In article <6oidut$c7...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
alim...@city-net.com (Jeremiah McAuliffe) writes:I have read books on hermeneutics and it is important to me.
} Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu> wrote:
} >When Muhammad put this challenge before the Meccans then
} >this was meant to be decidable in a short time. THEY should
} >produce something and then based on whether they could or
} >not, THEY should believe. Obviously, when one has to wait a
} >millenium before one can decide whether something met the
} >challenge, then it was useless for the Meccans, and is just
} >as wrong a criterion today.
} >I hope this is logical.
} Nope. This is the same hermeneutic (that important word you ignore)
} put forth by "Qur'an Only" people so they may discount "obey the
Plainly, I think you are abusing the word and make it a catch all
phrase so that you can do eisegesis instead of exegesis and look
smart while abusing the text.
} A Muslim's assumption regarding the Qur'an, as the genre ofTo a certain extent you are right. For example our circumstances
} "religious scripture", implies that the meaning of the text
} transcends any one particular period of time, or culture-- allowing
} for the archtypal events during the actual period of revelation. So,
} "like it" changes due simply to time-- the fact that the text,
} through time and across cultures, continues to have such an impact on
} actual human thought, attitude and behavior, as it did at the
} beginning. Simple.
of life are vastly different from Biblical or Qur'anic times into
which they were spoken/written. We have to extract principles and
the 'why' they were said in their time and then apply the principle
and not always the letter of the text. I understand that well,
because that is how Christian theology works. Islamic theology is
much more stuck with the literal interpretation and you are a
minority with your view. But even though I acknowledge that this
is how scripture (true one) should be read, I don't think it
works here. I understand why you would like to view it this
way, but it isn't appropriate. You would not argue that way
for any other challenge or competition.
Your approach is like this:
One person says, "I will pay $10,000 to the first person
I am sure you would call that cheating. But you are happy to
I do not have any interest to follow that kind of hermeneutics.
} >Every criterion for deciding whether a certain textBetter a lack of imagination than introducing dishonest
} >satisfies the challenge must in principle be decidable
} >in the same way also by the Meccans to whom this
} >challenge originally was given or it doesn't make
} >Don't you agree? Or do you opt for a criterion that
} >would have been nonsense to the original audience?
} Nope and No. Again, that famous Katzian lack of imagination....
methods in the challenge.
} For instance, when the prohibition against khamer or wine came downI agree with this one. that is reasoning by analogy. It is
} the people of the time had no knowledge of pot, or crack, or smack or
} valium or bourban or champagne, etc. I'm sure you can fill in the
} rest, Jochen.
taking the principle behind a command and applying it correctly
to the current situation.
A challenge is not like that. Commands and challenges to satisfy
} >and his religion had none of the above. His own Qur'anYou admit that your definition is not what it originally was.
} >would have failed your criterion at the time it was
} Right. And as the text moves through time, and thus shows more of
} what it really is and different aspects of what it really is-- and
} thus what is or would be "like it" people still fail.... it is
} harder now to come up with something "like it". They couldn't do it
} when it would be easier, they certainly can't do it now.
} Allahu akbar.
It is beyond me how God is honored and shown great and deserving
Let me requote what Maryam wrote and you supported:
} When "suralikeit" has a billion followers, inspires their hearts, souls andIn effect, you want to make the challenge something that cannot
} minds; spurs on civilisation, unites a fractured, warring people, is
} responsible for the downfall of corrupt dynasties and establishes tawheedian
} monotheism - then we will know the challenge has indeed been met. Hmmmmmm
} wonder if it will?
be decided in anyone's lifetime (in particular not in your own).
It has to be attempted and then people will have to wait several
hundred years to see what it will accomplish.
What does that mean? You do not want to have to deal with it.
I call that a mechanism of denial. Not hermeneutics. But many
P.S. Some Muslims may use the "solution" of force by physical bodyguards.
} Let us give a simple example. If a man claims to be the strongest man onBasically you say, any man who wants to challenge "the strong man"
} earth but he is surrounded by ten bodyguards who knock down anybody who
} wants to challenge him. No-one will ever know if this man is actually
} the strongest man on earth unless he is put to the test. On the contrary,
} the more the bodyguards prevent anyone from challenging him the more doubt
} arises about this man's claim.
has first to run a double length marathon, climb Mount Everest and
swim across the Atlantic before he is even allowed to meet with the
man who claims to be the strongest. ... in the hope that he will
drown on the way and never make it.
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.