Circular reasoning and argumentative flaws
Nima Rezai
I think when we as muslims claim that the Quran has neither errors nor any
contradiction we must be very careful.
We should be honest to ourselves that it is circular reasoning if we want to
prove our claims about the Quran by using its own content and pointing to
the fact that "the Quran says...".
Yes, we as believers, most of us already BORN muslims and only very few
converted or chosen freely, are sure that the Quran is indeed from God, but
from the viewpoint of the non-muslim it is absolutely acceptable that they
reject such muslim reasoning.
We have to face this fact and it is laughable if someone starts arguing
against me or any other questioning person by doubting my beliefs firmness,
etc.
There is for instance the regulation or the law of inheritance, and it
really seems that the portions either do not add up or result in more than
what was left for distribution among heirs.
Until now, I dont see anyway how one could explain this "problem"
satisfactory.
So, anyone who goes around and hails the Qurans perfection should do one of
the two following possibilities:
a) explain the critical verse(s)
b) claim and (try to) prove that the "problems" arise from human
preservation and/or modification of the Quran.
Anyone chosing "b" puts his claim in clear contrast to another circular
claim of the muslims, namely that God protects the Quran, because this
stands in the Quran.
The idea that the uthmanic Quran is word by word and without the slightest
change what the prophet revealed is wishful thinking and speculation. There
is no clear logic behind the chronological order, and it is more than
obvious that the order has nothing to do with the true order, in which the
prophet revealed the verses.
I dont see any better alternative that the uthmanic Quran, but this is
secondary.
Fact is that just as simple humans were "able" to change the order of
surahs, it cannot be ruled out that they added something, subtracted
something, changed something, misunderstood something, etc.
The heritage law and the chronological order are only two examples. There
are entire webpages full with alleged quranic errors and contradictions, and
it is only the result of our laziness and arrogance that we ignore this.
I am witnessing more and more that muslims doubt about Islam, the Quran,
islamic history, etc. is increasing.
Lets not deceive ourselves by the fact that due to the generally overaverage
muslim fertility rate the number of muslims is nominally rising.
I am more interested to know about the percentage of intellectual muslims.
Was salam
Nima
abu_abdul...@yahoo.com
>
> I am witnessing more and more that muslims doubt about Islam, the
Quran,
> islamic history, etc. is increasing.
> Lets not deceive ourselves by the fact that due to the generally
overaverage
> muslim fertility rate the number of muslims is nominally rising.
> I am more interested to know about the percentage of intellectual
muslims.
>
> Was salam
> Nima
Mr jochen katz never got back to rebutting Moiz Amjads last response to
him on this issue maybe you would like to help out jochen and respond
to Moiz here :
http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=discussion&did=24&sscatid=89
Altway
"Nima Rezai" <Ni...@ngi.de> wrote
> I think when we as muslims claim that the Quran has neither errors nor any
contradiction we must be very careful.
> We should be honest to ourselves that it is circular reasoning if we want
> to
prove our claims about the Quran by using its own content and pointing to
the fact that "the Quran says...".
Comment:-
I do not find it circular reasoning at all.
I read the Quran several times before accepting as true
and not because it says it is true, but because observation, thought and
meditation revealed that it conforms to reality.
Not only that but it also gives values and sensible solutions to problems.
> There is for instance the regulation or the law of inheritance, and it
really seems that the portions either do not add up or result in more than
what was left for distribution among heirs.
Until now, I dont see anyway how one could explain this "problem"
satisfactory.
Comment:-
What exactly is your problem with this?
I have no problem with them, and have dealt with this question before.
One has to use some perception, insight and intelligence
Here is a previous reply:-
Critic:-
4:11-12,176 gives Inheritance Laws which gives the various parties portions
that combine to more than the amount to be inherited.
Answer:-
They did not find it strange that what they have discovered went unnoticed
by the Prophet and by all Muslim lawyers ever since!
An example is when a man dies leaving three daughters, two parents and a
wife. 2/3 they say goes to the daughters, 1/3 to the parents and 1/8 goes to
the wife, which makes a total of 1 and 1/8. It does not occur to them that
the problem can be resolved by giving the wife 1/8 and the dividing the rest
to the others. In the other example a man dies leaving his mother (who gets
1/3), a wife (who gets 1/4) and two sisters (who get 2/3). This adds up to 1
and 1/4. But the wife can be given 1/4 and rest can be divided. Another way
of calculating things is to add up all portions as follows 1/3=4/12,
1/4=3/12 and 2/3=8/12 which gives us 15/12. The estate is divided into 15
portions and the claimants are given 4, 3 and 8 portions.
Hamid S. Aziz
Zuiko Azumazi
news:3dbsdjF...@individual.net...
<snip> ...
> We should be honest to ourselves that it is circular reasoning if we want
to
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Again, as an observation, it's apparent that many 'one-eyed commentators' in
the contemporaneous, interactive, multimedia Muslim world, have no idea what
'circular reasoning', as a concept, altruistically means. In other words,
they believe that the 'argument in a circle' principle should only be used
to 'demolish' someone else's argument, not our own. Haven't you noticed this
frequent crooked thinking paradigm, say, in SRI, for instance?
Brief synopsis of fallacious 'circular reasoning' at this link:-
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Circular+reasoning
But, then again, what is meant by the 'categorical imperative' in an
illogical world?
--
Peace
--
Act only according to that maxim which you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law. [Kant]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
M.S.M. Saifullah
> I think when we as muslims claim that the Quran has neither errors nor any
> contradiction we must be very careful.
>
> We should be honest to ourselves that it is circular reasoning if we want to
> prove our claims about the Quran by using its own content and pointing to
> the fact that "the Quran says...".
That is fair enough. Circular reasoning is a logical flaw and every
reasonable person would say that this is not the way to argue. As for the
Qur'an do you have any "contradictions" or "errors" in mind which you
think Muslims argue "circularly"?
A great deal of the so-called external contradictions are dealt with at:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/
By external, I mean things related to history which entail that such
"contradictions" can only be shown invalid by using something other than
the Qur'an.
> Yes, we as believers, most of us already BORN muslims and only very few
> converted or chosen freely, are sure that the Quran is indeed from God, but
> from the viewpoint of the non-muslim it is absolutely acceptable that they
> reject such muslim reasoning.
As for Muslims, like any other person, the argument is done on some basis.
What is wrong with that? What is important is to prove one's own
presumptions whether it be from a Muslim or a non-Muslim.
> The idea that the uthmanic Quran is word by word and without the slightest
> change what the prophet revealed is wishful thinking and speculation. There
> is no clear logic behind the chronological order, and it is more than
> obvious that the order has nothing to do with the true order, in which the
> prophet revealed the verses.
Let us assume that the `Uthamic Qur'an is not the word by word
transmission (one wonders what exactly you mean!) as what was revealed to
the Prophet, SAW. Can you gather all the evidence and please show it to
us?
Obviously, we have to start the discussion somewhere and I prefer doing
things piecemeal by piecemeal. You bring your evidence and then we can
examine who is right and who is wrong?
Wassalam
Saifullah
Altway
"Zuiko Azumazi" <azu...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Again, as an observation, it's apparent that many 'one-eyed commentators'
> in the contemporaneous, interactive, multimedia Muslim world, have no idea
what 'circular reasoning', as a concept, altruistically means. In other
words,
they believe that the 'argument in a circle' principle should only be used
to 'demolish' someone else's argument, not our own. Haven't you noticed
this frequent crooked thinking paradigm, say, in SRI, for instance?
Comment:-
But some Muslims and others who attack them have not understood
that glib observations of this kind are not particularly valid or useful.
As an observation it has been shown time and again that:-
(1) What seems a circular argument to one person is not so to another. This
is because the critic was unable to understand the argument and perceive
alternative explanations.
(2) When convenient some people assume that someone else is using a circular
argument and then proceed to try to show that it is. This is itself a
circular
argument. This, of course succeeds in their mind because the assumption
limits perception and excludes certain facts.
(3) Proof does not merely consist of (a) a rational argument, two other
things that are external to it, also apply:- (b) sensory or empirical
evidence
and (c) intelligence, perception and insight.
It has been shown time and again on this very site that from an Islamic
point of view there are these three types or aspects of knowledge.
Circularity occurs when thinking is confined to only one of these.
It is not possible to prove anything to one who lacks the faculty to
perceive or understand the proof. It is likely to be pure self-justification
when he rejects the proof as circular.
(4) At the fundamental level, there must necessarily be circular arguments
because certain assumptions have to be made:- That logic is logical, that
reason
is reasonable that reality is real, that virtue is virtuous.
Consider the argument that lies at the basis of Science:-
Assumption:- All motions continue in the same state unless a force acts to
change this.
Question:- How do you know there is a force.
Answer:- Because there is a change in motion.
Is this different from saying that Allah is the cause of all changes?
And that all forces derive from Him?
It is also possible to argue, and this is done in science all the time,
(1) that one makes an Assumption A,
(2) and then makes a set of inferences I1, I2, I3 etc.
(3) Then proves these through observation and experiment.
If this succeeds then the Assumption is regarded as proved or at
least its probability of being correct increases. If an inference
is disproved then the Assumption is false.
However, it is perfectly possible to invent another theory
to explain why the inference was disproved i.e. something obstructed
or obscured it. This could be true. Or to pick only data that will confirm
and ignore that which contradicts the Assumption. Perhaps there is no
other data. Perhaps the definitions used exclude it or are all
comprehensive.
If for instance we define "Man" as "mortal". The definition excludes
immortality. Then if we do find someone
who is immortal, we would have to use another word to refer to that.
Or one could change the definition as knowledge advanced.
But this is often not the case. We have hidden cicular arguments
in the definitions.
This unfortunately is often the case in the religious arguments
on this site and elsewhere, particularly by those who pride themselves
on being logical, but have only a partial grasp of it.
Hamid S. Aziz
klei...@astound.net
M.S.M. Saifullah wrote:
> Let us assume that the `Uthamic Qur'an is not the word by word
> transmission (one wonders what exactly you mean!) as what was
revealed to
> the Prophet, SAW. Can you gather all the evidence and please show it
to
> us?
>
> Obviously, we have to start the discussion somewhere and I prefer
doing
> things piecemeal by piecemeal. You bring your evidence and then we
can
> examine who is right and who is wrong?
>
I would like to add a few piecemeal remarks:
I do not see how the proposition "The Qur'an in its current editions is
the word by word transmission of what was revealed by God to Muhammad"
can be either proven or disproven. In positivist terms, it is
meaningless.
But, of course, we are not positivists these days. We might be able to
determine that the proposition is more or less plausible.
It seems to be generally agreed that a revelation by God should not
contain errors or contradictions. However, I want to point out that
this is a human assumption. Practically the first statement in the
Qur'an is, "This is the book. There is no "rayba" in it." It is not
certain what "rayba" meant when the second surat was revealed. Ibn
Ishaq felt is was necessary to explain the word and tradition has
accepted the meaning he gave it, "doubt". But doubt is not something
that can be in a book. It is a human psychological state. We need to
resolve in what sense "doubt" is used here.
We can question, as well, what is meant by "this" and "book". If we
accept the tradition about the Uthamnic reclension there was no book in
the literal sense of book (which does not include preserved tablets). I
consider this a minor problem. The major problem is "this". For what is
this claim being made? I believe that a case could be made that "this"
refers to the Surat Al-Baqarat alone. We need to resolve what "this"
refers to.
The modern assumption is that these problem have all been solved and
the claim is that the Qur'an itself asserts that proposition I started
with is true. If it did, then we would indeed have a circular argument.
But as I indicated, in my opinion, the Qur'an makes no such claim.
But, putting all that aside, does the Qur'an contain errors or
contradictions?
By "errors" I mean statements that are contrary to fact (historical or
physical) and by "contradictions" I mean pairs (or larger sets) of
statements
that, viewed logically, assert both "P" and "not P" for some
propostion.
A possible example of a contradiction would be the inheritance rules. A
possible example of an error would be the first sentence of 4.92 "And a
believer would not kill a believer except by mistake" which I believe
is, these days, being falsified on a daily basis in Iraq.
In a piecemeal post like this I cannot offer answers. Only questions.
Perhaps someone else can offer answers.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:d5232d$ivk$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
<snip> ...
> But some Muslims and others who attack them have not understood
> that glib observations of this kind are not particularly valid or useful.
(1) What seems a circular argument to one person is not so to another.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Of course, everyone is entitled to express an opinion, make idiosyncratic
assumptions, or interpretations, about the 'circular reasoning' conceptual
device, but is this just another 'argumentative flaw' to cloud the issue?
What is the common understanding of the nature of the conceptual 'circular
reasoning' device in the modern Islamic world? Do Muslims naturally use this
conceptual device differently from everyone else? If so, why do they call it
'circular reasoning', if they don't understand it as a conceptual logical
device? Is the system of 'Logic', taught as an academic discipline in
Islamic universities, in it's fundamental practise and principles different
from everywhere else?
General information can be found at this link:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning#Circular_argument
Extract:-
A circular argument is one which assumes the very thing it aims to prove; in
essence, the proposition is used to prove itself, a tactic which in its
simplest form is not very persuasive. For example here is an attempt to
prove that Paul is telling the truth:
Suppose Paul is not lying when he speaks.
Whoever speaks and is not lying is telling the truth.
Therefore, Paul is telling the truth.
These statements are logical, but they do nothing to convince one of the
truthfulness of the speaker. The problem is that in seeking to prove Paul's
truthfulness, the speaker asks his audience to assume that Paul is telling
the truth, so this actually proves "If Paul is not lying, then Paul is
telling the truth."
End extract.
Isn't this explication of what 'circular reasoning' is, generally accepted
by most Muslim intellectual or otherwise?.
But, then again, shouldn't Muslims discover and decide for themselves, what
is "valid or useful" in this context? But, is the 'how to think' ability,
not 'what to think', the essence of proper 'reasoning'?
However, paraphrasing, as you glibly pointed out, at the beginning, "What
seems 'effective reasoning' to one person is not so to another". Don't these
kind of vacuous assumptions always lead to woolly and crooked thinking? Is
that what we need to 'understand'?
--
Peace
--
We should not be ashamed to acknowledge truth from whatever source
it comes to us, even if it is brought to us by former generations and
foreign peoples. For him who seeks the truth there is nothing of higher
value than truth itself [al-Kindi 801-66]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Nima Rezai
> Critic:-
>
> 4:11-12,176 gives Inheritance Laws which gives the various parties
> portions that combine to more than the amount to be inherited.
>
> Answer:-
>
> They did not find it strange that what they have discovered went
> unnoticed by the Prophet and by all Muslim lawyers ever since!
>
> An example is when a man dies leaving three daughters, two parents
> and a wife. 2/3 they say goes to the daughters, 1/3 to the parents
> and 1/8 goes to the wife, which makes a total of 1 and 1/8. It does
> not occur to them that the problem can be resolved by giving the wife
> 1/8 and the dividing the rest to the others.
Unfortunately the solution you offer here is only speculation and not at all
obviously to be derived from the Quran, but let us examine this "case
study":
the Quran says: "... then if they are more than two females, they shall have
two-thirds of what the deceased has left... " (Shakirs translation 4:11)
Notice that the condition is "of what the deceased has left". There is no
word of dividing the remains of what the deceased has left. Talk is about
the entire available inheritance before any reductions.
the Quran further says: ".. and as for his parents, each of them shall have
the sixth of what he has left if he has a child.." (Shakirs translation
4:11). Again, this division is not instructed to happen after any previous
reductions or sharings.
So, by this time the daughters will get 2/3, while the parents receive 2 x
1/3, adding up to 3/3=1.
Now, there is no more 1/8 available for the wife. 1/8 of zero is zero.
To demonstrate the error in your solution, lets take an example with real
numbers: We have an inheritance of 800 $ to share.
According to you, the wife is first given 1/8, meaning 100 $, so that 700 $
remain.
Then the daughters get 2/3, which is 466.67 $, while the parents get 1/3,
meaning 233.33 $.
The Quran does not say that for instance the parents should get 1/3 of what
remains after the wife has received her 1/8 share.
Now, lets see what percentage of the total sum the parents and the daughters
receive:
466.67/800 is 58.33% which is less than 2/3 (66.67%), and 233.33/800 is
29.16% which is less than 1/3 (33.33%).
At the same time 100/800 (the wifes portion) is indeed 1/8 (12.5%).
If the Quran is to be understood word by word as it is available, this is a
clear mathematic error, which cannot be whitewashed by deliberate human
interpretation of the verses.
The islamic lawyers have never solved this problem. They have ignored it or
allowed wild speculative understandings.
Nima
Joubin Houshyar
Does a man have obligations only to blood and contract?
Sum is < 1 and the "problem" is 'conjecture' based on NOTHING in the
Qur'an.
Bring the verse that says The sum total of the fractions herein must
sum to ONE.
"And these are the LIMITS set by ALLAH"
So do not exceed the limits, Nima jaan.
And do not enter into Proseletyzing discourse with doubters until you
stand on FIRM GROUND OF FAITH, Nima jaan.
To do otherwise is to invite doubt upon your self, and perhaps lend
credence to a view of excessive self-regard.
And the case of > 1 is quite simple:
It does not say 'compute in this way'. It sets limits. One way of
computing results in error. Another way works. ?Just WHO? would
insist that *both ways* are equally valid?
?
It is called Belief. It is called Belief for a reason :) No, it does
not mean ANTI-rational. But it does mean Belief.
A believer would find the insistence on the 'validity' of a
'computation' based 'only on Qur'an' that ignore a 'valid possibility'
["because it is un-spoken"!] rather odd.
It seems that one has 2 distinct Rational Choices here:
a - I am not a believer. I am a doubter -- minimally seeking fatal
flaws. Whenever I see the 'possibility' for 'error' I will latch on to
it.
b - I am a Believer. This does not mean I am irrational. Whenever I
see the possibilities for either Error or Truth, I choose the way that
is True.
"And Seek the Best of Meaning Therein".
And that IS Written, Mr. Rezai.
BTW, The Qur'an maintains resolutely, without leaving much room for
'wiggling', that it is "arranged" and "preserved" by no less than God
Himself.
If you think there is any 'mathematical' error in The Qur'an, do
yourself a favor and drop Islam. If The Qur'an contains a tiny error,
just even a tiny tiny tiny error, then it should be thrown away.
Anything other than that is simply hypocrisy.
This the "book that makes things clear".
Only fools and charalatans have use for erronuous Texts that self-claim
"infalible guidance".
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1114972850.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> In a piecemeal post like this I cannot offer answers. Only questions.
> Perhaps someone else can offer answers.
Comment:-
Can anyone offer adequate answers to doubts about revealed religious dogma,
Islamic or otherwise? For if 'dogma', is a religious doctrine that is
proclaimed as true without proof, no amount of 'reasoning' or
'argumentation' can suffice, simply because (positivistic) 'proof' is a
redundant term. In this assumptive sense, if there is no doubt there are no
questions, which is, in and of itself, a form of circular argument that
requires 'begging the question' (petitio principii).
But, then again, I'm as flawed as the next man!
--
Peace
--
It takes a long time to acquire the art, but life is short, the crisis
rapid, experimentation dangerous, the cure uncertain. [Hippocrates: The
first Aphorism]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Nima Rezai
> As for
> the Qur'an do you have any "contradictions" or "errors" in mind which
> you think Muslims argue "circularly"?
Salam alaikum Dr. Saifullah,
Yes, I wrote it in my first posting. One major pillar of muslim arguing is
the permanent pointing at the perfection of the Quran and the "fact" that
the Quran has not received the slightest manipulation due to "divine
protection". Now, this "divine protection" as written in the Quran is
nothing that any neutral "outsider" would instantly recognize. And as far as
perfection is concerned, this claim cannot be upheld, when people challenge
the logic of some verses. In my posting I referred to the apparent
mathematical errors of the law of inheritance.
My personal explanation is that the divine text has not been preserved
correctly. I dont say that there has been an intentional manipulation, but I
think the strict ruling out of the possibility that the text could have been
manipulated (for example by using incorrect diacritic marks) is wishful
thinking.
>
> A great deal of the so-called external contradictions are dealt with
> at:
>
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/
I know that site. It is really good, but my concern are the "internal"
problems. I dont want to use the word "contradiction".
>> The idea that the uthmanic Quran is word by word and without the
>> slightest change what the prophet revealed is wishful thinking and
>> speculation. There is no clear logic behind the chronological order,
>> and it is more than obvious that the order has nothing to do with
>> the true order, in which the prophet revealed the verses.
>
> Let us assume that the `Uthamic Qur'an is not the word by word
> transmission (one wonders what exactly you mean!) as what was
> revealed to the Prophet, SAW. Can you gather all the evidence and
> please show it to us?
It IS ALREADY proven, that the order of the uthmanic Quran is definitely not
the order of the original revelation of the surahs. What do you need beyond
this?
Was salam
Nima
M.S.M. Saifullah
> If the Quran is to be understood word by word as it is available, this is a
> clear mathematic error, which cannot be whitewashed by deliberate human
> interpretation of the verses.
> The islamic lawyers have never solved this problem. They have ignored it or
> allowed wild speculative understandings.
Thanks for your kind demonstration of your mathematical abilities. Please
can you also demonstrate in the form of a reference or two which says that
the Islamic lawyers were never able to solve the "problem"?
Wassalam
Saifullah
M.S.M. Saifullah
> I do not see how the proposition "The Qur'an in its current editions is
> the word by word transmission of what was revealed by God to Muhammad"
> can be either proven or disproven. In positivist terms, it is
> meaningless.
But who is talking about positivism here and is it connected to
positivism. We are talking about history which can be verified in looking
at the sources of the history.
> Qur'an is, "This is the book. There is no "rayba" in it." It is not
> certain what "rayba" meant when the second surat was revealed. Ibn
> Ishaq felt is was necessary to explain the word and tradition has
> accepted the meaning he gave it, "doubt". But doubt is not something
> that can be in a book. It is a human psychological state. We need to
> resolve in what sense "doubt" is used here.
As I said, if you want to say something we would like to know the evidence
where Ibn Ishaq said it, and how come tradition "accepted" the meaning as
"doubt". And to remind you, we are not talking about psychology here
either. The word and meanings attached to it is the area of lexicography
not psychology.
> We can question, as well, what is meant by "this" and "book". If we
> accept the tradition about the Uthamnic reclension there was no book in
> the literal sense of book (which does not include preserved tablets). I
> consider this a minor problem. The major problem is "this". For what is
> this claim being made? I believe that a case could be made that "this"
> refers to the Surat Al-Baqarat alone. We need to resolve what "this"
> refers to.
Sura al-Baqarah is a not a book. Sura does not mean a book in Arabic
either. What is your point anyway? The Islamic tradition does say that
Arabic as a written language existed during the advent of Islam and it was
used to write the Qur'an on parchment, bones, etc. So, the origins of
Qur'an as a "kitab" are before the `Uthman recension.
> A possible example of a contradiction would be the inheritance rules. A
> possible example of an error would be the first sentence of 4.92 "And a
> believer would not kill a believer except by mistake" which I believe
> is, these days, being falsified on a daily basis in Iraq.
On the contrary the verse 4:92 is about prohibition of killing a believer.
And if a believer kills another one accidently a compensation is due. How
is this "error" a possible example? Kindly enlighten.
Wassalam
Saifullah
A Hirsi
>My personal explanation is that the divine text has not been preserved
>correctly.
Repent and seek forgiveness from Allah. You wanted to name your son
after
a football player and asked the meaning of the football player's name.
Now this is a big leap to start questioning Allah's book without any
knowledge whatsover.
I suggest you stay in calmer waters and stick to learning Islam before
you question
Allah's inimitable book, The Holy Quran (Quranil Karim, Quranil Majid).
A Hirsi
Fariduddien
abu_abdul...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Mr jochen katz never got back to rebutting Moiz Amjads last response
to
> him on this issue maybe you would like to help out jochen and respond
> to Moiz here :
>
>
http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=discussion&did=24&sscatid=89
You can also see Moiz Amjad's original article here...
http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=article&aid=14
I also wrote a comment on this once... You can see my comment here:
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
From: "Fariduddien Rice"
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:11:05 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Wed,Jan 29 2003 2:11 pm
Subject: Re: Islamic Rules of Inheritance
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/22dbe60d793eac02
Here is an excerpt of my comment, which might be relevant to the
discussion...
***Begin Excerpt***
It seems that the interpretation he presents depends on a different
interpretation of a particular phrase in Qur'an 4:11....
Moiz Amjad gives a translation of a part of 4:11 as
"...in case there are only daughters, more than two shall have
two-thirds of what has been left behind."
He interprets "what has been left behind" to mean what has been left
behind *after the inheritance has already been distributed to prior
inheritors* (which he interprets to be the spouse and the parents).
It would then follow that this interpretation would also hold for
other children and siblings - that the calculation of their proportion
of inheritance comes *after* the distribution of inheritance to the
spouse and parents.
The more standard interpretation is instead that it's "two-thirds of
the inheritance" (A. Yusuf Ali), i.e. of the whole inheritance. All
the translations I've looked at so far translate it with this meaning.
I don't know Arabic so I can't comment on the validity of one
interpretation over another.
However, Muhammad Asad translates this part of 4:11 as
"...but if there are more than two females, they shall have two-thirds
of what [their parents] leave behind...."
The bracketed part shows that "[their parents]" is a translator's
interpolation - which seems to leave open the possibility for the
alternative interpretation suggested by Moiz Amjad....
Perhaps if nothing else this shows the limitations of depending on a
translation, since it is pretty much impossible to disentangle the
underlying meaning of the text in the original language from the
translator's interpretation of the text.
***End Excerpt***
Asim Mehmood further said that Moiz Amjad's interpretation is not
dependent on the particular phrasing (as I had suggested), but could be
seen from another fact...
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
From: asimmehm...@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 23:00:19 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Fri,Jan 31 2003 3:00 pm
Subject: Re: Islamic Rules of Inheritance
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/f48dc7e70734bb11
***Begin Quote***
This distinction of the above link is supported by the Quran. The
parents and the spouses are the primary inheritors and this is evident
from the fact that the Quran stipulates their shares based upon
whether they have children or they do not have children.
It would be redundant to assume that the Quran would mention this
after the children have already been distributed their share.
***End Quote***
Perhaps some might find this useful...
Fariduddien Rice
(Speaking for myself)
Altway
<klei...@astound.net> wrote
> I do not see how the proposition "The Qur'an in its current editions is
the word by word transmission of what was revealed by God to Muhammad"
can be either proven or disproven. In positivist terms, it is meaningless.
It seems to be generally agreed that a revelation by God should not
contain errors or contradictions. However, I want to point out that
this is a human assumption. Practically the first statement in the
Qur'an is, "This is the book. There is no "rayba" in it." It is not
certain what "rayba" meant when the second surat was revealed. Ibn
Ishaq felt is was necessary to explain the word and tradition has
accepted the meaning he gave it, "doubt". But doubt is not something
that can be in a book. It is a human psychological state. We need to
resolve in what sense "doubt" is used here.
Comment:-
I think there is some confusion here owing to false assumptions.
The Quran is being judged as if it were
a text book containing "facts" in the Western sense of the word,
something apart from human beings who perceive it.
I regard it as something that speaks at a higher level where facts, meaning
and value
are unified
The Quran is a guidance concerned with human perception, behaviour and
development.
Much of it is concerned with instructions and with creating conditions
psychological and social in which certain experiences can be obtained and
behaviour can be channelled. It is more a work in applied psychology the aim
of which is the actualisation of potentialities, particularly the
stimulation the dormant consciousness, conscience and will.
We are required to read the Quran according to the instructions contained in
it in order to reap the benefits it promises.
The intellectual, logical or Academic arguments about its validity are
wholly irrelevant.
Hamid S. Aziz
Fariduddien
> A possible example of a contradiction would be the inheritance rules.
As someone else already pointed out, this seems to be well answered by
Moiz Amjad's article on this topic. You can find it here...
http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=article&aid=14
I also wrote a comment on this once in SRI... You can see my earlier
post here...
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
From: "Fariduddien Rice"
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:11:05 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Islamic Rules of Inheritance
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/22dbe60d793eac02
> A
> possible example of an error would be the first sentence of 4.92 "And
a
> believer would not kill a believer except by mistake" which I believe
> is, these days, being falsified on a daily basis in Iraq.
Perhaps you're not aware of the precise meanings of "Muslim", "Mu'min"
("Believer"), and "Munafiq" ("Hypocrite") in the Qur'an.
To cut to the chase, "Muslim" refers to one's outward state. So someone
who says they are a Muslim, and give indications in line with that, IS
a Muslim.
On the other hand, "Mu'min" ("Believer") and "Munafiq" ("Hypocrite")
refers to people's "inward" states.
A "Mu'min" ("Believer") is one who has sincere faith in Islam. A
"Munafiq" ("Hypocrite") is one who makes an outward show of being a
Muslim, yet does not really believe in it.
So - a "Mu'min" and a "Munafiq" are both "Muslims" - but a "Muslim" is
not necessarily a "Mu'min".
The word used in 4:92 is "Mu'min" ("Believer").
So, you can't say this verse is "falsified on a daily basis in Iraq"
unless you are able to see into the sincerity of everyone's faith.
That's something no person can do, since a person's inward state is
only surely known by Allah.
If the verse used the word "Muslim" rather than "Mu'min" - you might
have a point. But it used the word "Mu'min", not "Muslim".
Nima Rezai
"Fariduddien" <farid...@sunnipath.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> So - a "Mu'min" and a "Munafiq" are both "Muslims" - but a "Muslim" is
> not necessarily a "Mu'min".
>
> The word used in 4:92 is "Mu'min" ("Believer").
>
> So, you can't say this verse is "falsified on a daily basis in Iraq"
> unless you are able to see into the sincerity of everyone's faith.
> That's something no person can do, since a person's inward state is
> only surely known by Allah.
A question:
What do you think personally?
Do you think the killings of (mainly Shia) muslims by Zarqawi and his gang
is NOT against Islam until someone proves that the victims were not only
muslim, but also "Mu´min"?
Or do you think that the murderers are not Mu´mins because they killed
people without having proven that those were fake muslims or "Munafiqs"?
Who is obliged to prove anything in this case?
Is it justified to claim that the murderers are acting against Islam?
Greetings
Nima
Arden
We should be honest to ourselves that it is circular reasoning if we want to
the fact that "the Quran says...".
"Zuiko Azumazi" wrote :-
> (1) What seems a circular argument to one person is not so to another.
<snip> ...
> Of course, everyone is entitled to express an opinion, make idiosyncratic
assumptions, or interpretations, about the 'circular reasoning' conceptual
device,
Comment:-
I do NOT believe that any Muslim bases himself on a circular argument.
Faith is not an intellectual, logical, academic argument at all.
Many Muslims acquire the belief in the Quran because of their up-bringing
or because they have been taught by their parents or teachers or the
society and culture they live in
(just like all other people acquire their various beliefs),
but this is certainly no circular argument.
Others think, observe, ponder, pray and practice disciplines and acquire
their beliefs in that way.
Others have experiences of varying degrees of profundity that lead them to
their certainties.
The idea that proof is an entirely verbal logica exercise is quite clearly
absurd.
But, of course, there are also persons who are stuck in a rut and trapped in
their own prison of prejudices or habits of superficial thought and cannot
see beyond that and cannot or do not wish to understand.
H.A.
Altway
"Nima Rezai" <Ni...@ngi.de> wrote
>> They did not find it strange that what they have discovered went
unnoticed by the Prophet and by all Muslim lawyers ever since!
>> An example is when a man dies leaving three daughters, two parents
and a wife. 2/3 they say goes to the daughters, 1/3 to the parents
and 1/8 goes to the wife, which makes a total of 1 and 1/8. It does
not occur to them that the problem can be resolved by giving the wife
1/8 and the dividing the rest to the others.
> Unfortunately the solution you offer here is only speculation and not at
> all
obviously to be derived from the Quran, but let us examine this "case
study":
Comment:-
You call it speculation, but others call it a solution of the problem.
Do you really think that the Prophet or his companions were unable to see
the anomally if there was one?
In my opinion the Quran is there to make one think, to draw attention, to
arouse
awareness, conscience and will, not to spoon feed.
If, however, people wish to be negetivistic and see or create problems then
there is not
much that can be done about that. Others try to solve problems.
> the Quran says: "... then if they are more than two females, they shall
> have
two-thirds of what the deceased has left... " (Shakirs translation 4:11)
Notice that the condition is "of what the deceased has left". There is no
word of dividing the remains of what the deceased has left. Talk is about
the entire available inheritance before any reductions.
Comment:-
You are interpreting this as meaning "two-thirds of EVERYTHING of what the
deceased
has left.." That is not in the text.
> the Quran further says: ".. and as for his parents, each of them shall
> have
the sixth of what he has left if he has a child.." (Shakirs translation
4:11). Again, this division is not instructed to happen after any previous
reductions or sharings.
Comment:-
As above.
> So, by this time the daughters will get 2/3, while the parents receive 2 x
1/3, adding up to 3/3=1.
> Now, there is no more 1/8 available for the wife. 1/8 of zero is zero.
Comment:-
No. Divide what is left by 24, then 2/3 + 1/3 + 1/8 = 16/24 + 8/24 + 3/24
Total = 16 + 8 + 3 = 27 shares.
Then give the 16 shares to the daughters (8 each),
8 shares to the parents (4 each)
3 share to the wife.
> To demonstrate the error in your solution, lets take an example with real
numbers: We have an inheritance of 800 $ to share.
According to you, the wife is first given 1/8, meaning 100 $, so that 700 $
remain.
Then the daughters get 2/3, which is 466.67 $, while the parents get 1/3,
meaning 233.33 $.
Comment:-
For convenience take $ 810 to be inherited.
Divide this by 27, we get 30 $ per share
Give give the daughters 16x30 = 480 $ (240 $ each)
Give parents 8x30 = 240 $ (120 $ each)
Give wife 3x30 = 90 $
Total 480 + 240 + 90 = 810 $
> If the Quran is to be understood word by word as it is available, this is
> a
clear mathematic error, which cannot be whitewashed by deliberate human
interpretation of the verses.
Comment:-
I do not agree.
The question is "word by word" by whom.
It was certainly not interpreted the way you are interpreting it in the
past,
otherwise the error would have been seen.
But if you are saying that the Quran should not be interpreted
unintelligently
"word by word" in a naive literal sense then I agree.
Hamid S. Aziz
Nima Rezai
news:Pine.HPX.4.58L.0...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk...
> Thanks for your kind demonstration of your mathematical abilities.
You are welcome. It was only elementary mathematics.
> Please
> can you also demonstrate in the form of a reference or two which says that
> the Islamic lawyers were never able to solve the "problem"?
Brother, I am afraid you have decided to detract from the issue.
I am a learner in a very early phase, and some reactions here to my
questions demonstrate some immaturity on the part of the poster(s). 1400
years have passed, and I had hoped there would be a single good explanation
for this obvious mathematical dilemma after so many years.
More and more TV programs, websites and books are taking notice of some
"critical" or "controversial" aspects in our religion and in our holy book,
and I think it is a weak approach to ignore questions, ridicule "doubters"
or grasp the shortest available straws in order to detract from serious
questions.
Brother Joubin says the inherited portions do not necessarily have to add up
to 100%. Fine, but still I dont understand how 100+x% of a total 100% should
be shared.
Now, since some fellow muslims here pointed at the article by brother Moiz
Amjad, I read that article, and unfortunately I found it to be unconvincing.
My dissatisfaction is based on the following reasons:
1) Mr. Amjad seems to indicate that none of the 4 schools of Fiqh has ever
used his approach/interpretation. Question: Why has this never happenned, if
this is apparently the only plausible explanation or instrumentalization of
the law of inheritance?
2) The entire aspect of creditors is irrelevant, if the division of shares
is going to be done after paying back any deceased persons debts. If such a
person leaves the amount of X, and his debts total sum is a lower amount
"X-Y", then the relevant object of later division among any categories of
inheritors is [X-(X-Y)]. We could call the result of this operation Z, but
in any case this Z is a new 100% or 1/1 which is to be shared among
inheritors. It does not play a role at all how and whay X turned to Z.
3) Mr. Amjads "theory" regarding the "two categories of inheritors" is
obscure. From where does he derive this conclusion? He only says: " A close
analysis of these verses shall show that according to this law, there are
basically two kinds of inheritors ". Well, to be accurate, there are
actually four kinds of inheritors: the parents, the spouse, brothers/sisters
and the children.
What leads Mr. Amjad to the claim that the socalled "second category",
namely the children are supposed to get their share AFTER the members of the
"first category" received their portions?
I repeat once again the quranic verse(s), using the Shakir translation:
"...then if they are more than two females, they shall have two-thirds of
what the deceased has left... ". This is 4:11 obviously talking about
children.
Where is it said that the female children should receive 2/3 of what has
been left after the parents and the spouse got their share?
Where in 4:11-12 or 4:176 is it said that the parents and the spouse should
be given their shares BEFORE children, and that the children have only a
claim to parts of what remains after the former received their share?
Mr. Amjads entire argument is based on this unproven claim. It is amazing
that none of the brothers here noticed this flaw, while some were busy
recommending this article.
Instead of getting angry or mocking me SCI posters should rather try to
enlighten me and educate me.
Nima
Nima Rezai
> Repent and seek forgiveness from Allah.
I seek forgiveness from Allah but not because I could not understand the law
of inheritance.
Maybe Allah should forgive all those people who failed to teach and explain
this law to me properly.
Furthermore I seek guidance from Allah.
> You wanted to name your son
> after
> a football player and asked the meaning of the football player's name.
I dont have a son, and if I had one I would not call him Ronaldo, Pele or
Beckenbauer.
You are confusing me with someone else.
Regards
Nima
Nima Rezai
> "Nima Rezai" <Ni...@ngi.de> wrote
>> So, by this time the daughters will get 2/3, while the parents
>> receive 2 x
> 1/3, adding up to 3/3=1.
>
>> Now, there is no more 1/8 available for the wife. 1/8 of zero is
>> zero.
>
> Comment:-
> No. Divide what is left by 24, then 2/3 + 1/3 + 1/8 = 16/24 + 8/24 +
> 3/24 Total = 16 + 8 + 3 = 27 shares.
> Then give the 16 shares to the daughters (8 each),
> 8 shares to the parents (4 each)
> 3 share to the wife.
I admire your phantasy and I respect your efforts to explain this law to me.
In summary your solution for making 27/24 become 1 (or 24/24) is reducing
the value of every share from 1 to 24/27 or 0.88888.... In this case 27 x
0.88888... indeed adds up to 1.
But you are violating the quranic law because for instance 16/27 (the total
share of the daughters) is less than 2/3 which the Quran has determined for
them.
If we start interpreting the Quran this way, then the entire spectrum of
islamic law should be reviewed (and its current application challenged).
> Comment:-
> I do not agree.
> The question is "word by word" by whom.
> It was certainly not interpreted the way you are interpreting it in
> the past,
> otherwise the error would have been seen.
I think the same as you, but I am very interested to know how this law was
understood in the past, especially during the time of the rightly guided
Caliphs.
>
> But if you are saying that the Quran should not be interpreted
> unintelligently
> "word by word" in a naive literal sense then I agree.
Good. We agree on this point.
Nima
Zuiko Azumazi
news:Pine.HPX.4.58L.0...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk...
Did not appear in SRI.
<snip>
> ... Please can you also demonstrate in the form of a reference or two
> which says that the Islamic lawyers were never able to solve the
"problem"?
Comment:-
One can agree that many Muslims tend to forget the practical nature of legal
administration within the Islamic law. Take, for instance, the inheritance
rights of hermaphrodites, vertical and horizontal (?), and jinn? In, one
way, it just proves that Islamic lawyers have the remarkable ability,
singular acuteness and ingenuity, which establishes appropriate legal
precepts from even the most obscure and bizarre circumstances.
Reference this link for details (246 hits):-
--
Peace
--
To illustrate a principle, you must exaggerate much and you must omit much.
[Walter Bagehot]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Arden
> > the Quran says: "... then if they are more than two females, they shall
have two-thirds of what the deceased has left... " (Shakirs translation
4:11)
Notice that the condition is "of what the deceased has left". There is no
word of dividing the remains of what the deceased has left. Talk is about
the entire available inheritance before any reductions.
the Quran further says: ".. and as for his parents, each of them shall
have the sixth of what he has left if he has a child.." (Shakirs
translation
4:11). Again, this division is not instructed to happen after any previous
reductions or sharings.
So, by this time the daughters will get 2/3, while the parents receive 2 x
1/3, adding up to 3/3=1.
Now, there is no more 1/8 available for the wife. 1/8 of zero is zero.
>You are interpreting this as meaning "two-thirds of EVERYTHING of what the
deceased has left.." That is not in the text.
Comment:-
The Quran says there are no contradictions in it.
So why cannot Muslims who presumably accept the Quran as a revelation
from God, accept this and proceed to interpret things in it in a manner that
is not contradictory.
Can they really be Muslim if they do not accept the statements in the Quran?
I know Nima Rezai and others would say that here is an example of circular
reasoning - that the Quran says there is no contradiction in it. But why do
they
think it is circular reasoning?
Is it not an instruction as to how should be read? Was it not written to be
understood that way? Why is it impossible for them to understand this?
I think the reason for this is that many Muslims have become confused as a
result of Western education and apply modern Western forms of thinking,
literal technical language to the Quran that was written in quite another
mode
of thought.
Muslims in the past do not appear to have had the same difficulty as some
modern Muslims have.
H.A.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> And as far as perfection is concerned, this claim cannot be upheld, when
people
> challenge the logic of some verses.
Comment:-
>From a concerned Muslim perspective, the inherent flaw with this form of
argumentation is that it opens the doors of other faiths based on revelation
(i.e. communication of knowledge to man by a divine or supernatural agency).
For instance, how do Muslims respond to Christianity and Judaism if they
willingly adopt the petitio principii (logical fallacy)? Can we
altruistically refute what the Bible or the Torah says if it tell us (and it
does) that their 'truth' is the 'truth' because it says so, conclusively, in
the Bible or Torah? Where does this leave Islam and Muslims if the circular
argument is reversed? Are our claims to knowledge, therefore, deemed invalid
or equally flawed? If not, as you have said, how do we uphold our claims?
Zuiko Azumazi
news:42774...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
<snip> ...
> I do NOT believe that any Muslim bases himself on a circular argument.
Comment:-
In what realm does the 'circular argument' (petitio principii) exist? Does
it exist in the 'conscious' mind of man qua man? Is it not just a
philosophical tool, or device, of 'logic' that guides reasoning within a
given field or situation, Islamic or otherwise? If so, can it legitimately
be used by Muslims in their everyday lives to discover fallacy in
argumentation (such as yours and mine, for instance)? Or, is its use
proscribed by Islamic law? Therefore, can Muslims legitimately use other
'logical' tools and devices, such as, law of parsimony, etc.?
What makes you believe (assert) that your opinion is correct on what other
Muslims believe as the bases (i.e. the fundamental assumptions underlying an
explanation) of their particular reason for having faith? Isn't this another
form of circular argument that begs the question, or is it just a matter of
'speculative' taste?
To paraphrase, is this the expository 'NOT' we are referring to:-
""Why are we concerned about nothing? The nothing is rejected by science and
sacrificed as the unreal. Science wants to have nothing to do with nothing.
What is nothing? Does the nothing exist only because the not, i.e. negation
exists? Or do negation and the not exist only because the nothing exists? We
maintain: The nothing is more primitive than the not and negation. We know
the nothing. The nothing is the simple negation of the totality of being.
Anxiety reveals the nothing. The nothing itself nots." [Martin Heidegger].
> Faith is not an intellectual, logical, academic argument at all.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
But, one could argue, doesn't this logically apply to all 'faiths' equally,
that are based on revelation, Islamic or otherwise? Can't Muslims
legitimately use polemical 'logic' to defend or attack its rivals in the
apologetics arena?
For the historical record, are we now saying that Islam was never reconciled
with 'Aristotelian logic' (i.e. Greek philosophy) before the doors of
'ijtihad' were closed? If not, what were all the great Islamic mediaeval
scholars erudite works about on this particular subject? Again, is this
'truth' or 'opinion', inherited 'attitude' a flaw or not?
But, beware, do most Muslims believe that "Islam is a mosaic ... of
extraordinary doctrinal diversity", as the signature goes? Perhaps, they
should respond, or make up their own minds independently?
--
Peace
--
Allah is one but Islam is a mosaic. The Muslim world is a linguistic tower
of Babel, an ethnic patchwork, a geographical puzzle and a political
kaleidoscope offering a picture of extraordinary doctrinal diversity.
[Slimane Zéghidour]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Fariduddien
Nima Rezai wrote:
> What do you think personally?
[...]
> Is it justified to claim that the murderers are acting against Islam?
It seems very clear to me that intentionally killing innocent civilians
in war is Islamically prohibited.
For example, see these web pages...
http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00004476.aspx
(part of http://www.sunnipath.com )
http://webpages.marshall.edu/~laher1/TERRORISM.HTML
(part of http://webpages.marshall.edu/~laher1/ )
I hope that helps!
Wassalam,
Altway
"Nima Rezai" <Ni...@ngi.de> wrote
>> No. Divide what is left by 24, then 2/3 + 1/3 + 1/8 = 16/24 + 8/24 +
3/24 Total = 16 + 8 + 3 = 27 shares.
Then give the 16 shares to the daughters (8 each),
8 shares to the parents (4 each)
3 share to the wife.
> I admire your phantasy and I respect your efforts to explain this law to
> me.
In summary your solution for making 27/24 become 1 (or 24/24) is reducing
the value of every share from 1 to 24/27 or 0.88888.... In this case 27 x
0.88888... indeed adds up to 1.
Comment:-
This is nonsense.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that they are proportions
relative to each other and
not absolute numbers?
If I say 1/2 = 2/4 = 3/6 etc. I do not mean that 1 = 2 =3
I can theoretically divide a whole into any number of parts
>> But if you are saying that the Quran should not be interpreted
unintelligently "word by word" in a naive literal sense then I agree.
> Good. We agree on this point.
Comment:-
It does not seem so. You are proposing that there are contradictions
in the Quran and that it is based on circular arguments.
Whereas I am saying that these are only in the mind of the critic.
Hamid S. Aziz
Joubin Houshyar
and share[n] < r[n-1].
"Limits" not to be exceeded.
(Doesn't say anything about not to reduce.)
R[0] = The Whole of inheritence after all debts are paid
R[i] = R[i-1] - Share [i].
Share [i] > R[i-1].
How to express this?
One possibility:
"from that which is left take a [fraction]".
Share[i] then is the 'fraction' multiplied by the Remainder of the
previous step, or, "of that which he left".
Above algo. reduces (*obviously*) the "absolute limits" (such as 2/3)
and then this brings us to the question of 'order' of deductions and
the document left by the deceased regarding the inheritance he leaves
behind -- I believe this is called "the Will" and "must be written" by
deceased.
(It *doesn't* say in the Qur'an that the deceased should write the will
'before' dying. Hay! "Another" "error" in the quran ...)
" Allah charges you, concerning your children:
to the male the like of the portion of two females,
and if they be women above two, then for them two-thirds of what he
leaves,
but if she be one then to her a half;"
So this is an algebraic formulation, with 'x' being "the portion of
female", and we are solving for what to leave for the 'male'.
Together, their overall portion is the 'x' of another equation, this
one regarding the relation of the LIMITS of shares according to
generation (Parents, children, Spouses).
(Omar Khayam, a Genius of Mathematics, who invented highly complex
algebraic systems was quite familiar with the Qur'an. 2/3 + 1/2 > 1
was not a mystery, nor was it un-noticed, I assure you.]
Now this 'reading' seems to never diminish the inheritence completely.
R[n] > 0 always.
What to do?
Now I just read on answering-islam (on this very topic) a very
interesting hadith (which I can't find just now).
Paraphrasing:
Somebody asked the prophet SAW someone died, one daughter no other,
what to do with the rest, and Prophet said give it to the nearest male
relative.
end.
I do not know of any hadith where anyone has gone to the prophet and
asked him 'we followed the intructions and we've ran out of
inheritance. what to do?'
Nima Rezai
> Comment:-
> The Quran says there are no contradictions in it.
> So why cannot Muslims who presumably accept the Quran as a revelation
> from God, accept this and proceed to interpret things in it in a
> manner that is not contradictory.
What about people who are not Muslim but interested in Islam? These people
are told that there is no contradiction in the Quran because the Quran is
from Allah. These people then see the law of inheritance, make some
calculation based upon "regular" mathematics and encounter a "problem".
At this phase these people are not Muslims yet. Is this a sin that people
ask questions?
If Allah uses another, unknown science of mathematics, then how should
simple humans perform any mathematical operations when they are unaware of
that other science?
Is anybody here able to refer to a case, where the law of inheritance was
applied in the way brother "Altway" describes?
> Can they really be Muslim if they do not accept the statements in the
> Quran?
Yes, every believer has the right to ask questions. A belief that cannot
defend itself against peoples questions is surely not divine. And if Muslims
dont have answers to these questions, it does not mean that God has also no
answers.
> I think the reason for this is that many Muslims have become confused
> as a result of Western education and apply modern Western forms of
> thinking, literal technical language to the Quran that was written in
> quite another mode
> of thought.
THIS is not true. At least not in my case. It is not "western" logic if I
add 1+1 and expect its outcome to be 2.
The accusation of westoxification is a typical method to denounce the
questioner.
N.
Altway
"Nima Rezai" <Ni...@ngi.de> wrote
>> The Quran says there are no contradictions in it.
So why cannot Muslims who presumably accept the Quran as a revelation
from God, accept this and proceed to interpret things in it in a
manner that is not contradictory.
> What about people who are not Muslim but interested in Islam? These people
are told that there is no contradiction in the Quran because the Quran is
from Allah. These people then see the law of inheritance, make some
calculation based upon "regular" mathematics and encounter a "problem".
At this phase these people are not Muslims yet. Is this a sin that people
ask questions?
Comment:-
If they are told that there are no contradictions in the Quran as it says
and things should be interpreted in a non-contradictory manner,
then they will either accept this or not.
If you tells them there are contradictions then they will reject it.
> Is anybody here able to refer to a case, where the law of inheritance was
applied in the way brother "Altway" describes?
Comment:-
That is one way of interpreting this without contradictions.
Another way is to take out one portion and divide the rest.
I understand that Algebra was originally invented or discovered
to solve the inheritance problem.
>> Can they really be Muslim if they do not accept the statements in the
Quran?
> Yes, every believer has the right to ask questions. A belief that cannot
defend itself against peoples questions is surely not divine. And if
Muslims
dont have answers to these questions, it does not mean that God has also no
answers.
Comment:-
No, if you do not go by the Quran you are not a Muslim,
"Whoever will not judge by what Allah has revealed, these are the
disbelievers......Whoever judges not by what Allah has revealed,
these are the wrong-doers" 5:44,45
But you can certainly interpret it in various ways.
Asking questions is certainly required, as long as you are willing
to accept the answers.
But no one can accept the answers if they start with the assumption that
the Quran contradicts itself.
Perhaps, it is your contention that the Quran has not been preserved.
But that too is denied by the Quran. That statement can also be taken as
implying that the Quran, even if altered, is exactly as it should be.
>> I think the reason for this is that many Muslims have become confused
as a result of Western education and apply modern Western forms of
thinking, literal technical language to the Quran that was written in
quite another mode of thought.
> THIS is not true. At least not in my case. It is not "western" logic if I
add 1+1 and expect its outcome to be 2.
The accusation of westoxification is a typical method to denounce the
questioner.
Comment:-
That is not what I see you doing.
You are adding one apple to one orange to make 2 pears.
We are speaking about proportions and you are speaking about
absolute numbers. 1/8 and 2/3 can be proportions with respect to each
other rather than fractios of some unknown whole.
It is typical for the questioner who wishes to stick to his false
presuppositions
to find ways of rejecting the answers. It does not occur to them that
when questions are based on false presuppositions then there cannot be
answers.
Perhaps the question was meant not as a question but as an assertion
designed
to support their presupposition.
Hamid S. Aziz
klei...@astound.net
M.S.M. Saifullah wrote:
> On the contrary the verse 4:92 is about prohibition of killing a
believer.
I did not say that 4.92 was an error. I said it was a POSSIBLE error.
It appears to state that a believer will not kill a believer
intentionally.
I believe that, in the real world, we can easily observe people who
claim to be believers intentionally killing other people who claim to
be believers. This is, unless explained, an error, in the sense I was
using the word error.
If I understand you correctly your explanation for the apparent error
is that 4:92 does not state that "a believer will not kill a believer
intentionally" but rather applies to the case where a believer kills a
believer unintentionally (as, indeed, the rest of 4:92 does).
Some, perhaps most, commentators have explained the verse as meaning
that anyone who kills a believer intentionally is, in fact, not a
believer, regardless of what they claim. 4:93 goes on in more or less
the same vein sending whoever kills a believer intentionally to Hell.
The commentators seem to assume that such a person must, a priori, be a
disbeliever.
The commentators' explanation is logically plausible, but raises a
significant practical problem. How, then, do we determine who is, in
fact, a believer? Is the only test whether they kill another believer
intentionally? This may not be a theological problem, but it is surely
a real life one.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> ... Is this a sin that people ask questions? ...
Comment:-
Yes, unfortunately, some Muslims consider it a 'sin', especially if they
can't coherently answer them.
> If Allah uses another, unknown science of mathematics, then how should
> simple humans perform any mathematical operations when they are unaware of
> that other science?
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Following the above 'sin' line mentality (i.e. the not invented here
syndrome), then the universal rules 'mathematics' must be wrong! But, would
Muslims, as a general rule, call this crooked thinking?
> The accusation of westoxification is a typical method to denounce the
> questioner.
Comment:-
What's the famous Greek adage, 'if you don't like the message, kill the
messenger', isn't that a veiled ad-hominem, but, also, is that a unbeknown
Western trait that some Muslim 'crooked thinkers' have wilfully, or, is it,
sinfully, adopted?
--
Peace
--
Examine what is said, not him who speaks. -Arabic Proverb
Zuiko Azumazi.
azu...@hotmail.com
Arden
Re: > > ... Is it a sin that people ask questions? ...
> Yes, unfortunately, some Muslims consider it a 'sin', especially if they
can't coherently answer them.
Comment:-
The usual self-righteous attack on Muslims based on lack of knowledge
and discrimination! Hardly worth answering, but.....
Zuiko, as usual has confused three different things because of superficial
verbal similarity :-
"Question" is used in three different senses:-
(1) To ask because one wants an answer.
(2) To express doubt because one is not sure that a particular
interpretation is correct.
(3) To destructively criticise based on ones own contrary opinions,
prejudices or assumptions. Some people ask questions not because they want
answers but because they want to promote their own opinions or prejudices.
(1) Muslims do not think that the first is a sin, but regard it as an
obligation in order to seek knowledge.
(2) Some Muslims who seek knowledge may question sectarian or traditional
beliefs or practices. This is not regarded as a sin either.
(3) As a Muslim is, by definition, one who surrenders to Allah and accepts
the Quran as the Word of God it is a sin for him to reject it.
But I do not suppose Zuiko will see this.
H.A.
Arden
"Nima Rezai" <Ni...@ngi.de> wrote
> What about people who are not Muslim but interested in Islam? These people
are told that there is no contradiction in the Quran because the Quran is
from Allah. These people then see the law of inheritance, make some
calculation based upon "regular" mathematics and encounter a "problem".
At this phase these people are not Muslims yet. Is this a sin that people
ask questions?
Comment:-
Asking questions is not a sin if they want answers.
But you are saying that they are not Muslim because they have doubts.
That is exactly what I am saying : they are not Muslim.
>> Can they really be Muslim if they do not accept the statements in the
Quran?
> Yes, every believer has the right to ask questions. A belief that cannot
defend itself against peoples questions is surely not divine. And if
Muslims
dont have answers to these questions, it does not mean that God has also no
answers.
Comment:-
Yes you must ask questions if you do not know and wish to know.
In fact it is an obligation for Muslims to acquire knowledge.
But not all Muslims have answers to all questions. They do not then
say that because they have no answer the Quran is not divine.
The name "Muslim" refers to those who submit to Allah.
You appear to be saying: That they can be Muslim even if they
reject the Word of Allah - i.e. contradict the Quran that there are
no contradictions in it.
Or is it that you are saying that only Allah knows how the Laws
of inheritance are to be applied.
If that is the case, it is still contradicting the Quran seeing that these
Laws were meant to be applied by human beings.
>> I think the reason for this is that many Muslims have become confused
as a result of Western education and apply modern Western forms of
thinking, literal technical language to the Quran that was written in
quite another mode of thought.
> THIS is not true. At least not in my case. It is not "western" logic if I
add 1+1 and expect its outcome to be 2.
Comment:-
But it is true, because by applying this you have reached a conclusion
that there are contradictions in the Quran which it denies.
Your thinking is not, therefore, the same as in the Quran.
It is not a question of applying the rule 1+1=2, but a question
of misapplying a rule, or applying a rule incorrectly, or applying an
inappropriate rule.
H.A
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1115401196.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> ... How, then, do we determine who is, in
> fact, a believer? Is the only test whether they kill another believer
> intentionally? This may not be a theological problem, but it is surely
> a real life one.
Comment:-
What you have highlighted is the ubiquitous 'verbal problem' over the way
that people use the insoluble term 'believer'. What is a 'true believer' in
the mind of a fanatic, isn't it another fanatic who thinks in the same
ideological manner? If so, everyone else, not so narrowly classified, then
becomes a 'unbeliever' target, simply because they have been legitimately
demonised.
What the Qur'an says and what fanatics, who kill, rationalise as being
'ideologically' legitimate is mutually exclusive. Doesn't this deplorable,
life or death, fact have all the hallmarks of a flawed argument in a circle?
Is violent fanaticism an ideology that, in and of itself, has become the
orientation of choice, which characterises the thinking of the 'true
believer' vanguard in the Muslim community (e.g. Iraq)? Is this a socially
patterned defect determined by Islamic culture?
--
Peace
--
An ideology is a body of widely held but false beliefs that has the effect
of making practice and institution that is not legitimate seem so. [T.
Eagleton - "Ideology- An Introduction"]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> > Yes, unfortunately, some Muslims consider it a 'sin', especially if they
> > can't coherently answer them.
> The usual self-righteous attack on Muslims based on lack of knowledge
> and discrimination! Hardly worth answering, but.....
<snip>...
Comment:-
How many pious Muslims (e.g. Taliban or Salafis - no offence) have assailed,
or attacked, other Muslims for the 'sin' of straying from the 'true' path
(as they see it)? Are the pious not normally self-righteous? But, is this a
fact, or expressed, "lack of knowledge and discrimination hardly worth
answering"?
"But", as you say (in another recent thread), "Beware, Islam requires truth
not opinion." have you now given up on that idea? Or is this response just
another matter of idiosyncratic taste that jumps to a false conclusion?
> Zuiko, as usual has confused three different things because of superficial
> verbal similarity :-
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Like "self-righteous" and being "pious" you mean?
> "Question" is used in three different senses:-
Comment:-
Let's look at "Question" objectively by citing this independent reference
source link:-
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/question
Now, for the discerning SRI subscriber, can the "Question" word, in truth,
only be used in "three" senses as is being postulated? Is this not an
oversimplification?
<snip> ...
> (1) Muslims do not think that the first is a sin, but regard it as an
> obligation in order to seek knowledge.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Are you inferring , for example, that the Taliban, or other pious movements,
aren't Muslim?
> (2) Some Muslims who seek knowledge may question sectarian or traditional
> beliefs or practices. This is not regarded as a sin either.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Are you inferring, for example, that the Sunni and Shia, don't regard each
others diverse Islamic doctrines as being 'sinful'?
<snip> ...
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> But you are saying that they are not Muslim because they have doubts.
> That is exactly what I am saying : they are not Muslim.
Comment:-
Surely, if a Muslim is using the Qur'an, as a guide to the straight path,
then by definition, he must be unsure about what God intended, as a motive
to correct action, or behaviour, in some verses? Isn't that the purpose of a
guide (i.e a model or standard for making comparisons)? How can comparisons
truly be made without questions? And why would a Muslim ask a question if
there were no doubt, or if he already knew the answer? Would Muslims, as a
general rule, say that any scholar who has written a commentary on the
Qur'an wasn't unsure about the meaning of some verses and inherent concepts?
Otherwise, what motivates such commentaries? Were these expository writers,
who produced these often erudite works, not in a state of being unsure of
something, and, if so, weren't they in some doubt about guiding correct
interpretation? Again, if they, have given answers, in their erudite Muslim
commentaries, are they, in fact, really asking questions? Therefore, haven't
we arrived at another fallacious form of an argument in a circle?
But, are they not Muslims?
--
Peace
--
The most perfidious manner of injuring a cause is to vindicate it
intentionally with fallacious arguments. [Friedrich Nietzsche]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Arden
"Zuiko Azumazi" <azu...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> The usual self-righteous attack on Muslims based on lack of knowledge
and discrimination! Hardly worth answering, but.....
> How many pious Muslims (e.g. Taliban or Salafis - no offence) have
> assailed,
or attacked, other Muslims for the 'sin' of straying from the 'true' path
(as they see it)?
> "But", as you say (in another recent thread), "Beware, Islam requires
> truth
not opinion." have you now given up on that idea? Or is this response just
another matter of idiosyncratic taste that jumps to a false conclusion?
Comment:-
As I said: hardly worth answering...
Zuiko is making excuses for not seeking knowledge
and trying to rationalise and find justification for ignorance, bias,
prejudice and bigotry.
Those who seek knowledge know that they do not have it or have only partial
knowledge.
H.A.
Nima Rezai
> Can we altruistically refute what the
> Bible or the Torah says if it tell us (and it does) that their
> 'truth' is the 'truth' because it says so, conclusively, in the Bible
> or Torah? Where does this leave Islam and Muslims if the circular
> argument is reversed?
The problem, Zuiko, is that most if not all of us were born and raised
muslim long before we were mature enough to think, compare, ask questions,
etc.
I am now 32 years old, and I am a muslim. In fact I was already muslim
before I had read the Quran, Hadith or islamic history.
I dont know what had happened if I had grown up in a secular society with
hardly any emphasis on religion, reading Kant and other philosophers. I am
not so sure that I would have been "convinced" instantly upon reading the
Quran, etc.
It is maybe like Martial Arts, where pupils first learn to listen and
perform and later they understand the spiritual background, the meditation
and the reasons behind this and that.
I enjoyed the Quran after I was already a muslim, but today I say I can
understand those current atheists or "doubters" or at least non-muslims who
raise questions about this or that.
Nima
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> As I said: hardly worth answering...
Comment:-
Which begs the question: 'But you did, didn't you?' Which, in reverse, tells
us that it's worth a response, or is that incorrect? What can Muslims learn
from this equivocal stance? Does this ambiguity, in fact, emphasise the "not
seeking knowledge" ambit? Does this proposition lead to straight or crooked
thinking? Do Muslims as a 'general rule' always want the last word when
their idiosyncratic tastes are being challenged? Should Muslims not follow
the proverbial advice contained in the age-old "Examine what is said, not
him who speaks"? Should Muslims exclusively pursue knowledge (means) or
ultimate wisdom (ends)?
What if, as a 'general rule', all Muslims resorted to unexamined name
calling, such as mentioned, for example, in this thread, "trying to
rationalise and find justification for ignorance, bias, prejudice and
bigotry"? Are there any examinable Islamic facts in this emotional diatribe?
Is this a sensible Muslim response? Does this rhetorical narrow-mindedness
garner respectful resonance in the Islamic community? Is this incorrigible
leadership the "alternative way" to Muslim understanding and being
understood? Should all Muslims reduce the level of sensible debate to these
self-opinionated, dyslogistic, terms?
But, is it, worth sensibly examining the opening proposition: "As I said:
hardly worth answering..."? Perhaps, if one wants to ironically pursue the
despicable 'wisdom of fools' in "circular reasoning and argumentative flaws"
way, one could argue.
Enough said. But, is this the last word? I doubt it!
--
Peace
--
A leader is best
When people barely knows that he exists
Not so good when people obey and acclaim him
Worst when they despise him
[Lao-Tzu "The Way of Life"]
Zuiko Azumazi.
azu...@hotmail.com
Altway
"Nima Rezai" <Ni...@ngi.de> wrote
> It is maybe like Martial Arts, where pupils first learn to listen and
perform and later they understand the spiritual background, the meditation
and the reasons behind this and that.
I enjoyed the Quran after I was already a muslim, but today I say I can
understand those current atheists or "doubters" or at least non-muslims who
raise questions about this or that.
Comment:-
"The dwellers of the desert (or desert Arabs) say: We believe. Say: You
believe not, but rather say, 'We submit'; for faith has not yet entered into
your heart; and if you obey Allah and His Messenger, He will not diminish
aught of your deeds; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." 49:14
This, no doubt, applies also to others.
It is the discipline that creates the conditions in which faith can develop.
This is so in all aspects of Education.
The scientist, for instance, attains faith after the discipline of learning
by practice.
The cause for a person entering a religion can be tradition, upbringing,
prejudices, social conditioning something that accidentally appeals to him,
experiences, reasoning etc, anything, but none of these are faith.
Faith refers to a kind of confidence on which behaviour is based.
It is connected with the "Being" of a person and requires transformation.
Hamid S. Aziz
Zuiko Azumazi
Salaam Nima,
> The problem, Zuiko, is that most if not all of us were born and raised
> muslim long before we were mature enough to think, compare, ask questions,
> etc.
> I am now 32 years old, and I am a muslim. In fact I was already muslim
> before I had read the Quran, Hadith or islamic history. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
These are classical Muslim dilemmas for which there is no single answer.
> I don't know what had happened if I had grown up in a secular society with
> hardly any emphasis on religion, reading Kant and other philosophers. I am
> not so sure that I would have been "convinced" instantly upon reading the
> Quran, etc.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
There is, if you like, a prepossession (parti pris), or missing link,
element here in the fact that one would have to believe in the existence of
God (i.e. necessary being), before reading the Qur'an. We often forget or
neglect this fact.
Kant advocated, in his often dense works (i.e. three major "Critiques" -
these are not light bedtime reading) , a forceful 'critique of pure
theoretical reason, which, in and of itself, is not overtly anti-religious
or un-Islamic. However, in so doing, he does 'demolish' many of the
'metaphysical' arguments given by the mediaeval philosophers in their works!
<snip> ...
> I enjoyed the Quran after I was already a muslim, but today I say I can
> understand those current atheists or "doubters" or at least non-muslims
who
> raise questions about this or that.
Comment:-
Why do people disbelieve? Now, if I had the conclusive answer to that
perennial and insoluble problem, I probably would be superhuman. But, I
agree, that we need to understand as well as being understood, it just makes
plain common-sense in a troubled world.
As an aside, you may want to visit this link which gives a reasonable
synopsis of various "Logical Fallacies", which includes your original
subject heading, "Circular reasoning and argumentative flaws".:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies
--
Peace
--
It takes a long time to acquire the art, but life is short, the crisis
rapid, experimentation dangerous, the cure uncertain. [Hippocrates: The
first Aphorism]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Arden
>> As I said: hardly worth answering...
> Which begs the question: 'But you did, didn't you?' Which, in reverse,
> tells
> us that it's worth a response, or is that incorrect?
Comment:-
I said: HARDLY worth answering
> What if, as a 'general rule', all Muslims resorted to unexamined name
calling,
Comment:-
Not name calling, and not unexamined,
but remarks based on observation of facts.
Is the Quran 2: 2-10 indulging in name calling?
But you are making me stray from the point.
The original point was that the Quran requires the pursuit of knowledge
and not opinion.
H.A
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> Not name calling, and not unexamined,
> but remarks based on observation of facts.
Comment:-
What 'observed' Islamic facts? Isn't this another active demonstration of
the petitio principii? As if unspecified "observations" that are
subjectively selected are somehow independent of judgement (i.e. the
cognitive process of reaching a decision or drawing conclusions)? So, what
"facts", in reality, were being selectively examined in your "remarks" (i.e.
a statement that expresses a personal opinion or belief)? Are your "remarks"
essentially different from any other Muslim? If not, how do you offset the
fallacy implicit in your response?
But, where in the corporeal Islamic world, is a "remark" not an expressed
"opinion"?
Mike
Zuiko Azumazi wrote:
snip
>
> Comment:-
> There is, if you like, a prepossession (parti pris), or missing link,
> element here in the fact that one would have to believe in the
existence of
> God (i.e. necessary being), before reading the Qur'an. We often
forget or
> neglect this fact.
> Comment:-
> Why do people disbelieve? Now, if I had the conclusive answer to that
> perennial and insoluble problem, I probably would be superhuman. But,
I
> agree, that we need to understand as well as being understood, it
just makes
> plain common-sense in a troubled world.
>
Perhaps part of the problem is with the word 'belief'. To believe
seems to imply I don't 'know', I just believe. When I 'know', it
beomes a certainty but until then it is just an 'good' idea. If I am
brought up with a belief (and we can believe in anything), at some
stage in my life I may question its validity and through laziness I may
slip to the other extreme and 'disbelieve' and perhaps expect others to
prove to me otherwise.
There are two other words often associated with religion - hope and
faith. Hope, I understand, comes form a similar source as the word
'open' and I see it as being open to the possibility of a Divine Being,
Allah i.e. I neither believe nor disbelieve. 'Faith' is 'spiritual'
persistence. This is needed to remove the mountain of doubts.
Metaphysics seems only to add to the confusion of thoughts and counter
thoughts and may have the effect of draining the energy out of Faith.
It may serve to calrify the questions but it doesn't seem to have
provided a definitive answer. It seems to me that moving beyond the
metaphysical to metanoia (beyond mind) is needed. It is here where
mental turmoil ends and inner stillness begins. Inner stillness is
peace. I know little about your religion but doesn't the word Islam
contain the word 'peace' in it and is not surrendering in that peace
the same as surrendering to Allah? Is there anything in the Qu'ran
that teaches -how- to surrender?
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1115884227.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> Perhaps part of the problem is with the word 'belief'. To believe
> seems to imply I don't 'know', I just believe. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Most, if not all, people, Muslim or otherwise, who subscribe to SRI use
"belief" as a source or 'claim to knowledge' [Not only 'p' must be true: we
must believe that 'p' its true.] This with few exceptions, if you like, is
called 'religious belief'.
Widely defining "belief", in and of itself, can ultimately leads to an
infinite regression, that often results in a circular argument, which leads
us nowhere. These other kinds of 'belief' which we can disregard
However, generically, 'claim to knowledge' methods are somewhat restricted
in number (i.e. sense-experience, reason, authority, intuition, revelation,
and faith) see these links for an overview:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=belief+versus+religious+belief&spell=1
> There are two other words often associated with religion - hope and
> faith. ... 'Faith' is 'spiritual' persistence. This is needed to remove
the mountain
> of doubts.
Comment:-
If you are using hope in a Christian context then its a virtue not a claim
to knowledge, per se. However, faith does, if appealed to, say in this
context, "I believe through faith, and this faith gives me knowledge".
However, if this is invoked to establish any claim it would, if accepted,
establish the conflicting claims of rival 'faith-based' religions as well.
> I know little about your religion but doesn't the word Islam
> contain the word 'peace' in it and is not surrendering in that peace
> the same as surrendering to Allah? Is there anything in the Qu'ran
> that teaches -how- to surrender?
<snip>
Comment:-
Surrendering to God brings inner peace. The whole of the Qur'an is, one
could argue, devoted to that sole purpose.
But, in another inseparable sense, Islam to Muslims is also a "State", a
"culture", and a "civilisation", which has historical 'socio-political'
roots that might rival those of Europe or America. In this global
'socio-political' context, is America, for instance, capable of surrendering
its self-interest?
Fariduddien
Zuiko Azumazi wrote:
> Comment:-
> How many pious Muslims (e.g. Taliban or Salafis - no offence) have
assailed,
> or attacked, other Muslims for the 'sin' of straying from the 'true'
path
> (as they see it)? Are the pious not normally self-righteous?
In Islam, someone who is pious should be humble...
"And swell not thy cheek (for pride) at men, nor walk in insolence
through the earth; for Allah loveth not any arrogant boaster.
"And be moderate in thy pace, and lower thy voice; for the harshest of
sounds without doubt is the braying of the ass."
[Qur'an 31:18-19]
"...men who are humble and women who are humble ... Allah hath prepared
for them forgiveness and a vast reward." [Part of Qur'an 33:35]
Yet someone who is self-righteous, according to the Merriam-Webster
dictionary http://www.m-w.com , is...
"convinced of one's own righteousness especially in contrast with the
actions and beliefs of others."
It seems to me that someone who is humble would be someone who
perceived their own faults, and dislikes his own faults, and is always
trying to improve them. (Everyone can improve - nobody is perfect.)
Which seems to work against the tendency to be "self-righteous"...
So to the question, "Are the pious not normally self-righteous?" - I
would say the answer is that they could be, but not necessarily, as the
trait of humility, which is part of piety in Islam, could (I think)
tend to work against the attitude of "self-righteousness".
And Allah knows best,
Mike
Zuiko Azumazi wrote:
> Most, if not all, people, Muslim or otherwise, who subscribe to SRI
use
> "belief" as a source or 'claim to knowledge' [Not only 'p' must be
true: we
> must believe that 'p' its true.] This with few exceptions, if you
like, is
> called 'religious belief'.
I don't doubt you, as I have the same problem with the Christian group.
For me, at present, personally it is not good enough, even though I
might accept it for discussion purposes. Either I know Allah is the
Truth or I don't, there is no middle way. You can declare that flying
saucers must be true and believe it, but it doesn't make it true and
some people have made a religion out of flying saucers.
> Widely defining "belief", in and of itself, can ultimately leads to
an
> infinite regression, that often results in a circular argument, which
leads
> us nowhere. These other kinds of 'belief' which we can disregard
Narrowly defining 'belief' can prevent the misunderstanding that
somebody knows when in fact they don't know, they have just read
something or been told something i.e. they have gathered second hand
information.
> However, generically, 'claim to knowledge' methods are somewhat
restricted
> in number (i.e. sense-experience, reason, authority, intuition,
revelation,
> and faith)
These may be OK for relative truth but is no good when endeavouring to
engage with the Absolute, Allah. Even Wikipedia can't help there.
> If you are using hope in a Christian context then its a virtue not a
claim
> to knowledge, per se. However, faith does, if appealed to, say in
this
> context, "I believe through faith, and this faith gives me
knowledge".
> However, if this is invoked to establish any claim it would, if
accepted,
> establish the conflicting claims of rival 'faith-based' religions as
well.
As far as I can see, there is no point claiming anything if there is
uncertainty, it just adds to the already gathered darkness. What is
needed is the light of certainty, surely. Isn't there a Hadith that
goes like this : O Lord illuminate my heart with Light. Let there be
Light on my right and on my left, in front of and behind me. O God who
knows the innermost secrets of our hearts, lead us out of darkness into
Light. What is better than that to dispel the shadows of 'belief'.
> Surrendering to God brings inner peace. The whole of the Qur'an is,
one
> could argue, devoted to that sole purpose.
.......... and it should be a 'sole' purpose, surely.
> But, in another inseparable sense, Islam to Muslims is also a
"State", a
> "culture", and a "civilisation", which has historical
'socio-political'
> roots that might rival those of Europe or America. In this global
> 'socio-political' context, is America, for instance, capable of
surrendering
> its self-interest?
....... but here it seems you have watered down 'sole' purpose by
introducing a subsidiary purpose and it seems to me that this
subsidiary purpose has drained the energy of Islam throughout the world
from the 'sole' purpose and channelled it into that subsidiary. If it
is 'inseperable' as you describe it, then it too will have degenerated
into 'self' interest. Are Pakistan, Iran and Syria capable of
surrendering their 'self' interests? Desire to join the atomic club
seems to indicate otherwise and so does your quote about 'Islam is a
mosaic'.
Salaam.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1116203524....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> So to the question, "Are the pious not normally self-righteous?" - I
> would say the answer is that they could be, but not necessarily, as the
> trait of humility, which is part of piety in Islam, could (I think)
> tend to work against the attitude of "self-righteousness".
Comment:-
I agree with this use of the "self-righteous" term in the context that you
raised it. It again just demonstrates how 'ambiguities' can creep into any
discussion, and that people, Muslim or otherwise, often unknowingly, or
unwittingly, read into those "uses" that needs watching.
But, as you rightly pointed out, "Allah knows best".
--
Peace
--
For a large class of cases -though not for all - in which we employ the word
meaning it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the
language. [Ludwig Wittgenstein]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> I don't doubt you, as I have the same problem with the Christian group.
> For me, at present, personally it is not good enough, even though I
<snip> ...
Comment:-
All too often subscribers to SRI forget there is no compulsion in religion.
Do your religious doubts, at present, spring from an 'atheist' or 'agnostic'
paradigm? If we are discussing this problem then it's important to
understand your departure point.
> Either I know Allah is the Truth or I don't, there is no middle way.
Comment:-
I concur, which curtails all discussion if we are being narrow-minded about
it?
<snip> ...
> Narrowly defining 'belief' can prevent the misunderstanding that
> somebody knows when in fact they don't know, they have just read
> something or been told something i.e. they have gathered second hand
> information.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Only if you are using "belief" as a 'claim to knowledge' in the religious
context [ Ref:-
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/belief ].
<snip> ...
> These may be OK for relative truth but is no good when endeavouring to
> engage with the Absolute, Allah. ...
<snip>
Comment:-
I'm not sure of what you mean by 'engage with the Absolute, Allah"? Is
"engage" being used in 'mesh' (i.e. the act of interlocking or meshing)
sense?
<snip> ...
> As far as I can see, there is no point claiming anything if there is
> uncertainty, it just adds to the already gathered darkness.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
On the 'belief' scale there are two poles of absolute certainty, the
absolute certainty that God exists and the absolute certainty that God
doesn't exist? In the absence of 'absolute certainty' neither case can be
resolved according to this argument.
<snip>
> ....... but here it seems you have watered down 'sole' purpose ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
The object mentioned was the Qur'an it's 'sole' purpose is to rightly guide
humanity. God's message cannot be watered down. As I've frequently stated in
SRI, Islam started out as a religion, then became State, and finally a
culture. Too many people, Muslim or otherwise, get these mixed up.
> introducing a subsidiary purpose and it seems to me that this
> subsidiary purpose has drained the energy of Islam throughout the world
> from the 'sole' purpose and channelled it into that subsidiary.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
If you mean Islam in its holistic (Gestalt) 'socio-political' setting then
this isn't a 'subsidiary purpose' it's just another mirror of the many
Muslim 'societies' and States. Reference this link:-
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=member+states&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=OIC
> Are Pakistan, Iran and Syria capable of surrendering their 'self'
interests?
<snip> ...
Comment:-
No.
> Desire to join the atomic club seems to indicate otherwise ...
Comment:-
Pakistan is already a member as is India. The is some 'uncertainty regarding
the other States you mentioned, as WMD's in Iraq proved.
> and so does your quote about 'Islam is a
> mosaic'.
Comment:-
How many of the 50 odd OIC member states have you actually visited? Believe
me the 'mosaic' is quite correct!
--
Peace
--
The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively not by the false
appearance of things present and which mislead into error, not directly
by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by
prejudice. - Schopenhauer
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Mike
Zuiko Azumazi wrote:
> Comment:-
> All too often subscribers to SRI forget there is no compulsion in
religion.
> Do your religious doubts, at present, spring from an 'atheist' or
'agnostic'
> paradigm? If we are discussing this problem then it's important to
> understand your departure point.
What a difficult question to answer. I have certainty of Allah or God
rather than doubt. I have doubts about some of the ways that some
religions of the world teach how to attain and maintain union with God.
I have doubts about some religious scripture and I have doubts about
many who have held or do hold prominence in priestly positions. If I
can use a very loose analogy - I am happy with song, doubtful about
some of the words and doubtful about many of the singers. I accept
that many of these doubts may well be due to my own misinterpretation
of what I see and what I hear or what others with inborn prejudices
want me to hear. I cannot accept blind belief but can accept 'belief'
that is designed to open the 'eyes' wider.
The history of all Judaic based religions seems to be steeped in much
violence and bloodshed and each faction seems to insist that only -it-
is following the True path. The options seem to be - (a) all are
following the same path which is either right or wrong but they don't
realise it (b) only one is following the correct path and the others
are wrong (c) only parts of each path are right because each faction
has been selective. There may be other options not obvious to me.
I have joined both the Christian and Islamic discussion groups and my
main mission is to try and get some understanding of the people who
support those religions to help remove what remaining ignorance I have.
By doing this at least there will be a little less ignorance in the
World. Because I don't 'belong' to a religious persuasion, what I post
may seem critical but it is rather meant to be probing. Islam is
something of a blind spot for me and I need to discover much about it
to counteract the 'bad press' it has been getting. Some replies I've
seen have led me to believe my views and 'Muslim' views are not too far
apart but then again other postings cloud that view
snip
> I'm not sure of what you mean by 'engage with the Absolute, Allah"?
Is
> "engage" being used in 'mesh' (i.e. the act of interlocking or
meshing)
> sense?
No. Mor in the sense of unity, oneness of will with Allah.
snip
> On the 'belief' scale there are two poles of absolute certainty, the
> absolute certainty that God exists and the absolute certainty that
God
> doesn't exist? In the absence of 'absolute certainty' neither case
can be
> resolved according to this argument.
Well we will have to agree to disagree there. As I see it, polarity
springs from a rationalising mind. Beyond that polarising mind is the
certainty that only God is.
snip
> How many of the 50 odd OIC member states have you actually visited?
Believe
> me the 'mosaic' is quite correct!
Only about 10 of them, but I'm not doubting you. It just seems that
the focus has moved from Allah to earthly states, but no doubt you can
prove me wrong.
Peace
Mike
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> What a difficult question to answer. I have certainty of Allah or God
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Would you say, based on the explanation of your 'doubts', that you are, in
fact, a deist? Reference this link:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
> I have joined both the Christian and Islamic discussion groups and my
> main mission is to try and get some understanding of the people who
> support those religions to help remove what remaining ignorance I have.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
I'm not sure if by joining these two 'rival' newsgroups you will get an
unbiased 'understanding' of your stated mission. I'm not even sure if
'understanding of religious people', Muslim or otherwise, will remove the
ignorance that you have expressed in this matter. What really motivates
other people is always doubtful? What goes on in their minds is absolutely
unknown, unless they subjectively articulate what they are thinking, which
is always prone to bias and taste, is it not?
<snip> ...
> By doing this at least there will be a little less ignorance in the
> World.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Religious people, Muslim or otherwise, will, to large extent, remain
ignorant of other mainstream religious beliefs, that's the nature 'faith'
put in its historical context.
<snip> ...
> Some replies I've seen have led me to believe my views and 'Muslim'
> views are not too far apart but then again other postings cloud that view
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Are your views consistent with Islam? Do you think that the Muslim or
Islamic worldview should coincide with your own?
<snip> ...
> No. Mor in the sense of unity, oneness of will with Allah.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Would you say you are seeking a 'mystical' experience in this religious
context?
< snip> ...
> Well we will have to agree to disagree there. As I see it, polarity
> springs from a rationalising mind. Beyond that polarising mind is the
> certainty that only God is.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Yes, I would agree, only if one is a 'deist', as your previous messages seem
to indicate (correct me if I'm wrong)?
<snip> ...
> ... It just seems that
> the focus has moved from Allah to earthly states, but no doubt you can
> prove me wrong.
Comment:-
As many commentators in SRI have frequently stated "Islam is a prescribed
way of life from the cradle to the grave". In this context, Islam (in its
mosaic practice) is the corporeal "State", is the "Culture", is the
"Civilisation". Isn't this is how Allah expects us to live our lives in this
world? This is part and parcel of accepted Islamic dogma, an article of
Faith, that's independent of any human "proof".
But, do you think Muslims, in their minds eye, can separate "Church and
State", as you would appear to suggest? Why do you think that? Isn't this,
in fact, a circular argument straight from the secular Western paradigm?
Mike
Zuiko Azumazi wrote:
> Would you say, based on the explanation of your 'doubts', that you
are, in
> fact, a deist?
No, not according to the Wikipedia reference you gave which indicates
'belief based on reason and experience'. Although it may make
comunication easier to categorise people into nice little Wikipaedia
style boxes, I tend to disassociate my way from any -isms and -anities
as well as I am able. If I have to describe my approach to the
Truth/Allah it would be through 'faith' in the sense of 'spiritual
persistence' and personal revelation, in the sense of removing veils of
ignorance and through in-perience rather than ex-perience.
> I'm not sure if by joining these two 'rival' newsgroups you will get
an
> unbiased 'understanding' of your stated mission. I'm not even sure if
> 'understanding of religious people', Muslim or otherwise, will remove
the
> ignorance that you have expressed in this matter. What really
motivates
> other people is always doubtful? What goes on in their minds is
absolutely
> unknown, unless they subjectively articulate what they are thinking,
which
> is always prone to bias and taste, is it not?
I agree, but to avoid mis-understandings in communication one has to
start somewhere, as, quite rightly, you did when posing this statement
to me - 'If we are discussing this problem then it's important to
understand your departure point.'
> Religious people, Muslim or otherwise, will, to large extent, remain
> ignorant of other mainstream religious beliefs, that's the nature
'faith'
> put in its historical context.
Maybe, but does history -have- to repeat itself? The 'destination' of
Judaism, Christianity and Islam seems to be the same, so why 'remain in
ignorance' over the various preferred paths to get there. A merciful
Allah will block any inadmissable path, surely?
> Are your views consistent with Islam? Do you think that the Muslim or
> Islamic worldview should coincide with your own?
Before I can answer that, I must ask you the same : Are -your- views
consistent with Islam? Do -you- think that the Muslim or Islamic
worldview should coincide with your own? If the answer is Yes then
please state the views because that is what I am trying to discover -
then I can better try to provide an answer.
> Would you say you are seeking a 'mystical' experience in this
religious
> context?
I am not seeking an -experience- of any kind, I am seeking the Truth.
If Allah is the Truth, then I am seeking Allah. Mysticism is another
Wikipedia '-ism' box that I wouldn't want to fit into.
> Yes, I would agree, only if one is a 'deist', as your previous
messages seem
> to indicate (correct me if I'm wrong)?
Yes you are wrong - if Deism relies upon reasoning and rationalisation.
> As many commentators in SRI have frequently stated "Islam is a
prescribed
> way of life from the cradle to the grave". In this context, Islam (in
its
> mosaic practice) is the corporeal "State", is the "Culture", is the
> "Civilisation". Isn't this is how Allah expects us to live our lives
in this
> world? This is part and parcel of accepted Islamic dogma, an article
of
> Faith, that's independent of any human "proof".
Well, you are asking this question to a person who is not a member of
an Islamic society. I don't know you, and so, I don't know whether you
are a Muslim or a Rationalist. It would be a typical rationalist
approach to turn something that is a Whole into fractions of itself -
like a mosaic made out of a mirror. Whether this is what Allah expects
is for you to tell me.
> But, do you think Muslims, in their minds eye, can separate "Church
and
> State", as you would appear to suggest? Why do you think that? Isn't
this,
> in fact, a circular argument straight from the secular Western
paradigm?
I don't know what is in the 'mind's eye of Muslims'. That is what I am
trying to discover, and I did not suggest separating 'Church and
State'. I was more concerned about the priorities i.e. - is it Allah
first, followed by transformation of the individual person's state,
followed by transformation of the earthly State?
You said earlier ' What really motivates other people is always
doubtful', therefore, shouldn't Allah be the first and a direct
motivation of the people
-followed- by the State, then, perhaps, there wouldn't be a mosaic
paradigm? I don't know the answer for Muslims, perhaps you do. It is
not for me to suggest an alternative culture. A 'cultured' pearl is an
atificial, man made pearl, a real pearl is Divinely made. I know what
I would prefer.
Salaam
Mike.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> ... I tend to disassociate my way from any -isms and -anities
> as well as I am able. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
If that is the case, I'm not sure, within a restrictive medium like SRI,
that any commonsensical person, Muslim or otherwise, can assist in your
disassociated search for, let's say, a cosmic 'mystical' experience, as you
have described it.
If anyone discounts or dissociates themselves from "any -isms and -anities",
as you have declared above, is it to be understood that they are, in fact,
being sceptical with a small 's'? However, from a recap of your various
responses, including this one, I get the distinct impression (which may be
wrong), that you have outlined one of the classic arguments (that is
Philosophical Scepticism with a capital 'S' - another 'ism') that one's
senses are unreliable and that the pundits, Islamic or otherwise, contradict
one another, and that one should organise various arguments for "suspension
of belief" into a basis for a whole attitude to life (i.e. which is the
antithesis of institutionalised Islam). Another factor, which you may want
to consider, is that in the absence of any certain criteria for knowledge,
or claims to knowledge, must automatically inhibit action, which then can
become a circular argument, or an infinite regression, that leads us
nowhere.
But then, like most SRI subscribers, I'm not an expert or pundit in these
serious metaphysical issues, which begs the question, should 'flawed'
common-sense then prevail as a matter of argumentative taste?
Let's leave it there!
--
Peace
--
You cannot teach a person who is not anxious to learn and you cannot
explain to one who is not trying to make things clear to themselves.
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Mike
Zuiko Azumazi wrote:
snip
> ..........your disassociated search for, let's say, a cosmic 'mystical'
> experience as you have described it.
You seem to have misunderstood. This is a repeat of what I said in my
previous posting - "I am not seeking -an- experience of any kind I am
seeking the Truth. If Allah is the Truth, then I am seeking Allah.
Mysticism is another Wikipedia '-ism' box that I won't fit into".
The -search- is not totally disassociated but at the level of '-isms'
-I- prefer to be disassociated. In the end it is -I- that will be
judged not any '-ism' that I might belong to and it is -I- that have to
take responsibility for my 'salvation', not Islam, Christianity,
Judaism etc.
snip.........
> If anyone discounts or dissociates themselves from "any -isms and -anities",
> as you have declared above, is it to be understood that they are, in fact,
> being sceptical with a small 's'?
snip.........
> that one should organise various arguments for "suspension
> of belief" into a basis for a whole attitude to life (i.e. which is the
> antithesis of institutionalised Islam).
As I see it, 'institutionalised Islam' or any other religious
persuasion has its strength in that it usually provides a sound
structure or set of practices to lead the individual to Allah (the
Truth) but it has its weakness in that those who control the structure
can misinterpret the instructions either intentionally or
unintentionally.
It is not the message that is in doubt but the media through which it
might have passed to get to me, that I might question. The
intelligence that Allah has provided to each individual needs to be
exercised to discriminate between what has -truly- been revealed by
Allah and what might have been presented many years later by an
unenlightened individual. Should anybody blindly rely upon another
individual when the stakes are so high?
It is too easy for a web of conditioning to be superimposed over the
conscious intelligence given to each of us by Allah, and -that- kind of
'world wide web' seems to be growing strronger every day. The young
are particularly susceptible to conditioning.
snip..........
> the absence of any certain criteria for knowledge,
> or claims to knowledge, must automatically inhibit action, which then can
> become a circular argument, or an infinite regression, that leads us
> nowhere.
Perhaps it is this 'action' that -needs- to be inhibited, including the
mental action of metaphysics and philosophical debate. Does such
'action' lead to the 'Salaam' in Islam? Is 'surrender to Allah' more
about 'stillness' or 'action'?
snip
> You cannot teach a person who is not anxious to learn and you cannot
> explain to one who is not trying to make things clear to themselves.
Comment..
The word 'educate' means to 'lead out' what is within. The word
'instruct' means to 'thrust in' what is without. Which produces the
greatest clarity?
Peace.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> You seem to have misunderstood. This is a repeat of what I said in my
> previous posting - "I am not seeking -an- experience of any kind I am
> seeking the Truth. If Allah is the Truth, then I am seeking Allah.
> Mysticism is another Wikipedia '-ism' box that I won't fit into".
Comment:-
But "God is Truth"! So, how do you expect to encounter God other than
through 'spiritual' experience? For hundreds of years religious mystics,
Muslim or otherwise, have "spoken with God," or "attained cosmic
consciousness." Are you saying that this 'spiritual' , or deep mystical
experience, doesn't in truth exist? Is this 'spiritual' experience not more
intense, more overwhelming than any inspiration caused by say, idiosyncratic
intuition? Is there a state beyond normal consciousness in which separate
identity is temporarily relinquished and one is absorbed into union with the
whole of creation? Isn't this 'peak experience' (which I've not experienced
personally) then becoming one with universal wisdom (i.e. the Truth), so
that one realises the deep mysteries of life? Isn't this "the Truth" that
man qua man is always seeking?
Wikipedia is just a general, or fairly neutral, reference source that allows
some subscribers to understand and circumscribe certain 'concepts' which are
up for discussion, nothing more. It's not a box that fits, or misfits,
anyone in particular, unless they will it.
Is this explication prescriptively or descriptively true or just a matter of
taste? But, in truth, to"define is to deny" as the ancient theological maxim
goes.
Does this "argument" form lead to a 'reductio ad absurdum' or not?
--
Peace
--
We should not be ashamed to acknowledge truth from whatever source
it comes to us, even if it is brought to us by former generations and
foreign peoples. For him who seeks the truth there is nothing of higher
value than truth itself [al-Kindi 801-66]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Mike
Zuiko Azumazi wrote:
> But "God is Truth"! So, how do you expect to encounter God other than
> through 'spiritual' experience? For hundreds of years religious mystics,
> Muslim or otherwise, have "spoken with God," or "attained cosmic
> consciousness." Are you saying that this 'spiritual' , or deep mystical
> experience, doesn't in truth exist?
I know for sure such a path is available but none of those who have
attained that consiousness would classify themselves as being a mystic
(Muslim or otherwise). When union takes place -all- classification
ceases. It is those on the 'outside' who feel obliged to attach a
label to them. It then makes it easy for the hypercritical
intellectual to assign dubious qualities to those individuals.
> Is this 'spiritual' experience not more
> intense, more overwhelming than any inspiration caused by say, idiosyncratic
> intuition?
Yes it is.
> Is there a state beyond normal consciousness in which separate
> identity is temporarily relinquished and one is absorbed into union with the
> whole of creation?
In a sense - yes. 'Normal' consciousness is really 'sub-consciousness'
i.e. Consciousness that is directed to and bound up by the contents of
the psyche (?nafs?) which it has become identified with. When those
attachments are severed then the union you mention starts to take
place, if it is the Will of Allah.
> Isn't this 'peak experience' (which I've not experienced
> personally) then becoming one with universal wisdom (i.e. the Truth), so
> that one realises the deep mysteries of life? Isn't this "the Truth" that
> man qua man is always seeking?
I would say a very small percentage are actively seeking (and I feel
sure you are included in that small number) but the vaste majority are
either seeking the basics for survival or seeking entertainment to fill
the void that the absence of Truth leaves. This neatly takes us back
to the topic of the posting.
Nima Rezai's circular reasoning, which to me, as an outsider, seems to
go like this : The Quran is the Truth. Why? - because it is the Word
of Allah. How do you know? - because it says so in the Quran.
Your comments seem to point to the answer to this. The Truth has to be
'realised' by the individual i.e. it has to becomes the Reality, not
remain just an idea from a book or a subject for argument. The Quran
tells you how to attain it and what will stand in your way. But I
would have to add that the Quran is not the only scripture that does so.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> I know for sure such a path is available but none of those who have
> attained that consiousness would classify themselves as being a mystic
> (Muslim or otherwise).
Comment:-
Why not? Do you think that being a mystic is a pejorative label (I don't -
although I'm not one)?
> When union takes place -all- classification ceases.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
I don't necessarily disagree with this sentiment. But the "union" that takes
place, unsullied by mind, is a defining moment, that has to be humanly
experienced, does it not?
<snip> ...
> It is those on the 'outside' who feel obliged to attach a
> label to them. It then makes it easy for the hypercritical
> intellectual to assign dubious qualities to those individuals.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
I can agree with this.
<snip> ...
> In a sense - yes. 'Normal' consciousness is really 'sub-consciousness'
> i.e. Consciousness that is directed to and bound up by the contents of
> the psyche (?nafs?) which it has become identified with. When those
> attachments are severed then the union you mention starts to take
> place, if it is the Will of Allah.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
I don't dispute this.
<snip> ...
> I would say a very small percentage are actively seeking (and I feel
> sure you are included in that small number) but the vaste majority are
> either seeking the basics for survival or seeking entertainment to fill
> the void that the absence of Truth leaves. This neatly takes us back
> to the topic of the posting.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
True.
<snip> ...
> Nima Rezai's circular reasoning, which to me, as an outsider, seems to
> go like this : The Quran is the Truth. Why? - because it is the Word
> of Allah. How do you know? - because it says so in the Quran.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
This expressed difficulty is not unique to Islam. All three of the great
Western religions, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, base their faith on
sacred scripture which is the revealed word of God. In other words, it's an
article of faith, the individual will, as affirmation, 'to believe'. But it
is a circularity as you logically point out.
> Your comments seem to point to the answer to this. The Truth has to be
> 'realised' by the individual i.e. it has to becomes the Reality, not
> remain just an idea from a book or a subject for argument. The Quran
> tells you how to attain it and what will stand in your way. But I
> would have to add that the Quran is not the only scripture that does so.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
I can agree with this position.
Mike
Zuiko Azumazi wrote:
snip........
> Why not? Do you think that being a mystic is a pejorative label (I don't -
> although I'm not one)?
Thanks for your reply Zuiko. I don't think of it as a perjorative
label, but, although for the sake of communication labels seem
inevitable, I am inclined to distrust them. If I asked your question
and inserted the word 'Muslim' for 'mystic' and posed it in say the
Middle East and USA, I am sure I would get many varying replies.
Unfortunately, it seems that it is the identification with a label, no
matter whether it is national, racial or religious, that often leads to
conflict, or prejudice.
> I don't necessarily disagree with this sentiment. But the "union" that takes
> place, unsullied by mind, is a defining moment, that has to be humanly
> experienced, does it not?
Yes, depending upon what you mean by 'human'. One could say that it is
the human element that prevents that defining moment and the Divine
element, Consciousness that experiences it, but I take your point about
the 'unsullied mind'.
Mike.