An excellent book about islam
Vespasian
Everyone should read _Why I Am Not a Muslim_, by Ibn Warraq.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:A6udndeHzbt...@comcast.com...
<snip> ...
> Everyone should read _Why I Am Not a Muslim_, by Ibn
> Warraq.
Comment (Tongue-in -cheek):-
I know a better one, "Why I am Not a Christian" by Bertrand Russell. Out of
general interest, to Muslim subscribers, have you read that?
But didn't "Titus Flavius Sabinus Vespasianus" start building the
Colosseum? Was that because, as Roman Emperor (a living god) he wanted to
persecute Christians in particular, or monotheists in general?
--
Peace
--
What appears to be a sloppy or meaningless use of words may well be a
completely correct use of words to express sloppy or meaningless ideas.
[Anonymous Diplomat]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
klei...@astound.net
Zuiko Azumazi wrote:
> "Vespasian" <ve...@3458743658723465786342563.org> wrote in message
> > Everyone should read _Why I Am Not a Muslim_, by Ibn
> > Warraq.
> I know a better one, "Why I am Not a Christian" by Bertrand Russell. Out of
> general interest, to Muslim subscribers, have you read that?
>
Good suggestion.
I haven't read Ibn Warraq's book, so I don't know much about it. But I
do know that Ibn Warraq has ended up at the same place Bertrand Russell
did. In what is called secular humanism. I don't claim to understand
exactly what secular humanism means, but it is clearly a kind of
atheism.
>From an Islamic point-of-view if one must become an apostate is it
better to become an atheist or a Christian? Or Jew? or ... Or for that
matter is an atheist a REAL apostate?
I suspect that Islam is filled with atheists. Suppose one stopped
believing in Allah and started believing in nothing. Why would there be
any detectable change in the atheist's behavior? Maybe Ibn Warraq
should be given brownie points for actually admitting he has become an
atheist.
That is, my question has become: Is atheism a religion?
There seems to be different opinions on this point. It matters. The
oldest legal authorities (the Muwatta) condemn the man who changes his
religion. They do not mention the man who simply opts out of religion.
I don't know about current thinking.
Let us be absolutely clear on one point. If a person is willing to
"cheat" a little, there is no way to determine what that person
believes. Maybe "There is no god but Allah" also includes the case
where, besides no other gods, there is no Allah either. I consider that
bad thinking - but somebody else might not.
In the end God knows the truth - but I fear humans will never learn it.
M.S.M. Saifullah
> Everyone should read _Why I Am Not a Muslim_, by Ibn Warraq.
And?
I have read the parts of this book and I only say how intellectually
dishonest Ibn Warraq is. Have you read the book, btw?
Regards
Saifullah
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1118074122.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Did not appear
<snip> ...
> I haven't read Ibn Warraq's book, so I don't know much about it. But I
> do know that Ibn Warraq has ended up at the same place Bertrand Russell
> did. ...
<snip>...
Comment:-
I must admit I've read both. Although, I don't necessarily agree with either
author, I would say that Bertrand Russell's book has far more 'literary'
merit that Ibn Warraq's. But that's a matter of personal 'literary' taste.
Betrand Russell, as far as I recollect, thought that religious faith, a
belief in God, was in fact meaningless (he was a confirmed logical
positivist - if not one of its intellectual fathers - I'm not sure if he was
ever a Christian), whereas, Ibn Warraq's (as an ex-Muslim) seems to be
directly opposed to Islam, per se, not a belief in God, or religious faith
in general.
<snip> ...
> That is, my question has become: Is atheism a religion? ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Certainly, I would agree that 'atheism', is an strident ideology for some
adherents with dogmatic conviction. Although, without a supernatural
element, I would say it cannot become a revealed religion, in the
traditional sense.
<snip> ...
> They do not mention the man who simply opts out of religion. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Certainly, some Muslims are apathetic, inactive, passive, even lazy. But, I
wouldn't call them 'atheists'. Some 'fundamentalist' Muslims might consider
this kind of 'non-practice', for want of a neutral term, as being a form of
apostasy.
--
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
Richard Dell
As for intellectual dishonesty, the Gaffer in that department is Edward
Said.
http://www.secularislam.org/articles/debunking.htm
As far as books are concerned, Andrew Bostom's forthcoming book will
comprehensively debunk many Muslim lies and myths, such as the
"tolerance" of Muslim Spain, the "peaceful" spread of Islam until the
beastly Crusaders wickedly attacked the defenceless Muslims in
Palestine, and the so-called "greater Jihad". Look for flying fur in
the apologist's camp when it comes out in August.
http://www.andrewbostom.org/
Ibn Warraq's preface (available now on this site) is very compelling.
Of particular note is the following quote from Bernard Lewis, which
anyone who cares about the future of humanity would do well to heed:
"There was a time when scholars and other writers in communist eastern
Europe relied on writers and publishers in the free West to speak the
truth about their history, their culture, and their predicament. Today
it is those who told the truth, not those who concealed or denied it,
who are respected and welcomed in these countries. Historians in free
countries have a moral and professional obligation not to shirk the
difficult issues and subjects that some people would place under a sort
of taboo; not to submit to voluntary censorship, but to deal with these
matters fairly, honestly, without apologetics, without polemic, and, of
course, competently. Those who enjoy freedom have a moral obligation to
use that freedom for those who do not possess it. We live in a time
when great efforts have been made, and continue to be made, to falsify
the record of the past and to make history a tool of propaganda; when
governments, religious movements, political parties, and sectional
groups of every kind are busy rewriting history as they would wish it
to have been, as they would like their followers to believe that it
was. All this is very dangerous indeed, to ourselves and to others,
however we may define otherness - dangerous to our common humanity.
Because, make no mistake, those who are unwilling to confront the past
will be unable to understand the present and unfit to face the future."
Altway
> >Everyone should read _Why I Am Not a Muslim_, by Ibn Warraq.
> I haven't read Ibn Warraq's book, so I don't know much about it. But I
do know that Ibn Warraq has ended up at the same place Bertrand Russell
did. ...
Comment:-
I read Bertrand Russell's book "Why I am not a Christian" many years ago. I
am trying to recall the impression it made on me. It was something as
follows:-
Having read his "Principea Mathematica" and other works I was very surprised
that such an intellectually brilliant man would write such a naive criticism
based on superficial understanding which I could easily refute.
It seemed to me that he had already decided to reject Christianity and then
tried hard to justify the rejection but could not do a very good
job. Had he accepted Christianity, it seemed to me, and tried to justify it
then he would have done a much better job.
However, his book set me on track to investigate religions.
I have come accross many anti-religious books by academics, mostly arm-chair
speculators who have little or no personal practical experience.
I have not read Ibn Warraq's book on "Why I am not a Muslim"
but I have come accross some extracts from it. These were sufficient
for my assessment that he was probably worse at it than Betrand Russell, and
not worth reading or refuting.
There are all kinds of people with various different attitudes, interests,
motives, experiences, knowledge about all kinds of things. They selects and
interpret their experiences and what they read in various ways different
from others. What others do cannot have relevance for our own life. Each of
us has to seek, interpret, think, organise and apply knowledge for
ourselves.
Hamid S. Aziz
Hamid S. Aziz
M.S.M. Saifullah
> As far as books are concerned, Andrew Bostom's forthcoming book will
> comprehensively debunk many Muslim lies and myths, such as the
> "tolerance" of Muslim Spain, the "peaceful" spread of Islam until the
> beastly Crusaders wickedly attacked the defenceless Muslims in
> Palestine, and the so-called "greater Jihad". Look for flying fur in
> the apologist's camp when it comes out in August.
> http://www.andrewbostom.org/
Sorry, I missed this. I am aware of a lot of literature written against
Islam and Muslims by people of diverse agendas. What exactly is your point
of adding some more into this bottomless pit of propaganda is not clear to
me. Nowadays anybody can write any kind of book and Amazon.com would be
happy to have it on its shelves. If Crone and Cook can write a
nonsense like "Hagarism" and get it published through reputable Cambridge
University Press, what is left there to surprise us. You tell me!
Surely, Islam-bashing is in vogue since 9/11. And yet another book to
ruffle our feather? NOT!
Regards
Saifullah
M.S.M. Saifullah
> Please state where Warraq has made any factual errors.
As for factual errors, one has to read his section on the "sources" of the
Qur'an. The sources which he assumes or claims to be pre-Islamic are in
fact post-Islamic and have been redacted after the advent of Islam. Much
of it is discussed in different articles at:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/
As for the intellectual dishonesty, the less we have to say about Ibn
Warraq, the better. He has no qualms about using diverse and often
contradictory methodologies to attack Islam. For example, Ibn Warraq uses
Wansbrough to attack Islam. Wansbrough rejects the traditional accounts of
the process in which the text of the Qur'an was assembled, and relies
heavily on speculation as the basis of his opinions. The theories that
emerge from John Wansbrough's analysis are, in his own words
"conjectural", "provisional" and "tentative and emphatically
provisional" [J. Wansbrough, Qur'anic Studies: Sources & Methods Of
Scriptural Interpretation, 1977, Oxford University Press, p. ix, xi; J.
Wansbrough, The Sectarian Milieu: Content & Composition Of Islamic
Salvation History, 1978, Oxford University Press, p. x.]. You will be
hard-pressed to show us where exactly this is mentioned in Ibn Warraq's
book. On the other hand, Ibn Warraq has absolutely no problems in using
the scholars who accept the tradtional Islam accounts, as long as they can
be used to attack Islam. You can see his use of Tisdall's Original Sources
of the Qur'an.
As for Bernard Lewis, the modern day war pimp, who was one of
those responsible for the Iraq war and obviously a favourite of Ibn Warraq
to attack Edward Said. It is agreed that Said was perhaps incorrect on
certain issues. But his "Orientalism" actually proved what we have known
about Orientalist working for builing Empires. The classic modern day
example of such an Orientalist is none other than Bernard Lewis. Why not
read "Bernard Lewis Revisited" at:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0411.hirsh.html
There are far better non-Muslim writers than Ibn Warraq. Ibn Warraq calls
Edward Said's writings as "Third World Intellectual Terrorism". It is apt
to say the one-sided writings of Ibn Warraq as "First World Intellectual
Terrorism".
Regards
Saifullah
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1118446956.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> As far as books are concerned, ... which anyone who cares about the future
> of humanity would do well to heed: ... but to deal with these
> matters fairly, honestly, without apologetics, without polemic, and, of
history > a tool of propaganda; when governments, religious movements,
political
> parties, and sectional groups of every kind are busy rewriting history as
<snip> ...
Comment:-
As an altruistic ('fairly, honestly') suggestion, if one takes the combined
works of Ibn Warraq and Andrew Bostom would you say they strictly comply
with this imperative summary taken from the end of your message?
Haven't both these authors made a career out of being anti-Islamic (sic)?
Aren't their activist writings totally 'polemic' in nature and content?
Isn't their selection of historical facts a selection of facts that support
their anti-Islamic stance, and, put in this context, essentially partisan?
Aren't they 'busy rewriting history as they would wish it'?
--
Peace
--
The most perfidious manner of injuring a cause is to vindicate it
intentionally with fallacious arguments. [Friedrich Nietzsche]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Zuiko Azumazi
news:d8e5hk$asn$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> <kleine...@astound.net> wrote in message
<snip> ...
> I read Bertrand Russell's book "Why I am not a Christian" many years ago.
> Having read his "Principea Mathematica" and other works I was very
> surprised that such an intellectually brilliant man would write such a
naive
> criticism based on superficial understanding which I could easily refute.
Comment:-
Have you published your refutation of Russell's, "Why I am not a
Christian"? I did a quick search in Google and couldn't find it? I'm sure
there are many Muslims and others, including myself, that would like to have
such a ready made refutation in their apologetic library, or intellectual
armoury, when they come across this well-known work in any polemical debate
against Islam or otherwise.
Perhaps, moderators permitting, you could post a copy in SRI, which would be
a great help.
--
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
Altway
"Zuiko Azumazi" <azu...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Have you published your refutation of Russell's, "Why I am not a
Christian"?
Comment:-
Not him in particular.
Refutation of the points made by Russel and many others can be
found in "Answers to Questions and Criticismsof Islam"
on my website. There are 570 + answers which hopefully covers
most things.
It has to be pointed out that if someone asks a question because he wishes
to know
then the answer could satisfy. But if someone criticises from an already
entrenched
position from which he is unable to shift because he is identified with it
and is
unable to move the point from which he sees then answers are futile.
It is like those who looking at an ambiguous picture, say one that
shows two white faces in profile on a black background, can see
only a black vase and not the two white profiles.
However, if anyone wants to send me a particular criticism from Russell
or others I will try to answer that or refer to the answer already given.
Hamid S. Aziz
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> However, if anyone wants to send me a particular criticism from Russell
> or others I will try to answer that or refer to the answer already given.
Comment:-
Personally, I don't have any questions about Russell's "Why I'm not a
Christian". However, in the apologetics sense, it might be worthwhile to
have an Islamic rebuttal that demolishes the 'humanism' (i.e. the doctrine
emphasising a person's capacity for self-realisation through reason; rejects
religion and the supernatural) perspective in this 'secular' world.
Of course, another tactic could be the generalised 'Christian' approach,
which is to ban the essay, or recommend that the faithful read something
else. Which, in one way, easily avoids a direct dialectical rebuttal.
--
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
Altway
"Zuiko Azumazi" <azu...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> However, if anyone wants to send me a particular criticism from Russell
or others I will try to answer that or refer to the answer already given.
> Personally, I don't have any questions about Russell's "Why I'm not a
Christian". However, in the apologetics sense, it might be worthwhile to
have an Islamic rebuttal that demolishes the 'humanism' (i.e. the doctrine
emphasising a person's capacity for self-realisation through reason;
rejects
religion and the supernatural) perspective in this 'secular' world.
Comment:-
As I am not a Christian and I am not addressing Christians or trying to
support or propagate Christianity, I have no interest in rebutting
"Why I am not a Christian". But a non-christian can be a Jew, or a Buddhist
or a Muslim etc.
I have given reasons for supporting Religion in general as seen through
Islam (All True religion, i.e those sent by God and not made by human
specuation are Islam) and the dispensation of Muhammad (saw) in particular
and rejecting the secular attitude.
As for Humanism, we all know that human beings are a mixture of good and
evil.
Most people know that changes, whether horizontal or vertical, are driven by
causes.
Many people know that we are constantly conditioned by worldly or secular
forces and circumstances.
Some people know that reason is driven by motives and values and it is these
that we should be concerned with.
It is also known in some quarters that left to itself physical systems tend
to degenerate owing to the Second Law of Thermodynamics and that maintanance
or increase in order within a system requires the introduction of impulses,
information and energy from outside the system. Human behaviour tends to
degenerate becoming automatic or mechanical and conscious efforts are
required for evolution.
It is, therefore, necessary, to have stimuli of an opposite type from the
secular - a positive attractive Pole
opposed to a negative one. These are provided by the notions of Heaven and
Earth, God and Satan, and from a another angle, the Universal and the
Particular.
But from another angle one could say that Islam is the same as Humanism
provided one understands what is the significance of the formula that man is
made not only of earth but also the Spirit of God. And the religious
practices are techniques for activating the potentialities that this
implies.
It is all a question of understanding. Unfortunately, many rationalists have
the tendency to be fixated on the form of words. And, indeed, in the secular
world that concerns itself only with the external and public, ignoring the
inner, this is inevitable. It is so in Logic, in Law and politics and even
in science.
Hamid S. Aziz
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> As I am not a Christian and I am not addressing Christians or trying to
> support or propagate Christianity, I have no interest in rebutting
> "Why I am not a Christian". But a non-christian can be a Jew, or a
Buddhist
> or a Muslim etc.
Comment:-
I'm not a Christian either, which in one way, makes this an interesting and
possibly a partially 'objective' discussion, since neither of us needs to
protect any particular religious dogma.
However, Russell's underlying philosophy, using his own words from his book
(p. 172), was and I quote:-
"I can respect the men who argue that religion is true and therefore ought
to be believed, but I can feel only profound reprobation for those who say
that religion ought to be believed because it is useful, and to ask whether
it is true is a waste of time." [Bertrand Russell]
Which, in effect, gets us back to my original point of how religious people,
Muslim or otherwise, ought to engage with people who hold 'humanism' values
(i.e. the primary doctrine that people's duty is to promote human welfare)
as a worldview? Which, on the face of it, isn't a necessary 'evil', per se.
That's the only point I'm trying to make clear.
--
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
Altway
"Zuiko Azumazi" <azu...@hotmail.com> wrote
> However, Russell's underlying philosophy, using his own words from his
> book
(p. 172), was and I quote:-
> "I can respect the men who argue that religion is true and therefore ought
to be believed, but I can feel only profound reprobation for those who say
that religion ought to be believed because it is useful, and to ask whether
it is true is a waste of time." [Bertrand Russell]
Comment:-
Whereas it is true that Truth is not the same thing as Useful,
from the Islamic point of view they are connected and can be regarded as
attributes of Allah.
That which is true is also useful and that which is false cannot be
ultimately useful.
That which is useful is true and that which is not useful in some way cannot
be true.
That is, that which cannot have any use cannot exist.
> Which, in effect, gets us back to my original point of how religious
> people,
Muslim or otherwise, ought to engage with people who hold 'humanism' values
(i.e. the primary doctrine that people's duty is to promote human welfare)
as a worldview? Which, on the face of it, isn't a necessary 'evil', per se.
That's the only point I'm trying to make clear.
Comment:-
That is one way of defining "humanism". I have seen it defined in the sense
that
I have dealt with in my previous article.
But to hold that value (the duty to promote human welfare) requires
justification
unless one admits an arbitrary irrational choice.
There is no purely logical justification for values.
Values are justified only when things are seen as parts of wholes with
respect to which
they have a function i.e. they have a purpose. Ultimately it is purpose of
Allah that gives
things value.
Another way to justify it is from a scientific point of view, the biological
and psychological.
According to the Psychological we must treat all things in proportion to
their similarities and differences in order to recognise and control
anything. It is the basis of existence. We should, therefore, treat other
people as we treat ourselves and vice versa and we do so even unconsciously.
Not to do so creates a contradiction within ourself that leads to inner
conflicts and suffering which we are built to avoid.
The Biological argument is that it is in our genes and in the nature of the
reproductive drive that we have affinity with the spouse and children and
with parents and siblings. By extension we have affinity with others related
to our parents and siblings and children and so on.
But these scientific arguments lead us to questions about where and how
these principles and drives come about. And so into an Infinite source.
Muslims can engage with Humanists on that point if they wish to argue.
But otherwise they will leave them to their own devices unless they ask
and are receptive.
An article on Values based on the Quran was posted here a weak or so ago.
Hamid S. Aziz
Mike
Zuiko Azumazi wrote:
> "I can respect the men who argue that religion is true and therefore ought
> to be believed, but I can feel only profound reprobation for those who say
> that religion ought to be believed because it is useful, and to ask whether
> it is true is a waste of time." [Bertrand Russell]
>
> Which, in effect, gets us back to my original point of how religious people,
> Muslim or otherwise, ought to engage with people who hold 'humanism' values
> (i.e. the primary doctrine that people's duty is to promote human welfare)
> as a worldview? Which, on the face of it, isn't a necessary 'evil', per se.
>
I can respect Bertrand Russell if he argues that philosophy is true and
therefore ought to be believed, but I can feel only profound
reprobation for him if he says that philosophy ought to be believed
because it is useful, and to ask whether it pursues the Truth is a
waste of time.
I would have thought religious people, Muslim or otherwise, would focus
primarily on what -unites- them with e.g. humanism rather than what
divides.
If a Muslim, or other, feels he has a superior value to offer then he
should do so. If the other party is not evolved enough to understand
that value, then by demonstrating that value patiently that
understanding may grow.
How does a Muslim raise the values of a child?
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ..
> > "I can respect the men who argue that religion is true and therefore
ought
> to be believed, but I can feel only profound reprobation for those who
say
> that religion ought to be believed because it is useful, and to ask
whether
> it is true is a waste of time." [Bertrand Russell]
Comment:-
To paraphrase, if one substitutes an unspecified 'value system' called 'x',
into Russell's proposition, what do we get?
"I can respect the men who argue that 'x' is true and therefore ought to be
believed, but I can feel only profound reprobation for those who say that
'x' ought to be believed because it is useful, and to ask whether it is true
is a waste of time."
Now, let 'x' stand for any religious or ideological 'value system', where
does that logically lead us in this particular proposition? For, whatever
our 'value system' is, the argument put forth as 'justification' for it
satisfies the 'philosophical' predicates implicit in the proposition, be
they Islamic or otherwise? Unless, of course, if we want to present the
opposing argument that our own particular 'value system', ipso facto, isn't
'useful' (which I don't think we do)!
But, shouldn't we consider this 'dire' consequence, or possibility, before
responding?
--
Peace
--
Examine what is said, not him who speaks. -Arabic Proverb
Zuiko Azumazi.
azu...@hotmail.com
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1119469916.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> I can respect Bertrand Russell if he argues that philosophy is true and
> therefore ought to be believed, but I can feel only profound
> reprobation for him if he says that philosophy ought to be believed
> because it is useful, and to ask whether it pursues the Truth is a
> waste of time.
Comment:-
Are we examining Bertrand Russell or what he wrote? I thought we were trying
to rebut the argument contained in the proposition (as one example) not
judge the man? Is the typical ad hominem attack an adequate defence? Why
should we digress or change the subject under debate?
If one, Muslim or otherwise, examines the 'subject' and 'predicates'
implicit in this particular proposition what result do we get?
(1) Respect man qua man > All religion true
(2) Reprobate man qua man > All religion useful
(3) All religion true > discussion waste of time.
How does one adequately rebut this from a subjective religious position,
Islamic or otherwise? Doesn't the very nature and structure of this very
carefully constructed proposition deny this possibility? Isn't any potential
rebuttal fraught with the danger of undermining one's own religious faith,
Islamic or otherwise?
Personally, I find it difficult to implicitly rebut this particular
proposition (in and of itself), therefore, the prudent suggestion is don't
try? Unless, of course, there is any wise subscriber, Muslim or otherwise,
who has come up with a viable rebuttal from a universal religious faith
perspective?
Mike
Zuiko Azumazi wrote:
> Comment:-
> Are we examining Bertrand Russell or what he wrote? I thought we were trying
> to rebut the argument contained in the proposition (as one example) not
> judge the man?
Thanks for your comments Zuiko. I wasn't attacking Russell but I used
his proposition to rebut the philosophy that produced it.
> How does one adequately rebut this from a subjective religious position,
> Islamic or otherwise? Doesn't the very nature and structure of this very
> carefully constructed proposition deny this possibility? Isn't any potential
> rebuttal fraught with the danger of undermining one's own religious faith,
> Islamic or otherwise?
As far as I see, the Truth of religion, Muslim or otherwise is revealed
more through the living of it and not just by thinking or reasoning
about it. By living it, I mean living it consciously not blindly. To
help live it consciously it may be necessary to use one or more of the
faculties used in philosophising e.g. discrimination between what is
Real and what is illusory, clarity of expression etc.
Discussion can be a waste of time in some cases e.g. if one or more
parties does not really want to hear anything other than what they have
been programmed to hear or if the discussion 'muddies the water' even
more than it already is.
In the meantime, I am sure we all do our best to bring clarity to a
difficult subject.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> Thanks for your comments Zuiko. I wasn't attacking Russell but I used
> his proposition to rebut the philosophy that produced it.
Comment:-
I agree that we certainly can reject the philosophy of 'Humanism' outright.
But, that isn't the object of this discussion. The object was that someone
indicated that they could easily rebut the 'naive' arguments raised in "Why
I Am not a Christian" (check earlier posts) and invited suggestions from
subscribers, Muslim or otherwise, that they could 'answer'. I just complied
with that simplistic request. The dilemma (not created by myself) then
becomes how do we satisfactorily 'answer' one of Russell's, well-known,
'naive' propositions, does it not?
<snip> ...
> > How does one adequately rebut this from a subjective religious position,
> > Islamic or otherwise? Doesn't the very nature and structure of this very
> > carefully constructed proposition deny this possibility? Isn't any
potential
> > rebuttal fraught with the danger of undermining one's own religious
faith,
> > Islamic or otherwise?
<snip> ...
> As far as I see, the Truth of religion, Muslim or otherwise is revealed
> more through the living of it and not just by thinking or reasoning
> about it. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
I agree, but that doesn't rebut the proposition as presented by Russell, it
only subjectively avoids 'seeing' it.
As I previously mentioned, Islam is the Truth for all Muslims, and because
it is the Truth it necessarily precludes all the other religious dogmas,
revealed or otherwise, does it not? If so, isn't any discussion with
religious people of other 'faiths' (which they also believe to be the Truth)
as waste of time? How many 'truths' are contained in Truth, so to speak? Can
Muslims, in general, believe that these other religions are, in fact,
'useful' (i.e. of great importance or use or service)?
> By living it, I mean living it consciously not blindly. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
I agree in principle with the remainder of your post from a personal
religious perspective. However, this doesn't explain how Muslims "ought to
engage with people who hold 'humanism' values" as a practising philosophy
(or other value systems for that matter), are you intimating we shouldn't
even try? Does meaningful and coherent dialogue automatically 'muddy the
water'? If so, ought we not consciously try to 'unmuddy it' so to speak? How
do we do we logically accomplish this difficult God given Islamic task,
other than through civilised argumentation? Any helpful suggestions?
Mike
Zuiko Azumazi wrote:
snip.........
> As I previously mentioned, Islam is the Truth for all Muslims, and because
> it is the Truth it necessarily precludes all the other religious dogmas,
> revealed or otherwise, does it not? If so, isn't any discussion with
> religious people of other 'faiths' (which they also believe to be the Truth)
> as waste of time? How many 'truths' are contained in Truth, so to speak? Can
> Muslims, in general, believe that these other religions are, in fact,
> 'useful' (i.e. of great importance or use or service)?
Not being a Muslim in the sense you are using it, it would be difficult
for me to comment with any 'inside' knowledge, but as an outsider I
would suggest this.
The Truth for all Muslims is -Allah-, and nothing else. The Truth for
most other religions is God under another name, and nothing else. The
Quran is the Muslims' revealed Way to that Truth. If a Muslim declares
that there is only one valid Way or set of rituals and that is the
Islamic Way and all others are false then there is little room for
discussion except, perhaps, in the interest of mutual understanding or
to confirm that others at least worship the same God or Truth.
If however, there are words in the Quran that at least acknowledge that
there are other valid prophets with other Ways to God that have been
provided for other nations, then, for mutual clarity and promotion of
wisdom, there could be a case for discussion. There need not be any
pressure of any kind to encourage followers to switch religions. As
far as I can see it is the individual that stands or falls by his own
decisions and practices and that this responsibility should not be
usurped by another.
> I agree in principle with the remainder of your post from a personal
> religious perspective. However, this doesn't explain how Muslims "ought to
> engage with people who hold 'humanism' values" as a practising philosophy
> (or other value systems for that matter), are you intimating we shouldn't
> even try? Does meaningful and coherent dialogue automatically 'muddy the
> water'? If so, ought we not consciously try to 'unmuddy it' so to speak? How
> do we do we logically accomplish this difficult God given Islamic task,
> other than through civilised argumentation? Any helpful suggestions?
I would have to say that only those who have come to the Truth i.e. are
conscious of the Truth are in any real position to clarify others. As
they will be fully surrendered to Allah and have no 'self'(ego) to
defend or 'muddy the waters',they can do nothing other than help.
All others with a vestige of ego in them (including religious ego) can
only be helpful in inverse proportion to the degree of ignorance still
residing within them. It is better that we should all recognise our
limitations and work to remove them so that our discussions are not
prejudiced by them. In the meantime we do the best we can to help
others especially by exhibiting the values we believe in.
As regards humanism, which I know very little about, if there is no God
involved in their philosophy, then they could be thought of as
'spiritual' juveniles and discussion could be left at their level until
they indicate that they are ready to move beyond.
Uncle_Sinbad
Salaam Zuiko,
Couldn't the answer be by pointing to the difference between essence
and branches, esoterical and exoterical truth?
All religions could be true in essence but only one is uncorrupted for
eg.
Kamal
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> ... If a Muslim declares
> that there is only one valid Way or set of rituals and that is the
> Islamic Way and all others are false then there is little room for
> discussion except, perhaps, in the interest of mutual understanding or
> to confirm that others at least worship the same God or Truth.
Comment:-
The dogmatic theology of revealed religion, Islamic or otherwise, is an
explication of the articles of faith that allow little scope for manoeuvre;
it draws upon reason only to reach conclusions from premises established in
its particular Scripture. For Muslims that is the Qur'an the direct Word of
God. God is Truth in this regard, there is no difference. Monotheist
worship, well at least in Islam, is not, as could possibly be inferred from
your statement, a choice between "God or Truth" they are one and the same.
> If however, there are words in the Quran that at least acknowledge that
> there are other valid prophets with other Ways to God that have been
> provided for other nations, then, for mutual clarity and promotion of
> wisdom, there could be a case for discussion.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Dialogue and diplomacy between temporal "nations", or sovereign states, is a
matter for the legitimate governments concerned, its a 'political' matter,
and, in that context, I agree with your sentiment. Although, in reality,
'political wisdom' sounds very much like a oxymoron to me.
<snip> ...
> As regards humanism, which I know very little about, if there is no God
> involved in their philosophy, then they could be thought of as
> 'spiritual' juveniles and discussion could be left at their level until
> they indicate that they are ready to move beyond.
Comment:-
One could say that humanism as a philosophy is reflected in the nature of
temporal governance, in what many today would call a 'secular' world.
Unfortunately, many "nations", in their own self-interest and ascendancy,
won't allow other "nations" to remain ideological or "spiritual" juveniles,
hence "politics is carried out by other means, that is, war", as Clausewitz
once said. History will attest to that.
--
Peace
--
Negative findings are sometimes as important as positive ones, since they
cut down the total universe of ignorance. [F. N. Kerlinger]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1119947213.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>...
Salaam Kamal,
<snip> ...
Comment:-
It's very difficult, if not, impossible to 'point' at abstract notions (e.g.
faith, religion, justice, democracy, philosophy, economics, sociology, and
politics, etc.) as if they were 'things' (beings and objects) rather than
'words'. The name is not the 'thing' so to speak.
There is a whole series of verbal questions of these types: What is ...?;
What is the meaning of ...?; What is the nature of ...?; What is the essence
of ...?. These are often verbal questions disguised as factual ones.
The 'essence-questions' are typically a disguised request for a definition
of the defining features of X, those features in the absence of which we
would not call the thing X. As a prime example, "What is the essence of
religion?" Now what are the defining features of a 'religion' (any religion,
Islamic or otherwise)? What features would we choose, those without which
something couldn't be called a 'religion'? Those features, that we list,
without which something wouldn't be called a 'religion' are the features
which constitute "the essence of religion".
Take Islam as an another example, would any two 'sectarian' Muslims, fully
agree on a uniform list of "defining features" that constitute "the essence
of Islam", let alone any other religion? Again, I'm not sure if this
position would change that much if any dialectic was between the
'esoterical' scholarly elite or 'exoteric' Muslims.
But, as I keep repeating, I'm not a theologian!
Uncle_Sinbad
Salaam Zuiko,
I don't think we should make things more complex then they are.
Bertrand Russel was as you said a logical-positivist, meaning he only
accepted reason and the senses as a reliable means to gain knowledge.
Religious people have a wider epistemology. You can not make a blind
man see the sun.
You can only point to another level that he is not aware of, e.g. the
heat of the sun.
The essence of religion is spirituality, wich is in the heart. The goal
of religion is to reconnect with the Transcendent. Wether you are
muslim, jew, christian, hindu or buddhist.
The laws and dogma's are just a means and not the goal of religion.
Faith is in the heart (not the physical organ but the centre of your
being) and not in the eyes, ears or brains. In that way all religions
are right in essence and.
Peace,
Kamal
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
Salaam Kamal,
> I don't think we should make things more complex then they are.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
I agree.
> Bertrand Russel was as you said a logical-positivist, meaning he only
> accepted reason and the senses as a reliable means to gain knowledge.
Comment:-
I don't necessarily disagree.
> ... You can not make a blind man see the sun. You can only point to
another
> level that he is not aware of, e.g. the heat of the sun.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
I don't dispute what you say. However, the context of this 'subject'
discussion originally, was Russell's "Why I'm not a Christian", which
neither you and I are, for obviously different religious reasons, since all
Muslims as individuals are not Christians. It was this 'point' I was feebly
trying to make clear, in other words, don't confuse the 'words' with the
'thing' or vice versa. As you rightly mentioned the "sun", as a 'thing' we
'point' to in the sky, which a blind man cannot see, but, most probably, can
conceive as a 'word' or 'concept' (idea, sic) in the mind. That's all.
> The essence of religion is spirituality, wich is in the heart. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
It goes with out saying that the locus of feelings and intuitions of all
revealed religions, Islam or otherwise, are from the 'heart', being the
'word' not the 'thing', once again. It's those feelings and intuitions
issued from the 'heart' that provide all-encompassing spirituality, the
choicest or most essential or most vital part of some idea or experience.
But, as a medieval scholar pointed out, 'Determinatio est negatio' ( 'to
define is to deny'). Perhaps, there is a lesson in that for us all.