Perfidy, Qur’anic Apostasy or Hermeneutics?

It seems like these otherwise learned and capable fellows have a lot of time to kill in chasing ghosts. What a loss of precious intellectual resources.

This pathological obsession with Quran and Islam is a reflection of doubt and unease in faithfuls. It doesn`t concern the world what theoretical Islam is, practiced Islam is a real threat to the world. Just visualize for second all the Middle-East either as Christian or Buddhist, and see for yourself what a paradigm change in attitude you will note.

Abdul Arif, you write <<< Indeed, as Muqtader Khan of Adrian College says “In an Islamic democracy every individual is a vicegerent of God (Qur’an 2:30) and therefore has the legitimate authority to act in God’s name.”. >>>

The freedom granted by the Quran is much greater than that granted by any modern so-called ``secular`` system- that are in actuality rife with ideologies and mythologies; what you write above is also confirmed by the purpose of life, according to the Quran, ``...to see which one of you is best in deed..`` (67:2). If there is no freedom, then such judgment which assumes free-choice in its wording would be meaningless.

See attached under my article ``Quran & Democracy``. Since Chowk is in a habit of censoring most ``critical of USA`` articles, I`m posting it here; sorry for the extra space this post will take.

Quran & Democracy
Are they compatible?

Thursday 22nd September 2005, by M. Asadi

(http://articles.asadi.org)

What has happened in modern bureaucratic societies, that parade as democracies (like the USA), is that the chance to reason and the ability to be free has been lost (see http://robots.asadi.org) that is the nature of a bureaucratic society: a society where standardization is the norm and the person is surrounded by rules that govern behavior from birth to death. Such ``democracies`` exists in form only and not in essence, here choices are not formulated by a ``public`` but rather insinuated upon a highly propagandized ``mass society`` that knows next to nothing regarding public issues. This is achieved by control of the ``cultural apparatus`` by a small aristocracy, the Power Elite. The ``cultural apparatus``- language, education, status and technology- with the media and the formal educational institutions playing a dominant role, thus ensures that this elite achieves cultural hegemony. The person thinks he or she is free and living under a ``democracy`` but the reality of the situation is much different.

A democratic society assumes an ``informed`` public, as against a propagandized ``mass society``. Those in a ``mass society`` have their hopes and aspirations conditioned by what others have told them and unconsciously acquired habits based upon such conditioning. Those in a public formulate their values and choices themselves based on substantive reason, as C. Wright Mills explained in the 1950s and as the Quran made clear fourteen centuries back: ``Say: Are those who know and those who do not know alike?`` (Quran 39:9)

Under a system where the ``mass society`` has not yet gained enough information to make choices, to transform itself into a ``public``, democracy in essence is impossible. Hence the Quranic statement: ``And if you obey the majority of those on earth they will lead you astray; that is because they follow conjecture, and that is because they only guess`` (Quran 6:116). A ``majority of those on earth`` does not constitute an ``informed Islamic public`` and never will (according to the Quranic statement). Further we are told: ``None can inform you like the one who is aware`` (Quran 35:14), a similar recommendation is the case with Quran 25:59.

Once we have a semblance of a ``public`` emerging, as happened after the first community of Muslims emerged out of the previously existing ``mass society`` in Arabia (Quran 3:110), even the prophet was told to: ``. consult with them upon the conduct of affairs.`` (Quran 3:159). We are also told how the process of governance is to be conducted in a society of similar publics: ``And whose rule is based upon consultation (Shura) among themselves`` (Quran 42:38). This consultation (Shura) is to be totally in the public record and not secret (Quran 58:10). Therefore, we can conclude that an Islamic society would have a counsel where the public consults with the decision makers, the decision makers would be the ones ``who know`` (as deduced above) i.e. are qualified in the area in which they are making decisions. The decision makers would be numerous, unless one person claims to know everything in all fields, which is impossible. A counsel of intellectuals with no limit to their numbers that are in constant touch with the public and consult with them is thus the Islamic form of government. This would be democracy in essence, since the entire society including the decision makers would have equal status and would participate in the decision making process. The criteria for assigning status in such a society would not be material possessions rather it would be the level of social consciousness that an individual possesses (see Quran 49:13).

The framework under which decisions are to be made would be the Quran (see 6:114 etc), and specifically its ``mohkam`` (or standard setting) statements (see Quran 3:7). These standard setting statements are called the ``mother of the book`` (Ummul Kitaab) in the Quran (Quran 3:7). Based upon these verses not only are our new laws going to be interpreted but also the other verses of the Quran itself, ``the motashabey`` (the allegorical or consimilar). The ``mohkam`` verses number a lot less than the entire Quran, therefore the amount of freedom that the Quran grants us is much greater than any that is granted by a bureaucratized society, where laws govern every aspect of life. What traditionalists have done is to canonize their own (extra Quranic) laws as a bureaucratized form of ``Islam``, this is exactly what the Quran warns against (Quran 42:21), because this not only stifles reason but prevents freedom in that it reduces the ``consultation`` part of governance and does not take into consideration the historical era and the social structure that exists in that era.

The Quran thus grants greater freedom and the resulting ability to reason compared to any (bureaucratized) system that exists in the current epoch: ``Those who avoid the greater (Kabair) crimes and shameful deeds...`` (Quran 42:37). The greater crimes are less than a handful and can be extracted from Quran’s description of crimes, those are the only ones we are told to avoid. Here the Quran is not concerned about the smaller details that keep the traditionalist ``Islamic scholars`` busy, even as they ignore the bigger public issues that are causing great problems among humankind. A truly Islamic society would be one in which freedom and reason flourishes and laws are minimal, it would be a truly democratic society, where democracy is practiced in essence and not just by slogan. Hence, the purpose and judgment of life based upon choice ``...to determine which of you is best in deeds.`` (Quran 67:2).

A couple of clarifications before I say anything at all. Although both my parents are Hindu I don`t consider myself to be Hindu. And although most supporters of the Hindu Right in India are ,for all practical purposes of the faith, non-Hindus I am no supporter of the Hindu Right.

And secondly, I haven`t read the Qur`an, although I`d love to do that sooner rather than later.

All interpretive frameworks and attempts regarding the Qur`an make one mistake. The Qur`an unlike other religious texts is purported to be the literal `voice` of god. And therein lies the problem. The Qur`an is purportedly the literal truth. This is one reason why, say, a translated version does not carry the same validity as the `original` Arabic one. Every act of interpretation is an act of translation and vice versa. Therefore no `interpretive` sleight of hand is going to take one very far.

This is something I have found very hard to digest. It is preposterous to presume that god (if he/she exists) can propound the truth only in Arabic, that this particular revelation is some how more valid than other revelations and that the Qur`an is the last such revelation. Still more preposterous is the claim that it ceases to be the absolute truth when translated. Perhaps the only religious claim that is equally preposterous are the claims for the divine origins of the caste system and untouchability in Hinduism.

One can not of course lightly dismiss all those who have claimed to have heard the voice of god. But if any one ever makes an exclusive claim then it as as good a ground as any to dismiss such a claim.

Re: # 2

``imagine the history of India over the last two thousand years if India were predominantly Buddhist rather than Hindu``. This statement is as ridiculous as the ones that you have made.

Islam as a practical religion has as much to do with the nature of those societies in the middle east as much as it has to do with the religion of these nations and peoples.

It`s funny to see prejudice masquerading as commentary.

#4 you write: <<< This is something I have found very hard to digest. It is preposterous to presume that god (if he/she exists) can propound the truth only in Arabic, that this particular revelation is some how more valid than other revelations and that the Qur`an is the last such revelation. Still more preposterous is the claim that it ceases to be the absolute truth when translated >>>

The Quran and Arabic have a unique connection, something that is not parallelled in other languages as connected to a book. The rules governing writting Arabic were extracted from the Quran itself. Further, linguists find Arabic to be a unique language, a language built upon mathematical principles. Since math is the pure language of the universe, which is reflected, as far as human languages go, in Arabic more than any other language- based upon its construction & that the rules governing this language, the written part that transcends history, were extrated from this book of revelation~ are good enough reasons why the Quran is in Arabic or God chose Arabic.

Bertrand Russell envisioned forming a ``logical/Mathematical`` language that would fix the shortcomings in the other languages as a communication tool for humankind- he apparently wasn`t familiar with the language structure of the Quran. My point in stating this here is that what is stated above is something that philosophers of science, like Russell recognize~ the need for a logical/mathematical language. You might also be interested in this article http://godel.rationalreality.com

Another reference:

``Arabic most precise and primitive of the Semitic languages, shows signs of being originally a constructed language. It is built up upon mathematical principles- phenomena not paralleled by any other language`` (Thomas Cleary, 1998)

Translations reflect the translators biases, schools of thought etc~ this takes us into the realm of the subjective, as a result to fully understand the meaning the Arabic ofcourse is the most accurate- same as for any other book that is translated- something is always lost in the translation. That said, Thomas Cleary`s translation is the one I found easiest to read and closest to the cross-referenced text of the Quran.

Re: # 4

Sailen, you are wasting time here. Neither am I a Hindu. The smugness with which every faith holder argues superiority of his faith is appalling.

#4 ``One can not of course lightly dismiss all those who have claimed to have heard the voice of god.``

Why not, personally if some one told me so, i would advocate immediate institutionalisation.

Now is the time for a few more clarifications.

About Arabic being a `pure`, scientific language.... similar claims have been made for Sanskrit (an equally absurd claim) and for any number of other languages. Languages vary, and some languages have a few characteristics or properties that make them more amneble for a few things. Granted. But that does not make then either `pure` or `scientific` compared to other languages. Any claims for `purity` are essentially racist in nature.

And about translations. Something is definitely lost in the process of translation. But it is not such a unidirectional and simple process. This view of translation is essentially a `spatial` and `western` view of the translation that sees translation as `carrying over`. The word for translation in most indian languages in `anubada`, which literally means repeating again and again, annotating and thus is essentially a `temporal` process. In such a framework a process of translation (as mentioned earlier) is a process of interpretation and vice versa. Something is lost in the process, but something immeasurably more significant is gained too.

My point was very simple (if there was any point at all). All processes of interpretation are acts of translation. And Qur`an does not seem to be lending itself to this interpretive process. Islam is a humane, egalitarian religion. But it is based on absolutist truth claims of the Qur`an. I find these truth claims and any such truth claims contained in any text (be it religious or secular) impossible to accept.

I rest my case.

Mr Sailen
apart from your points, the fundamental problem with the propositions and claims in the Torah, Bible and Quran is that they are self contradictory (from the same text can emerge an Abul Kalam Azad, a Nizammudin Auliya and an Osama bin Laden) which is not surprising since most works of litreature of that length would be expected to be, thus one man`s Islam differs from another mans depending on how one views it, or maybe has been conditioned to view it.

Re: # 7

Practical Christianity has meant the inquisition, the crusades and all the unnameable horrors of Europe in the middle ages.

Practical Hinduism has mean the perpetual subjugation of twenty crore human beings in India in the name of Karma and ritual purity.

Practical Buddhism means the horrors of Sinhalese nationalism..... i can go on.

It is impossible to see `practical religion` of any kind outside a particular historical context. Therefore it does not make any sense, to me at least, to do name calling while having a dialogue about religions. Islam is a force for oppression for in many parts of the world right now. But it was also one of the liberating forces of human history that made a unique flowering of human civilization possible once upon a time. There is nothing `essential` about Islam that makes it more oppressive a religion as compared to other religions.

In the same vein that one talks about the middle east and Islam, one can talk about North Ireland and Christianity and pernicious effects of Christian missionary acticvities on indigenous peoples all over the world and the dangers of Fascism in India arising from the self proclaimed `Hindu Nationalists`....

Is hamaam me sab nange hain.....

Re: # 7

Practical Christianity has meant the inquisition, the crusades and all the unnameable horrors of Europe in the middle ages.

Practical Hinduism has mean the perpetual subjugation of twenty crore human beings in India in the name of Karma and ritual purity.

Practical Buddhism means the horrors of Sinhalese nationalism..... i can go on.

It is impossible to see `practical religion` of any kind outside a particular historical context. Therefore it does not make any sense, to me at least, to do name calling while having a dialogue about religions. Islam is a force for oppression for in many parts of the world right now. But it was also one of the liberating forces of human history that made a unique flowering of human civilization possible once upon a time. There is nothing `essential` about Islam that makes it more oppressive a religion as compared to other religions.

In the same vein that one talks about the middle east and Islam, one can talk about North Ireland and Christianity and pernicious effects of Christian missionary acticvities on indigenous peoples all over the world and the dangers of Fascism in India arising from the self proclaimed `Hindu Nationalists`....

Is hamaam me sab nange hain.....

Re: # 10

Dear Hindvi!

The same logic applies to the Bhagbat Gita also. The same religious tradition produced a Mohan Das Karamchand Gandhi and Narendra Modi.

#9, the uniqueness of Arabic being constructed viz a viz a book is an unparallelled phenomenon in the world of linguistics~ it is not a question of purity but construction based upon mathematical principles. This is a fact well documented. That such was desired by a modern logician philosopher like Russell is also a fact.

Now, regarding the absolute truths claims made by the Quran, when it makes claims of a social nature, it makes them in particular contexts with particular criteria, eg justice, truth etc. All these are open to testing and the book invites testing, (4:82), using the only criteria we have to validly arrive at truth, the system of science; the Quran does not seek nor ask for unreasoned faith- `blind faith` is a concept alien to the Quran.

This is a question I ask all Muslims those who want to believe blindly, as I ask all believers in other religions that want to believe based upon blind faith: If you believe that the Quran is God’s word, the one who created all, then when it discusses human creation or reproduction or any other natural phenomena, it should not make errors. Simple straightforward logic demands that. Do not say that the Quran cannot contain scientific facts and then also say, in the same breath, that it came from the maker of all things.

Believing in God, as a reality can never come through blind-faith unless you “kill” your mind either through drugging yourself or such rigorous programming that all alternative thoughts are filtered by internalized “faith” criteria before they enter your mind. Those internalized “faith” criteria might be contradictory or belong to any system, but they get accepted without reason nonetheless. How is “blind faith” in Christianity truer than “blind faith” in Hinduism or Islam? This is a legitimate question that the proponents of ``blind faith`` have absolutely no answer for.

Here is a related article titled Quran & Critical Rationalism, http://rationalreality.50webs.com/sci.htm

Re: # 14

It is impossible to reason with people who have made idols of reason.

I recant my lord....not in blind faith.... that Arabic is the most scietific language of the world....

that the Qur`an is the direct product of a hotline from the lord god.

and that all the contradictions in texts such as the Qur`an can be resolved by `appealing` to `reason` and not to `blind faith`....

#15, you talk about contradictions but you haven`t even read the book, please give a few examples. When I give references regarding the mathematical construction of the Quran, you make up a nonsense polemic? Who is being unreasonable here?