exiling yet Muhammad himself stoned some adulterers and by this tradition stoning the married adulterer and not flogging them has become Islamic law. Because Mohammad said and did so and Mohammad's tradition abrogates the Qur'an. This is the opinion of ibn-Hazm and al-Shafi'i and Shalabi: "God is the source of the ideas whether they are included in the Qur'an or in one of Muhammad's Ahadith which is inspired (by God) and not recorded in the Qur'an."
Confusing, isn't it?
Posted by: Nick Danger at February 6, 2007 5:14 PM
Nick Danger,
If Ahadith can sometimes abrogate certain parts of the Qur'an, that must simply mean that Muslims believe the Qur'an does not contain the entirety of Allah's guidance to mankind; the remainder of it is contained in Allah's final prophet's sayings and deed as recorded in the Ahadith, parcelled out throughout its bewilderingly massive and complex contents. Is there any passage in the Qur'an that would make this simple explanation invalid or contradict the Qur'an itself?
Posted by: remote_control at February 6, 2007 6:03 PM
remote_control: "As for this ongoing discussion of Atheism, some of the problems or seeming lack of clarity that cluster around this issue revolve around the rather simple-minded habit – both on the part of many theists as well as atheists and agnostics – of rather narrowly anthropomorphizing “god” in one way or another."
I really think you've hit the nail exactly on the head there. From Kab's discussion above I have gleaned that many atheists are simply those who reject some sort of anthropomorphism (thanks for that term - its a hell of a lot better than the "little man with the gray beard"), while others who would clearly think of themselves as theists, never had an anthropomorphic conception of God in the first place. So some theists and atheists could actually be on the same page and never know it if they don't understand explicity what the other means by "God". So now besides theism, atheism and agnosticism and every permutation thereof - strong atheism, weak atheism, strong agnosticism, weak agnosticism, agnostic atheism, agnostic theism - every time we use the term theism itself, we need to know - anthropomorphic theism or nonanthropomorphic theism? (Strong anthropomorphic atheism or strong nonanthropomorphic atheism or both? Weak anthropomorphic atheism or weak nonanthropomorphic atheism or both? Strong agnostic anthropomorphic theism or weak agnostic anthropomorphic theism? Strong agnostic nonanthropomorphic theism.....?)
Well - you get the idea...
Also remote - thanks so much for taking the time to spell out the distinctions in those terms. It should go without saying that I'm chewing over your definitions and am intrigued by further questions raised, but I will desist on this thread which some folks have perhaps rightly noted could potentially resemble a college bull session. Certainly my own ignorance isn't helping the matter. Thank God no one's passing reefer around or things could really get out of hand. :-)
Posted by: Caroline at February 6, 2007 6:28 PM
P.S. One more thing: "Certain sects of classical Gnosticism in fact involved Jesus in their mythology, as some kind of superhuman emissary from that Hidden God come to Earth to re-awaken our memory of that divine spark and our true nature."
As I understand it, that would be the gnostic interpretation of the parable of the prodigal son.
P.S.S - remote - out of curiosity, is that "Demiurge" in Gnosticism understood anthropomorphically or non-anthropomorphically? Because that's something I'm really not getting.
(Hey - what can I say - I'm a dead-thread head :-))
Posted by: Caroline at February 6, 2007 6:45 PM
Well the Qur'an commands Muslims to obey Mohammad and make him the judge of all disputes and accept his decisions with full submission. "Whatsoever the Messenger gives you, take it, and whatsoever he forbids, abstain" (Q.59:7) "He who obeys the Messenger has indeed obeyed Allah." (Q.4:80). Allah's guidance would clearly extend to Hadith and to Ijtihad. Being a Muslim is not just beliefs, it is works and deeds which will be measured on the scales of the Day of Judgement.
Even the Five Pillars require Hadith to be practiced.
But then I ain't no scholar.
at February 6, 2007 7:34 PM
Hello
Nick Danger said:
“In fact, traditions of Mohammad can abrogate the Qur'an. Sayuti himself says this. An example is the stoning of a married adulterer. Qur'an calls for scouring and exiling yet Muhammad himself stoned some adulterers and by this tradition stoning the married adulterer and not flogging them has become Islamic law. Because Mohammad said and did so and Mohammad's tradition abrogates the Qur'an. This is the opinion of ibn-Hazm and al-Shafi'i and Shalabi: "God is the source of the ideas whether they are included in the Qur'an or in one of Muhammad's Ahadith which is inspired (by God) and not recorded in the Qur'an."”
Actually, the maxim that ‘text trumps tradition’ is quite known. Although it is quite late and I do not have the source at hand, the logic goes: the Qur’an is infallible, the Hadith is fallible. It is for this reason I call into question the abrogation theory. Further, it has no Qur’anic basis. Abrogation theory post-dates the revelation of the Qur’an by about 160 years. For the abrogationists, they have Q11:1 and Q10:64 to deal with.
Del said:
“Perhaps I am mistaken about your background, or any efforts by you, within the ummah, to oppose supremacism and outer jihad. If so, please correct me, or share examples where you have argued with muslims against the misunderstanderers of islam.”
Yes, I am Muslim. The situation is tough to explain. For one thing, I’m a Muslim student who studies philosophy. Socially such a discipline is considered tantamount to a bum. Thus, my efforts will most likely be overridden given the fact that (i) I am not a traditional scholar and (ii) I dabble in what some classify as ‘kufr’ sciences. (Not that philosophy is a science, but I presume you get the anti-philosophic polemic)
Anyhow, I understand your ambition. I once held the same ambition to rid the Islamic world of fundamentalist thought. However, that can’t be done over night; hell, not even over a decade. My solution is simple: a relentless rebuke of such thought. This rebuke must come from Muslims. I don’t mean moderates who can read the Qur’an in English.
No, rather by Muslims who are not fettered by some social praxis. Muslims who have the backbone to tackle a serious problem and expose it for what it is. This means a radical theological shift away from the traditional thought. And this shift must begin with the Qur’an. Muslims might disagree on the Islamic law, Hadith tradition, and Sunnah, but Muslims agree on the Qur’an. Traditional theology is no longer a live-option, to borrow a phrase from William James. What is needed nowadays is a philosophical theology akin to that found in contemporary philosophy of religion.
I leave with an essay by a Muslim thinker: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=500817&objectid=10367371
Best wishes,
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
at February 7, 2007 2:36 AM
Derrick wrote:
"it [abrogation theory] has no Qur’anic basis."
Yes it does, one traditionally recognized by mainstream Islam: Surah 2:106:
"None of Our revelations [verses] do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?"
The "but" locution there is rather stilted archaic English used by the translators which, when massaged, means effectively (with my "massage" in italics):
"None of Our revelations [verses] do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, except insofar as We substitute something better or similar..."
P.S.: Notice that Derrick admits that he believes the Qur’an is infallible:
"the Qur’an is infallible, the Hadith is fallible. It is for this reason I call into question the abrogation theory."
If the Qur'an is infallible, but Derrick conveniently brackets out whatever Hadiths he doesn't like, Derrick is left with the necessity of creating a new tafsir, since the Qur'an by itself does not yield much coherent sense and has to be interpreted (as all texts have to be). While Derrick is busy creating a new tafsir to replace the mountain of Hadiths that most Muslims slavishly follow to our danger and detriment, I'm sure he won't mind if we Infidels don't just sit on our hands but actively find ways to defend ourselves from Derrick's One-Man Renaissance that may not come to fruition for another thousand years.
at February 7, 2007 5:18 AM
"Isabellathecrusader
I've seen the good that comes out of following the ten commandments and the pain, suffering and destruction that can be wreaked when they are not followed, as I have experienced in my own life and the lives of friends and associates.
“the Protestant ten run as follows: (1) no other gods; (2) no making or worshipping of idols; (3) no taking of God's name in vain; (4) remember the sabbath; (5) honor your father and mother; (6) do not kill; (7) do not commit adultery; (8) do not steal; (9) do not bear false witness; (10) do not covet your neighbor's belongings.”
Source: http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/10c.html
The first three at least, enforced by fundamentalists or extremists, have wrought plenty of pain, suffering, and destruction throughout history. I'm not implying that you interpret the first three in that way, as laws to be enforced, but many people do.
“Do not kill” must be understood in light of other commands to kill people for apostasy, blasphemy, adultery, etc.
“Do not steal” does not seem to be fully understood, in principle, by the people who wrote the Bible. Slavery is among other things a form of theft (i.e., forcefully taking someone else’s time and labour), yet the Bible clearly does not ban slavery as an institution and, indeed, includes mention of slavery in those ten commandments (slaves are regarded as property)."
Posted by: Kab bin Ashraf February 6, 2007 07:14 AM
Hello Kab bin Ashraf, sorry for the delay in my response. My computer was down yesterday.
I didn't say that there haven't been atrocities committed in the name of the Christian religion. I said that I've seen a lot of good come from following the Ten Commandments. So often here I read folks who have a chip on their shoulder regarding Christianity, especially, it seems, Catholicism, who post only the negative and conveniently ignore the positive. That is not honest, nor is it scientific.
Don't you think you would prefer it if I loved you and treated you with kindness, consideration for your feelings and desires, and worked to protect you from harm, rather than demand that you follow the party line and tell you with no uncertainty that I will kill you if you don't? The former are Catholic teachings, the latter, Islamic. The atrocities committed in the name of the Christian religion were more political and as everyone born has freewill to do what they want, sometimes there were Christian leaders who didn't act very Christian. That was an act of disobedience against the faith, not a promotion of it.
Case in point: after Elizabeth I was excommunicated by Pope St. Pius V, she went on a mission to make Protestantism the religion of the land, where only a generation before, England was definitely a Catholic country and the seat of Christendom. Have you ever read about the Catholic Penal Laws, instituted by good Queen Bess?
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-PenalLaw.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11611c.htm
They'll make your hair stand on end. But were they instituted to further the cause of religion? No, they were used in the name of religion, but for very political reasons.
And there is the difference: we here have to stop being lazy about posting just a little information, the information we like, so we can win the point. We've got to search for and reveal the truth if we want to be successful against the onslaught of Islam. Is it not true that the most beautiful cathedrals, breathtaking art, music, literature and chivalric manners came to us when the Catholic Church was at it's zenith? We don't talk much about that nowadays because we seem to want to distance ourselves from that system, but I think that has more to do with rationalizing the crimes we personally commit against ourselves and the church. It is easier to blame it on the church than to look at how we might be personally responsible for the problems going on in our own societies. But that's also why the Muslims are making headway. As we have lost our moral compass and prefer to argue about which belief system is best, systems we don't even follow anyway, the Muslims take more and more ground.
There is no one committing atrocities in the name of Catholicism or Christianity on any sort of wide scale on planet earth in 2007. There are many people committing atrocities on a wide scale in the name of Islam in 2007. The enemy is clearly defined. Let's not make it more confusing by bringing up ancient grievances that haven't been applicable for centuries.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 7, 2007 10:02 AM
Thanks for the clarification, Derrick. I now better understand why you are saying what you are saying. I would be all for reforming Islam into a tolerant, humanistic, secularist, pluralist-embracing creed or that makes religion a private matter with the deity rather than a declaration of war on unbelievers, that renounces the imperial agenda of political Islam, that renounces the apartheid of dhimma, that consigns the 7th century to history with all that entails. That acknowledges and repents of the human suffering caused by all of the above, the human cost of 14 centuries of Jihad and Shari'a. I would applaud any Muslim who stands for such things and who would have the courage to stand up to, say, the Salafists of today. Like remote-control I'm skeptical of such a transformation but all such effort from Muslims is welcome. Like you say, any change in Islam would have to come from within.
I can't help but recall a story Mark Gabriel told about being a student in Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman's class on Quranic interpretation at Al-Azhar University. During the question period Gabriel asked, "Why is it that you teach us all the time about Jihad? What about the other verses in the Qur'an that talk about peace, love, and forgiveness?" Immediately his face turned red, I could see his anger. "My brother" he said "there is a whole surah called 'Spoils of War' there is no surah called 'Peace' Jihad and killing are the head of Islam. If you take them out, you cut off the head of Islam."
Here's one head cutting I'm in favor of.
Posted by: Nick Danger at February 7, 2007 10:36 AM
Correction to my last post (corrected part in bold):
"I'm sure he won't mind if we Infidels don't just sit on our hands but actively find ways to defend ourselves from Islam while Derrick pursues his One-Man Renaissance that may not come to fruition for another thousand years."
Posted by: remote_control at February 7, 2007 12:12 PM
remote,
Thanks for that last (above) comment. Also, Derrick, the Quran says it is a message to all mankind. I guess that means I, a non-Muslim, can read it without Muslims telling me they need them as a guide. If they tell me that, I'll tell them that their Koran overrules them.
Isabella,
“There is no one committing atrocities in the name of Catholicism or Christianity on any sort of wide scale on planet earth in 2007. There are many people committing atrocities on a wide scale in the name of Islam in 2007. The enemy is clearly defined. Let's not make it more confusing by bringing up ancient grievances that haven't been applicable for centuries.”
I agree, which is why I focus nearly all of my criticism of Islam. Otherwise, I would probably not be sufficiently motivated to talk about religion. I reject the Bible due to such orders as to kill apostates, blasphemers, etc.; orders which are not morally acceptable in any age; orders which to my mind are neither wise nor just, however historically circumscribed and regardless of whether or not Christians still follow it. There is a lot of good in the Bible, but that is not unique to the Bible and therefore the Bible is not necessary.
J.S.,
I am aware of the kill vs murder distinction in the translations (some say kill, some say murder), and yes murder is more accurate than kill. However, it doesn’t make any difference in regards to the point that I was making. I was just looking for a quick brief list of the commandments, and that’s the one I found, in a pinch. In any case, do not kill in that context obvious means do not murder; I don’t think anyone was assuming, prior to the updates in the new translations, that the commandment was prohibiting anyone from killing in self-defence.
Regarding the evidence vs. certainty distinction, as far as I can tell everyone here, myself included, knows the difference.
Derrick,
“Firstly, a spaghetti monster is a material object, a physical entity.”
No; as I said, we can specify anything we want about the spaghetti monster. It doesn’t have to be a material object. “Spaghetti monster” is just a wacky phrase someone came up with for this type of argument, perhaps thinking that it was funny. But any properties you assign to God, the advocate of the spaghetti monster can match them.
I didn’t say all conceptions of God were unspecified. Obviously there are numerous conceptions. Omnipotence and omniscience are properties that we can work with in judging a specific God’s morality (as judged by what is described in the text) taking those two assumptions into account.
“For if God exists, then God is the cause of the existence of every contingent being and every being distinct from Himself. Can this be said about the spaghetti monster?”
Yes.
“In fact, an experiential assessment of God might be a visionary one; after all, a vision is an experience.”
Yes, the vision is an experience. There is no contradiction with what I said earlier. The vision is admissible (see my mention of neuroimaging etc.), but it is the interpretation itself that is contentious and therefore in need of additional evidence. For example, if we found that people had visions of a deity who called himself “Jesus,” and that all those persons’ descriptions were reasonably consistent, and these people had not communicated with each other before, and we could be quite sure that they had not read about (or seen pictures of) Jesus before, and that the vision was of Jesus and not someone else, then we would begin to take the hypothesis seriously that people had had visions of Jesus. Does that mean Jesus exists outside of the human brain, as a real deity and not just an idea or image? Perhaps, perhaps not; that’s an additional question that would have to be addressed. And that is the critical question here. Atheists generally do believe that god exists as a concept. The crux of the issue is does god exist as a real entity.
“You’re stacking the deck. God isn’t a theory or hypothesis. You seem to be confusing God and hypotheses.”
No. God is a concept. The claim that God exists is an assertion, which can be treated as an hypothesis. My suggestion was to bring the question of God into the realm of science. Theists often assert that God exists. When they say that, they are intending to say that God really exists. That’s an empirical statement. Many of them go much further talking in detail about how God designed organisms, and so on. But once we try to test that claim (and in doing so, in science, we treat it as an hypothesis), theists tend to back off and they start fudging, saying things like God is not material, etc. God doesn’t have to be material. Light is not material; gravity is not material; electromagnetic fields are not material…yet these are all within the domain of science and empirical study. So where is God?
“Moreover, I couldn’t help pausing at your smuggled term ‘testable’. Big Bang theory and macroevolution are not testable. Testability is not the measuring stick of truth nor is it the sine qua non of good science.”
The term testable was not ‘smuggled’. Testability is not a measure. It is rather a basic requirement of any empirical science. The Big Bang theory and macroevolution are large-scale theories which have been developed as a consequence of much hypothesis-testing of specific empirical questions. The specific hypotheses within them are testable. It is conceivable to propose other large-scale theoretical frameworks, and compare them against the Big Bang theory or macroevolution. One could compare, for starters, which theory has a larger sum of evidence in favour of it. That’s one way we could test them.
Note, however, that tentatively accepting the Big Bang and Macroevolution theories does not require us to violate the known laws of physics and biology. In contrast, to accept any of the major Gods that have been proposed thus far, based on the texts, requires us to believe in several instances where the laws of physics and biology were violated (e.g., miracles, etc.).
“If you want to strike out God, then you must show (i) that His existence is inconsistent or (ii) demonstrate that God is extremely implausible.”
The claim that we are discussing is whether or not god exists. This must be treated as a scientific question, otherwise it is a meaningless, empty claim, and thousands more years will go by with theists and atheists arguing back and forth. Make some specifications and we’ll put them to the test. Give us a time and a place where we can expect to detect god, or give us the conditions for an experiment which will allow us to detect god. Otherwise, stop making the scientific claim that God exists as something more than an idea.
Re hadith abrogating Quran, I agree with you at least on that issue (i.e., that is my reading of Muslim scholars generally). At least, I agree with you on the principle. It gets messy re the verses about stoning because there was allegedly human error in compiling the Quran—some verses allegedly (incl the verses of stoning for adultery) got lost or were eaten by a domestic animal. However, the Quran allows plenty of leeway in asserting that no one may kill except for a just cause, or for punishing spreading corruption on earth, etc. Also, the Koran in multiple places states that it is confirming the Torah and Gospel. The Torah contains the death penalty for adultery (and for that matter apostasy and blasphemy). Hadith fills in these details that are not filled in in the Koran…killing a married person who commits adultery is one of the specifics.
at February 7, 2007 1:52 PM
"I guess that means I, a non-Muslim, can read it without Muslims telling me they need them as a guide."
Should say: "...without Muslims today telling me that I need them to guide me through it."
Posted by: Kab bin Ashraf at February 7, 2007 1:54 PM
Kab bin Ashraf,
"I reject the Bible due to such orders as to kill apostates, blasphemers, etc.; orders which are not morally acceptable in any age; orders which to my mind are neither wise nor just, however historically circumscribed and regardless of whether or not Christians still follow it."
Please show me where it says that in the New Testament, the New Testament that overrides the Old.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 7, 2007 4:35 PM
This response is to Remote:
I am puzzled by your usage of mainstream. When you invoke ‘mainstream’ do
you mean the traditional understanding of Q2:106 or by majority rule? I
find
both cases unacceptable. If by mainstream you mean tradition then that
is a
textbook fallacy of an appeal to tradition. When does tradition become the deciding factor for decoding the Qur'an? Secondly, more often
than
not the ‘tradition’ that you speak of was in disagreement. I made this point to Nick Danger. With such
diversity deeply embedded how are we to discern the proper
meaning
of Q2:106? As for majority rule, most muslims I have run into do not
adhere
to the theory of abrogation. I can’t speak for all muslims in every
geographical location, however. Perhaps you can render a statistic that I
cannot.
You state:
"Yes it does, one traditionally recognized by mainstream Islam: Surah 2:106:
'None of Our revelations [verses] do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?'"
There are two problems I see with your reading. Firstly, I’m not
entirely
sure how you squeeze ‘revelations’ into Q2:106. The Qur’anic lexical rendition for revelation is nazzala (Cf. Q1:25). The word that you translate as revelation is 'ayatin', which is ambiguous. However, the ambiguity need not be a
vice. The
meaning can be discerned through the context of the sura as well as the
syntactical shift in the Qur’an. Earlier I said the meaning of ayatin
in the
Qur’an means message. While that is true, that is merely one lexical
employment
of the term. I went back and read some other verses that use the word
ayat
and envisaged that the word also entails a sign (Q19:10), a miracle
(Q17:101), and a verse (Q38:29). Consider Q43:46-48 (I will leave ayat
untranslated)
“And We have sent Moses with Our ayahs to Pharaoh and his elders
proclaiming: ‘I am a messenger from the Lord of the universe’. When he
brought them our ayah they laughed at him. Every ayah We showed them
was
greater than the one that preceded it.”
If we translate ‘ayat’ as revelation, verse or even message (the
suggestion
I rendered) the verse makes no sense. Such would betray the chronology
of
the events. The Torah was given to Moses after he and the children of Israel left Egypt. So ayat
can’t
refer to revelation nor can it refer to verse, which of course follows
a revelation.
My suggestion of message might work, but that seems choppy and leaves the verse unclear. This can be said for Q2:106 where ayatin appears. Those who see ayatin referring to the Qur'an fail to realize the Qur'an's semantic maneuvers. Anyhow, even after all these acrobatics, when the Qur’an refers to its own verses, it uses al-ayat, not ayatin.
Post script: I admit that my suggestion to Nick Danger that ayatin means ‘message’ is a bit unclear. I relied upon Muhammad Asad’s translation and admit that Asad’s suggestion for message might fall short of explanatory.
Best wishes,
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
Posted by: Derrick_abdulhakim at February 7, 2007 9:25 PM
Nick and Kab...I appreciate your comments.
Nick: Interesting quotes you gave (Suyuti and the Saudi scholar). Spine-chilling if you ask me. Though, you brought up jihad and I wanted to suggest a book. Reuven Firestone, Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). The book is from a Jewish perspective. An interesting read indeed.
As for Kab...this blog might interest you:
http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/posts/1169851433.shtml
Anyhow, back to reading Rene Descartes...
Best wishes,
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
at February 7, 2007 9:44 PM
Thanks Derrick, I have not read Prof. Firestone's book although I did just read something he spoke shortly after 9/11. He closes with this:
"God has been hijacked by terrorists. Islam is not the problem. Terrorism is the problem, and terrorists have hijacked both Islam and God."
Now I emphatically disagree with this and so would most everyone here.
Since this site is devoted to Jihad and the threat it poses I'd like to ask you about Sheikh Rahman's remarks you found spine-chilling. Sheikh Rahman was the head of Qur'anic studies at the most prestigious university in the Islamic world. He is a renowned authority on the Qur'an. Is he wrong? Does he misunderstand the Qur'an? In what way exactly is he "hijacking" Islam? This man became a mentor to bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Is it of no importance that in the instructions given the actual hijackers, there is no reference to politics, not even a mention of the United States? There is only religion, the night before they are told to read: Qur'an surah 8 and 9. They are encouraged to think of themselves like the companions of Mohamnmad in the 7th Century. Now how can one look at that, look at the great scholar Blind Sheikh Rahman and any number just like him, and not conclude Islam hijacked the terrorists?
I'm amazed that no Muslims you've met believe in abrogation since I know of no mainstream scholar who doesn't. Does that mean they believe the Meccan verses: "no compulsion in religion" etc
are applicable regardless of the Medina commands:
fight, kill, slay, subjugate till there is no more fitna and all submit to the religion of Allah alone in the world...or does that mean the Meccan verses are valid when Muslims are weak and the Medina verses are valid when Muslims are powerful and therefore somehow compliment one another?
at February 7, 2007 10:33 PM
Dr. Shalabi, History of Islamic Law p. 115 "The abrogation is to rescind something and replace it with something else, as ibn Hazm said. Muslims in general have consented that abrogation has taken place in the Qur'an as it is clearly indicated in the sound verses." Mohammad often forgot, according to Bukhari, he used to forget some verses and when no one could remind him he claimed they were abrogated. There is an example of two followers who came to him to help them remember some verses he had taught them. He told them the verses had "been abroagted, forget about them!" ibn 'Abbas confirms God used to make Mohammad forget and remove from his heart what he had revealed to him before.
Suyuti talks about another type of abrogation that abrogates the recitation yet retains its provision. Is this not...non-sense?
The only abrogation that concerns us Infidels, however, is the one alluded to in the Suyuti citation, about all the verses that call for peace and forgiveness toward Infidels. These verses are null and void, replaced by other verses which call for war. This is the crux of it, Derrick.
Suyuti "When they became strong, they were ordered to fight and the previous verses were abrogated." Ibn 'Arabi "the verse of the 'sword' has abrogated 124 verses." ibn Juzayy "(9:5) abrogating every peace treaty in the Quran...the ayat encompassed the meaning of the Prophet's words, 'I am commanded to fight people until they say there is no god but Allah and establish the prayer and pay the zakat." Jalalayn "ibn Kathir states that it is not enough to merely find them, but they must be besieged in their strongholds and fortresses. You force them to either be killed or become Muslim." History bears this out.
And we end up with the likes of Mawdudi:
"Islam is not a normal religion and Muslim nations are not like normal nations. Muslim nations are very special because they have a command from Allah to rule the entire world and be over every nation in the world" or Khomeini:
"Those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world."
Feel free to correct them.
Posted by: Nick Danger at February 8, 2007 2:22 AM
Derrick,
"I am puzzled by your usage of mainstream. When you invoke ‘mainstream’ do you mean the traditional understanding of Q2:106 or by majority rule?"
Neither of us will be able to prove our estimation of how prevalent abrogation is in the Muslim world. From what I've read, and from the ex-Muslims I've read and heard, it prevails in Islam now and throughout history; while your view would be the very small minority view.
"If by mainstream you mean tradition then that
is a textbook fallacy of an appeal to tradition. When does tradition become the deciding factor for decoding the Qur'an?"
When you have a culture such as Islam where the authority and influence of tradition is 1,000 times stronger than it is in the modern West.
"Secondly, more often than not the ‘tradition’ that you speak of was in disagreement. I made this point to Nick Danger. With such diversity deeply embedded how are we to discern the proper
meaning of Q2:106?"
1) The proper meaning of any verse is probably unattainable; what matters for us non-Muslims is the most prevalent meaning among Muslims thought to be proper.
2) Diversity isn't monolithic. In a vast entity (like a culture or civilization), some qualities will manifest more diversity and others less. Just because Islam may be diverse in certain respects, doesn't mean it's diverse in every respect. And where there is more, rather than less, uniformity about abrogation in Islam (particularly with respect to the crux Nick pointed out above, the abrogation of putative tolerance & peace in favor of militant supremacy ), then we have a problem Houston.
"As for majority rule, most muslims I have run into do not adhere to the theory of abrogation."
1) Since you are a Muslim, they have no need to adhere to it (with respect to the crux noted above) with you, so you might never have put it to the test, and it might never have come up.
2) Insofar as you might be a convert to Islam, they could be lying to you, to add sugar to Islam before you're ready to know about the fiery hot salsa center.
Re: 2:106 you quoted it then wrote afterward:
None of Our revelations [verses] do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things
"There are two problems I see with your reading. Firstly, I’m not entirely sure how you squeeze ‘revelations’ into Q2:106."
That's not my translation. Pickthall and Yusuf Ali translate ayatin as "revelations"; Hilali-Khan translate it as "verses" and add "revelations" in parentheses; Shakir translates it as "communications"; Sher Ali translates it as "message"; Arberry, Palmer, and Sale all translate is as "verses"; and Khalifa goes for that clever but I think minority (and new) way to get out of the problem by translating it as "miracles" (which you also went on to argue). Since ayatin can have either meaning of "verses" or "miracles", then to convincingly argue for the latter in 2:106, it's not sufficient to merely document that the latter exists in the Qur'an.
"If we translate ‘ayat’ as revelation, verse or even message (the suggestion I rendered) the verse makes no sense. Such would betray the chronology
of the events. The Torah was given to Moses after he and the children of Israel left Egypt."
It would make no sense if ayat, in its former of two meanings, only and strictly means "verses", but the translators I cited above also suggest it has more nuance than one English word would convey -- e.g., "message" and "communications". Though the Torah was given to Moses after these ayat, how is it that Adam was already a Muslim before Moses? Obviously, Allah's "message" must have been around before the Islamic Torah.
"Anyhow, even after all these acrobatics, when the Qur’an refers to its own verses, it uses al-ayat, not ayatin."
I would have to have proof of this to feel convinced. (Odd that a Google search for "quran al-ayat ayatin" yielded 3 results!!! -- one with no ostensible discussion of the matter, another in Portuguese, and the third "server not found". With the millions of results one usually gets for similar searches -- example, a Google search for a reasonably approximate analogue in English, "bible word verses", yields one MILLION and 310,000 results -- it seems very strange that there do not exist thousands of discussions on the Net.)
Posted by: remote_control at February 8, 2007 4:52 AM
Derrick,
"when the Qur’an refers to its own verses, it uses al-ayat, not ayatin."
What about 38:29?
Posted by: remote_control at February 8, 2007 4:54 AM
Derrick,
Thanks for the link. Looks interesting. Nevertheless, I hold the belief that these issues (e.g., question of God's existence) need to be dealt with through observation and experiment, otherwise the discussions go on and on and there is no real progress. All the arguments have been played out and what we need now is new information, new food for thought, which can be provided by science.
Isabella,
I did say Bible, and that includes the Old Testament. Even if those laws were overturned in the New Testament, there is no excuse for them in any context that I know of. Why, then, were they ever made? I know of no clear statements in the New Testament calling for the death of apostates or blasphemers, for example, but there is also no clear rejection of all the old laws. (There is room for interpreting an abolition of the penalty for adultery or fornication). There are statements attributed to Christ in the Gospels to the effect that the old laws are confirmed. That said, I am not worried about Christians implementing the old laws; I am more concerned about Muslims implementing sharia.
Posted by: Kab bin Ashraf at February 8, 2007 6:19 AM
"That said, I am not worried about Christians implementing the old laws; I am more concerned about Muslims implementing sharia."
Me too.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 8, 2007 8:48 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)