A falsehood in the Koran
Robert Houghton
"If I go astray, I go astray only on my own loss. If I am guided, it is by
what my Lord reveals to me." (Arberry).
This is worth pondering. At the simplest level it is plainly false: if
Muhammad was led astray, countless numbers of people have suffered. Millions
upon millions of innocent Muslims have based their lives upon falsehood.
Millions of pagans have been massacred and enslaved in jihad. Millions of
Christians and Jews have been oppressed and degraded, and countless millions
of Muslim women have been reduced to near servitude, controlled, secluded,
and sexually exploited by their 'husbands'(Homa Darabi, the distinguished
Iranian psychiatrist, said that for women Islamic marriage was a prison, for
men a whorehouse.) Not only have these people suffered they have suffered to
no purpose; if they are Muslims, paradise is not guaranteed to them.
There are other, subtler, modes of falsehood to this verse. A Prophet does
not use the hypothetical mode: "If..."; he uses the categorical mode which
is so frequently used in the Koran: the absolute demand. God's truth does
not rest on a hypothetical. In fact, we hear Muhammad's own voice - for a
moment self-doubt is admitted.
Surfer
<robe...@f2s.com> wrote:
>In the verse (34:50) we read that Muhammad is commanded by God to say:
>
>"If I go astray, I go astray only on my own loss. If I am guided, it is by
>what my Lord reveals to me." (Arberry).
>
Rather than being a falsehood, I would say that this is a warning
that the Qur'an should not be assumed to be without error.
This would imply that true Islam must be a liberal religion.
Eg.
http://www.liberalislam.net/
http://www.secularislam.org/
http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/
capsaicin
Not so quick now buddy. Slow down a bit. Your whole argument is based
on a misunderstanding of the translation. Maybe the translation is not
showing its meaning
correctly enough, MAYBE. I don't have any idea but in any case let me
correct you:
The verse implies that if I (as an example) go astray, its my own fault
and if I am guided, it is by my lord's guidance.
Let me take a look at the translation. When Arberry or Pickthall say
"only on my own loss" they are talking about the reason of falling
astray not about its ramifications. It is because of my own loss (or
fault) and nobody else's that I have gone astray. This is the answer to
those people that claim that others are the cause of us falling astray
and that they have been innocent. The answer is that you had eyes and
ears and a mind to think and there were enough guidance for you to find
the right path.
Also one can find what the verse is really implying by trying to match
the two parts of the verse. The second part is clearly not talking
about the effects of being on the right path but the cause of it, so
what gave you the impression that the first part is talking about the
effects of being misled?
> Homa Darabi, the distinguished Iranian psychiatrist, said that for women Islamic marriage > was a prison, for men a whorehouse.
I don't care what that psychopath have said. Do you think that just
because she killed herself as a protest her words become true? Anybody
can comment on stuff like that. Maybe she wasn't lucky enough with her
husband and she committed suicide. Maybe she have mistaken the iranian
government with islam. Its always easy to blame religions for any
problem we have.
> if they are Muslims, paradise is not guaranteed to them.
Thats really nice of you that you didn't say: "if they are Muslims,
hell is guaranteed to them". How many muslims have you ever seen saying
that being a muslim is a guarantee of paradise? It is your christianity
that sends any christian to paradise not Islam.
> There are other, subtler, modes of falsehood to this verse. A Prophet does
> not use the hypothetical mode: "If..."; he uses the categorical mode which
> is so frequently used in the Koran: the absolute demand. God's truth does
> not rest on a hypothetical. In fact, we hear Muhammad's own voice - for a
> moment self-doubt is admitted.
The truth is that Muhammed, as a pattern for the muslims to follow, is
not so rude to say that "Heaven is guaranteed to me, now my followers
go and dig your own hole." Any muslim believes by heart that his
prophet is the most worthy for heaven. Its no wonder for me that a
person like you might consider it self-doubt. AND this verse is not for
the prophet alone, it is how Allah teaches. If you consider your
salvation to be strictly because of yourself then you are suffering the
devastating disease called "pride".
First try to understand the verse and only then try to extract more
falsehood out of it. The falsehood reeks out of your own mind not out
of Quran. Maybe you need to change your view of Islamic concepts and
how you should interpret Quranic suggestions.
nobody
Robert Houghton wrote:
> In the verse (34:50) we read that Muhammad is commanded by God to say:
>
> "If I go astray, I go astray only on my own loss. If I am guided, it is by
> what my Lord reveals to me." (Arberry).
>
What you are doing is reading into the text and calculating 1 + 1 = 3.
The text take in the literal meaning of the words which means that if
man goes astray is at his own loss.
i.e. if you go astray you don't exalt god of his might you only harm
yourself. You harm god no matter what you do. And if you get anything
good it is with the mercy of god the creator.
By the mercy of the creator because your creator owes you nothing, in
fact you owe everything to your creator.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:000001c72aaa$4c1c2bb0$4101a8c0@rhdt...
<snip> ...
> In the verse (34:50) we read that Muhammad is commanded by God to say:
>
> "If I go astray, I go astray only on my own loss. If I am guided, it is by
> what my Lord reveals to me." (Arberry). ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
I wonder if Professor Arthur Arberry, who you have authoritatively cited,
would concur with, as you said, your simplistic interpretation? Didn't
Arberry set up the well-respected 'Centre of Middle-Eastern and Islamic
Studies' at Cambridge University? Let's see what they say about themselves
out of curiosity, at this link:-
http://www.oriental.cam.ac.uk/cmeis_admin_details.html
Extract:-
>From the time that European scholars became interested in the study of
languages, cultures and faiths other than their own, Cambridge has played
its part in the development of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies. The
study of Arabic as the key to understanding the Qur'an, Islam and the great
culture standing on Europe's doorstep in the Balkans, the Eastern
Mediterranean and North Africa, began in earnest in 1632 when the Sir Thomas
Adams Professorship in Arabic was founded. In subsequent centuries the
study of Arabic was supplemented by the study of Persian and Turkish.
Mastery of these languages opened up the rich heritage of the Islamic Middle
East to generations of scholars such as Simon Okley, Edward Granville Brown,
R. A. Nicholson and Arthur Arberry, whose work was characterised by
recognition of the Islamic Middle East's achievements and sympathy for its
cultural traditions. These scholars gave Cambridge Middle Eastern and
Islamic Studies their shape by making the study of Middle Eastern languages
the necessary first step in studying the literature, history and culture of
this fascinating region. ...
End extract.
As Arberry clearly stipulates: "The study of Arabic as the key to
understanding the Qur'an, Islam and the great culture standing on Europe's
doorstep". So my question is, as Arberry suggests, how can you or anyone
else who hasn't taken the time or effort to master Arabic hold a worthwhile
mental 'key' to understanding the Qur'an or Islam? Isn't this worth
pondering?
But since you have raised elsewhere, the provenance issue of ancient Middle
Eastern manuscripts and now Arthur Arberry, I thought this anecdotal
evidence might intrigue discerning subscribers, who understand the 'black
art' of translating early Middle Eastern literature from ancient
manuscripts:-
Article:-
The Persian or the Scholar?
>From the Oct. 30, 1950 issue of TIME magazine
Arthur John Arberry, Cambridge University professor of Arabic and authority
on Persian, is a plump and hearty gentleman with a stiff black moustache who
long ago made up his mind about one thing. "Every scholar of Persian," he
once wrote, "firmly resolves, quite early in his career, that whatever other
temptation he may yield to in the course of his alluring adventures, he will
never be drawn into the Omar Khayyám controversy . . ." By last week,
Professor Arthur Arberry, 45, had found himself not only drawn into the
controversy, but practically the center of it.
The controversy had its beginnings in 1856, when eccentric Scholar Edward
FitzGerald got his first look at a copy of a 400-year-old manuscript in
Oxford's Bodleian Library. He began translating the quatrains of the
forgotten Persian astronomer-poet, Omar Khayyám. In a short time,
FitzGerald's translations swept into vogue, and the Rubáiyát's call to "A
Jug of Wine, a Loaf of Bread-and Thou" became a literary contagion.
The Moving Finger. Victorian ladies sneaked the poems upstairs and hid them
under their pillows. Lovers read them aloud, and young men quoted sadly that
"The Moving Finger Writes; and, having writ, Moves on . . ." Far into the
20th Century, the contagion persisted, and Journalist-Historian Mark
Sullivan, in Our Times, felt himself obliged to record that Omar's bibulous
philosophy had had the "effect of sapping and undermining" U.S. morals.
Meanwhile, scholars were having their own troubles. As they rummaged about
for other Omar poems, they uncovered so many that it began to seem
impossible that Omar could have written them all. Some quatrains were also
attributed to other poets, and scholars began to conclude that Omar was just
a convenient name on which to pin any wine-colored quatrains that turned up.
As for the Rubáiy5ádt, scholars also had doubts: Was Omar a really good
poet, or had FitzGerald merely made him seem so?
"There It Was." Until 1947, Arthur Arberry kept himself clear of all this.
Then one day a wealthy collector brought him a slim, yellowed volume of
Persian poetry. Sure enough, reported Arberry, "There it was ... the oldest
copy of Omar Khayyám's poems hitherto discovered ... The celebrated
[Bodleian] codex had been bettered by exactly two centuries . . . This was
more than human curiosity could resist."
The professor set to work, gave the quatrains a literal translation (the
manuscript contained 172 of them), and published them in a small (400
copies) deluxe edition. But no sooner had he completed the task than a
Persian book dealer came all the way from Teheran to see him with a browned
and ancient sheaf of papers. Arberry recognised that this Rubáiyát was older
still. It had been copied out only 75 years after Omar's death, contained
252 quatrains.
"These Simple Things." Last week Professor Arberry finished a new
translation, this time putting the quatrains into verse. When the Arberry
Rubdiydt finally appears, connoisseurs will find the old Omar quite changed.
For Quatrain No. 1 ("Wake! For the Sun, who scatter'd into flight / The
Stars before him from the Field of Night. . ."), readers will find:
The sun has cast the noose of morn
Athwart the rooftop of the world;
The emperor of day has hurled
His head, our goblet to adorn . . .
For the familiar "Jug of Wine, a Loaf of Bread . . ." Arberry writes:
These simple things if they be mine-
A loaf, the purest heart of wheat,
A thigh of lamb to be my meat,
For thirst a flagon of good wine;
And if, to cheer my wilderness,
A maid refusing not my kiss,
That were a life of perfect bliss
No throned sultan can possess.
As for "The Moving Finger . . ." it no longer shows up at all.
To Professor Arberry's way of thinking, the new verses will show more
thoroughly than ever before what extraordinary liberties FitzGerald took
with Omar-"numerous infidelities of interpretation which go beyond the
generous margin of poetic paraphrase FitzGerald allowed himself . . .
infidelities that err against the very spirit of the original ... Of the
two, Omar and FitzGerald, if I have to choose between them, I do not doubt
that the Persian was the greater poet and the greater man."
That left a legion of FitzGerald admirers still to be heard from.
End article.
Aren't you mentally still looking for "The Moving Finger . . ." (a
figurative smoking gun), or perversely "infidelities that err against the
very spirit of the original" Qur'an? But who is the "greater man"? Isn't
this worth pondering, as well?
--
Peace
--
If it is true that there is always more than one way of construing a text,
it is not true that all interpretations are equal. [Paul Ricoeur]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
Robert
You ask "...how can you or anyone else who hasn't taken the time or
effort to master Arabic hold a worthwhile mental 'key' to understanding
the Qur'an or Islam?"
This is a very old Muslim argumentative ploy: Dominique Urvoy in her
book "Ibn Rushd: Averroes" observes that when the Muslims first invaded
Christian Spain and joined in religious argument with learned
Christians (Spain wasn't a cultural desert as they claimed) the
Christians found that the arguments always ended with the Muslims
saying "You are not qualified to discuss this since you do not
understand the complexities and subtleties of the Arabic language and
the Koran."
The obvious retort is that the vast majority of Muslims do not know
Arabic, and of those that do only a small minority are able to read the
Arabic of the Koran. By your argument these people do not understand
the Koran or Islam. Actually, given the appalling level of literacy and
education under Islam I think this is probably true.
Arthur Arberry, whom you seem to respect, evidently believed the Koran
could be translated: that is that much of its meaning can be
transferred to English - I accept his judgment but realize that
reference to the original is necessary in serious discussion.
But do YOU know Arabic? If so, where do you offer to correct Arberry
and my posting? If nowhere, why do you bother us?
forfo...@yahoo.com
Robert Houghton wrote:
> In the verse (34:50) we read that Muhammad is commanded by God to say:
>
> "If I go astray, I go astray only on my own loss. If I am guided, it is by
> what my Lord reveals to me." (Arberry).
>
> This is worth pondering. At the simplest level it is plainly false: if
> Muhammad was led astray, countless numbers of people have suffered. Millions
> upon millions of innocent Muslims have based their lives upon falsehood.
> Millions of pagans have been massacred and enslaved in jihad.
I am certain that you don't read the context..
_IF_ you do you would notice couple verses prior to this one.
"Say: Whatever reward I might have asked of you is yours. My reward is
the affair of Allah
only. He is Witness over all things. (34:47)
Regardless of what it is -- whatever the Prophet had ask is decreed.
The following hypothetical IF is the continuation of it.
_IF_ for some reason I personally go astray whatever reason, the
promises that promised
to you are staying.
_IF_ I have problem, you have nothing to do with it.
My job is only has something to do with good things. _IF_ I am bad, it
is personal between me and God.
Robert
The translation is perfectly clear to me.
I take Homa Darabi's verdict on Islamic marriage seriously because she
was a serious, intelligent, and honest woman who commands respect; and
because of what I have read over many months of the Islamic doctrine of
marriage (and I know at first hand that the reality can, thank God, be
quite different): the man just about possesses his wife - she owes a
duty of obedience, may not leave the house without permission, must
offer sex on demand, and may be raped if she refuses; in addition the
wife may be divorced without reason, without process, and without
maintenance. As a psychiatrist, Homa Darabi, would have been intimately
acquainted to the mental problems that this kind of marriage gives rise
to, and in the less cultured parts of the Islamic world they must be
common.
"...if you consider your salvation to be strictly because of yourself
then you are suffering the devastating disease called pride" - exactly
so, but in stating this fact you display the appalling ignorance that
Muslims have of Christianity. Your point is a key Christian doctrine:
salvation is God's free gift; it is not earned.
Abdalla Alothman
Robert Houghton wrote:
>
> There are other, subtler, modes of falsehood to this verse. A Prophet does
> not use the hypothetical mode: "If..."; he uses the categorical mode which
> is so frequently used in the Koran: the absolute demand. God's truth does
> not rest on a hypothetical. In fact, we hear Muhammad's own voice - for a
> moment self-doubt is admitted.
Of course the above is all wrong. It comes from a person
who wished that he can discuss these topics, but due to
his paralysis in the Arabic language, he takes wrong directions.
The aaya that made him lose his tracks is:
34:50. Say: "If (even) I go astray, I shall stray only to my own
loss. But if I remain guided, it is because of the Inspiration of
my Lord to me. Truly, He is AllHearer, Ever Near (to all things)."
Basically, an aaya that starts with qull (say:...) is addressed to
the Messenger (s) and all the believers. The translation he provided
discard "Say" which means that the translator is a mere translator
who doesn't know anything about what he is translating.
Secondly, the aaya uses mafhoom almukhalafa to confirm the
second clause. This is taken by the way "inn" (IF) is used. This
is basic Arabic. mafhoom almukhalafa is a form of establishing
evidence or extracting the desired piece of information from a
contradictory clause.
Thirdly, the aaya in context confirms that the Messenger (s) is
conveying the truth:
34:48. Say (O Muhammad SAW): "Verily! My Lord sends down
Inspiration and makes apparent the truth (i.e. this Revelation
that had come to me), the AllKnower of the Ghaib (unseen).
"sends down" is better said as: THROWS, FIRES etc.
34:49. Say (O Muhammad SAW): "The truth (the Qur'ân and
Allâh's Inspiration) has come, and AlBâtil [falsehood - Iblîs
(Satan)] can neither create anything nor resurrect (anything)."
After all that, two clauses are given in 34:50, where the favored
one is usually the second; it happens to match what came before
it.
Ignorance from Robert once again....
Abdalla Alothman
Vladimir
Robert Houghton wrote:
> In the verse (34:50) we read that Muhammad is commanded by God to say:
>
> "If I go astray, I go astray only on my own loss. If I am guided, it is by
> what my Lord reveals to me." (Arberry).
The more interesting verse is in 11:35:
[11.35] Or do they say: He has forged it? Say: If I have forged it, on
me is my guilt, and I am clear of that of which you are guilty.
Best Regards
nobody
This shows your ignorance to search for the truth.
The Quran has had an open challenge for over 1400 years; the challenge
is
"if you think this book is not from god then produce one like it"
The challenge stand for 1400 years and still no one has come forward to
meet it.
Robert
You say that any verse beginning "Say" is addressed to Muhammad and all
believers. This is impossible since it means that Muhammad is unable to
say anything that applies only to himself. It can only be decided in
context whether the Koran's message is of general application or not.
A further point: the first hearers of the Koran were unaware of this
rule of Koranic exegesis and would have understood the verse in its
simple natural sense and thus been misled.
Finally this arbitrary stipulation makes do difference: it doesn't
affect my argument since it accepts that "If I go astray, I shall stray
only to my own loss" applies to Muhammad, and this statement is
patently false. It is also false in its application to the Believers
generally.
Abdalla Alothman wrote:
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1167500901.9...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> You ask "...how can you or anyone else who hasn't taken the time or
> effort to master Arabic hold a worthwhile mental 'key' to understanding
> the Qur'an or Islam?"
> This is a very old Muslim argumentative ploy:
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Wrong again. As usual you didn't read what was written. All I did was quote
Professor Arthur Arberry's school, the 'Centre of Middle-Eastern and Islamic
Studies' at Cambridge University. which said: "The study of Arabic as the
key to understanding the Qur'an, Islam and the great culture standing on
Europe's doorstep in the Balkans, the Eastern Mediterranean and North
Africa, began in earnest in 1632 when the Sir Thomas Adams Professorship in
Arabic was founded"?
How can this be a Muslim ploy?
What has this statement from your authoritative source Arberry got to do
with the Dominque Urvoy diversion? It was you who quoted Arberry, as your
authority in the first place, now you changing your mind again? Don't you
want to follow Arberry's sound advice about learning Arabic before giving,
as you said, 'simplistic opinions' on the Qur'anic exegesis?
--
Peace
--
For those who do not think, it is best at least to rearrange their
prejudices once in a while. [Luther Burbank]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
Abdalla Alothman
> I reply to Azumazi Dec 30
>
> You ask "...how can you or anyone else who hasn't taken the time or
> effort to master Arabic hold a worthwhile mental 'key' to understanding
> the Qur'an or Islam?"
>
> This is a very old Muslim argumentative ploy: Dominique Urvoy in her
> book "Ibn Rushd: Averroes" observes that when the Muslims first invaded
> Christian Spain and joined in religious argument
The key here is that the purpose of acquiring language skills is to
initiate "religious" argument.
> The obvious retort is that the vast majority of Muslims do not know
> Arabic,
This is plain false.
> and of those that do only a small minority are able to read the
> Arabic of the Koran.
You're kidding... Try to attend a Quran competition. You not
only have people able to read the Quran, but memorize it and
from all over the world.
> By your argument these people do not understand
> the Koran or Islam.
This is not Zuiko's argument as everybody can see it. It is
your dishonest ways of twisting his words.
The issue that you based your protest on a case that
expects "argument." The Muslim believer who does not
know Arabic is not seeking an argument.
SO IN OTHER WORDS:
[A] if you want to argue, you're into combat. You need the
appropriate weapons.
[B] If you're not into argument, then find a comforting and
trusted source and take knowledge from there.
You mixed A and B. Do you know why? It's because of
your beliefs. You learned that your god is the father of
himself and the son of himself. An expensive tax for such
beliefs is the nonsense we pointed to: It's easy for you to
get mixed up and mix A with B.
Try to concentrate before you post nonsense and waste our
time.
> But do YOU know Arabic? If so, where do you offer to correct Arberry
> and my posting? If nowhere, why do you bother us?
Well, I'll be happy to take Zuiko's place here if he would allow me.
I hope I wont bother you.
Let's look at the translation you provided from Arberry:
"If I go astray, I go astray only on my own loss. If I am guided, it is
by
what my Lord reveals to me." (Arberry).
1. Arberry totally dismisses the command: qull (say).
2. He messes up in using the "IF." He makes it seem like a
conditional if, while the "if" goes a bit farther. However this
type of conditional and the style used has no equivalent in
English, so he can be excused, though he could have made
a better job.
3. We see the two "IFs" separated by a period. As if the sentence
ends before the second "IF" while in Arabic it is connected with
a "wa" that acts as a positive (truth) exception. This is the style
we've bee talking about. Where a false conditional is given and
then immediately followed by the true condition.
Of course Robert talked nonsense. But does Arberry deserves
to be criticized as well? Well, his work seems poor. Discarding
the qull (say) is very important. Some [SAY] commands are only
for the Messenger while others are specific to the Messenger (s)
but general to the ummah. Other commands are specific to the
Messenger (s) and the ruler, for example, and the general to the
ummah. When Arberry discards the command altogether, he
leaves a serious gap. In addition, adding a stop (period) between
the two conditionals when it is favorable to continue, is a clear
sign that he doesn't know what he was doing.
Abdalla Alothman
capsaicin
> The translation is perfectly clear to me.
And the implication of the verse is clear to me. You still didn't
mention the relation between the two parts of the verse. I don't read
only from English translations but also from Farsi ones. Even if we
look at it from the other way around, I still don't think its talking
about the ramifications of one's sins and it is not only about the
prophet. I believe the other subscribers can discuss it better with you
since I consider it the other way around and I stand by it.
> "...if you consider your salvation to be strictly because of yourself
> then you are suffering the devastating disease called pride" - exactly
> so, but in stating this fact you display the appalling ignorance that
> Muslims have of Christianity. Your point is a key Christian doctrine:
> salvation is God's free gift; it is not earned.
What ignorance, what key doctrine? The christians say that by believing
in Jesus you will be granted salvation as a gift no matter what you do.
This is called "Justification by Faith". I am sure you are familiar
with the story of Martin Luther. The "sola fide" is accepted by almost
all protestants. Aren't they christians or do you dismiss the
non-catholics as christians? I said it before and I would say it again:
We (the muslims) only repeat what the christians themselves say. This
"ignorance of christian doctrine" that you use as a hammer to smash on
the head of muslims is just a falsification.
Still it is wrong that salvation is not earned. What Islam says is that
salvation is not STRICKTLY because of ourselves. GUIDANCE is given to
us as a gift. It is WE who must earn salvation with the help of that
gift but we must always be thankful of the one who have given us the
gift of guidance.
capsaicin
> the man just about possesses his wife - she owes a
> duty of obedience, may not leave the house without permission, must
> offer sex on demand, and may be raped if she refuses; in addition the
> wife may be divorced without reason, without process, and without
> maintenance.
This is because you are not familiar with the muslim families at all.
And I stress: "Muslim Families". Your problem is that you ignore the
man's responsibilities completely and stick to what the woman is
responsible for in an overtly exaggerated manner. With this, not only
you aren't proving the muslims how a muslim family is maintained but
you are also showing your own ignorance of it. Like for example when
you claim: "and may be raped if she refuses" or "she owes a duty of
obedience" or when you say that women don't have the right to ask for a
divorce. You probably don't even know that demands of both sides should
be accepted on the contract phase or the marriage is VOID. So why don't
the women just consider putting forth their own suggestions at the
contract (and they DO) is just a mystery that Homa, Parvin and perhaps
Robert are able to unfold.
> As a psychiatrist, Homa Darabi, would have been intimately
> acquainted to the mental problems that this kind of marriage gives rise
> to, and in the less cultured parts of the Islamic world they must be
> common.
This is your idea and Homa and Parvin's that such marriage might give
rise to any mental problem. Yes, SUCH marriage perhaps but if this is
how Islamic marriage is about.
And lets not forget that Darabi family are political figures mostly.
Their problem is with the current Iranian regime but what is better
than to target the religion that this government is supposed to be
based on. However they failed to consider that the Persian families
were not much different at the time before this regime.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1167500901.9...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> Arthur Arberry, whom you seem to respect, evidently believed the Koran
> could be translated: that is that much of its meaning can be
> transferred to English - I accept his judgment but realize that
> reference to the original is necessary in serious discussion. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Putting aside the usual puerile gibes. As your authoritative source,
Professor Arthur Arberry wrote in his preface to "The Koran Interpreted",
and I quote verbatim:-
Extract:-
In choosing to call the present work The Koran Interpreted I have conceded
the relevancy of the orthodox Muslim view, of which Pickthall, for one, was
so conscious, that the Koran is untranslatable. Some of the implications of
that doctrine are sketched out in the preface to my The Holy Koran: an
Introduction with Selections (Allen & Unwin, 1955), and it is not proposed
to repeat the same argument here. Briefly, the rhetoric and rhythm of the
Arabic of the Koran are so characteristic, so powerful, so highly emotive,
that any version whatsoever is bound in the nature of things to be but a
poor copy of the glittering splendour of the original. Never was it more
true than in this instance that traduttore traditore. My chief reason for
offering this new version of a book which has been 'translated' many times
already is that in no previous rendering has a serious attempt been made to
imitate, however imperfectly, those rhetorical and rhythmical patterns which
are the glory and the sublimity of the Koran. I am breaking new ground here;
it may therefore be thought appropriate to explain in short my intentions
and my method. ...
During the long months, the dark and light months, of labouring at this
interpretation, eclectic where the ancient commentators differ in their
understanding of a word or a phrase, unannotated because notes in plenty are
to be found in other versions, and the radiant beauty of the original is not
clouded by such vexing interpolations... It was then that I, the infidel,
learnt to understand and react to the thrilling rhythms of the Koran, only
to be apprehended when listened to at such a time and in such a place. In
humble thankfulness I dedicate this all too imperfect essay in imitation to
the memory of those magical Egyptian nights.
End extract.
So one might legitimately ask if you have actually read Professor Arthur
Arberry's "The Koran Interpreted"? Why do you deny what your quoted
authority has said "I have conceded the relevancy of the orthodox Muslim
view, of which Pickthall, for one, was so conscious, that the Koran is
untranslatable."? And, "the radiant beauty of the original is not clouded by
such vexing interpolations"?
Obviously. of course, all of Professor Arberry's erudite comments about the
untranslatable Qur'an, and his sound studious advice, is all a Muslim ploy!
A global conspiracy initiated by Islam and Muslim commentators in this
forum. Isn't that the correct anti-Muslim retort to gain the 'veneer of
acceptance', Robert? Self-deception personified, one could say. You are
right and your cited authority, Professor Arberry, is wrong.
Undoubtable you will find some weasel words to bluster out of the
self-inflicted Qur'anic dilemma, which you have created for yourself, the
only extraneous factor being that discerning subscribers will understand
that your credibility and integrity is demolished once more by your own
specious transcripts.
Let Arberry have the last word: "Briefly, the rhetoric and rhythm of the
Arabic of the Koran are so characteristic, so powerful, so highly emotive,
that any version whatsoever is bound in the nature of things to be but a
poor copy of the glittering splendour of the original." Sounds good enough
for me. It's definitely not a falsehood about the Qur'an.
--
Peace
--
Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive
themselves. [Eric Hoffer]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
Abdalla Alothman
Robert wrote:
> I reply to Alothman Dec 31
>
> You say that any verse beginning "Say" is addressed to Muhammad and all
> believers.
This is not what I exactly said.
> A further point: the first hearers of the Koran were unaware of this
> rule of Koranic exegesis and would have understood the verse in its
> simple natural sense and thus been misled.
What a sweet idea. Can you prove it?
Abdalla Alothman
Altway
"Vladimir" <for...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> "If I go astray, I go astray only on my own loss. If I am guided, it is
>> by
what my Lord reveals to me." (Arberry).
> The more interesting verse is in 11:35:
[11.35] Or do they say: He has forged it? Say: If I have forged it, on
me is my guilt, and I am clear of that of which you are guilty.
Comment:-
What is supposed to be wrong with these verses?
The verses state that if he or anyone else goes astray or invent something
not true
then they are guilty and will reap the consequences, the punishment .
But guidance comes from God.
Obviously he who knows this would not do the evil but seek God's guidance.
Quite simple for people who do not have ulterior motives.
Hamid S. Aziz
Robert
I know very well that among educated Muslims in the West the Koranic
definition of the rights of husband and wife are ignored. What I set
out are the details of Sharia law, and there is no doubt that the 'Holy
Law' is still very influential in traditional Muslim cultures. Recent
research by a Turkish university, for instance, showed that in Eastern
and Southern Turkey 50% of women suffered violence at the hands of
their husbands; this is certainly related to the Koran's permission to
beat your wife. Again, MEMRI recently reported the work of a female
Egyptian 'sexologist' on the sexual problems of Muslim women: they
passively submit to sex in obedience to their husbands. She judged that
sexual problems were behind a high proportion of the large number of
divorces. This is related to the demeaning position of women in the
sexual relation that we find in the Koran.
My information is, that with the exception of a number of specified
instances, such as impotence, a woman can only get a divorce under
Sharia law with her husband's permission and she may have to pay him
for this. Indeed there have been cases in the press of poor Muslim
women being instructed by the Muslim judge to pay husbands who have
absconded to second wives overseas.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1167500901.9...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> This is a very old Muslim argumentative ploy: Dominique Urvoy in her
> book "Ibn Rushd: Averroes" ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
I'm glad you brought up Dominque Urvoy, as another one of your authoritative
sources, because this gives me another opportunity to demolish your earlier
"Myth of Golden Age in Muslim Spain" canard. Since you have studied Dominque
Urvoy's works in depth you would have come across his "The 'Ulama' of
al-Andalus", which is part of an anthology called, 'The Legacy of Muslim
Spain', edited by Salma Khadra Jayyusi. Here's what the reviewers of this
handbook said:-
Extract:-
This magnificent volume is surely the most comprehensive of all histories of
Islamic Spain...Highly recommended.' J.P. Berkey, Choice, 1993.
'... major resource in this field for decades to come.' Roger Allen.
'...monumental collected work...splendid and invaluable volume.' Richard W.
Bulliet, Jrnl of Isl. St., 1994.
'...this work should be praised as an impressive and valuable
publication...this obviously indispensable compendium recommended to experts
and to everyone interested in the legacy of Muslim Spain.' Maher Jarrar,
Al-Qantara, 1994.
'...presents a wide panorama of life in al-Andalus... It provides the
variety of information proper to an encyclopaedia... It is a book that each
private and public library must own... It combines a high level of
scholarship and a wide range of subjects that bring this period of
Arab-Islamic history of life.' Aida A. Bamia, International Journal of
Middle-Eastern Studies, 1994.
'This is a significant and scholarly work that is likely to remain of value
for some considerable time.' British Bull. Publ. on Lat.Am., Carribbean,
Portugal & Spain, 1995.'
'The Legacy of Muslim Spain is a treasure that all those interested in the
development of Iberian peninsula in the Middle Ages can consult with
profit...This is an excellent resource for all who wish to learn more about
Islamic Spain and its influence on medieval Christendom.' Joseph
O'Callaghan, Renaissance Quarterly, 1997.
'The 500th anniversary of the end of Islamic rule in al-Andalus has been
commemorated in various ways. The present work...is not only a most fitting,
but also a lasting contribution and memorial to that commemoration.' S.V.
Sicard, Islam and Christian Muslim Relations.
Here's the Table of Contents:-
History:
Mahmoud Makki, The Political History of al-Andalus (92/711-897/1492).
James Dickie, Granada: A Case Study of Arab Urbanism in Muslim Spain.
Robert Hillenbrand, 'The Ornament of the World: Medieval Córdoba as a
Cultural Centre.
Rafael Valencia, Islamic Seville: Its Political, Social and Cultural
History.
Mikel de Epalza, Mozarabs: An Emblematic Christian Minority in Islamic
al-Andalus
Margarita López Gómez, The Mozarabs: Worthy Bearers of Islamic Culture.
L.P. Harvey, The Mudejars.
Raymond P. Scheindlin, The Jews in Muslim Spain.
L.P. Harvey, The Political, Social and Cultural History of the Moriscos.
Madeleine Fletcher, Al-Andalus and North Africa in the Almohad Ideology.
Aziz Al-Azmeh, Mortal Enemies, Invisible Neighbours: Northerners in Andalusi
Eyes.
Abbas Hamdani, An Islamic Background to the Voyages of Discovery.
Language and Literature:
Pierre Cachia, Andalusi Belles Lettres.
Salma Khadra Jayyusi, Andalusi Poetry: The Golden Period.
Salma Khadra Jayyusi, Nature Poetry in al-Andalus and the Rise of Ibn
Khafaja
James T. Monroe, Zajal and Muwashshah?a: Hispano-Arabic Poetry and the
Romance Tradition.
Lois A. Giffen, Ibn h?azm and the t?awq al-h?amama
F. Corriente, Linguistic Interference Between Arabic and the Romance
Languages of the Iberian Peninsula.
Dieter Messner, Further Listings and Categorisations of Arabic Words in
Ibero-Romance Languages.
Roger Boase, Arab Influences on European Love-Poetry
María Rosa Menocal, Al-Andalus and 1492: The Ways of Remembering.
Luce López-Baralt, The Legacy of Islam in Spanish Literature.
Music:
Owen Wright, Music in Muslim Spain
Art and Architecture:
Oleg Grabar, Two Paradoxes in the Islamic Art of the Spanish Peninsula.
Jerrillynn Dodds, The Mudejar Tradition in Architecture.
Jerrillynn Dodds, The Arts of al-Andalus.
James Dickie, Space and Volume in Nasrid Architecture.
J.C. Bürgel, Ecstasy and Control in Andalusi Art: Steps towards a New
Approach.
A. Fernández-Puertas, Calligraphy in al-Andalus.
Social History and Lifestyle
Pierre Guichard, The Social History of Muslim Spain.
María J. Viguera, Asluh?u li 'l-ma'uli: On the Social Status of Andalusi
Women.
David Waines, The Culinary Culture of al-Andalus.
Economic History:
Pedro Chalmeta, An Approximate Picture of the Economy of al-Andalus.
Olivia Remie Constable, Muslim Merchants in Andalusi International Trade.
Philosophy:
Miguel Cruz Hernández, Islamic Thought in the Iberian Peninsula.
Jamal al-Din al-'Alawi, The Philosophy of Ibn Rushd
J.C. Bürgel, Ibn t?ufayl and his h?ayy Ibn Yaqz?an: A Turning Point in
Arabic
Philosophical Writing.
Religious Studies:
Dominique Urvoy, The 'Ulama' of al-Andalus.
Manuela Marín, Muslim Religious Practices in al-Andalus (2nd/8th- 4th/10th
Centuries).
María Isabel Fierro, Heresy in al-Andalus.
Claude Addas, Andalusi Mysticism and the Rise of Ibn 'Arabi.
Science, Technology and Agriculture:
J. Vernet, Natural and Technical Sciences in al-Andalus.
Julio Samsó, The Exact Sciences in al-Andalus.
Thomas F. Glick, Hydraulic Technology in al-Andalus.
Expiración García Sánchez, Agriculture in Muslim Spain.
Lucie Bolens, The Use of Plants for Dyeing and Clothing.
James Dickie, The Hispano-Arab Garden: Notes towards a Typology.
Charles Burnett, The Translating Activity in Medieval Spain.
Margarita López Gómez, Islamic Civilisation in al-Andalus: A Final
Assessment
End extract.
But this excellent handbook, 'The Legacy of Muslim Spain', is all a myth
created by Muslims and not by all these well-respected scholars, including
your newly chosen authority, Dominque Urvoy. Now doesn't this extensive
handbook, once more, totally demolish your earlier 'myth' canard? Now do
tell us what did your newfound authority, Dominque Urvoy, writes about the
'Ulama of al-Andalus'? Can you give us a précis?
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1167577468....@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> You mixed A and B. Do you know why? It's because of
> your beliefs. You learned that your god is the father of
> himself and the son of himself. ...
<snip> ...
Comment (Tongue in cheek):-
No, as a Muslim you must be fair. Robert derives his eccentric theological
ideas about Muslims and Islam by his inexorable reliance on, what he calls,
'reason'. He sincerely believes that 1+1+1=1, that's where Arabic numerals
falsely lead you, if you are innumerate and illiterate when punting on a
'deuce-ace'. Is this lacking knowledge and understanding of numerical
concepts and methods only confined to simple arithmetic or is it symptomatic
of a wider simple misconception in logical language? Perhaps, he is
misplacing his ontological predicates, once more, in an attempted appeal to
'a falsehood in the Qur'an', by punting on misapplied Arabic based
arithmetic? <G>
--
Peace
--
The Greeks invented logic but were not fooled by it. [Eric Hoffer]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
Robert
I am not using "ignorance of Christian doctrine" to smash Muslims, but
we must, on this forum approach the issue via Islam, and I am likely to
be in error, so please correct me if I am.
I believe the Muslim doctrine is that on the Last Day a person's bad
deeds will be weighed against his good deeds and if the former are
heavier he goes to Hell, if the latter are heavier he goes to Paradise.
This must be a figurative account - is that so? Deeds are not like
parcels of matter. I take it that it means that God in a general way
considers the balance of good and bad in a person's life.
I see a number of objections: this account can be applied to the whole
of humanity - where then does Islam come into the equation? Also there
may be only a trifling imbalance in favour of the bad, yet the person
goes to Hell for all eternity. Again, where does God's forgiveness come
into this?
In the Christian (Catholic) account what matters is Faith, that is,
belief in God and in what God has revealed. Sins tend to destroy Faith,
so on the Last Day the sinner (if he hasn't been forgiven) will have no
Faith and will be damned. Luther taught that salvation was by faith
alone, but this is heresy and is contradicted by James's Letter in the
New Testament; he said that faith without works is dead. The Catholic
Church teaches that Faith must show itself in works. So you see, what
you are taking as Christian teaching is the heresy of Martin Luther.
The Catholic Church also teaches that Faith - the virtue of belief in
things Divine - is a supernatural gift of God: one cannot attain it for
oneself. But God is just and EVERYONE (including Muslims) has an
opportunity to receive faith; also there are those whose faith is known
to God alone.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1167577468....@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> The key here is that the purpose of acquiring language skills is to
> initiate "religious" argument.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Since I am not a qualified Islamic scholar or a profoundly trained in
Islamic jurisprudence (who is in this forum?) I refrain from giving any
opinions on interpretations of the Qur'an, wherever possible.
I was always taught that no one has the right to be obstinately opinionated
about something which one has not taken the trouble to study in-depth. The
right to an opinion has to be earned by studying the subject. This is
something easily forgotten in these days of popularised instant
'scholarship' - unthinkingly lifted from the internet. Easily accessible
'knowledge' (?), destroys intellectual standards and deprives us of the
ancient wisdom of the sages (that knew that they did not know), and seems to
sanction the disastrous notion that anybody is entitled to air his opinions
on any subject. Profound problems of religion, Islam is just one example,
history. and so on are lightly disposed of on the grounds "I've got a right
to my opinion'. Democracy, whatever it may be in this forum, is not a right
to talk nonsense about things one does not understand. Isn't that the main
problematic from some lightweight critics who have not taken the trouble to
study Islam or Muslims the subject they are sounding off about, frequently
in a nonsensical manner? They simply don't understand the principle that the
right to an opinion has to be earned.
Which get's me to the second part, often Islamic 'criticism' in this forum
hides behind interminable dispute or quarrel, in what amounts to a 'verbal
dispute'. When there is a merely verbal dispute between two commentators,
there is no disagreement in attitude about the facts or disagreement about
the facts. Verbal disputes arise when the key terms the writers are using to
communicate with each other are ambiguous. The absence of disagreement is
hidden from the protagonists because the terms they use to communicate with
each other are ambiguous. Some word or phrase central to their dispute often
has different senses that should not be confused and the dispute arises
because the parties to the dispute do not realize the word or phrase has
different but equally legitimate meanings. The perennial 'What is the nature
of ... are usually (whether questioners are aware of it or not) requests for
the defining characteristics as well as the defining ones (the recent
Islamophobe debacle is a prime example of lightweights voicing an opinion).
Sometimes, we just have to stand back and say to ourselves in deep
reflection; What is the nature of the Qur'an?
--
Peace
--
In times of profound change, the learners inherit the earth, while the
learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no
longer exists. [Eric Hoffer]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
smackj...@yahoo.com
If the followers follow someone who has gone astray, each follower
individually made that choice themselves to follow someone going
astray. Each follower strays only to his/her own loss because they
each made the decision to follow someone who has gone astray. The
statement in the Quran stands as true for all who are competent. And
it applies not only to Muhammed and Muslims, it also is true for
Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Bahais, Jains, and so on. It is a fact of
life in this world, and it appears that all the Quran did was to make
this fact easily apparent.
S.
Robert
Have you read "The Legacy of Muslim Spain", which you recommend as
"excellent"?
Whether you have or not, you have reached what I imagine is an all-time
low - but perhaps not: argument via massed publisher's blurb and the
list of contents of "The Legacy of Muslim Spain" derived from the
internet. There is no argument, because you can't argue with a list of
contents.
The fact remains that Dominique Urvoy did report that the early Muslims
in Spain, just like you, foreclosed discussion by asserting that
non-Muslims who didn't understand Arabic were disqualified from holding
an intellectual position. This 'argument' is deployed endlessly to this
day.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> Whether you have or not, you have reached what I imagine is an all-time
> low - but perhaps not: argument via massed publisher's blurb and the
> list of contents of "The Legacy of Muslim Spain" derived from the
> internet. There is no argument, because you can't argue with a list of
> contents.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Wrong again Robert. Your whole argument rested on the idea that the 'Legacy
of Muslim Spain' was a 'myth' developed by Muslims, and that, in fact, there
was no such Islamic, Golden Age 'legacy' given to Europe. This excellent
handbook clearly demonstrates, once more, that the 'Legacy of Muslim Spain',
written by eminent western experts, wasn't a 'myth' created by Muslims. Why
is this list of eminent western experts then irrelevant to your Muslim
'myth' idea, is it because they as an eminent group demolish it? Do you
concede this sound rebuttal of your 'myth' argument or are you going to
continue to obfuscate and bluster? Isn't this, as you derogatorily remarked
elsewhere about Muslims, symptomatic of denial?
<snip> ...
> The fact remains that Dominique Urvoy did report that the early Muslims
> in Spain, ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Robert, as you indicate above, isn't this lifted from the internet? Why
don't you then provide the link? Isn't that the substance of this report,
that you are relying on? Did you verify this Dominique Urvoy quote back to
its cited source? Or are you implying that you haven't bothered to study
Dominique Urvoy's many works?
As far as the Qur'an is concerned, all I did was confirm back to you what
your cited authority, Professor Arberry, wrote in the preface to his 'The
Koran Interpreted', which was, and I repeat for convenience:-
Extract:-
In choosing to call the present work The Koran Interpreted I have conceded
the relevancy of the orthodox Muslim view, of which Pickthall, for one, was
so conscious, that the Koran is untranslatable. Some of the implications of
that doctrine are sketched out in the preface to my The Holy Koran: an
Introduction with Selections (Allen & Unwin, 1955), and it is not proposed
to repeat the same argument here. Briefly, the rhetoric and rhythm of the
Arabic of the Koran are so characteristic, so powerful, so highly emotive,
that any version whatsoever is bound in the nature of things to be but a
poor copy of the glittering splendour of the original. Never was it more
true than in this instance that traduttore traditore. My chief reason for
offering this new version of a book which has been 'translated' many times
already is that in no previous rendering has a serious attempt been made to
imitate, however imperfectly, those rhetorical and rhythmical patterns which
are the glory and the sublimity of the Koran. I am breaking new ground here;
it may therefore be thought appropriate to explain in short my intentions
and my method. ...
End extract.
Are you saying Arberry didn't write this? Do you concede, as your cited
authority Arberry confirms, that the Qur'an is untranslatable? What do you
think he meant by the well-known Italian proverb 'traduttore traditore'? Why
didn't you bother to check if you didn't know? It means 'translator,
traitor."! Now, would you care to comment further, on what the author says
himself, about his own 'traitorous translation' [sic] of the sublime Qur'an?
--
Peace
--
Add a few drops of malice to a half truth and you have an absolute truth.
Robert
You evade my point that a mass of quoted publishers' blurbs and a list
of contents do not constitute an argument - merely a distraction.
As regards "The Legacy of Muslim Spain" you use your usual rhetorical
device of the man of straw; I have not said that the Legacy of Muslim
Spain is a myth - why don't you quote me to make your case, instead of
putting words into my mouth? - I quoted Bernard Lewis as saying that
the story of a multi-cultural idyll in Spain under the Muslims is a
myth invented by European Jews in the 19th century as a reproach to
Christians. Of course there were remarkable cultural achievements by
the Muslims in Spain; everyone knows that.
My report of Dominique Urvoy's account of the arguments between
Christians and Muslims was not "lifted" (why the pejorative rhetoric?)
from the internet: I read his book, "Ibn Rushd: Averroes". I may have
given a reference in an earlier thread when I quoted his point, but the
book has gone back to British Library's national lending service, so I
can't oblige you with chapter and verse.
Of course I entirely agree about the "impossibility" of translation;
competent translations can, however, be used as a guide to the basic
sense of a work. Even so, for argument to be really sound the original
has to be consulted.
Why do you offer to tutor me in Italian? It's irrelevant to the
argument. And why are you so coy as to whether you know Arabic or not?
capsaicin
> I see a number of objections: this account can be applied to the whole
> of humanity - where then does Islam come into the equation?
When we obey the commands of god and submit our wills and actions to
him then ISLAM is already in the equation. As Quran calls all of the
prophets as MUSLIMS.
> Also there may be only a trifling imbalance in favour of the bad, yet the
> person goes to Hell for all eternity. Again, where does God's forgiveness
> come into this?
There are many account here and there in the quran and in the islamic
teachings in general regarding this. For example when in the quran we
read that god punishes you at the extent of your bad deeds and rewards
you multiple times more than the extent of your good deeds then God's
forgiveness is already in the fray. There are also many more related
accounts. AND don't forget that god only forgives sins related to
HIMSELF. But if you hurt someone else by your deeds then it will be
that someone else who has to forgive you.
The eternity mentioned in the Quran or in the Bible, I believe, are
long times which are not comprehensible by our minds. Also there are
levels of hell and heaven and each are heavens and hells in comparison
to the others.
All of these accounts, however, are for us to have a simple
understanding of the matter and don't mean that they are exactly the
way they are mentioned.
> In the Christian (Catholic) account what matters is Faith, that is,
> belief in God and in what God has revealed. Sins tend to destroy Faith,
> so on the Last Day the sinner (if he hasn't been forgiven) will have no
> Faith and will be damned. Luther taught that salvation was by faith
> alone, but this is heresy and is contradicted by James's Letter in the
> New Testament; he said that faith without works is dead. The Catholic
> Church teaches that Faith must show itself in works. So you see, what
> you are taking as Christian teaching is the heresy of Martin Luther.
Read my post again. I know that Martin Luther is a heretic in the eyes
of the Catholics but what about the Protestants? Aren't they
Christians? Almost all of the protestants believe in it. Are they
heretics?
> The Catholic Church also teaches that Faith - the virtue of belief in
> things Divine - is a supernatural gift of God: one cannot attain it for
> oneself. But God is just and EVERYONE (including Muslims) has an
> opportunity to receive faith; also there are those whose faith is known
> to God alone.
So are you representing any part in which the muslims have a
misunderstanding?
The muslims say that it is THE GUIDANCE that is given to us as a gift
not FAITH itself. Anyone receive guidance (and you call it "opportunity
to receive faith") but not all of them become faithful. To have faith
or not is up to us. If we are not faithful, it means that we haven't
been worthy of that gift.
I remember you once were accusing us for worshiping a God who misleads.
If FAITH or SALVATION is a gift by god then doesn't it actually mean
that god is selectively leading anyone he wants? (if we look at it so
literally of course)
By "gift" you either mean "guidance" or "faith". If you mean faith then
your belief is contrary to mine. But that is a game of words. When you
say "opportunity to receive faith" then I take it that by "faith" you
might mean "the opportunity" which is exactly the same as the gift of
guidance which Quran is talking about. What I say is: "Guidance" is
given, "Faith" is earned.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> Recent
> research by a Turkish university, for instance, showed that in Eastern
> and Southern Turkey 50% of women suffered violence at the hands of
> their husbands; ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Based on your assertions Turkey and America are very similar. A recent
survey in America showed that, "based on lengthy interviews, report that 30
percent of men and 40 percent of women remember having been sexually
molested during childhood" [National Parenting Conference], should this
appalling statistic be attributed to Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism,
Judaism, the Bible or none of them?
Continuing, from the same Conference: "These experiences of seduction are
not just pieced together from fragmentary memories, but are remembered in
detail, are usually for an extended period of time and have been confirmed
by follow-up reliability studies in 83 percent of the cases, so they are
unlikely to have been fantasies. The seductions occurred at much earlier
ages than had been previously assumed, with 81 percent occurring before
puberty and an astonishing 42 percent under age 7."
Are you going to split these appalling acts and apportion them by religious
denomination or just blame Muslims, the Sharia or Islam in general? Isn't
America a Christian country after all? It's as if you want subscribers to
believe that the Church is blameless in this area, see this latest Catholic
"people molested by priests" scandal in Spokane at this link:-
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/05/america/NA_GEN_US_Church_Abuse.php
Did selective 'memri' mention this latest Catholic scandal or the other
recent Jewish scandals in their list of internet dispatches or are they
losing their 'memri'? Perhaps, as Muslims proverbially say: 'A clear
conscience is usually the sign of a bad memri'? <G> See this damning expose
on the repressive 'memri' by the 'Right Web':-<G> :
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1511
But as you said recently elsewhere, paraphrasing: "Whether you have or not,
you have reached what I imagine is an all-time low ...: argument via massed
MEMRI publisher's blurb and the list ... derived from the internet.", isn't
your post then another prime example of the artful 'double standard', a
mental reservation, that you always prejudicially apply when judging Turkey
and it's society? Can I expect a blustering 'tu quoque' fulmination in
response?
--
Peace
--
Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive
themselves. [Eric Hoffer]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
Robert Houghton
Thank you for your considerate reply.
You say "When we obey the commands of God and submit our wills and actions
to him then ISLAM is already in the equation." I'm not sure precisely what
you mean, but submitting to the commands of God etc is precisely what a
serious Christian aims at. I suppose that we would disagree about what God's
commands are, but I believe there is sufficient overlap 9the Ten
Commandments set out the basics)for Muslims and Christians to respect each
other. St Peter in Acts says that anyone who worships God and does what is
right is acceptable to God. it is on that basis that I judge my Muslim
friends fine people.
In Catholic belief the saved, although forgiven, must suffer in atonement
for their sins.
We don't agree about God forgiving only sins related to himself. All sins
are sins against God, but also many are against oneself and others. What
matters is God's forgiveness; that of others can be dispensed with, but this
doesn't seem to be the Muslim view.
Eternity is not "long times" as you say the Koran has it; it is
timelessness. God has not existed for a long time; he exists outside time.
Long times are comprehensible enough. Jesus said "Before Abraham was I AM" -
this indicates God'd existence outside of time.
Technically speaking Protestants are heretics: their churches reject the
authoritative teachings of the Catholic Church, but we do not like to use
the term, regarding it as uncharitable especially since most Protestants
have never considered the teachings of the Church in such a way to make an
informed decision about them. Certainly Protestants are Christians since
they accept the essential Christian teachings.
You say that for Muslims "To have faith or not is up to us." It seems that
for you faith (belief) is the result of the natural operations of the
intellect. Not so for Christians: natural reason is incapable of believing
that Jesus rose from the dead, raised the dead, cured the insane, the blind
and the crippled. When one receives the gift of Faith one believes what is
impossible for the natural operations of the intellect; but this does not
mean that the Truths of Faith are illogical and incoherent.
You ask whether the belief that Faith is a gift means that God is selective:
the Catholic teaching is that God is Just and everyone has a chance of
salvation.
I'm not sure what you mean by "guidance".
capsaicin
> I know very well that among educated Muslims in the West the Koranic
> definition of the rights of husband and wife are ignored. What I set
> out are the details of Sharia law, and there is no doubt that the 'Holy
> Law' is still very influential in traditional Muslim cultures.
Isn't this part of the Sharia Law that one can add demands to the
marriage contract? And you say "educated Muslims in the West", but I
was not talking about the West, I was talking about my own country and
society.
The positions of men and women have been different in the society
across ages and so were their customs and marriage traditions. What I
believe is that Islam has come up with a rule and relative list of
responsibilities and rights that can be applied to all of these times
bearing the purpose and functions of men and women in the society in
mind. It also allows the sides to propose their demands. Its up to the
other side to accept it or not.
Recent
> research by a Turkish university, for instance, showed that in Eastern
> and Southern Turkey 50% of women suffered violence at the hands of
> their husbands; this is certainly related to the Koran's permission to
> beat your wife. Again, MEMRI recently reported the work of a female
> Egyptian 'sexologist' on the sexual problems of Muslim women: they
> passively submit to sex in obedience to their husbands.
> She judged that sexual problems were behind a high proportion of the large
> number of divorces. This is related to the demeaning position of women in the
> sexual relation that we find in the Koran.
Now I have a question here. Are these the female's problem or those of
the male? If it is about the female then how does it lead to divorce as
according to your words, the female doesn't have the right of divorce
or maybe you are stating that the male has been kind to carry out the
divorce for the sake of the problems of his wife?!
And lets not forget that the statistics behind marriage and divorce are
quite in the favor of muslims as the measure of divorce in the islamic
countries is just a fragment of the number of divorces in the western
societies not to mention that there are not at all as much marriages as
in the islamic world.
> My information is, that with the exception of a number of specified
> instances, such as impotence, a woman can only get a divorce under
> Sharia law with her husband's permission and she may have to pay him
> for this. Indeed there have been cases in the press of poor Muslim
> women being instructed by the Muslim judge to pay husbands who have
> absconded to second wives overseas.
"Pay him for this"?!! That is quite odd cause as far as I know it is
THE MAN who has to pay his wife's "mahr" after divorce (provided its
not paid yet). Also this money can be demanded at any time by the woman
and the man is OBLIGED by law to pay it. There is NO money or anything
that the woman is responsible to pay. In over harsh circumstances, the
woman may wish to make the divorce easier by doing the man a favor and
accept not to receive the Mahr money (to prevent the man to be thrown
in jail if he is unable to pay or in cases that the woman wants to get
rid of him as quickly as possible). Note: I am not certain about the
jail part.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> You evade my point that a mass of quoted publishers' blurbs and a list
> of contents do not constitute an argument - merely a distraction.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Wrong again Robert. The 'Legacy of Muslim Spain' anthology authored by the
listed and eminently qualified western experts, get's right to the
foundation of your asserted 'myth' argument that such a Islamic legacy to
Europe did not exist and that the Islamic 'golden age', in Spain, was an
invention by Muslims. Do you concede that this body of authoritative
writings and essays, by its very existence, totally demolishes your specious
'myth' argument about the 'legacy' given to Europe by Islam and that this
'legacy' wasn't a myth created by Muslims? Answer this simple question and
stop procrastinating and trying to obfuscate the matter with more 'red
herrings' and weasel words.
All the facts are in your two threads: 'Islamic Myths: the Golden Age of
Multiculturalism in Spain' and 'The Myth of the West's Intellectual Debt to
Islam' at these two links. The transcripts don't lie. As you said in one
post: "I attempt to show that it didn't exist":-
But, for the sake of consistency, don't you believe in, and frequently use,
promotional media 'blurbs' from 'memri' in your anti-Muslim posts? Weren't
these listed promotional 'blurbs', that you now object to, at least coming
from reliable media outlets?
Robert
I restricted my comment on Islamic marriage to educated Muslims in the
West because these are the ones I know.
It was not my intention to criticize Islam for the frequency of
divorce.
As regards a woman's paying her husband for permission to divorce him,
this is not a matter of legal obligation: it is extra-legal. The man
can extort the payment because the woman cannot divorce without his
permission. I have read of two cases of this happening in the media.
.
capsaicin
the group:
Reply to Robert:
Lets not forget our main argumentations. You think that muslims
generally have a misunderstanding of the christian faith. I say that
its not the case. When as an example I say that "There is a belief in
christianity that says all those who believe in jesus christ would go
to heaven", I am not actually misunderstanding the doctrine but I maybe
making a mistake by generalizing it.
Quote: "St Peter in Acts says that anyone who worships God and does
what is right is acceptable to God."
That is what I believe quran says too. But as you said earlier there is
a slight problem: "What is right?". Different nations, cultures and
societies have different definitions of right and wrong. It also has a
great deal of dependence to the situation. This itself needs a long an
serious discussion of its own.
Quote: "In Catholic belief the saved, although forgiven, must suffer in
atonement for their sins."
We have the similar belief. I know it as the doctrine of "Purgatory"
which states that people spend in the state or place called purgatory
in which their sins are purged (as the name suggests). This similar
doctrine is held by most Muslims and that place is called "Barzakh".
But again, in christianity, this is a Catholic doctrine. Protestants
generally don't believe in that. They think that faith in jesus alone
will give them an instantaneous purification of the soul.
Quote: "We don't agree about God forgiving only sins related to
himself. All sins are sins against God, but also many are against
oneself and others. What matters is God's forgiveness; that of others
can be dispensed with, but this doesn't seem to be the Muslim view."
All sins are sins against god, and I will complete it: All sins are
sins against god, too. When my actions hurt someone else, that person
should be given the privilege to take his rights from me in the
judgment day and I believe it to be a principle of justice. Though it
can be carried out in several ways (all literally).
It can be carried out by punishing me for what I have done and
rewarding that person for what he has suffered. Literally, taking some
"virtue scores!" from me and assigning them to him! This is when
Forgiveness comes into account. If that person forgives me, god will
reward him greatly for his mercy.
Quote: "Eternity is not "long times" as you say the Koran has it; it is
timelessness. God has not existed for a long time; he exists outside
time. Long times are comprehensible enough. Jesus said "Before Abraham
was I AM" - this indicates God'd existence outside of time."
I don't disagree with you. This eternity which I was talking about is
regarding the punishment or reward. Certainly after we die, time will
be meaningless to us. But how then will we say that we spend some time
in purgatory and after we are purged, we will go to heaven? This "some
time" is just a simplification for us to be able to understand and draw
a comparison. It is certainly not as simple as that since soul is not
bound by time, though I cannot say it for sure that it would not feel
the passage of time.
Quote: "You say that for Muslims "To have faith or not is up to us." It
seems that for you faith (belief) is the result of the natural
operations of the intellect. Not so for Christians: natural reason is
incapable of believing that Jesus rose from the dead, raised the dead,
cured the insane, the blind and the crippled. When one receives the
gift of Faith one believes what is impossible for the natural
operations of the intellect; but this does not mean that the Truths of
Faith are illogical and incoherent."
It depends on what you consider as "natural operations of the
intellect". If you think of it as pure mathematical logic, then no,
faith is not just the result of that.
In muslim view, no matter what the reason of faith, faith is still a
"result". You are not given "faith" as a gift (maybe just for those who
are born religious). Apart from being born faithful, you become
faithful by making a choice. The choice is yours but something have
guided you to make that choice. That guidance (be it a self struggle,
listening to an inspirational speech, reading a specific verse or
simple "P then Q" phrases) is what I consider as "the gift" or the
opportunity that is being put in front of your feet.
Quote: "You ask whether the belief that Faith is a gift means that God
is selective: the Catholic teaching is that God is Just and everyone
has a chance of salvation."
No, I didn't say that. I said "if you take it too literally" you might
come to that conclusion, in the same way that someone would interpret
"we guide whomever we wish" as god being selective.
Robert
Your posting is full of errors.
But first I note that you are still coy about the book you refer to:
have you read any more of it than the blurbs and contents page
published on the internet? If you had you might have actually produced
information and to support your argument about the Islamic legacy
accruing to Europe from Muslim Spain. I do not deny that there was
influence, and you will find that admission in my postings; what I do
is to concur with Bernard Lewis in saying that "the idyllic Golden Age
of multiculturalism" in Islamic Spain is a myth invented by European
Jews (not Muslims as you state) as a reproach to Christians. It is
absurd and completely false for you to say that I claim the Golden Age
in Islamic Spain is a myth.
As usual you try to 'argue' by means of links, and as usual your links
do not support you; the second isn't even relevant, but I have checked
the whole thread and noted that nothing in it supports you.You ought to
quote my articles to make your point but you can't.In fact you can't
be taken seriously as a controversialist.
I have never used blurbs as 'argument' or in any way in my postings.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> I restricted my comment on Islamic marriage to educated Muslims in the
> West because these are the ones I know.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
The obverse of this gibe being all those educated Muslim critics of yours in
this forum who may or may not be in the west (whatever that woolly noun may
mean). Do you 'know' any of them? But does this 'fatuousness' compel
demanding analysis? Or will we be rhetorically treated with a blustering
response along the tiresome anti-Muslim rubric of when confused, assert;
when ignorant, fulminate? As if, the bald assertion in your opening premise
would have any intelligent impact on Islam or discerning Muslims in this
forum, under the proper application of the 'Laws of Thought', which is, in
case you have forgotten:-
"The laws of thought are fundamental logical rules, with a long tradition in
the history of philosophy, which collectively prescribe how a rational mind
must think. To break any of the laws of thought (for example, to contradict
oneself) is to be irrational."
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> I do not deny that there was
> influence, and you will find that admission in my postings; ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
So you concede, by your acknowledgement of the "Legacy of Muslim Spain",
that this undoubted legacy was not a myth invented by Muslims, as previously
suggested by yourself in your "Islamic Myths" thread. The list of
distinguished authors, who contributed to this handbook, all recognised
western experts in their specialities, only consolidate the 'legacy' fact.
Even your previously cited authority, Dominique Urvoy subscribes to this
legacy in the section he wrote entitled, "The 'Ulama' of al-Andalus".
What Bernard Lewis has written about the 'Legacy of Muslim Spain', only
confirms what these other experts have related and in no way contradicts the
'legacy' fact. This is confirmed from my transcripts in the archives at this
link:-
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/73ac4be37a8e8efb
Extract:-
"In culture, too, the Arab (Muslim) heritage must be regarded as of great
importance to Spain, and indeed to all of western Europe. Christians from
many countries came to Spain to study together with native Spaniards under
Arabic speaking Muslim and Jewish teachers, and translated many books from
Arabic into Latin. ... The first great centre for transmission from Islam to
Christianity in the west was the city of Toledo ... During the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries, ... the Toledo schools of translators produced a great
corpus of works including the 'Organon' of Aristotle and many of the
writings of Euclid, Ptolemy, Galen,, and Hippocrates; enriched by their Arab
(Muslim) commentators and successors. The translators usually worked with
bilingual natives, many of them Jewish, and included both Spanish and
foreign scholars. Amongst them Domingo Gundisalvi, ... John of Seville and
Petrus Alphonsi, and from other countries, Gerard of Cremona from Italy,
Herman the Dalmatian from Germany, Adelhard of Bath, Daniel of Morlay and
Michael Scot from Britain. ..." [ Bernard Lewis - "The Arabs in History" pp
129-30]"
End extract.