Re: Yet another Jefferson quote
- From: "Tony Cox" <tc@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 4 Apr 2006 10:06:42 -0700
Not sure how you're posting, "friend", but your post
here (and the last one) seem to end up at some
arbitrary location within the topic hierarchy...comments
in-line below.
"friend" <hurrah@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1144105043.672925.164850@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
{tc, on the issue of doctrinal vs. legal utility)
Is the Qur'an only to be applied to
one and not the other?
Useful only for interpreting doctrinal
matters but not legal ones perhaps?
To my understanding, doctrinal issues are to be taken from
definite texts, legal rules from both: definite and
non-definite.
My understanding too. The rulings in the various
legal schools derive from several sources, as I understand
it, including the Hadith and even pre-Islamic jurisprudence.
The differences between them are due to the weights these
various sources have.
So the Qur'an *does not* answer all questions in life
now does it? Many here claim it. You apparently do
not. Good for you!
Why is it, that God should
make his wishes known ambiguously, despite the fact that
the Qur'an is "in plain and clear Arabic"?
If you refer to our discussion subject in question, I
absolutely
see no ambiguity therein at all.
No, I was referring to the interpretation of the Qur'an in
general. Do you see ambiguity in the general sense then?
Ah...I see now what you meant!
Let me formulate my answer in a precautionary way:
The Holy Qur'an is written in such way that many verses allow
only one understanding, while others more. The latter may not be
seen as "obscure" or "ambiguous" because whatever people of
Arabia at that time understood was in fact the very concept of -
let's say - any word respct. any outspoken sentence which was
in usage midst their respective
tribe and acted upon this very understanding. Unless, of course,
there was a qur'anic statement [or one from the Sunnah] that
prohibits the use of one or another concept.
I'm trying hard to understand, but you've lost me here. You
seem to be suggesting that any "ambiguity" derives from
differences in dialect. Is that your understanding?
Perhaps your understanding of the Qur'an needs clarification
before we can proceed. I take it as given that you believe it
to be the unadulterated word of God. But do you believe it
to be both complete and applicable to all aspect of human life
(including my "throw-away" example of legal matters)?
Of course, I do.
:-)
I ask because many here *have* argued just that point, and
I'd be most happy to find myself arguing with a Muslim who
is not so dogmatic.
Actually, when we say that the book is complete, this doesn't
mean that all daily problems and every situation are described
therein until the last day. Hence, we have a limited amount of
available "texts". What we really mean, is IMHO, that it contains
several general
and global rules that encompass every situation we are facing
day in day out.
But it doesn't, does it? It doesn't unambiguously provide
you with global rules to establish your moral path. That's
how we got here in the first place!
As for any situation for which there's no clear reference
[either in The Qur'an or The Sunnah or in Companions' consensus],
the way to derive a specific rule from the aforesaid sources has
always been the so called Ijtihad.
My problem with your generalisation is that it refers
to many issues that it's difficult for me to sort out all of them.
That's why I gave you *specific* examples to ruminate
on. For example...
Well, it isn't the question of responsibility that is at
issue. It's
the behaviour of the Iraq Association of Muslim Scholars
and what that says about the relevance of the Qur'an. They
claimed (and the Guardian article is no longer available so I
can't give you a link), when asked to rule on the legality
of beheading hostages, that the issue was "not easy"
and required "profound study".
Ah...I see. The question addressed to those scholars should have
been first whether it's allowed to take hostages, and if so, is
it then allowed to behead them. Now, I think, if they knew the
legal ruling on this matter they ought to give a straight answer
instead of any PC statement.
And that straight answer is? What, exactly? Can
you answer it? It must be in the Qur'an, containing as you've
just said the "global rules that encompass every situation
we are facing". Not this, apparently, although most people
-- Muslim or non-Muslim -- would think the issue hardly
trivial.
Or are you suggesting that ruling *is* clear, but the IAMS
won't give us a straight answer because it'd (presumably)
put people off Islam?
I repeat. If the Association of Muslim Scholars can't find
within the Qur'an an unequivocal prescription of whether
it is legitimate to behead hostages, then thinking people are
bound to ask what use it can possibly have for guiding
mankind.
There's certainly some ruling dealing with that issue, either
allowing or forbidding it.
So you say, but the (apparently respected) IAMS can't
find it. Nor can you. Of those Muslims who claim they can
find one, some seem to think it OK and others not.
Which begs the question. What use is the Qur'an?
Now, if I correctly understand you, you mean if there's no ruling
(at least an apparent one), no Muslim should claim the
completeness of The Qur'an and its validity to guiding mankind.
That is one stance a Muslim could take, which is likely
the easiest. Another is that the Qur'an *is* complete, but
God is perverse - having deliberately lead mankind to
reach different conclusions knowing it would result in
strife. Pick one, "friend".
There is a theorem in formal logic that seems to have
applicability & I'd be interested in your comments. It
is usually referred to as "Godel's theorem", and covers
axiomatic systems and their claims to be both consistent
and complete. The theorem can be stated in a number
of ways, but perhaps the most informative here
is that in any such system which is internally consistent (no
contradictions) one will inevitably be able to construct
questions which are untestable (there is no answer). Or
alternatively, any such system which claims to have no
questions which it cannot answer will inevitably be shown
to be inconsistent.
In such cases, I refer you to my response above related to
the limited amount of the texts and the global and general rules
they encompass.
So you are saying that questions of the highest importance
to us humans -- the legality of beheading innocents -- is
not a subject that God addresses. Rather, we must go to
the works of man to find the answer. God doesn't care one
way or the other. You must be saying this, since we've
already established that the texts you refer to (legal rulings)
reach their different conclusions from the weights they
give to tribal tradition and the Hadith, and the "unambiguous"
interpretation of the Qur'an which of course can be factored
out.
In other words, morality is established by man not God.
Which of course brings us full circle again -- what *use* is
the Qur'an as a moral compass?
{on beheading}
No, I agree with you that it's not trivial at all.
But again, who are these perpetrators and who benefits from
such
crimes?
Does this has any relevance to whether the act itself is
appropriate or not? Of course not! Unless you are saying
that people should be punished to benefit others. Are you
saying that?
No. What I'm saying is that I'm simply not sure who is
committing such things in the name of God!
Oh don't be so obtuse! You know exactly what I'm
asking here. Does the fact that one doesn't know who
the murderer is prevent one ruling on the morality of
murder? Guess I'll never get an answer from you.
It's a war imposed on
Iraq and its people and
I'm rather asking myself who benefits from such acts
independently from the legal ruling of whether taking and
decapitating hostages is allowed or not.
Well, that's another discussion, isn't it? In *this*
discussion, we're talking about the morality of murder
and what the Qur'an has to say about it.
Presumably nothing, or you'd not be so keen to change
the subject!
Does the punishment of the innocent become
legitimate if someone else benefits?
Is this the lesson the
Qur'an is trying to teach us; that the punishment of innocents
ought to be permitted for the benefit of the greater good?
No.
Dear oh dear. The Qur'an seems to be less and less
relevant to this discussion. It's not really living up to
the extravagant claims you had for it which prompted
this whole exchange in the first place, is it?
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but taking female apostasy (for
example), the Hanafi school says that the apostate should
be imprisoned until she reverts while the other schools think
straight-out execution is the punishment. I suppose the
differences
are due to different weights being given the various Hadith,
but
one would have thought that in a matter of life-or-death, God
might have been a little more explicit. Don't you think?
As far as I know, the differences lie on how much time is given to any
apostate to
re-consider his/her position, to discuss with him/her about all
issues. If there is, let's say, 0,00000000001% chance that he's
still a believer, I think (correct me if I'm wrong), most medieval
scholars agree that he should be left alone.
The schools are unanimous about the treatment of male
apostasy (which was why I limited the discussion to female
ones). Far from agreeing that apostates should be left alone,
they all agree that apostates should be killed.
As for God
being less explicit on this issue, I think, He was pretty clear.
Whoever renounces his "faith" will be a looser in this life and
in the hereafter.
A looser of his head, perhaps! Ha!
BTW, do you happen to know how all the schools managed
to ignore God's instruction in 2:256 ("no compulsion in
religion")?
No, I do not think.
Well think now! Why did God reveal this instruction to
mankind, and sufficient other contradictory instructions to
allow all schools of legal thought to be able to ignore it and
still remain theologically pure?
What *use* is the Qur'an? Surely this question must be
in your mind too?
I'm not aware of the Mut'a controversy (my spell checker
changed it to "Mute", so don't think I ignorant of how it is
actually spelled), at least in that it could be interpreted as
a "what your right hand possesses" extension. Is that what
the Shia do?
No, the Shi'a allow temporary marriage, Sunnis do not.
Sorry, I'd got the impression from what you said that the
two were somehow related. Thanks for the clarification.
Where do the Shi'a get the idea that they can get married
for an hour or so? Why is it that the Sunni haven't caught
on? Why can't the Qur'an rule unambiguously here?
Anyway, since many Shia *do* accept it and
you think it is "definitely and strictly haram", don't you
think
that this is a affirmation of my view that the Qur'an is
ambiguous?
Not necessarily. You may derive many rules from one single text
which allows several understandings. Those different
understandings existed already, so it would be inappropriate to
use the word "ambiguity" for the whole Qur'an.
I haven't gone so far as to describe the "whole" of the
Qur'an as ambiguous. But you must admit that *in this
particular instance* it is. Otherwise, how could Muslims --
and I see you have no problem recognizing Shia as
such -- reach different conclusions from you in the
fundamental area of sexual relationships?
Regardless of the Shia perversion, a Sunni could make a case
that a prostitute -- a "slave" for an hour, say -- is not
counted
as a "wife" for theological purposes, and so strictly halal.
Many Sunni apparently do, which again lends support
to the Qur'an being ambiguous.
Huh?
What do you think God meant by "what one's right hand
possesses"? What does it mean in modern times? Answer
that & I think you'll discover what I'm on about.
Nope. Harmony and peace should be the natural state of men,
societies
and nations.
I wish it were so, but its not. The natural state of man *is*
one of strife, and the conflicts that arise therefrom.
Could you please elaborate thereon? I mean, can you explain to me how
the natural state of man is one of strife? Or do you mean it in a
narrow sense or more generally that "evil" is the natural state of men.
I would like to know your opinion.
In a very real sense, all organisms "strive". We are what
we are because we beat out the competition. It happened
when Homo Sapiens beat out the Neanderthal, when the
Arab invaders subdued the population of Sind, and when
the West asserts its will in the Middle East. And, of course,
no doubt the Neanderthal "strove" back, albeit not so
successfully.
I'm not sure I'd describe the cause as "evil"; its just the
way things are.
You said it
yourself immediately above. Religion, if it means anything,
should
do its part in going *against* nature and building harmony
where
there is none and peace where there is war. Religion ought to
be
the nagging "other" that tells those too lazy to work it out
for
themselves that they should be *nice* to each other. Heck, if
the "warm and fuzzy" feeling of being good to folks doesn't do
it, then fear of an eternity of torment might just do the
trick!
My problem with Islam is this. Because of its historical
commingling between the secular and the spiritual, it is
ill-equipped to fit this role.
It is more than a personal
faith;
it is a political movement masquerading as a religion.
I would rather disagree, Islam is a world vision
where politics is a tiny part thereof.
Well, you must have blinkers on then. Muhammad
was so influential because he combined faith with the
instruments of government. The state he founded lived
on as the Caliphate. Even today in the middle east,
political parties form naturally around Islam. It is
a "world vision" as you say, just as communism was
a world vision.
Islam cannot fulfill the role as "the other".
You cannot be "the other" and still expect a role
governing or otherwise compromising your principles when
interfacing with the real world. For governement -- excepting
authoritarian government -- means compromise, and you
can't have compromise when the different factions claim
divine support for their positions. Until more Muslims
recognize
this dichotomy, we've all -- all of us -- got a problem.
I had an interesting discussion with 1MAN before he stopped
talking to me about just this issue. He claimed the appeal of
Islam to him was that it *did* combine all aspects of life.
This,
of course, means there can be no hope for the boy.
Nor for any other Muslim either. Because all Muslim agree upon this
issue.
Islam and secularism are diametrically opposite like Islam and
communism.
That's of course my humble opinion.
How disturbing. Don't you see where this leads?
Militant Islam (and I do mean only *militant* islam) is
attacking
not only the west but also China, India, Thailand, Russia and
of course their own coreligionists in the middle east and
Pakistan.
Islam doesn't appear to be very successful in inoculating
humans from their inherent desire to be beastly, does it? And
*all* these atrocities are committed in the name of God. Your
God. Why do you think that is?
No answer, eh? I'm not trying to trick you or make Islam
out to be bad. I'm trying to illustrate where Islam comes up
short as a religion and what the consequences are.
How hard would it have been for God to have revealed to
Muhammad His plan for the succession -- an Islamic
Salic law if you will -- and so prevented the whole
Sunni/Shia split, for example?
The succession was left to be decided by Muslims alone after the
Prophet passed away. That happened with Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman and
Ali...until Mu'awyya drove the first nail into the Muslims' coffin...so
to speak.
Yes, and after numerous poisonings & other assorted
murders, we saw the Shia/Sunni split that continues to
polarize and weaken the Muslim community to this
very day.
God clearly foresaw this all along, don't you agree?
Really, give what you've said above, how can you
*not* agree?
.
- References:
- Yet another Jefferson quote
- From: friend
- Yet another Jefferson quote
- Prev by Date: 04/04/06 The Free Press: Kato soldier wounded
- Next by Date: Rock and roll - the music of freedom
- Previous by thread: Yet another Jefferson quote
- Next by thread: Re: Yet another Jefferson quote
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
