100 Camels Times X

No, I haven't given up

2006-05-25T20:04:00.000-04:00

I will be back to my tour of the Qur'an shortly, hopefully by the end of this weekend. I have been working on a long post for my other blog, If It Is It Doesn't Matter . It has also been picked up for the 35th Edition of the Skeptic's Circle . It's a little different from what you've seen here, a discussion of the bad science behind the 'gay gene' idea -- I am bisexual, but I don't like arguments based by absurdity such as this. If you are curious, you'll find it here There's a discussion of the Skeptic's Circle as well, here.

See you soon with Surah 86.

A brief note on Ayaan Hirsi Ali

2006-05-16T02:08:00.000-04:00

I have, on my other blog, "If it is it doesn't matter" discussed this more fully. But I have, there and on other blogs, expressed admiration for Ms. Hirsi Ali. The recent discoveries of her deliberate falsification of much of her history, and in particular the probability of her having falsified the supposed 'arranged marriage' she was fleeing from, along with the way she handled this on her website makes it necessary for me to withdraw any such praise. Her apparent flagrant disregard for the truth, or even of the need for truth, has not merely enabled her criticisms of Islam to be dismissed, but has made it possible for apologists to link other female critics of Islam to her and dismiss them as well.

At one point I called her a 'new hero' of mine. Sadly, I regret having said that and have to withdraw it.

The 'abrogation' problem

2006-05-14T09:28:00.000-04:00

Verses 6 and 7 bring up the question of abrogation. But the key verse is #106 of Surah 2. Because this is so important, I'll give all five translations of both.

Surah 87, Verse 2:
(Shakir)We will make you recite so you shall not forget,
Except what Allah pleases, surely He knows the manifest, and what is hidden.

(Palmer)We will make thee recite, and thou shalt not forget save what God pleases. Verily, He knows the open and what is concealed;

(Pickthal)We shall make thee read (O Muhammad) so that thou shalt not forget Save that which Allah willeth. Lo! He knoweth the disclosed and that which still is hidden;

(Yussuf Ali)By degrees shall We teach thee to declare (the Message), so thou shalt not forget,Except as Allah wills: For He knoweth what is manifest and what is hidden.

(Asad) We shall teacj thee, and thou wilt not forget [aught of what thou art taught] save what God may will [thee to forget] -- for, verily, He [alone] knows all that is open to [mans] perception as well as all that is hidden [from it]

And Surah 2, Verse 106

(Shakir) Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?

(Palmer) Whatever verse we may annul or cause thee to forget, we will bring a better one than it, or one like it; dost thou not know that God is mighty over all? Dost thou not know that God's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth?

(Pickthal)Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things ?

(Yusuf Ali)None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?

(Asad) Any message which We annul or consign to oblivion We replace with a better or similar one.
Dost not thou know that God has the power to will anything?

Now the standard interpretation of this is that when there are conflicts between verses of the Qur'an, that the 'later' one has abrogated the earlier one. (The frequently quoted example is that of the conflict between 'there is no compulsion in religion' and 'kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.' Maybe a better example, because less controversial, are the various comments made about wine and alcohol, at one point praising them and at another forbidding them.)

Asad will have none of this. To quote one sentence from a copious note to the second verse: "In short, 'the doctrine of abrogation' has no basis whatsoever in historical fact, and must be rejected." (His interpretation turns on the idea that the word 'ayah' means both 'verse' and 'message.' Thus he sees this as a declaration that the earlier 'messages,' referring to the Jewish and Christian Testaments, have been 'abrogated by the Qur'an.

As for the verses in Surah 87, which Asad connects with the opening of Surah 96 -- here I am paraphrasing a long comment -- he sees them as referring to man's empirical and rational knowledge, i.e., science, and how certain ideas are, in fact, 'forgotten' as man learns more. He is almost describing the scientific method, and if he qualifies this by saying that this method is limited and does not "in itself suffice to give us an insight into ultimate truths,' this is little more than any person who is both a scientist and a believer would hold.

Asad's point is so ingenious and tempting that it is hard to resist singing 'I think he's got it, by George he's got it,' and passing on to see how he later will reconcile the contradictions.

Unfortunately, it isn't that easy, for two reasons. First, the classical doctrine of abrogation covers at least three circumstances,
the one mentioned above,
the case where there is a conflict between hadith and Surah,
and(most importantly here) where there are 'missing verses' in the Qur'an.

(I will get to this in a moment.)

The second problem is easier to discuss. Asad may be right that there is no reliable tradition that Mohammad ever declared a verse to have been abrogated. On the other hand, there is no doubt whatsoever that to quote Christopher Melchett:
"As far back as the sources will take us, Muslim jurisprudents discerned abrogation (naskh) in the Qur'ān; that is, some verses were said to have been revealed, then their memory, their inclusion in the recited text, or at least their operation was suppressed. " (This is from the chapter "QUR'ĀNIC ABROGATION ACROSS THE NINTH CENTURY: SHĀFI'Ī, ABU 'UBAYD, MUHĀSIBĪ,
AND IBN QUTAYBAH" in STUDIES IN ISLAMIC LEGAL THEORY edited by Bernard G. Weiss -- Brill Publishers, 2002)
Melchett's statement is backed up by many other writers in various publications, but his study here seems to be the most definitive.

All the references I have found show that these Islamic scholars and legalists of the early period had no doubt at all that the principle of abrogation was valid, though they differed in their interpretation of it.

Now nobody can seriously argue that a 'revelation' must be, at all times and places, unambiguous. Certainly any revelation, to a religious person, can be misinterpreted by another without any 'responsibility' being placed on God for that misinterpretation. No one would blame Christianity because some madmen have become serial killers or suicides because of the way they read the Bible. And I've always considered that the Westerners who blamed Islam for the warped response of Bin Laden -- or even less ambiguously, the beheaders of the Indonesian schoolgirls -- were in error. Man, in the religious view, has free will and the capability to commit evil and also to simply make mistakes.

There is a difference between cases like this, though, and the case of the entire scholarship of early Islam falling into error. (And this is amplified by the supposed Divine authorship -- rather than inspiration -- of the Qur'an -- and the supposed Divine promise to protect the message.) It is hard to imagine that Allah could write his 'clear message' in such a way that such an obvious error would be made, an error it would take hundreds of years to correct, on such an important topic.

But there is even a greater problem with the question of abrogation, and that is the question of missing verses. (I am not here speaking of the supposed "Satanic verses" which I will discuss in the appropriate place of Surah 53.)

Now no Christian would think of claiming that the New Testament contained all of Jesus' teachings. (A writer has stated that all the words of Jesus in the Bible could be delivered in about three hours.) No Orthodox Jew would claim that we have the entire words of Job, Elijah, Ezra, Isaiah, Jeremiah, or any of the prophets.

In each case we have their message, as condensed and understood by their followers, to take the most literalist view.

But the Qur'an is different. Mohammad, according to Muslims, was NOT speaking his own words in any of his recitations, merely serving to pass on what Gabriel was speaking to him. Thus all these recitations were equally the 'words of God.' The Qur'an, again according to Muslims -- and ignoring the problems with the collection and arrangement of it -- is complete, and the same book on Earth as it exists in heaven.

But there are numerous reports (and my apologies for not being able to cite them by hadith, but I have yet to discover a searchable collection of hadith, even from Bukhari and Muslim. If anyone knows of any, please point me towards them.) that there are sections that the companions remembered as being a part of the recitations which are missing in the Qur'an. One Surah in particular, was supposed to be as long as "The Cow" (Surah 2, the longest surah of all) but when collected was only seventy verses. And there are other stories, including one dealing with the punishment for adultery being stoning, that were, reportedly, in the Qur'an originally but not there in its final collection. (I can produce a number of examples and citations from various sources, and will, if requested. And this does not include the discussion on abrogation on the annaqed.com website -- admittedly hardly an unbiased source. On it, and quoting from classical Muslim sources -- but not ones I am in a position to check -- stories are told of Mohammad repeatedly arguing that verses he forgot were in fact verses that had been abrogated.)

Now there are several possible responses to this. Abrogation, with all its problems can be accepted. The hadiths referring to it can be dismissed as apocryphal -- and there is a substantial body of historical thought that holds that all or most hadiths were, instead of reports on Muhammad's actions, later constructions to explain obscurities in the Qur'an. Or the most common-sense and likely -- though heretical to a Muslim -- which would be to accept that the Qur'an is in fact the work of man rather than of God.

Surah 87: The Most High

2006-05-12T22:29:00.000-04:00

Were it not for verses 6 and 7, this would be a relatively minor surah. The first five verses are simply a prayer of praise to Allah. There are certain differences in the translations, and Asad, not unsurprisingly, tends to see the descriptions of God in more philosophical terms than the others. Yet the variants aren't truly that different.

And skipping ahead to verse 9, there is a major conflict. All the others say, in Pickthal's wording 'Therefor remind (men), for of use is the reminder.' Asad (quoting Baghawi and Razi, which is meaningless to me) reads it as follows:

"Remind, then, [others of the truth] whether this reminding [would seem to] be of use [or not]..." (I have to ask, since this seems to say the reverse of the other translations, if Arabic is truly so ambiguous that the same phrase can mean the exact opposite, or why -- since he makes no comment except to mention the other translators -- Asad chose this version.)

The next verses are again the standard 'believers will be rewarded, unbelievers will suffer.' Only verse 14 adds anything new. In all the translations except Pickthal's it is the one who 'purifies himself' as well as 'remembers the Sustainer's name and prays to him' who attains happiness. (Pickthal renders it 'who groweth.') The concentration on 'purity' is something we shall see quite a bit of.

In the final verses Asad wriggles out of a problem, since all the other translations talk about the earlier BOOKS (or scrolls, or scriptures) of Abraham and Moses. There is no 'book of Abraham,' his story is told in the Torah, the 'books of Moses.' (There were apocryphal Jewsih and Rabbinic books, one of which, I believe, is called the "Book of Abraham' but they were not part of the Testament. Some writers explain the differences between the Qur'an and the Old Testament by assuming that it was works such as these that were known to Mohammed.) Asad gets out of this by translating the word 'suhuf' as 'revelations' and state this was an example of the continuity of the religious revelations to the various prophets.

But the key problem in this Surah is verses 6 and 7. These are the ones that introduce the topic of 'abrogation.' I was going to try and discuss this here, but realized it needs a post of its own -- and not the one where I burbled earlier.

And even while I am generally 'taking the Qur'an on its face, I made an exception and did some research before I talked. (Questia.com is a wonderful site, almost a whole college library available -- and you never have to worry that someone else has borrowed them. Expensive, yes, but worth it.)

Two reswponses (so far) to the 'ibil' problem in Surah 88

2006-05-11T10:26:00.000-04:00

I questioned Asad's translation of 'ibil' as 'cloud pregnant with water' when every other translator said 'camel' (which Asad said was a primary but not exclusive meaning) but said I'd ask some Arabic speaking friends for their translations. So far I've received two replies:

TomanBay wrote:
Literally speaking, 'ibil' is camels....metaphorically though it can be used as a metaphor for any thing which carries something...
So, actually both translations are correct. I don't want to venture into a territory in which I'm no expert, but some people believe that Quran is miraculous, because of such words; it is always 'fresh' this way ( i.e. people who are more familiar with desert life will identify with camels, while others, maybe in later ages, can identify with other metaphors, which all goes to prove the point of the verse, which is illustrating the powers of creation of God).
Another example (sorry I don't have the exact number now) is a verse which translates loosely to "God had made horses and camels available for you to ride, and others which you don't know about". Some people interpret this verse as a way of God of telling us that there are other things other than horses and camels which you'll ride, but if they were specified 1400 years ago (cars, trains, planes, etc...), people (limited in their knowledge then) would have considered Mohamed as a heretic. So in this way the Quran is both accessible to people back then, and now..
That's my non-expert opinion however!
Have a good day!

And Drima (yes, i WILL post that article from your blog, sorry it has taken so long) saw it this way:

Hello again Prup,

Generally the word ibil means camel as most of the translators stated. Here's the thing though, in Arabic one single word believe it or not can have so many meanings. Those meanings can be so totally different from one another. The reason the Quran is in Arabic according to many scholars is because Arabic is such a rich language and a single word can have so many meanings. I do believe the word ibil can also mean clouds pregnant with water.

If you read the verse and interpret it based on the 2 different meanings you will end up with 2 verses that have meanings which make sense...

The camel to the Arabs was and still is a treasured and glorified creature. I used to live in Qatar before coming to Malaysia. There in Qatar, my father who is a folklorist and anthropologist spent 10 years of his life researching the culture of the desert bedouins. If there is anything their survival in the desert absolutely depended on then it's the camel. Therefore ibil meaning camel in this case can have a significant meaning which makes sense.

You may ask how can their life absolutely depend on camels. What about water???!! That is exactly my next point. If ibil does also mean clouds pregnant with water (I will confirm that with my dad or some of his Arabic professor linguist friends) so yes if it does have this second meaning, then it would make perfect sense why this word was chosen for this verse. The verse will have a double meaning refering to the 2 most important things for a desert man's survival. Water & Camels.

I hope that helps

Take Care,
Regards, Drima aka SudaneseThinker

------

I find both comments very interesting -- though they still bring into question the idea that the Qur'an is a 'simple and clear message.' Both can see the use of the word as -- to use the phrase from Alice -- a portmanteau word, carrying different meanings, but neihter of them rejects the 'camel translation' as Asad does, on the grounds that the Qur'an cannot be tha specific to a time and place. Given my own questioning on parochialism, this is obviously a pleasant out, but again it seems to be a great stretch. I am still hoping for the other people I wrote to to respond.

Repost: Surahs 105-109

2006-05-11T10:13:00.000-04:00

Okay, let's go back again -- then I'll jump back to the main thread with Surah 87.

Here's the original:

Exploring the Qur'an II: Surahs 105-109

This is later than I planned -- this time I'm trying to really keep to a schedule of one post a night, because I had it about 4/5th done and then Blogger went down, and I tried to save it and lost everything I had done. Anyway, to continue onwards.

Surah 109 is a bit of a problem. It has been quoted as an example of Islamic tolerance. It may mean that, but it certainly does not say it directly. (Saying 'I have my religion and you have yours' is not quite the same as saying that "I accept this." Which is, of course the basis of tolerance.) A lot depends on the meaning of "Kafirun." If that is used to mean Christians and Jews, the words could as easily be a refutation of the idea that 'we all worship the same God.' Anyway, there is certainly nothing definitely positive or negative here.

On the other hand, I have to question Surah 108. "Pray, because we have given you 'abundance' "(Kauthar -- which apparently may also mean one of the rivers of Paradise), is combined with the ugliness of "Lo! it is thy insulter (and not thou) who is without posterity."
If this was just a general comment, it would be unpleasant enough, but, according to Palmer, at least, it refers to a specific person who insulted Mohammed when his son died. And again I ask if it is reasonable that, in a message meant for the centuries and millenia, such a petty and personal comment is imaginable.
But even if that is ignored, why the included sneer. There is this continual triumphal, pitiless gloating over the misfortunes of the opponent that is unique to Islam, and that we shall see again and again.

Surah 107, "Alms" (or "The Necessaries") seems to me to depend on the original. The last half is a familiar demand that if you pray, you should also do good works. Obviously one of the good passage. The first part, however, as it is translated, seems to imply that unbelievers are not charitable, or that someone needs the judgment, that is, the fear of hell, to be good. If that is what is meant, then the first is an obvious falsehood, unimaginable coming from a god who 'knows the minds and hearts of men.' And the second is equally false, an argument I have had many times.

But I think that the meaning MAY be the reverse, that by not giving alms, the person 'calls the judgment a lie.' If that is a better rendering, then the Sura is acceptable and even familiar to Christians and Jews, merely a variety of 'by their fruits shall ye know them,' and 'which of them was truly his neighbor.'

Sura 106 seems minor, but also incomprehensible to a non-Arabic speaker. (Again though it seems to parochial for a 'final message.') This is shown by the fact that the opening is "For the _____ of the Quareish" but all four translations give different meaning for the Arabic "Li-eelafi" . Thus Palmer uses "uniting," Pickthal uses 'taming," Shakir uses 'protection' and Yussuf Ali uses 'covenants.' I'm at a loss.

And finally we have Surah 105, 'the Elephant.' It is a short one, but is has a lot of problems. Again a parochial reference, and one so obscure that the person referred to has not even made Wikipedia. A reference to an event that happened the year that Mohammed was born. (It's a good thing that Palmer's translation includes footnotes.) In fact, the event included an attack on the Kabbah, so its inclusion can be defended as proving that Allah had protected it before Mohammed spoke, but again, why was there not an explanation of this in the text itself. Maybe the story was familiar to Mohammed's hearers, but again, this was, supposedly, not a book written for them, but for the instruction of all mankind throughout the ages.

Again we have the gloating triumphalism, though maybe justified here given the enormity of the action by the 'possessor of the elephants.' (And this tone would not be as offensive to me if it were just one of many tones, but the only 'human emotion' we see from Allah is this, and it occurs so frequently. Perhaps as we go through the book I will find other tones that I have missed before, but I still call it ugliness.)

And finally we have the myth of the birds, the picture of a flock of birds sent by Allah dropping clay on the invading armies. (Pickthal says merely a 'swarm of flying creatures, but that doesn't make the picture any better.)And since the author is Allah, we cannot treat this as merely a human making a story better by adding a picturesque detail, but the literal truth. How did the birds carry the 'stones of baked clay?' In their talons or their beaks? Where did they get them, or did Allah pass them out?

Literal truth? Well, it has to be, if Allah wrote this.

So this batch of Suras doesn't have as many problems as the last, but again, except for the criticism of hypocrisy, of demanding that a religious person should act his religion and not just pray -- hardly a profound idea, or one original to Islam -- we don't have anything to put on the positive side.

On the negative side, the absurdity of the birds with stones, the gloating triumphalism, and the parochialism.

-----

ALI was good enough to comment, and give the following -- and it is quite interesting to compare what he has to say with the comments of Asad that will appear in my comment.

For 109 it is indeed interesting that is used as one for tolerance because it is actually more interested in marking distinction and relates to when he was debating with his tribe who were trying to arrange a deal with him so that they he would stop preaching against polytheism, rather attemptin to bribe him or convince him that they shared the same god. Mecca earned a lt of commerce from being a religious center housing all conceivable gods and his preaching was starting to have an adverse effect.

This Sura pretty much denies this and tells the prophet to equivocally deny this. That there is a distinction between polytheism and monotheism and when used pretty much says stop we are poles apart, and since we cannot agree, you and I are quite different, you do your thing and I will do mine. I suppose the question for tolerance is do you have to beleive to be correct to allow it to be?

Sura 108 has a lot cultural significance and was in a message of affirmate to the beleivers and a response to the claim made that the prophet had no sons, and so there would be no one to carry forth his legacy so his preaching will vanish with him. The sura could be seen as a prophecy if you choose which actually implied that the opposite is what would occur.

107 Umm are you missing the style here? The sura is addressing hyprocrites or people who just pay lip-service to the religion. The line that talks about people who pray but are heedless to prayer gives it away. It is talking about who claim to be muslims who act in a way otherwise associated with kindness and mercy.

106 The concept is that god has blessed the Quraysh and calls them to worship the true lord of the Kaaba, the one who is really responsible for their blessings.

105 The Elephant: This actually refers to an incident that occurred in the lifetime of many of the Quraysh who were alive during the prophets time. They accepted whatever it may be, some theories put forth have called it measles or call them birds or translate them as something else. It is merely calling a known miracle to mind and it serves its purpose in delivering the message it is attempting by the example it has picked at least for me. It is not important to the theme.

And I do no see gloating I see it continously calling them to facts, I see two styles one of invoking imagery by calling attention to certain things as examples and I see short question and short answer calling for the hearers to think and guiding their thoughts thereby to a certain conclusion. A preaching tone if any.

5:51 PM

[Ironically, both Ali and I typoed a Surah number in our original posts. They have both been corrected here.]

Surahs 110-114 Repost with comments

2006-05-10T08:20:00.000-04:00

Let's try it this way, at least to the point where I received the Asad. I'll repost my original post, include the comments received, and then add my own rethoughts in a further comment. (The originals will be posted as written, except for catching an occasional typo.)

Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Exploring the Qur'an I:Suras 110-114

One thing about these short posts is that I get a chance to bring up some points in isolation. Thus, in Sura 114, "The Men" we get a mention of djinn, and in Sura 113, "The Daybreak" we hear of witchcraft. Now I'll have a lot to say about djinns as this goes on, but I don't believe there is any such thing. I certainly have no doubt that witchcraft does not exist, nor do I think many of you believe it does. (I specifically doubt that you believe there are people who can make a piece of knotted string and blow on it to bring evil on people as they mention their names -- the specific type of witchcraft mentioned according to Shakir and Palmer.)

And yet the verse is explicit, Allah is telling his messenger to say that he seeks God's protection against witchcraft, as against the darkness of night -- perhaps an eclipse -- and the envy of enviers. How can you accept this is direct from God and deny witchcraft, or vice versa?

Sura 112, "The Unity" just reaffirms the idea of monotheism. Except for the implied criticism of Christianity in 'he begets not' there is nothing much to say. On the other hand, Sura 111, "The Flame," requires comment.

Abu Lahab, Mohammed's Uncle, was, apparently, a loud-mouthed, hot-tempered jerk, from the description in the Wikipedia. (Anyone who has a better reference, for example from the hadiths, I'd appreciate it.) And he was certainly not a friend of his nephew's religion -- even though his sons married -- and divorced -- two of Mohammed's daighters. It is barely conceivable that a God would use him as an example, to make the point that even the nephew of his Messenger, with all his wealth, could not escape His wrath.

Except He didn't. In a book designed for the ages, for generations to come, there is no mention of who Abu Lahab is, or why he will perish and be condemned to the fire, or why his wife will wear a halter of palm fiber. (For that matter, I don't know, and saw no reference, what his WIFE did to deserve her punishment. All we are told is that she shall carry the wood for the fire. Which is confusing in itself, if eternal punishment is what is meant, and, again according to the Wikipedia, it must have been, because he died in a completely different way.) Certainly Mohammed knew who he was. He wouldn't have needed to explain, and probably his companions knew the story as well. But, we are told, it was not Mohammed who wrote this.

Why is there no explanation? There was no need to 'rush' the Qur'an. God had all the time in the world. And certainly the book has shown no fear of repetition to this point. One line, like "Say, O Mohammed, that your own Uncle, Abu Lahab ..." and "for neither his nearness nor his power nor his wealth could save him who ..."

(I'll ask the Muslims who read this and haven't already left in horror if they knew who Abu Lahab was.)

And then there is the description of the punishment. Perhaps it is the translation, but there is almost the sound of gloating in the description. (Again, understandable from the mouth of the jerk's nephew, but not from the mouth of God.)

Sura 110, "The Help" needs no commentary that I am capable of giving. Here I do request the help of an Arabic speaker. The (transliterated) Arabic, according to Yussuf Ali is "2. Waraayta alnnasa yadkhuloona fee deeni Allahi afwajan"

Ali translates the key word of people entering the religion as 'crowds.' The other translations use more military terms, Palmer and Pickthal using 'troops' and Shakir using 'companies.' Is there a military implication to the Arabic, or just a coincidence?

I had planned on doing 10 short Surahs tonight, but I'm not feeling that great and this has gotten long, like most of my posts. I'll sum it up, and if I am still awake later maybe do the next batch.

Is there any guidance for mankind in these Surahs? I have to say no, except for instructions to pray for forgiveness -- but for what is not said. Is there any ethical or moral principle yet. Again, not that i can see.

Ugliness is there, to my ears, in the tone of "The Flame," but perhaps I am too sensitive.

But the key to this batch is the mention of witchcraft and djinn. Again, the statement is unequivical, not poetic -- though I'd hardly expect a God to be demonstrating his poetical skills in this important a message -- and we'll come back to that. If God has written that his Messenger is to tell his hearers to take refuge in Him against witchcraft, can this be explained as anything but a statement that witchcraft exists.

Does it?
------
Comments:
TOMANBAY:
hey jim...
there seems to be an inherent problem with your interpretation of the "translated" quran u r reading.
Anybody who tried to study comparitive litreature (let alone religion) will attest that the best you can get out of a translation is a vague idea of what the author intended to say. Yet you seem to be particulary concerned about elements of style, beauty, and language in your translation...it takes so much out of the meaning...
For example u r contemplating what does Afwaj mean..and u made a diversion into whether it has military implications....for an average arabic speaker like myself Afwaj means one thing: large groups of people...simply...not platoons, or companies, or crowds, or mobs...
so, my advice if u will continue with this project, is to really try to neutralize the language of translation as much as possible...and try to focus on the meaning....and even then you'll have a problem with words which carries multiple meanings in arabic (intended), but the translator chooses to include only one meaning...but these are not frequent..so u needn't worry about that

7:33 AM

I responded:
THAT is precisely why I asked. The four translations I have used different words. Three of them used terms with a slightly militaristic tone, the other did not. I was simply curious if the original did. Since you've straightened that out, then I have no comment on the Surah except to say it is a simple prayer and a nice one.

Thanx, TB.

TOMANBAY added
actually the term afwaj in arabic is mostly used with tourists....
seeing how some tourists behave (esp japaness)...I'd say that it probably has a militaristic meaning!! :)

(j/k by the way...just in case!)

10:10 AM

DRIMA joined in

I agree with tomanbay regarding the translation... Jim, bro you have to understand that Arabic is known to be the richest language humanity has ever known. Many linguists support this fact. I congratulate you with what u are doin for it is truly wonderful. Finaly someone has time to look through the Quran before simply making sweeping statements about it.. Regarding the jinn and witchcraft, let me tell you even many Muslims sometimes doubt the witchcraft part. Even I used to ... I know it sounds absurd but bro nobody has solid proof they saw God. The pope can't say he saw God but yet many people believe he exists. That is what faith is all about ie. believing in something that you don't realy know but still have faith it exits.
I can confidently say I'm well-versed in terms of knowledge in the religion. Even though I am guess what, I still have doubts about a few issues but I never give up. I try to seek answers and understand, a process many Muslims don't do because they think creative and critical thinking in Islam will lead to un-Islamic things, which is completely untrue if done with the intention of truly understanding Allah's SWT message. What I'm trying to say is that believing in something doesn't happen overnight and it takes time. The problem with many Muslims today is that, they are simply fed information, told to accept it without questioning it and strictly to follow it.

So my friend things time to sink in. There are some Qurans containing translations and also the reasons for the revelation of each verse. It will help you understand the verses if you know which reason they were revealed for

My response
Sorry it took a while to realize you had posted here and respond. I'll write more tomorrow, but I want to discuss the question of faith. It is not as benign as you seem to propose it is. To pick the most horrible example, the Statement that Hitler made that he 'represented the spirit of the Germanic people' was a statement that was accepted on faith and his commands were followed blindly until the doom set it. A less malevolent and specificly religious example might be Mormonism. The belief in teh existence of the bronze tablets translated by an angel is accepted on faith, yet to anyone whose eyes are not so blinded, the Book of Mormon appears to be what it is, an obvious attempt by a nineteenth century man to create a work of scripture using what he thought of as 'Biblical language.' (About one verse in every five begins 'And it came to pass...' for example.)

In the absence of solid evidence, faith may serve well, but it cannot act against the evidence. That is the basis OF critical thinking. Let me recommend to you the best article I've ever read on the subject, "A Field Guide To Critical Thinking."
http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html
You might enjoy it and find it interesting and useful.

And, as I've pointed out elsewhere -- and I am accepting, for this investigation, the Qur'an at 'face value' and not discussing the historical research done on it -- this idea of the 'purpose' of a specific verse does not make sense in the context of a 'great and final message to all of mankind.' Perhaps if it had 63,000 verses instead of 6,300, I could see the occasional specific reference to the 'then and there.' But it has less than one tenth of that, and I am seeing far too much being explained away as 'written for an occasion' and little if anything that is written 'for the ages.'

3:56 AM

FAISAL included the following:
To comment on your post about the previous Surahs and individual verses within these Surahs.

As about the witchcraft, it was known that there were people who believed in witchcraft in Mohammed's time (before and afterwards as well). Apparently, one form of "casting" or whatever you wish to call it was this blowing on knots.

I think the verse just works to allay the fears and belief that people had towards this form of mysticism at that point in time... and until now!

As an Egyptian, let me tell you there are many, many Egyptian peasants who still believe in spirits and all that (both Muslim and Christian). It's something that they've inherited from generation upon generation dating back to Pharonic Egypt.

The thing is, I am told there is anothe meaning to the phrase, but my level of arabic and knowledge of Qur'an vocabulary isn't THAT extensive. I'll get back to you if I figure that out.

The Surah "The Unity" does in fact say that god has neither been born nor has he, for lack of a better encompassing translation, been involved in the process of giving birth to anyone, in any way. This, obviously, comes into conflict with the idea of The Trinity that is center to the believe of many Christian sects.

According to the Islamic Lore, Abu Lahab was a main instrument in the fight against Muhammed when he sought to propogate Islam in Mecca. The story, if you ask most Muslims, is known to them even though it refers to something that obviously occurs in the time of the Messenger Muhammed.

I don't see any sign of gloating in the punishment, when read in arabic. It is said matter of factly. Personally, and not lots of Muslims would agree with me, I think the "punishment" is metaphorical. I am one who believes that the after-life is not as "physical" or tangible as most believe it will be.

Furthermore, when read in Arabic, the use of language is important here. The first verse says: Damn Abu Lahab's hands and (a reaffirming of the damnation for which I cannot think of an English word, because of differences in grammer). The third verse says that he will experience, or will burn in, a fire with flames. The word Flames here, in Arabic, is Lahab. It also continues the ending of the verses with the second letter in the arabic alphabet (ba') [the phonetic equivalent of the letter B].

As to Surah 110, it is as Tomanbay mentioned, large groups of people is what is meant by afwag, or afwaj. The -an suffix is basically arabic conjugation. (Afwag or afwaj is how one would pronounce it colloquially)

There is definitely no military connotations to the verse, or the whole surah that I can see. In fact, I think this is one of those Surahs that is eternal in meaning, or that can hold importance long after the Prophet's death.

First of all, the name of the Surah should have been The Victory. Unless, again, my non-scholarly knowledge of Arabic doesn't allow me to see the different meanings... though I am 99.99% sure of this one. Any other meaning would have to be either archaic or too scholar-specific.

Getting back, I would translate it as: 1. If the victory and conquering of god comes. (This is my attempt at a word for word translation - the word conquering [Al-fath]) in arabic is actually the same word that is commonly used to refer to countries where Islam has entered. Since that occured, usually, with a military invasion (until very recently), the words have become interchangeable. I can't think of a specific Arabic word which translates directly into military conquest (without any religious overtones) at this point in time, but I'm almost definite one exists.

To continue; 2. And you see the people entering in the religion of God, in large groups.

Again, the meaning im getting is not only in large groups BUT, because of the plural form of the word, that it happens again and again, not one time.

3. Then praise your God's kindness/forgiveness and ask for forgiveness [for your sins], for he (since I'm forced to use a predicate, in Arabic, he doesnt imply gender nor, in fact, tangibility... just a reference to existence) is forgiving.

And that's about it.

I wouldnt say that the stress of these Surahs (unless you mean that's what you wish to stress) are the Djinns or Witchcraft. To me, all the Surahs, except the one about Abu Lahab, talk about the glorification of God and forgiveness. The last three Surahs start with the word "Say". Believe me when I tell you that it's quite powerful when it starts that way in Arabic.

This is coming from someone who has opened the Qur'an no more than 10 times in the last 7 years and only to look for a verse that someone said existed.

1:46 AM

And recently ALI began his following of my commentary with:
I am afraid Jinns, Witchcraft, Heaven, Hell, Angels, The Devil, The Day of Judgement are some things that in Islam you have to take on faith. These are itemised in theology as things for which no logical proof can be given to humans in this world beyond that they were claimed by the Prophet who was known to all as Al-Amin or the truthful before his prophecy. Thats the crux of that.

As for Al-Nasr, The Surah has two specialities one it is commenting on the conquest of Mecca as when the cvictory comes. This resulted in Arabs all over Arabia deciding that his victory was proof positive of his claim of prophethood, i.e the reference to hordes of beleivers flocking to the religion, and in the second part it is calling on the faithful to be humble and remember god and seek forgiveness rather that exalt in jubilation.

The other tradition associated with this particular sura is that it also signified to the prophet that it was was nearing the end of his message and his impending death by asking him to remain humble and remember god.

---
Now to catch some rest and try and reply to all of you -- *whew* -- and add in insights from Asad.

As I mentioned

2006-05-10T08:10:00.000-04:00

in my comment to Ali on my last post, I had not realized he had gone back to the beginning and commented on each of my interpretations. His comments are particularly valuable, and I would have been engaging in more colloquies with him, but I only get notified that someone has commented if the person is on blogger -- don't ask me why. So some of you might find it useful to go back to the archives and follow the discussion. I have wanted to readdress the original posts in the light of the Asad translation anyway. So if you can deal with the tedium of my 'pompous and stagnant style' and are new to this, please go back. (Would it be helpful to begin reposting the pieces, or linking to them? If I can only get my link button to work.)

Exploring the Qur'an X: Surah 88

2006-05-08T21:46:00.000-04:00

Surah 88 may be more important for demonstrating the problems with Asad's translation than for its own words. Every other translation translates Verse 17 with a variant of Yussuf Ali's
"Do they not look at the Camels, how they are made?-"

Palmer footnotes it, reasonably, "So useful an animal as a camel being to an Arab a singular instance of divine wisdom."

Asad translates the same line as:(the bracketed phrase being, as he states, his own interpolation)
"Do, then, they [who deny resurrection] never gaze at the clouds pregnant with water [and observe] how they are created."

His argument is that the word 'ibil' can have both meanings, and that taking it to mean camel would limit its significance to the people of that time and place. He also adds the interpolated phrase with the interesting justification that "Implying that a denial of resurrection and life in the hereafter renders the concept of a conscious creator utterly meaningless; hence my interpolation ... in the first part of the verse."

I have asked a number of Arabic speaking friends to comment on this, either as e-mail or as a comment to the post. Until I see their response, I won't speak further on this.

But a further verse brings up a VERY important point, the question of 'compulsion in religion.' This is verse 21-22.

Shakir gives the verses as follows:
[88.21] Therefore do remind, for you are only a reminder.
[88.22] You are not a watcher over them;

Yussuf Ali gives it
Therefore do thou give admonition, for thou art one to admonish.
Thou art not one to manage (men's) affairs.

And Palmer
But remind: thou art only one to remind; thou art not in authority over them

Asad though, may give an implication nearer to Palmer's He translates the key phrase
"thou canst not compel them [to believe]' (again, the brackets are his interpolation)
but his notes give "lit., 'thou hast no power over them.'"

The trouble with this, in the latter renderings -- and leaving aside until later whether this was 'abrogated' by a later Medinan verse -- is that, when it was delivered, in fact Mohammed was still merely a preacher, not a leader of an army or a state. He DIDN'T have authority or power over men. He could NOT compel anyone to do anything.

Y.A. Says that he is told 'you are not one to manage (men's) affairs.' But the fact was that in a few years, that is exactly who he was, someone who DID have authority, did 'manage men's affairs.' Was he, purportedly being told not to have such authority, was he being told the reverse of what would happen, or was the phrase, as it is quoted by many Muslims today, meant as the equivalent of 'there is no compulsion in religion?'

Obviously we will have to come back to this again and again.

Worth thinking about

2006-05-08T20:49:00.000-04:00

I'm actually going to get one or two more surahs covered tonight, but I was just checking in on Drima's blog, Sudanese thinker
http://sudanesethinker.blogspot.com/
and found the following quote from Don Cox that I had to pass on.

"'Religion is supposed to be perfect and free of contradictions, that is if you perceive those contradictions as contradictions and not a natural occurence. '_____Perhaps religion is _not_ supposed to be perfect and finished, but to be an ongoing project, an enormous puzzle to which we gradually find different solutions? The sacred books which naive people take to be answers are really questions, problems, starting points for understanding - not God's answers to your questions."

Exploring the Qur'an: IX

2006-05-08T00:47:00.000-04:00

Okay, last night I was getting started, and Blogger went down. Let's keep slogging on.

Surah 89: "The Dawn" or "The Daybreak" is not one of the deeper of Surahs, nor is there much difference between the translations.

Asad has some interesting ideas about that obscure openiing, seeing the 'night' as a spiritual darkness, seeing the 'many and the one' -- as he has it (Palmer reads it as 'the single and the double' the others as 'the even and the odd') -- as a reference to God's uniqueness contrasted with the multiplicity of Creation. Interesting, but not really credible to me.

After a mention of God bringing down Ad, Thamud, (this time without the mention of the she-camel), and Pharaoh (with interesting but not significant differences on the description of Pharaoh), the surah mentions the all-too-human trait of believing good fortune is deserved, but getting angry at God when there is ill-fortune. And after still further mentions of protecting the orphans and providing for the poor, the surah ends with a (soon to be very common) description of the torments of hell and the rewards for the good.

Perhaps the only noteworthy thing about this Surah (which dates from the early -- Meccan -- period and not from Medina) is that it is almost alone in merely mentioning those who do good and evil and not believers and unbelievers. Again, the definition of 'doing good' is extremely narrow, but it is there.

And I must mention the point that the Qur'an frequently speaks of itself as a 'clear' undeniable message. Yet, as shown by the problems and differences among the translations, the references that are only explained by later commentators, and other obscurities, I do not believe it is possible to claim that it lives up to this claim. But we'll see more of this as we go on.

Errr. that is...

2006-05-06T02:28:00.000-04:00

When I said that I'd get another post up tonight, I didn't expect the Mets to play 14 innings and finish, literally, 2 minutes before the start of DOCTOR WHO. After which I wasn't up to serious analysis.

But more importantly, I have been thinking of the new translation. After all, one of the things I was asking for was a new 'moderate Muslim' way of looking at the Qur'an. It is possible, by no means certain in my own mind, but possible, that this is it. If it is, the next question is would these ideas have any appeal in Islamic countries. Or even in non-American Muslim communities in the West. Certainly they provide an attractive image to Americans -- from the little I've had a chance to read, let me insist.

Anyway, I will be keeping this in mind, and commenting more about this later.

Exploring the Qur'an VIII: Surah 90

2006-05-05T20:52:00.000-04:00

Surah 90: The Land (or the City)
[Where is Surah 91? I will be doing a special post on this because it is the first -- or last -- introdcution of the 'hamstrung she-camel of Thamud,' a story that is a purely personal fascination of mine.]

These next few surahs seem to be the first I've come across that imply any sort of ethical structure in Islam, the sort of thing I am looking for. Admittedly, this one has, apparently, major problems in translation, starting with the title. Shakir and Asad translate the title as "The Land" the others as "The City." (And Asad sees it as meaning, in effect, Earth, 'the land of man' and makes the 'you' in the address mean 'mankind.' Even he admits that the classical commentators see it as 'city' and 'Mohammed' respectively.)

The translations continue to differ. All but Yussuf Ali have an opening negative, which Palmer translates as "I need not swear by..." The others simply give an opening interjection "Nay!"

Similarly 'the begetter and what he begets' is seen by Asad to refer to parents of both sexes. I would question this, since it is the male who 'begets.' (This is what i meant by tendentious. At times Asad seems to have read all the complaints about various verses and Surahs and attempted to come up with a way of defusing them. Perhaps these are valid, but his willingness always, as far as i've seen, to make this sort of explanation -- explanations which don't seem to correspond with either other translations or other commentators does give me pause to think.) Only Yussuf Ali seems to back him up here, seeing the line as 'the mystic bond of parent and child.'

The basis of the whole Surah is encouragement to do right and to believe. Again there is a tricky line in verse 17. Freeing a slave, feeding orphans related to you, or even the needy stranger when you yourself are hungry, are considered admirable acts. Where the problem comes in is the connection between this and belief. Shakir and Yussuf Ali see these actions as defining a believer, (Much like the Christian 'if you would follow me, keep my commandments') the others -- including Asad -- see the 'people of the right hand' as being those who BOTH believe and perform thos works. The difference is subtle but important.

(Asad again demonstrates his unique and modernistic point of view in his translation of verse 13. All other translations see it as 'freeing a slave' in the literal sense. Certainly slavery did exist in Mohammed's time, and in parts of the Islamic world up until my own lifetime. There seems to be no doubt that Mohammed acepted it, as we shall see elsewhere. But Asad will not admit this. His initial translation is 'the freeing of one's neck (from the burden of sin).' In his notes, he argues that while it may also be translated as 'the freeing of a human being from bondage,' this refers to "all those forms of subjugation and exploitation -- social, economic or political -- which can rightly be described as slavery." And, in an earlier note that he refers to, he inists that Islam stood, from the beginning, for the abolition of slavery, and that the only reason why such was not done immediately was the economic dislocation it would have caused. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy this interpretation, which goes so against all else I have seen, and the history of Islam.)

However, while this is an argument against Asad, there is no doubt that the idea of freeing slaves, of feeding the needy, are admirable things, certainly worth celebrating.

Let's stop here, and from here on, do a surah a post. I'll get at least one more done tonight. (And get the missing Surah covered perhaps right after the weekend.)

My new Qur'an

2006-05-05T20:28:00.000-04:00

No, that doesn't mean I'm writing one. But a few months ago, before I started blogging, I think while I was still on Muziq Pakistan -- which was the Pakistani Forum I have mentioned so often, no reason why you shouldn't check my posts there if you are curious -- I saw a reference to a place which was sending out free Qur'ans. I requested one, and they wrote back that they had run out for the time being. And to be honest, I forgot all about it.

It turns out that the group was connected with CAIR (Committee on American-Islamic Relations) and they finally restocked. And while I had been expecting maybe a fairly good-looking paperback, instead WOW! This is a beautiful example of the bookmaker's art. Hardcover, over 1000 pages, every page having the verses, the Arabic, the transliteration, and notes. I can barely lift the thing, and would ejoy having it even if I never opened it. (It is a shame that Islam has the prohibition on images, because the only thing that is missing is a suitable picture for each Surah.)

The translation is a new one for me, by Muhammad Asad, who also, i believe, provided the notes. Because of these notes, while I'll be concentrating on getting on with my analysis, I'll also try and go back and comment on the sections I've already discussed, taking the notes into consideration. (I find them, the few I've glanced at -- I just got the book yesterday and it has been a busy time -- somewhat tendentious, but they do give a different point of view and give a better explanation of some of the Arabic.)

I also welcome the addition to this discussion of Faisal and Ingrid, who have said they will try and keep up with me. Faisal has already covered a couple of surahs, and I'm sorry I haven't responded to him yet, though the new book will also be of help i this.

I will not, btw, be relying strictly on this translation, but will still be comparing the Pickthal, the Palmer and the Shakir.

Enough talking about what i am 'going' to be doing, I should start actually doing it.

Exploring the Qur'an: VII:

2006-04-30T18:38:00.000-04:00

I'll go back and totally edit that last one. It was a rough week, and I went from my usual 'pompous and stagnant' style (thanks, Andre) to near incomprehensibility. But I do want to move on a little first.

Sura 95, the Fig, is yet another example of ugliness, I'm afraid. "WE've made man the highest, then turned him into the lowest of the low, except for those who believe and do good. They will get rewards. How do you not believe in Judgement Day? Isn't God the most just of judges?"

The condemnation of all men as the lowest of the low unless they believe is not pleasant. (Think of the Christian 'there is more rejoicing in heaven over a sinner who repents...') And what does 'do good' mean? It's a minor Sura, I would guess, but hardly a pleasant one.

Sura 94 is also a minor one, addressed to Mohammed, and more pleasant. Easier to quote it, since, except for the opening, it's self explanatory.

"Have We not caused thy bosom to dilate, And eased thee of the burden Which weighed down thy back; And exalted thy fame?
But lo! with hardship goeth ease, Lo! with hardship goeth ease; So when thou art relieved, still toil And strive to please thy Lord."

Pleasant, and the opening probably means nothing more than "I opened your heart to knowledge" -- though Palmer gives an alternate reading not worth discussing -- but still of little guidance to the future generations.

Sura 93 is another short one, again neither exceptional nor greatly useful. It just reminds Mohammed of what God has done for him, that he was an orphan and was given shelter, was wandering and given direction, was poor and is now rich. (Shakir sees 'wandering' as meaning 'looking for an audience' and God directed men to him, the others give the simpler reading.) Therefore Mohammed, and, by implication, men, should not oppress orphans, or drive away beggars (Yussuf Ali has it 'drive away the petitioner unheard, slightly but not significantly different, especially given this is a Meccan and not a Medinan Surah). And he should also proclaim the goodness of God to him.

Surah 92 is memorable for a couple of reasons. It is, yet again, the statement that unbelievers will burn, but there is a more gentle tone to it, an almost regretful tone rather that the ugliness we've run into, and this one seems more to be praising the good than damning the bad. Again, wealth and stinginess are stressed as the mark (other than unbelief) of evil.

Perhaps most important, this is the only Sura but one we have seen that even notices the existence of the female part of the species. The introduction at least describes Allah as "he who created male and female." The only other mention we have of any woman is Abu Lahab's wife, who was condemned to carry the wood for his fire. (Were the rest of the Wur'an to be the same, then there would be little trouble, since it would be possible to assume that the words are for both sexes. Sadly, when we get further along we will see more mention of women, and this will be less supportable.)

So far we have gone through one-fifth of the Surahs -- though the shortest ones. Still we have little ethical guidance except to know we shouldn't expect our wealth to save us from hell, that we should not be stingy or slanderers, and that we shouldn't oppress orphans or beggars. We are told to believe that God exists, and those who do not are threatened with hell. There is a scattering of superstition, and some scientific nonsense, but not much. There is a little gloating over the discomfiture to Mohammed's enemies, but not much.

Most of all there is nothing that hints of a 'final message' to mankind, yet. If you ignore the specific references, you have a bland and unexceptional message, with less real substance than you find in the standard Christian or Jewish prayer, or in a chapter of Dickens, to pick one writer the mention of orphans and stinginess brings to mind.

However, the Surahs are getting longer, perhaps we shall see more, good or bad, as we go along.

Exploring the Quran VI: Surah 96 Pt. 2

2006-04-26T20:29:00.000-04:00

(Apologies if this isn't my best post, but the bombings in Egypt, which directly affected three of my favorite Egyptian bloggers have disconcerted me, to say the least. Add to that having to calm down a personal friend -- whose normal demeanor ranges between highly excitable and pure panic -- because she came home from work and saw police all over her building, both in the lobby and on her floor, and then discovered that a woman had left her ground-floor apartment, come to an apartment on my friend's floor, spoken briefly to an elderly man in the apartment, and then, when the man excused himself for a bathroom trip, had gone to the balcony and jumped off. It has been a rough couple of days, and the next few might be quite busy as well, and my wife has been rightfully desiring my presence for at least some time this evening. So if I don't finish this, you'll understand.)

I finsihed my last post by mentioning the 'doctrine of abrogation.' This is another doctrine of Islam that makes little sense. Any number of commentators have spoken about the idea of a God who changes his mind, who says one thing and then in a later Surah says something else that is supposed to replace it. In some cases the original verses are simply dropped from the Qur'an -- supposedly one Surah was originally 200 verses and now is about 80 and one story that Ayesha menions has totally disappeared -- but in others the original verses remain, for reasons I have yet to see satisfactorily explained. (I am curious if the supposed 'Qur'an in heaven' contains all the abrogated verses or not.)

The answer some Muslims give is that specific verses are written for specific situations. I have already discussed the absurdity of this, that a message so short, meant as God's final Prophecy, could contain this many verses meant tro apply to a specific situation and not for 'all times.'

However, there is yet a further problem with this idea. Muslims (and other believers) frequently say that it is impossible to encompass God within man's intellect or to put restrictions on him. This might be true in general, but there is ONE characteristic that believers HAVE to insist is true about God. They have to believe HE IS TELLING THE TRUTH. (Maybe more specifically that he can be trusted to live up to his promises.) If it is possible that God is a liar, then why should anyone do the things they imagine he expects of them? Why should they assume that the 'proimise of salvation' means anything?

Couldn't they die and meet God, and have him tell them, 'Oh, I didn't mean that nonsense about eternal life. After that bet Satan lost with me about Job, he made me another one, about how silly mankind could be made to act if I promised them salvation. And between the silly hats the Jews wear, and all the genuflecting the Catholics do, and then you guys falling flat on your faces and lining up the rugs so they point to that silly rock in the desert, I won that one too. But as for heaven, sorry. Ain't no such thing. *Poof*."

But if God has to be telling the truth, then how can the doctrine of abrogation be true?

Anyway, that deals with the first part of the Surah, but the second gets us into the question of the Qur'an and modern science. (It won't be the last time, but it is good to start here.)

I was going to include the various translations, but I am simply too rushed. If anyone asks, i'll include them in the comments.

One thing that I see is a claim by Muslims that the Qur'an has, in some way, anticipated modern science. (Perhaps the best known example of this is a pamphlet by Dr. Maurice Bucaille called THE QURAN AND MODERN SCIENCE, and the writings of a Canadian named Keith Moore. (This argument is not unique to Muslims. I have come across a magazine aimed at Orthodox Jews called COMMUNITY which contains a regular column making the same claims for the Torah.)

Unfortunately, when they are investigated, these claims fall flat. In every case, the discovery was made first, then a verse of the Qur'an was twisted -- freqeutnly in ways no previous commentator would have accepted -- so that it could be seen as foreseeing this advance. In no case I am aware of was a single discovery made by FIRST reading the Qur'an and THEN experimenting or investigating to confirm a statement made there. Even the truly great strides that were made in the sciences and mathematics by the early Islamic Empire were not made in this way, but rather either by expanding on work done by previous cultures that the Muslims discovered and transmitted, or strictly independently.

(And yet, how easy it would have been for a truly All-Knowing God to have included one simple unequivical statement that was beyond the scientific knowledge of the time but which was later to be proven true. That the world was round, that it revolved around the sun, that if you sailed across the Great Sea you would find a hitherto unknown continent. Just one of these would have given this work incredible weight. Yet they do not exist in the surahs. In fact, there are any number of incorrect statements, statements that might have been believed by Mohammed, but which are known to be false. Time and time again, as I will be discussing, the Qur'an uses the specific language of the geocentric universe. And surely the two statements in Surah 18, The Cave that are referred to in Mash's replies to my questions are simply absurd, and his answer to them, sadly, is disproven not just by the whole surah, but by the very verses they appear in.)

One key part of the Qur'an that is supposedly confirmed by modern science occurs here, the idea that man is created from a clot of dried blood. Keith Miller states that the phrase is a 'leech-like clot' a phrase none of the translators uses, and claims that a leech 'looks like a human embryo,' and this proves the accuracy of the Qur'an. Dr. Bucaille has the following section (as edited by Dr. Bilal Phillips): (I should state that, unlike Dr. Miller, he insists that 'alaq' can NOT be translated as 'clot' or 'congealed blood' but as a 'clinging entity' and therefore uses the term to refer to the way a fetus implants itself in the womb. Obviously. as a non-Arabic speaker, I can not decide this argument between translations.)

(Sorry for the multiplicity of parentheses, but I am doing this first-draft, as usual. I could quote several pages from Buscaille. I will include just one short section, and can assure the reader that it is typical. If you doubt this, the whole pamphlet is available at
http://www.sultan.org/articles/QScience.html
)

"Embryo

The evolution of the embryo inside the maternal uterus is only briefly described, but the description is accurate, because the simple words referring to it correspond exactly to fundamental stages in its growth. This is what we read in a verse from the chapter al-Mu’minoon:

“I fashioned the clinging entity into a chewed lump of flesh and I fashioned the chewed flesh into bones and I clothed the bones with intact flesh.” Qur’an, 23:14

The term ‘chewed flesh’ (mudghah) corresponds exactly to the appearance of the embryo at a certain stage in its development.

It is known that the bones develop inside this mass and that they are then covered with muscle. This is the meaning of the term ‘intact flesh’ (lahm).

The embryo passes through a stage where some parts are in proportion and others out of proportion with what is later to become the individual. This is the obvious meaning of a verse in the chapter al-Hajj, which reads as follows:

“I fashioned (humans) a clinging entity, then into a lump of flesh in proportion and out of proportion.” Qur’an, 22:5.

Next, we have a reference to the appearance of the senses and internal organs in the chapter as-Sajdah:

“... and (God) gave you ears, eyes and hearts.” Qur’an, 32:9

Nothing here contradicts today’s data and, furthermore, none of the mistaken ideas of the time have crept into the Qur’an. Throughout the Middle Ages there were a variety of beliefs about human development based on myths and speculations which continued for several centuries after the period. The most fundamental stage in the history of embryology came in 1651 with Harvey’s statement that “all life initially comes from an egg”. At that time, when science had benefited greatly from the invention of the microscope, people were still arguing about the respective roles of the egg and spermatozoon. Buffon, the great naturalist, was one of those in favor of the egg theory.Bonnet, on the other hand, supported the theory of ‘the ovaries of Eve’, which stated that Eve, the mother of the human race, was-supposed to have had inside her the seeds of all human beings packed together one inside the other."

I advise the reader to read this very carefully to see the examples of circular logic, word-twisting, out-of-context phrase-grabbing and simple nonsense that is included. Check the original surahs if you can to see in what sense the words were originally used, particularly the reference to Surah 32.

I was going to discuss the question of the forelock section -- a Muslim I was discussing this with on the forum I have frequently mentioned attempted to state that the word referred to the forehead, and thus the 'lying forehead' was a reference to the rational processes that takeplace in the forebrain, directly behind the forehead. I pointed out that the only translation that used 'forehead' rather than 'forelock' also translated the verb as 'smiting' rather than 'grabbing by' and that it took very little sophisticated knowledge to know that that was a good place to smote an opponent. The 'cartoon cavemen' at least knew THAT much.

This is not a satisfactory post, for the reasons I mentioned. I may go back and rewrite it, but will leave it for now. Hopefully either tomorrow or Friday I will get to a further group of Surahs, and be more comprehensible in my discussion. (I will also include Drima's post either tonight or tomorrow -- and apologize for calling him "Drina" -- and look forward to his joining the discussion when his school schedule permits, as he mentions in his comment to the previous post.)

Apologies and an important site

2006-04-25T21:12:00.000-04:00

Scheduling problems are going to make it impossible to continue yesterday's post until tomorrow. (I will actually do it then, hopefully will get another one up, and will be reprinting another post in my "Another View" series, this one from "Drina aka Sudanese Thinker.")

However, I discovered something today (h/t Andrew Sullivan) which I have to pass on. It is called "The Euston Manifesto." There is a lot of liberal-bashing going on on many blogs, and an assumption that liberals and leftists are so blinded by a mindless, robotic application of 'multiculturalism' that they will not speak out against some of the problems involved in the war and in the relationships between Islam and the West. (Even I complained on my other blog:
http://jimbentn.blogspot.com/2006/03/where-are-my-fellow-liberals.html
The Euston Manifesto is a declaration by a substantial group of liberals and leftists that goes a LONG way to countering this impression, and is something that should be read by anyone reading this blog, and hopefully signed by most of you.

You'll find it at
http://eustonmanifesto.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=1

Please check it out.

Exploring the Qur'an V: Surah 96

2006-04-24T18:27:00.000-04:00

This section will be devoted entirely to Surah 96, both because I discussed it in detail on the forum I was on, and more importantly because in its 19 verses we can find ways of leading into several very important topics.

We do have a problem with variances in translation. Thus while Pickthal, Palmer, and Shakir all refer to it as "The Clot" or "Congealed Blood," Yussuf Ali chooses the opening word, "Iqra" or "Read" (or "proclaim" -- he gives both variants.) Because the translations differ so much, I am going to give each of them, along with the Arabic.

Because this does divide into two parts, here are the first five verses.

1. Iqra/ bi-ismi rabbika allathee khalaqa
2. Khalaqa al-insana min AAalaqin
3. Iqra/ warabbuka al-akramu
4. Allathee AAallama bialqalami
5. AAallama al-insana ma lam yaAAlam

Yussuf Ali gives this as follows:
1. Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created-
2. Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood:
3. Proclaim! And thy Lord is Most Bountiful,-
4. He Who taught (the use of) the pen,-
5. Taught man that which he knew not.

Palmer gives this as:
IN the name of the merciful and compassionate God.
READ, in the name of thy Lord!
Who created man from congealed blood!
Read, for thy Lord is most generous!
Who taught the pen!
Taught man what he did not know!

Shakir:
Read in the name of your Lord Who created.
He created man from a clot.
Read and your Lord is Most Honorable,
Who taught (to write) with the pen
Taught man what he knew not.

And Pickthal:
Read: In the name of thy Lord Who createth,
Createth man from a clot.
Read: And thy Lord is the Most Bounteous,
Who teacheth by the pen,
Teacheth man that which he knew not.

There isn't a great variation, except as far as 'the pen' goes. Did Allah teach man how to write, or does he use the pen to teach man? Perhaps this is a minor, pedantic point, but I am curious.

What is NOT a minor point is that these verses are supposedly the first verses revealed to Mohammed. And yet, here they are in Surah 96, not even standing alone. And then the NEXT revelation -- which occurred sometime later is at the beginning of Surah 74, again not standing alone.

I have never read a satisfactory, or even comprehensible, explanation as to the organization of the Qur'an, not if you give it the importance that Islam does. This is a book that exists in heaven, that is the final revelation of God, that is by its very nature -- if the claims are accepted -- the most important document in the history of mankind. And yet it is arranged, not chronologically, not logically, but simply by the lengths of the Surahs. What's more, if the story of the first two revelations is accepted, the Surahs themselves were not delivered as units. (I have to admit I have this picture of Allah handing the manuscript to Gabriel to deliver to Mohammed and the angel, more used to fighting than to messenger work, dropping it and putting the pages back haphazardly.)

I have to ask, the copy that exists i heaven, is it too in this disarray? Or did Mohammed basically grab a surah at random for his delivery, because we do seem to have some knolwedge of which surahs were delivered at Mecca and which at Medina? (And when there is a conflict between Surahs, it is the later one that rules, at least according to the doctrine of 'abrogation.')

*******I was going to write much more, but I just heard of the bombing at Dahab. (I was also aware that Big Pharaoh was going to the area. Fortunately he didn't and is okay.) Because of this, I'm not in the mood to write anything more tonight. Sorry, but I'm still catching my breath and recovering from the shock.******

Exploring the Qur'an IV: Suras 97-99

2006-04-22T18:55:00.000-04:00

I am falling behind on this, for the usual reasons. But I'm still trying to get a post up almost every day.

Sura 99 is yet another that is simple and needs little comment. It is a portrait of the 'Last Judgment' and differs little from the picture you will find in most Christian writings. (In fact, this is an idea I am very sympathetic to, even though I do not believe in it. Not the judgment part, but the sudden moment of understanding and memory at the end of life that lets you see your entire life, and its impact.)

Sura 98 is another matter. The Arabic is apparently difficult enough that the translations vary somewhat, and none of them is entirely clear. The first part seems to claim that the unbelievers, whether People of the Book or polytheists, were not going to change their ways until the coming of Mohammed, with a clear message from God. Certainly an unexceptional sentiment, for anyone assuming the truth of his religion.

But the next verse claims that there was no division among the people of the book until the coming of Mohammed. This seems unlikely, that it was he who caused schisms, when in fact the Eastern Chruches and the Western had split off long before, the Arians and Athenasians had fought their battles (the Athanasians won, btw. and no, I won't explain the difference, but all of modern Christianity is decended from the Athanasians), and the various Gnostic sects had produced their literature long before. And the Jews too had had their splits.

The description of religion as consisting merely in accepting God, obeying him, being 'upright' and 'pure in religion' and paying the poor tax is interesting. It leaves little guidance -- or too much, depending on how 'obeying him' is interpreted (the phrase is missing in Shakir and Yussuf Ali) for how man should act in general. It almost abandons the idea of ethical principles dealing with the relation of people with each other.

And then we have the condemnation of unbelievers to hell as the 'worst of people.' This is such a constant theme I will return to it again and again. It is not the 'evil man' but the 'unbeliever' that is repeatedly condemned, or at best the unbeliever is assumed to be an evil man, once the 'clear truth has been revealed.' And it is certainly not clear if these unbelievers are the same as those in the first verse, or if now the unbelievers among 'the People of the Book' are those who simply maintain their old beliefs. But this is not the last time we'll see this, I'll give the book time to make itself clear.

As for the ending, the promise of paradise to the believers and doers of good works can only be questioned on the grounds that there is no statement as to what are, in fact, 'good works.' That and the question whether the implication is that 'only a believer can do good works,' or that a person must be both. Surely a God who sees the hearts of men knows better than to think that only believers do good works.

Sura 97 is a puzzle to me, and for once Palmer's footnotes let me down. I'll quote it, but I simply don't know what is being said here, but I think I have seen this Sura referred to as an important one.

Lo! We revealed it on the Night of Predestination. Ah, what will convey unto thee what the Night of Power is! The Night of Power is better than a thousand months. The angels and the Spirit descend therein, by the permission of their Lord, with all decrees. (The night is) Peace until the rising of the dawn.

I believe that this is supposed to refer to one of the nights of Ramadan. But again, in a Final Message should a God have to rely on others to footnote his words. Should they not be 'a clear message'?

I am gfoing to reserve Sura 96 to the next post, not just because of time, but because I have a lot to say about it, and at least a couple of interpretations I ran into in a previous discussion.

A different view

2006-04-22T14:38:00.000-04:00

I have insisted that I want responses to my comments about Islam, and other viewpoints shown here. One of the best responses to a group of questions I began posting on "If it is it doesn't matter" was made by Mash (Doc Strangelove.) I am reprinting his post in its entirety, and I would suggest readers check the comments it received both on his blog

http://www.docstrangelove.com/2006/04/05/my-faith-in-islam/

and from the reprint he made of it on the Daily Kos.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/5/114334/1977

(Obviously I would argue with some of his points, and will, but he makes his case -- in this as in everything he writes, extremely well. I agree with him on so many things, he is a truly humane, intelligent liberal, that I can only hope that those of you who stop in here head there as well.)

My Faith In Islam

A few days ago I posted a piece on the right wing response to Jill Carroll’s release. In the comments section following that piece I started a discussion with Jim Benton that quickly turned to a discussion of Islam. He has posted a series of questions on his blog for moderate Muslims. I agreed over the weekend to try to give my answers. I am finally getting around to it. I have decided to post my answers here and then I will try to cross post on Jim’s blog with answers for each individual question.

To begin, I should state that I am not a Muslim scholar nor do I play one on TV. I am however a Muslim. I was born in Bangladesh (which was East Pakistan at the time) and grew up in an overwhelmingly Muslim but secular country. I have lived half my life (and most of my adult life) in the United States. I now find myself in the unusual and sometimes difficult position of being an American and a Muslim in these turbulent times. I am often asked the obligatory "Why do Muslims hate freedom?" question. To me that question is very similar to the "When was the last time you beat your wife?" question.

I am also often commended for being one of those "good" Muslims or a "moderate Muslim". So the only part of Jim’s questions I will take issue with is that he directs his questions to "moderate Muslims". To me, there are two kinds of Muslims: there are Muslims, and then there are Fanatics (I think this distinction probably exists in most organized religions). I happen to be a Muslim. Of course the current news is about the two sects of Islam: the Shia and the Sunni. There are many good books that discuss the two sects of Islam; for my part, I will just say that it is a political dispute that has lasted to this day. All Muslims share one holy book, The Koran, and any difference that exists between practicing Muslims is the work of man not of God.

A significant part of my thinking in terms of Islam is rooted in having seen and experienced man’s inhumanity to man first hand. As I mentioned, I was born in Bangladesh during a time when it was part of Pakistan. The word "Pakistan" means, for those who do not know, "The Land of the Pure". Bengalis, the ethnic group primarily in Bangladesh and in parts of India, were considered by many in the leadership of Pakistan at the time to be "napak", that is "impure". We were considered this largely because most Bengalis were converts to Islam from Hinduism. Bengalis retained their cultural identity through their conversion to Islam and a large minority in Bangladesh continued to practice Hinduism and other religions. The resulting war for the independence of Bangladesh saw perhaps the most egregious persecution of Muslims by Muslims in the twentieth century. Toward the end of the war, when it became clear that Pakistan was about to lose the war, death squads called "Al Badr" (this name should sound familiar to Iraq watchers) spread out across Bangladesh with the goal of finding and killing Bengali technocrats, scholars and intellectuals. The goal was to try to decimate Bengali culture that the Pakistanis felt was tainted, made impure, by our Hindu influence. One of the targets of Al Badr was my father, who if not for the courage and compassion of our Pakistani neighbors would have been murdered in front of his children’s eyes. Instead we watched in horror as my cousin was mercilessly beaten to an inch of his death for not revealing the whereabouts of my father and his family.

So, I know a little bit about what fanaticism can do, and I know a little of what Muslim Fanaticism can do. Now Jim, onto your questions:

1: Do you accept that the Qur’an is the final revelation of God, dictated, through Gabriel, to Mohammed?

I accept that The Koran is the divine word of God. The Koran was orally delivered by The Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and was not written down until after Mohammed’s death. During his life, the Prophet did not allow The Koran to be transcribed. To this day, Muslims accept that The Koran in its Arabic form is the word of God and any translation into other languages is considered an interpretation and not literal translation. You will find that most interpretions of the Koran into English or other languages differ in meaning simply because of the difficulty in translating Koranic Arabic precisely. A lot of the meaning, the tone, of phrases is lost once translated and the words certainly do not sound as poetic as they do in the original Arabic. Most Muslims, including me, will in the course of their lives learn to recite the Koran in Arabic.

1a: If you do not, what do you consider it is, and what authority do you believe it holds?

I think this is a N/A since I answered the first one in the affirmative

1b: If you do, how do you explain the inconsistencies, contradictions, and specifically the scientific and historical errors, for example (all quotes are from Pickthal)

18:86:86 Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring

18:90.90 Till, when he reached the rising-place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had appointed no shelter therefrom.
And the many other places where the Qur’an supports a geocentric Universe…

Most misinterpretations of the Koran arise from people (both Muslims and non-Muslims) taking the Revelations in the Koran out of their historical context. Most scholars accept that the Koran is divided into two parts, the early Surahs and the Medina Surahs. Some Revelations in the Koran speak to what it means to be a Muslim while other Revelations are specifically given to Mohammed in response to a particular event. So, reading the Koran without putting the latter Surahs in their historical context is an exercise in failure and frustration. To make matters more confusing, the Surahs in Koran when they were transcribed were not done in a chronological manner. The order of the Surahs in the Koran is from largest to smallest, with the notable exception of Surah Fateha, which is the first Surah.

You cite two verses from the Surah Al Kahaf ("The Cave"). Both these verses relate to the travels of Zulqarnain (who a lot of scholars think might be Cyrus the Persian, although the Koran never specifies it). The Surah was revealed probably in response to three questions asked by the Quraish. I think you are misreading the phrases. The more supportable reading is that the traveler went in three directions, the East (18:90) , the West (18:86) and some other direction not specified in the Surah. This is the more plausible explanation if you read the Surah as a whole.

2: Do you believe that Muslims should be under Shariah law — not obey it but be governed by it — either in Muslim countries or in Muslim communities existing in non-Muslim countries?

Shariah law does not come from the Koran. Shariah came about in the ninth century during a political struggle between the traditionalists and the rationalists. The Koran is not a book of laws, unlike texts in some other religions. In fact, early on, the political and religious was specifically kept separate. At some point in the ninth century all that changed with Shariah coming into being from specific cultural conditions of the day. Somehow the notion developed that we must live in the ninth century and these laws are immutable. That is bunk. The Koran itself does not support this notion of immutable human law. On the contrary, the Koran was tailored for the people and culture of the time and the progression of time and societal change should logically follow from a sound reading of the Koran. By the way, any notion that Shariah is divine law is simply false, and wholly unsupported by the Koran.

So, to answer your question, no, I do not believe we should be governed by Shariah. In fact, I think the only two countries that are governed by Shariah are Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, not exactly shining examples of Islamic enlightenment. I should also note the notion that there is one Shariah that should govern is also nonsense. There are at least four schools of thought in Shariah, and if you go back to the ninth century (if you must, I wouldn’t go there), you will find that you were free to choose which Shariah you wanted to follow, if any. Something then happened on the way to the Forum.

2a: In what ways do you see Sharia law as superior to secular law as promulgated in countries such as the US, Canada, and England — or in other Western countries if you know them better and would prefer to discuss them. In what ways, if any, do you see these secular legal systems preferably to Sharia?

Well, given that I don’t think Shariah governs, I think I get a pass on this question. I will note that Islam does not have a clergy class or a papacy. As such, the religion is meant to be a deeply personal thing as well as a communal thing without political structure. Islam should then be wholly consistent with most political systems.

2b: Should apostates be punished criminally if they merely leave Islam? What if they attempt to convince others of their position, with the possibility that they would leave as well?

Should there be a difference if
i) the apostate converts to another ‘religion of the book
ii) converts to a different religion entirely
iii) becomes an agnostic
iv) converts to an ‘Islamic heresy’
v) converts from Sunni to Shia or vice versa

If you have read my previous posts on Abdul Rahman, you probably know the answer I am about to give. Islam states that there should be no compulsion in religion. You cannot square that notion with killing a man for his beliefs. Besides, there is no Church in Islam and you cannot be excommunicated. You become a Muslim by internally having faith in Islam. It’s that simple. So, unless the Afghans have some cool new mind control tool, I dont know how they think they will determine whether a man claiming to be Muslim is a Muslim. So, the whole punishment for apostasy argument kind of falls on its face. Further, if you truly believe that this is a sin, and it may be, will not God make that judgment? I don’t know about the Afghanis, but I am much more comfortable leaving judgments about a person’s faith to God than to man, especially some illiterate judge in Afghanistan.

2c: Should blasphemy be punishable by law?

Again, this refers to Shariah law. Refer to my answers to earlier questions.

2d: As far as I know, neither the Qur’an nor the Hadiths specifically condemn rape, distinctly from other — consensual — sexual sins. If I am wrong, can you quote me a hadith or verse of a Sura where such a condemnation occurs?

I have not searched the Koran for rape, but there are many places in the Koran where it speaks specifically to the rights of women and orphans. As I mentioned above, the Koran is not a book of laws, however it does have a lot to say about women’s and orphan’s rights as these rights did not exist for women in Mohammed’s time. The Koran also forbids violence against women and that presumably would include the violent act of rape. Here are two verses from the Koran concerning women and orphans:

4.127: And they ask you a decision about women. Say: Allah makes known to you His decision concerning them, and that which is recited to you in the Book concerning female orphans whom you do not give what is appointed for them while you desire to marry them, and concerning the weak among children, and that you should deal towards orphans with equity; and whatever good you do, Allah surely knows it.

4.128: And if a woman fears ill usage or desertion on the part of her husband, there is no blame on them, if they effect a reconciliation between them, and reconciliation is better, and avarice has been made to be present in the (people’s) minds; and if you do good (to others) and guard (against evil), then surely Allah is aware of what you do.

Finally, according to Hadith, Mohammed once said "Heaven lies at the foot of one’s mother". I have always taken that to mean respect for women (my mother made sure it meant that).

2e: What rights should homosexuals have? Homosexual Muslims?

One important aspect of Islam is the notion that man was instilled with free will. The idea that there should be no compulsion in religion comes from that. Koran asks of the Muslim to seek guidance from God. God is the judge of whether one has lived a good life. Koran preaches treating people with dignity and self-respect. I would think that means all people, not just heterosexuals. I know a good number of Homosexual Muslims and I haven’t felt the urge to flog them recently. Not to turn things political, but the gay issue gets the masses running to the polling booth, but how many thinking people care, or should care, what you do behind closed doors. I care a lot more about high officials molesting the children of our society than who one chooses to love and care for. There’s plenty of hate in this world and we should not be in the business of getting in the way of people who want to make love not hate, be they Muslims, Jews, Christians, or any other religion.

2f: Many of the punishments that are supposedly based on sharia and on specific verses of the Qur’an or on Hadiths are seen as excessively harsh, and when countries have attempted to impliment them, there have been outcries against them, both from within and without the countries. Do you accept such punishments, and if not, how do you get around the Qur’anic verses that seem to call for them?

I think my discussion of Shariah above answers the first part of your question. As for the Koran, many verses that talk of punishment refer very specifically to a particular incident or battle. Most critics of Islam like to take those verses out of context and try to paint with a broad brush. This goes back to my earlier comments about reading the Surahs within their historical context. The Koran is not a straightforward text of laws and doctrine. It is a complex text and those who want to interpret certain verses to serve their own ends are free to do so. I interpret the Koran as it applies to my life in the 21st century as I believe God would want me to do. If I’m wrong, I guess I will see you and most other people in Hell.

3: What values, ethical or moral principles, philosophical ideas or other concepts in Islam cause you to remain a Muslim, rather than to either join another religion or to become ‘a secular good person’?

Three things:

There is no compulsion in religion.
Religion is between the believer and God. There is no middleman.
Man is endowed with Free Will.
I am, and I hope most people are, not shopping for a religion. So the question of switching to another religion does not arise. There are great and horrible things in all religions. After all, religion may be based on Revelation, but the implementation is all man. I choose to look at the good in all religions and find things that unite us, rather than divide us. I also believe in The Bill of Rights - quite frankly, as a work of man it is almost divine in its humanity.

3a: In which cases do you consider Islamic values superior to Western ones on similar topics?

Who says Islamic values are non-western? And what specific western values do you mean? I think there are some basic human values that we all share. I point you to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which even Afghanistan is a signatory.

3b: In which cases do you consider Western values superior?

I refer you to my answer to the previous question.

3c: How can those Western values you prefer be joined onto an Islam many of whose believers consider is unchangeable.

As I stated above, Islam is not unchangeable. The first word in the Koran is "read". Islam acknowledges man has free will and free will means that you learn and explore and not close your mind.

3d: Is Islam compatible with democracy and democratic values?

Bangladesh has been a secular Islamic country since 1971. Bangladesh has had free (and mostly fair) elections since 1996 after overthrowing a military dictatorship in a bloodless coup. The notion that Bangladesh somehow is overrun with extremists is fantasy. Is the current Government in Bangladesh corrupt? Yes? Although it is more Tom Delay corruption than Mullah Omar corruption.

3e: If you feel it is, how do you answer an ultraconservative who argues as follows (referring to our ultraconservative "Islam Q&A")

"Question :Is the one who fails to rule by that which Allaah has revealed and bases the entire legal system on man-made laws a kaafir? Should we differentiate between him and one who judges according to sharee’ah, but may rule in a manner contrary to sharee’ah on some issues, because of his own whims and desires or because of a bribe, etc.?

Answer raise be to Allaah.Yes, we must make this distinction. The one who rejects the law of Allaah and casts it aside, and replaces it with man-made laws and the opinions of individuals has committed an act of kufr which puts him beyond the pale of Islam. Whereas the one who adheres to the religion of Islam, but is a sinner and wrongdoer by virtue of his following his whims and desires in some cases, or pursuing some worldly interest, but admits that he is a wrongdoer by doing so, is not guilty of kufr which would put him beyond the pale of Islam.Whoever thinks that ruling by man-made laws is equal to ruling by sharee’ah, and thinks that it is OK to do that, is also guilty of kufr that puts him beyond the pale of Islam, even if it is only in one instance. Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah al-Ghunaymaan

I would ask the Shaykh to check his facts and read history. Shariah is man-made law. Anyone who does not know or understand that is simply ignorant.

3f: There are many tenets of Islam that I can wholeheartedly agree with, such as giving to the poor, the equality of all, taking care of relatives, etc. But in Islam, these commands seem to be limited to believers, thus ‘all Muslims are equal before God. Other religions are less strict in such dinstinctions. For example, Jewish and Christian charities, in most cases — not all — give benefits to those not of their faiths. Can Islam extend those ideas to non-believers as well?

The Koran does not support your assertion that Muslims should only give to poor Muslims. A poor man is a poor man, regardless of his creed. Islam very specifically preaches mercy to all, especially your enemy in battle. Rules of battle in Islam are surprisingly modern considering when the Koran was revealed. Some of these rules include the treatment of non-combatants, women, children, etc. For a very well known practical example of mercy, read about Salahuddin’s retaking of Jerusalem and contrast that with what had happened when the Crusaders had done the same thing. Incidentally, for our friends in the Middle East fomenting hatred, please note that the most famous of Muslim warriors, Salahuddin, was a Kurd.

3g: Several places in the Qur’an assume the existence of slavery, particularly the enslavement of prisoners of war. (Thus the first punishment for killing a believer accidentally is to free a believing slave. And there are several verses permitting a — male — Muslim to have sex with a slave.) Yet, today, slavery is viewed as barbaric, inhuman, and something that humanity has ‘put behind itself." How do you reconcile or accept this?

The Koran was revealed at a time slavery existed and women had no rights. The Koran progressively moved that society to grant women rights, grant orphans rights, and grant slaves rights. The most famous Muezzin (the one who calls to prayer) in Islam had been a slave (Hazrat Bilal). The verses in the Koran, again, need to be read in their historical context and the evolution within the Koran can be seen as moving a society from ignorance into knowledge. Sadly, some have decided that Islam did not need to evolve after the ninth century.

I hope you find the answers I’ve given to be satisfactory. I am sure I am not the only Muslim to have similar thoughts. When you look a little deeper into Islam, and beyond the caricatures and the Fanatics, you might find that the vast majority of practicing devout Muslims live a life of peace and tolerance. It may not fit the image of Islam some people want to see; it may not fit the Clash of Civilizations argument; but it reflects reality.

I will submit to you that most people in the world want the same things: a little bit of dignity, ability to live without fear of persecution, ability to raise their children in a safe environment, the ability to work and feed one’s family, and the occasional chance at laughter. Sadly, most of the world’s population lives in abject poverty while we play "my religion can beat up your religion" and the slaughter of millions happens right in front of our eyes. There is nothing Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Jewish about standing by as a large part of the world’s children starve to death.

Exploring the Qur'an III:Surahs 100-104

2006-04-21T18:49:00.000-04:00

These five Suras should go quickly. They are short, mostly revolve around a single issue, are neither particularly original or offensive, and don't need much commentary.

Sura 104 is simply the statement, common to almost every religion, that worldly goods won't save you from hell. (To inject my own ethics here, I have always thought the stress should not be as much on the worldly goods, but the responsibility with which they are used.) The only curious thing to my eyes about this is the junction of the idea of worldly goods with 'slander.' I might even have thought that this was another specific reference, but if it is Palmer doesn't mention it in his footnotes. (I now have a Questia subscription, so if anyone has other sources for me to look at, I will appreciate them and be better able to find them.)

Surah 103 is so short and simple that it is easier to quote it, and let it speak for itself: "By the declining day,
2 Lo! man is a state of loss,
3 Save those who believe and do good works, and exhort one another to truth and exhort one another to endurance." Nothing to say except that here, as with other Surahs I have discussed, we DO see works as being given importance along with belief, something which I have doubted in other comments I have made.

Surah 102, would, except for Palmer's footnotes, have been considered along with 104, since it seems at first reading to be talking about the same thing. But, according to Palmer, 'increase' here may not mean 'in wealth' but rather in numbers. To quote his footnote:
"The commentators say that in one of the frequent contentions about the respective nobility of the Arab tribes, that the Abu Menaf clan disputed with that of Sahm, which was the most numerous, and the latter, having lost many men in battle, declared that their dead should be taken into account as well as the living."
If this is accurate, then the meaning of the last line
'then ye shall be asked about pleasure' might refer to sexual pleasure rather than wasteful spending of riches. I would be curious again to know how most Muslims interpret this line.

Surah 101 is another stress on the importance of good works. Again, little new or exceptional here. Perhaps the only interesting part is the comparison of Pickthal's translation of Verse 9:
"A bereft and Hungry One will be his mother, "
to the others which are all variations on 'he will go to hell.' All follow this with the statement that it will be 'fire' that will tell them of this.

Surah 100 again seems to me to be two incomprehensibly linked ideas. The opening image of the fiercely charging horses seems to have little to do with the idea of "God knowing what is within the hearts of man." Is the implication that the audience is soldiers, whose death in battle is always imminent -- again an argument for the Qur'an being the words of Mohammed, spoken for the moment, and not a message for all times? Or is there another idea entirely that I am missing? Or is this one of those verses who were remembered, but without knowledge of the specific place where it went and was just included here out of desperation?

Anyway, we've worked our way through the 'back end' of the Qur'an.' As the Suras get longer, I will be analyzing fewer of them in each section.

It would be perhaps premature to discuss these verses in themselves, but I have to mention that there is nothing new, original, or profound in them so far, some lines and tones I find objectionable. And that, at least so far, there are no verses either spoken to, pertaining to, or even mentioning the existence of the female part of the species -- except for the mention of the wife of Abu Lahab, she who is condemned to carry the fuel for the fire that is burning him, wearing a 'harness of palm fibre.' Her sin, if any other than poor choice of a husband, is not mentioned, but at least she occurs in the verses. Other women are not there, and the images are so strongly 'masculine' it is hard to believe they are even included.

But this is merely a small section of the Qur'an. Later we'll go on to the next four or five verses. (And soon we'll reach the first mention of what has always been the great puzzle to me, the one story not from the Testaments. I was hoping Palmer's footnotes would explain it, or state what the standard interpretation was, but even he says there are no explanations in the commentaries and his own solution is merely probable guess work. Yes, I'm throwing in a little suspense here.)

Another idiotic cleric.

2006-04-20T13:58:00.000-04:00

I attempt to treat Islam analytically and dispassionately, but then along comes the next horror story. Islam in thought is one thing, Islam in action is another, especially when the actor is a cleric.

Again, the defenders of moderate Islam are laymen, for the most part, though if there is any report on a meeting today in Egypt on interfaith relations, it is only fair that I mention that as well, and will refer to it once I have details. But in judging a religion, don't you have to look at the religious leaders and teachers? Not perhaps the average imam, who is frequently uneducated -- except, supposedly in the Qur'an -- and may share the prejudices of his assembly the way a street-corner or storefront preacher in America so frequently is little more advanced than his congregation. But if a cleric has sufficient prestige to be interviewed on a state-run television program, that's different.

And today we find reference -- thanks Big Pharaoh
http://www.bigpharaoh.com/2006/04/20/who-said-the-west-has-freedom-of-speech/
to "an interview with Saudi Cleric Dr. Sa'd Al-Breik which was aired on Iqra TV on March 9, 2006:" excerpted by MEMRI. Read the whole transcript at
http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1110
but the relevant line, to me is the following:

"Freedom does not extend to anyone who mentions one good thing about Hitler. He is immediately accused of racism. The Chairman of the Egyptian Journalists Union Ibrahim Naf'e was accused in a French court of being anti-Semitic, when he wrote an article titled "Jewish Matza from Arab Blood."

No comment necessary.

Exploring the Qur'an II: Surahs 105-109

2006-04-19T22:06:00.000-04:00

This is later than I planned -- this time I'm trying to really keep to a schedule of one post a night, because I had it about 4/5th done and then Blogger went down, and I tried to save it and lost everything I had done. Anyway, to continue onwards.

Surah 109 is a bit of a problem. It has been quoted as an example of Islamic tolerance. It may mean that, but it certainly does not say it directly. (Saying 'I have my religion and you have yours' is not quite the same as saying that "I accept this." Which is, of course the basis of tolerance.) A lot depends on the meaning of "Kafirun." If that is used to mean Christians and Jews, the words could as easily be a refutation of the idea that 'we all worship the same God.' Anyway, there is certainly nothing definitely positive or negative here.

On the other hand, I have to question Surah 108. "Pray, because we have given you 'abundance' "(Kauthar -- which apparently may also mean one of the rivers of Paradise), is combined with the ugliness of "Lo! it is thy insulter (and not thou) who is without posterity."
If this was just a general comment, it would be unpleasant enough, but, according to Palmer, at least, it refers to a specific person who insulted Mohammed when his son died. And again I ask if it is reasonable that, in a message meant for the centuries and millenia, such a petty and personal comment is imaginable.
But even if that is ignored, why the included sneer. There is this continual triumphal, pitiless gloating over the misfortunes of the opponent that is unique to Islam, and that we shall see again and again.

Surah 107, "Alms" (or "The Necessaries") seems to me to depend on the original. The last half is a familiar demand that if you pray, you should also do good works. Obviously one of the good passage. The first part, however, as it is translated, seems to imply that unbelievers are not charitable, or that someone needs the judgment, that is, the fear of hell, to be good. If that is what is meant, then the first is an obvious falsehood, unimaginable coming from a god who 'knows the minds and hearts of men.' And the second is equally false, an argument I have had many times.

But I think that the meaning MAY be the reverse, that by not giving alms, the person 'calls the judgment a lie.' If that is a better rendering, then the Sura is acceptable and even familiar to Christians and Jews, merely a variety of 'by their fruits shall ye know them,' and 'which of them was truly his neighbor.'

Sura 106 seems minor, but also incomprehensible to a non-Arabic speaker. (Again though it seems to parochial for a 'final message.') This is shown by the fact that the opening is "For the _____ of the Quareish" but all four translations give different meaning for the Arabic "Li-eelafi" . Thus Palmer uses "uniting," Pickthal uses 'taming," Shakir uses 'protection' and Yussuf Ali uses 'covenants.' I'm at a loss.

And finally we have Surah 106, 'the Elephant.' It is a short one, but is has a lot of problems. Again a parochial reference, and one so obscure that the person referred to has not even made Wikipedia. A reference to an event that happened the year that Mohammed was born. (It's a good thing that Palmer's translation includes footnotes.) In fact, the event included an attack on the Kabbah, so its inclusion can be defended as proving that Allah had protected it before Mohammed spoke, but again, why was there not an explanation of this in the text itself. Maybe the story was familiar to Mohammed's hearers, but again, this was, supposedly, not a book written for them, but for the instruction of all mankind throughout the ages.

Again we have the gloating triumphalism, though maybe justified here given the enormity of the action by the 'possessor of the elephants.' (And this tone would not be as offensive to me if it were just one of many tones, but the only 'human emotion' we see from Allah is this, and it occurs so frequently. Perhaps as we go through the book I will find other tones that I have missed before, but I still call it ugliness.)

And finally we have the myth of the birds, the picture of a flock of birds sent by Allah dropping clay on the invading armies. (Pickthal says merely a 'swarm of flying creatures, but that doesn't make the picture any better.)And since the author is Allah, we cannot treat this as merely a human making a story better by adding a picturesque detail, but the literal truth. How did the birds carry the 'stones of baked clay?' In their talons or their beaks? Where did they get them, or did Allah pass them out?

Literal truth? Well, it has to be, if Allah wrote this.

So this batch of Suras doesn't have as many as the last, but again, except for the criticism of hypocrisy, of demanding that a religious person should act his religion and not just pray -- hardly a profound idea, or one original to Islam -- we don't have anything to put on the positive side.

On the negative side, the absurdity of the birds with stones, the gloating triumphalism, and the parochialism.

(This should have been posted last night. I will get another batch covered later. And again, I am asking for any Muslim reader to show me what I am misiing in these Surahs, or to defend the superstition and myths -- and, no, I don't accept the similar stories in the Testaments, but they are presented as the writings of men, inspired, yes, but still of human authorship.)

Why I am doing this

2006-04-19T10:50:00.000-04:00

Analyzing the Qur'an, that is. Part of it is simply curiosity. I have made comments about it over the past couple of months, but I read it rather quickly. I wanted to see how accurate my first impressions were, and doing it in public -- and this time I will keep up the series -- forces me to be more careful and gets feedback, hopefully.

But there is a much more important reason. I really feel that the world is in a situation resembling the period running up to 1914 and WWI. I think that historians, looking back, may see the 'cartoon riots' as one of the most important events of the century. All of a sudden, not only have there been a rising tide of clashes between Islam and the West, but, because of the riots, people are looking far more closely at what is occurring around the world and seeing them, where in the past they might have ignored them. I do not know if the coming explosion will be a military, a political, or a social one, but I am afraid it will happen, and will get very ugly, unless one of three things happen:

There is a major move by 'moderate Muslims' who accept the Qur'an as portrayed to 'take back the Qur'an' from the extremists. (But I am not sure this can happen, because of the support I am afraid the Qur'an gives to the extremist position -- that's one thing I am looking for.)

There is a successful attempt to 'reform Islam' based on the idea that the Qur'an is not the 'word of God' but the word of a man or men who may have believed in Mohammed's visions. This reform would have to find the ideas in Islam that were worth saving and building on once the superstition and ugliness were removed -- much as Christians and Jews have been able to find the good parts in the Bible and ignore the violence and the myths. (But here the question is whether there are enough ideas in the Qur'an to build such a 'reform Islam.' Again, I am looking for them.)

There is a "Velvet Revolution' against Islam and against governments and movements based on it, with people simply walking away, perhaps to other religions, perhaps to an open secularism. (My own atheism, of course, makes me biased towards this solution, but it is the most difficult of all to hope for.)

Now what one obscure blogger on a rarely-read blog can do is not much. I am much more likely to alienate many of the Muslim friends I have made by challenging the core of their beliefs. (Those of you who saw my old blog -- which is still active, if barely for the time being -- may have seen the comments from "Jami" a person who I had considered a personal friend on a forum we had both been on and in e-mails, who found himself attacking me personally after I had discussed religion and my own disbelief both on the forum and then, after I deliberately left the forum, on the blog I'd hoped he'd be a regular columnist on.) But I am hoping some people will read this and simply think about their own religion in new ways.

I really believe that the blogosphere is the most important positive occurence in the past decade, and that it is getting more vital and important every day. I am a small part of it, but maybe I can stir up discussions that will do a miniscule part of changing the stream of events.

And maybe I am an egotistical fool, but what else can I do but try.

Exploring the Qur'an I:Suras 110-114

2006-04-18T19:25:00.000-04:00

One thing about these short posts is that I get a chance to bring up some points in isolation. Thus, in Sura 114, "The Men" we get a mention of djinn, and in Sura 113, "The Daybreak" we hear of witchcraft. Now I'll have a lot to say about djinns as this goes on, but I don't believe there is any such thing. I certainly have no doubt that witchcraft does not exist, nor do I think many of you believe it does. (I specifically doubt that you believe there are people who can make a piece of knotted string and blow on it to bring evil on people as they mention their names -- the specific type of witchcraft mentioned according to Shakir and Palmer.)

And yet the verse is explicit, Allah is telling his messenger to say that he seeks God's protection against witchcraft, as against the darkness of night -- perhaps an eclipse -- and the envy of enviers. How can you accept this is direct from God and deny witchcraft, or vice versa?

Sura 112, "The Unity" just reaffirms the idea of monotheism. Except for the implied criticism of Christianity in 'he begets not' there is nothing much to say. On the other hand, Sura 111, "The Flame," requires comment.

Abu Lahab, Mohammed's Uncle, was, apparently, a loud-mouthed, hot-tempered jerk, from the description in the Wikipedia. (Anyone who has a better reference, for example from the hadiths, I'd appreciate it.) And he was certainly not a friend of his nephew's religion -- even though his sons married -- and divorced -- two of Mohammed's daighters. It is barely conceivable that a God would use him as an example, to make the point that even the nephew of his Messenger, with all his wealth, could not escape His wrath.

Except He didn't. In a book designed for the ages, for generations to come, there is no mention of who Abu Lahab is, or why he will perish and be condemned to the fire, or why his wife will wear a halter of palm fiber. (For that matter, I don't know, and saw no reference, what his WIFE did to deserve her punishment. All we are told is that she shall carry the wood for the fire. Which is confusing in itself, if eternal punishment is what is meant, and, again according to the Wikipedia, it must have been, because he died in a completely different way.) Certainly Mohammed knew who he was. He wouldn't have needed to explain, and probably his companions knew the story as well. But, we are told, it was not Mohammed who wrote this.

Why is there no explanation? There was no need to 'rush' the Qur'an. God had all the time in the world. And certainly the book has shown no fear of repetition to this point. One line, like "Say, O Mohammed, that your own Uncle, Abu Lahab ..." and "for neither his nearness nor his power nor his wealth could save him who ..."

(I'll ask the Muslims who read this and haven't already left in horror if they knew who Abu Lahab was.)

And then there is the description of the punishment. Perhaps it is the translation, but there is almost the sound of gloating in the description. (Again, understandable from the mouth of the jerk's nephew, but not from the mouth of God.)

Sura 110, "The Help" needs no commentary that I am capable of giving. Here I do request the help of an Arabic speaker. The (transliterated) Arabic, according to Yussuf Ali is "2. Waraayta alnnasa yadkhuloona fee deeni Allahi afwajan"

Ali translates the key word of people entering the religion as 'crowds.' The other translations use more military terms, Palmer and Pickthal using 'troops' and Shakir using 'companies.' Is there a military implication to the Arabic, or just a coincidence?

I had planned on doing 10 short Surahs tonight, but I'm not feeling that great and this has gotten long, like most of my posts. I'll sum it up, and if I am still awake later maybe do the next batch.

Is there any guidance for mankind in these Surahs? I have to say no, except for instructions to pray for forgiveness -- but for what is not said. Is there any ethical or moral principle yet. Again, not that i can see.

Ugliness is there, to my ears, in the tone of "The Flame," but perhaps I am too sensitive.

But the key to this batch is the mention of witchcraft and djinn. Again, the statement is unequivical, not poetic -- though I'd hardly expect a God to be demonstrating his poetical skills in this important a message -- and we'll come back to that. If God has written that his Messenger is to tell his hearers to take refuge in Him against witchcraft, can this be explained as anything but a statement that witchcraft exists.

Does it?

More to come, along with, I'm sure, other comments here. (I'll ask for help in advance, if anyone wants to explain 'The Elephant" or the (poetic?) description of birds dropping stones on the enemy.

Exploring the Qur'an - Introduction

2006-04-18T17:11:00.000-04:00

I have been asking 'moderate Muslims' to show me the good in Islam, in the Qur'an. I've also been watching, and occasionally taking part, in the ping-pong games of quoting verses from the Qur'an. I decided that, while I am still asking for comments from those people who are stopping by, I should go through the Qur'an myself and see, and report on what I find.

I decided to start at the last verses and work forward for a couple of reasons. It's a different way of seeing the book, and might give a different perspective. The later Suras are much shorter, and I can start out covering them in batches. And I have read the Qur'an and tried to understand it, and I know the problems I've had with Suras like "The Cow" and "The Family of Imran," their length and incoherence. If I started there, this might be another series I stopped in the middle of.

In looking at the Qur'an, I'm going to be looking for the good parts, but also the ugliness, the violence, and the superstition. And maybe most of all, I'm going to be testing the proposition that this book COULD be the "Word of God," if it can believably live up to the claims that Muslims make for it.

After all, God did not, according to Muslims, say something like "Hello, people. It's been a few hundred years since i sent a messenger to you. So here's a new book for you to put on the shelf next to Job, and Elijah, and Ecclesiastes, and the Gospels. It's a little grumpier, but don't worry, I'll be back in a couple of hundred years with my next message."

No, this time it was, "Listen, people. I sent you a message through Moses, and you screwed that one up. I sent you one through Issa, and I don't want to say what you did with that. So this is the last one. No more. This is my final message to you."

So, given that, I'm going to be asking if it is even barely credible that, in this final message, a message that an 'all-knowing God' knew would have to last for at least 1400 years, and would speak to generations long unborn, in a world far outside the Arabian peninsula, in lands unknown then, and in social structures unimaginable, some things would have been bothered to be included. (You'll see what I mean rather quickly when we hit Sura 111, "The Flame")

The pull of fanaticism

2006-04-18T12:52:00.000-04:00

Several bloggers, including SandMonkey and Mindbleed have told stories of someone they knew who was a 'regular guy' who all of a sudden showed up having converted himself into a raging Islamic fanatic. Similarly, many bloggers have commented upon the drift -- particularly in Egypt -- from a moderately secular society to one that is becoming extremely religious.
(Big Pharaoh has a great piece on it today
http://www.bigpharaoh.com/2006/04/18/tozeen-feek-ya-mahdi-long-live-egypt/
and has frequently discussed this.)

Part of the problem is that, because there is no authoritative clerical structure or interpretation of Islam, almost any Muslim can be confronted by a stricter version which claims the same Qur'anic sanction. (And the sexual strictures in Islam -- like those in Christianity only much worse -- can create the sense of guilt in almost anyone who has an ordinarily strong sex drive.)

But this is magnified by the conflict between what an Islamic society is supposed to be like -- and the success that it is supposed to have according to the Qur'an -- and what most are actually like. It is the unbelievers who are supposed to fail, to be poor, to be 'without abundance and posterity.' And yet, very few Islamic societies would be even moderately successful without oil, and in the non-oil states, the success that is there comes from a mostly secular middle class, not from the society of the believers, and much of that depends on the West.

But why -- to the mind of the believer -- is that so. Well, it CAN'T be because the Qur'an is wrong, that Allah does not send blessings down and give success to the believers. So either the problem are those evil unbelievers, or Jews, or Christians, who are conspiring to injure Islam because of the supposed hate and envy they have for it. Or, it could be that the problem is that society and the believers are becoming too secular, not Islamic enough. Thus the cure for Islamic failures is more Islam, in society or in the believer.

The effect on society is obvious. The worse a society gets the more power flows to the Muslim Brotherhood types, who call for Shariah law, and isolation from the west -- and, except in America, the western Muslim societies are usually pretty badly off and hear the same cries. The Muslims get more defensive of Islam, and more forceful in responding to the supposed Christian 'scheming' against it. And there is more pressure on the secular middle class to conform to Islam -- which annoys and turns off the only part of society that IS successful.

And since Islam -- particularly as presented by the more rigid -- ISN'T a blueprint for a successful modern society, politically, socially, scientifically or economically, with its attitudes towards democracy, women, belief in djinns and witchcraft, and condemnation of interest, as it gets more and more hold, the society gets worse and there is a cry for even MORE Islam.

(This may be why the 'moderate Muslim' element, so prominent in the blogosphere, has so little power in Islamic countries, or in non-American western Muslim communities. When the Islamists can point to the Qur'anic promises of success, and say that the reason they haven't been achieved is because Allah is not yet convinced that society is living up to his preaching, a movement that argued in reverse, that society -- not people -- has to become less islamic and more modern can be so easily portrayed as heretical and 'contaminated' that it takes rare courage or masochism even to join it. You can write about it, in English, all you want, but working to bring it about is different.)

And on a personal level, how does someone become 'more Islamic?" Maybe they already avoid zina, observe the Ramadan fast, wear the hijab or see that their women do, and pray. But that isn't enough. Yes, they could become even stricter, but what better way to become Islamic than to defend the ummah, against Chsritians, idolaters, westernizers, the Jooz, or cartoonists. (And for the sinners, well, rioting is easier than reforming.)

Just a few ideas for discussion.

An interlude and a couple of quotes

2006-04-17T00:19:00.000-04:00

I know, I'm doing far more referring than talking -- a rarity for me, believe it. But I was reading the comments on SandMonkey's post -- see below -- and there were a few I needed to pass on.

From 'elengil':
People can not hear if people are not speaking. They only hear what is said. And what is said is hate hate hate hate kill kill kill and in the name of their god. And so yes, that is exactly what we hear.
But finally those like you, Hal, and those like Sandy and BP.. we’re finally FINALLY hearing another voice, but it’s small and is being too easily drowned out. I just wish there were a better way to get your voices out to the general world.

from 'bitman':
HEAR HEAR!!Couldn’t have said it better. I’m also grateful for SM, BP and the whole gang here. It’s really opened my (western) eyes that another voice does exist and with that, HOPE exists.

again 'bitman':
Hope and change starts from within....I think it would take no more than one … maybe TWO countries where the muslim population revoluted. It took only one for the soviet union to deteriate … so let’s start with Egypt? Let’s show that the population CAN be sensible and denounce the violent done in the name of Islam? Give the people the voice the deserve. Maybe then the other Islamic world would take notice, and start turning things around … and as with Eastern Europe it would be done mostly free of violence.
What a wonderful world that would be

And these are what I truly hope for. If only I didn't find it so easy to doubt that these voices could have an effect against the indorctrination, against the way of thinking that I see Islam causing. But maybe that is one reason for writing this. To be more convinced that hope exists, and to try and understand if it can be done from within. After all, it wasn't through a reform of communism that Eastern Europe or Russia fell. That was Gorbachev's dream. It was from everyone simply walking away from Communism as soon as they were able until there was no one left to listen to the Commisars -- who were then free to admit they hadn't believed in it either.

I want, yes, a 'Velvet Revolution.' But how. Maybe trying to figure this out, and talking with the people most inside the Islamic walls and challenging them to think about Islam may be one small way of moving things along.

A Very Bad Weekend

2006-04-16T20:52:00.000-04:00

It has been, particularly for my fellow bloggers in Egypt -- and it has been they, more than the 'old-fashioned media' that have kept people aware of the communal violence in Alexandria, started by the attacks on worshippers in three seperate Coptic Christian Churches.
For the best coverage of the events, let me refer you to the Egyptian Sandmonkey blog
http://www.sandmonkey.org/
The post entitled "Oh, Dear God, No" and the posts it references, and to the blog run by "Freedon For Egyptians"
http://freedomforegyptians.blogspot.com/
particularly the posts "Sectarian Clashes Continue in Alexandria for the third day, One Muslim Dies " and "Muslims and Christians Clash following Churches Attacks in Alexandria, Egypt"

Read these, and particularly read the comments attached. This has caused as much commotion and fear as any of the recent "Islamic horrors,' but this time it has done something else. It has caused bloggers to seriously look at Islam -- not just its perversions. I have three other references for you to check out, then, in my next post I will comment, expanding in one case on comments I made to the original post.

First is a post on "Mindbleed's" blog:
http://www.mindbleed.com/?p=17
entitled "loonies-r-us" (I commented there, but at greater length on Big Pharaoh's coverage of the original post
http://www.bigpharaoh.com/2006/04/16/loonies-r-us/#comments

(My own comments, are, i believe, relevant to the discussion, but what counts is reading the original posts.)

The second is a post by a new blogger, also an Egyptian, a 'working woman and mother of one' named "MumboJumbo" (*corrected*) She mentions a sermon by an imam that she, reluctantly was exposed to, in "Losing My Religion"
http://mumbojumbocairo.blogspot.com/2006/04/losing-my-religion.html

And the final place i would like to send you is a much older post, an interview of Taslima Nasrin by Irshad Manji. (Many people believe that Manji has rejected Islam. Instead she has been attempting to hold on to it desperately while seeing the flaws in it.)
The cite is
http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/news/Taslima_Interview.html

The whole interview should be read, but I will quote one brief section of it. They have been discussing the treatment of women by conservative Islam.

"IM: Moderate Muslims say that plenty of other verses treat women with dignity, and fundamentalists ignore those elements to suit their own agenda. Don’t the moderates have a point?

TN: Ultimately, not even a liberal interpretation of the Koran can lead to equality because there are hundreds of very negative verses that cannot possibly be interpreted in the spirit of equality, and they outweigh the few verses that can be interpreted positively. I think the fundamentalists are more honest about Islam than the liberals are. " (my emphasis.)

Please read all of these. Domestic duties are calling me, but I will be back later to discuss all of them.

Slight change of direction

2006-04-16T20:36:00.000-04:00

I had intended to spend most of today's blogging on the Qur'an, and the question of whether it is possible to rationally hold that it could have been the work of God rather than of man. I will be coming back to this, maybe tonight, maybe tomorrow, but the events in Alexandria have produced some very important responses in the blogosphere, and I am going to concentrate on them for now. I will just give a hint of where I am going by asking if you find the following things reasonable. (Sometimes, after all, the improbable is harder to accept than the impossible.)

If you were the recipient of God's final attempt to convey a message to mankind, if you knew that He (for convenience) had previously sent the same message to the Jews -- and they messed it up. He had then sent the same message through Issa -- and his followers messed it up even worse. If you had this message revealed and dictated to you by an angel, would you then not even write it down? Would you wait until the Messenger was long dead before you gathered the bits and pieces together, when you were so confused that you couldn't even put the various parts in chronological order, but could only compile them in order of LENGTH? (And when, by certain reports, you had to attach some verses to Surahs almost at random, because you weren't sure exactly where they fitted?)

If you were an all-knowing God, who knew your message would be treated this way, wouldn't you pick another Messenger, who would treat your message with more respect?

If you were God, and could choose any time in history to send down your message, would you pick the 7th Century? Wouldn't it make more sense to wait awhile, a few hundred years, until man had advanced in his knowledge of science and the Universe, and then send forth your Messenger?

If you were God and wanted your message heard, not just then but in the future, wouldn't you include in it one, simple, unequivocal statement of a scientific fact that was not known at the time, not some phrase that could be twisted out of shape to match a modern discovery, but a simple statement that, once proven, would be a ratification of your words to the unbelievers? "The Sun does not go around the Earth, the earth goes around the Sun." Or, 'once man crosses the Great Ocean he will find a new continent filled with people awaiting this message.' Would you instead cater to the superstitions of the time by repeatedly confirming the geocentric picture of the Universe with its 'seven heavens?"

We'll get back to all of these, but later.

The Moderate Muslim Dilemma

2006-04-15T21:45:00.000-04:00

"Moderate Muslims" seem to be caught between two positions in relation to the Qur'an, one of which is insupportable on two fronts, the other of which -- well, all I can say is I have been begging anyone to defend it, and have yet to get a response. Hopefully Hal or others will be able to, or will be able to produce a defense for the first.

Either
a): The Qur'an is the final revelation to man, dictated by Gabriel to Mohammed, and as the word of God is unchangeable and unmodifiable,

or;

b): The Qur'an is the work of a man (or men, if the historical investigations over the past century on its origins prove to be accurate -- but for the time being I am accepting the idea thaqt it was, at least, delivered by Mohammed in something like its present form) and must stand on its own merits and on its own ideas, or, if it is not able to stand, should be rejected.

The first proposition, while held by most Muslims has two main problems. One is that i would argue it is supported neither by logic, reason or history, that if you stand aside from a lifetime of teaching/indoctrination and look at it objectively, it just doesn't hold up. I will be discussing this in considerable detail over the coming days.

The second alternative is not so abominable, at least to Western ideas, in theory. Most Christians, many and even most Jews, would accept that the Testaments are in fact the work of men. Few but the most rigid fundamentalist/literalists would deny the various investigations into their history, would reject that the Torah is the (rather badly edited) amalgamation of at least four different stories by four different writers that were put together into one document, despite the fact that the pictures of God they portray differs greatly and shows a slow growth and movement from a tribal/personal God to a transcendental one. Few Christians would deny, once they have studied the Bible objectively, that the Gospel of John can not be reconciled with the other three, that much of the writing was 'post facto' reworking of the career of "Yeshua bar-Joseph" into the Pauline 'Christ,' etc.

This does not vitiate their importance to Christians or Jews. (Remember I am an atheist who is outside any of these belief systems.) It does not make the ideas that are contained in them, many of them at least, less worthy of respect, of, in many cases, admiration. (And there are many sections of both books, i would argue, that are totally unworthy of respect, some of the Pauline ideas, the story of Judah and Tamar as written in the Bible, the literally hilarious "God's advice on mildew" that appears in Leviticus 13-14.)

A religious Christian or Jew can dismiss the Creation myth as just that, can admit that there are ideas that are long passe, can challenge ideas in the Testaments, and still see the work as a 'Divinely inspired' work of religion, not of history, or of science, a work that teaches men how to behave, how to act towards their fellow men, teaches ethical, moral and philosophical principles worth knowing and even following by someone who finds the supernatural as absurd and repugnant as i do.

I have been, in these months when Islam has forced itself to the front of my consciousness, looking for similar things in the Qur'an. I have been literally begging Muslims to show me the 'good ideas' in Islam, ideas that are exclusive to it and not the 'common property of humanity,' things that make me respect it for itself. And when i ask the question, sadly, the answer is too often silence. (Of course, ideas like giving to the poor, treating men equally, respecting parents, are there, but these do not need religious sanction. These are what I mean by 'the common property of humanity' taught by all religions long before Mohammed lived. Not, perhaps, perfectly lived up to by any religion, but they appear in the Testaments.)

Sometimes the response I have gotten is, actually or in effect, a comparison to Christianity -- less likely Judaism if only because few Muslims seem to know Judaism. There is no clergy intervening between the believer and God (is this true for Islam, really?). There is no compulsion in religion. (Again, it is said in the Qur'an, but so are contradictory statements, and these mostly come from the later Surahs that are supposed to take precedence -- Allah being a God who changes his mind, an idea I will discuss soon.)

The ideas that are 'original to Islam' like the Qibbla, the Hajj, the ideas of enforced modesty, the Kabbah, the belief in djinns and witchcraft, none of these seem to be admirable ones. Either they are ceremonies -- and ceremonies with little of the symbolic meaning of the Mass and Communion ceremonies of Christianity, or of the Passover and the beauty of Yom Kippur in Judaism -- or they are superstitions that other religions either accepted and then rejected, or they are expressions of an attitude towards women that is hateful to modern eyes.

(And while I have heard many Muslims say 'But Mohammed was very progressive for his times in his attitude towards women' not only is this irrelevant if the Qur'an is changeless, since those ideas are NOT pregressive today, but from my knowledge of Christianity and Judaism of the times, I'm not so sure it is even correct. Certainly he was ahead of the pagans he spoke to, but Christianity and Judaism, if they had their anti-women aspects, had many pro-women characteristics even then. The Qur'an addresses no verse to women directly and specifically, and when women are mentioned in it, it is always as 'they' not 'you' as objects, not subjects -- as with any statement I make here, I welcome a correction. There are no women spoken of as Paul speaks of some female Christians, no equivalent of Ruth, of Esther, of Mary Magdalene, in the Qur'an. Only the mother of Issa appears in a positive light in the entire book, as far as I have seen.)

So, again, i repeat my request. Please, point out to me those aspects of the Qur'an that are worthy of respect by me, who rejects the supernatural. Please show me what would remain if Islam WERE to reform itself.

What this is

2006-04-15T16:31:00.000-04:00

Those of you who have seen "If it is it doesn't matter," my other blog, rightfully complained that it was too focused on Islam. I am therefore going to use this blog to discuss Islam, and hopefully get responses and start a real discussion. I will be transferring some posts from the other blog to here, and keeping that for discussions of American politics, baseball, general religion, tv, and who knows what else.

I will be watching comments here quite carefully. I am hoping most of the posters here will be Muslims who will -- justifiably -- take umbrage at some of the criticism I will be making, and will show me that I am wrong, that there is more to Islam than I have been able to find after six months of looking, that there is more internal logic in it than first appears, that there are things on the positive side of the scales.

What I do not want and will not have are the LGF types who are not anti-Islam -- which I have found myself becoming -- but anti-Muslim, whose bigotry, rantings of violence, and over-statements make them little different from those they oppose. Certainly I will allow some of them to have their say, in brief, but if I find the sort of ranting, slurs, and stupidity I have seen so often, i will have no problem in deleting posts.

My main opposition to Islam is specifically to the Qur'an -- and more to the way it is viewed. All fundamentalisms cause problems, but Islam seems to be worse. Most fundamentalisms cause stupidity, blindness and gullibility. Qur'anic fundamentalism has all of these things, and worse. If the worst of the Bin Ladens, the Indonesian beheaders, and the like are vile perverters of Islam, as they are, sadly the mainstream seems to be represented by the cartoon rioters, the protestors, the demanders of Shariah law, the Ali Gomaas and others who dress up medievalism in modern garb.

I want moderate muslims to show me that they are not with them, are in the modern age, are not just opposed in their blogs to things such as the Good Friday attacks, but will actively speak against them, and want them to show me why the picture that is forming in my mind of Islam is wrong -- not by ad hominem arguments, not be 'Christians do bad things' or 'there's awful stuff in the Bible too' but by showing me, showing all of us the Good Side of Islam. (I have been begging for this in many comments I have made. The question gets ducked or ignored. Show me that the obvious implications of this are wrong.)