The April Fool Referendum

re:#375 by hobbes
Whores also sleep with the high and mighty. Does that make them special?
West is enamoured with this dictator who is doing all that was expected of him and more. It is purely a survival instinct that makes Mushy do every one of US`s biddings. A Nasser of Egypt or Suharto of Indonesia would have had guts to tell Uncle Sam to go somewhere else but not our Mushy. He is simply not of that calibre.
It also amuses me to see some Paksitanis in chowk praising Mushy the dictator while at the same time bemoaning the lack of democracy in Pakistan. It is one of those perpetual dilemmas Pakis seem to suffer from. To be or not to be! Should we be a democracy or a benign dictatorship (Mushy called it democratic dictatorship and assured expatriate Pakis that democracy will come one day!)? Should we be Islamic or Secular? Should we be watching the movies made by Indoos or not? Should we wear saris or not?... The list is endless
No doubt an average Paki is a confused specimen and does not know any longer who to praise. So goes his thought process: our dictator got the better of these indoos in his speech, did he not? After all India is our enemy and our dictator is doing a good job of putting down India, is he not? But then, blast him. (the thinking continues) Why does he not usher in democracy if he is such a good guy?
The reason is simple. The guy is a dictator. Asking him to usher in democracy is like asking a whore to be chaste.
Make a paradigm shift in your thought process and see the dictator for what he is. Ask yourselves why you cannot decide your own destinies. Why should some idiot do it for you? Yes, you will make mistakes. But it will be your mistakes. If you have your destinies in your hands, as time goes by , such mistakes will be less and less. Initially, bad politicians like NS or Bibi will come. Later, better people will come. But not until you have your destinies in your hands and put an end to dictators running your country.
Sridhar

Hobbes:
I wrote:
``Please tell me what `interpretation,` what ingenuity of method -- will afford a reading of the Qur`an in a light more in tune with our more evolved ideas of equality of humans.``
You replied:
``Recall our agreement to not put word in each others mouths? ``ingenuity of method``? - please note that in the same paragraph in which you pose this question, you deny that it is possible to use interpretation to arrive at any such understanding - now, a few sentences later, you want an answer that uses the method that you deny can yield the answer?``
Hobbes, I didn`t deny anything. I simply asked a question. Why the confusion? Why not just answer the question?

You continue: ``Confused - but once again, I will elaborate, I am using the word ``knowledge`` to include, all values, training and method, any interpreter brings to the text. This ``training`` of the interpreter, allows for the evolution of the values and quality in the interpretation - because knowledge evolves, therefore the knowledge that that is used to interpret, also evolves, therefore interpretation evolves.``
Sometimes; not always. You cannot squeeze water out of a stone, no matter what knowledge you apply. Hobbes, there really is no need to repeat for the hunderdth time your understanding of how new knowledge affects interpretation. This may surprise you, but stripped of the big words, it is something we do all the time. It`s called reevaluting. And it has it`s limits.

You continue:
``How can we deal with the specifics you mention? I think you may not have been around when I presented a work by Soroush, in this regard. The position, once again is that values evolve, after all, doesn`t any interpreter bring values outside of Qur`an to the interpretation? And does not Qur`an say, Apply it`s ``best meaning``? ``Best meaning`` suggests that values are evolving,”

Not necessarily. ‘Best meaning’ most often simply means ‘as best understood” and may have nothing at all to do with an implicit admission to change of values. But if that is the amount of latitude you wish to extend to interpretation, I cannot and will not argue. But I am promoted to ask a question: If our values and knowledge change, what is the relevance of the ‘sacred texts’ to begin with? I don’t mean just the Qur’an… Any of the so called sacred text are supposed to be a repository of values, more than anything else (would you agree?). Yet, as you claim, values may evolve outside these texts. So, what is the baby and what is the bathwater here?

Let’s take a specific example: Say polygamy. It is clearly allowed. Now, may I presume that you or Soroush would hold that in the light of our evolved values regarding gender relations, the text ‘take two, three, four (as long as you can be fair to each)” has to be interpreted in a way so as to virtually outlaw the practise? I know this may be quite presumptuous on my part. The attempt is not put words in your or Soroush’s mouth, but to illustrate a point. The example may be inappropriate, but I trust the point is made. What is the relevance—the NEED—for the ‘scared texts’ once we assume that we have values that can inform us better?

“Qur`an in this case does not say apply this particular meaning, it says apply the ``best meaning`` - We can have multiplicity in ``best meaning`` - I have no problem with that.``
Me neither. It`s when ONE of the meanings drawn is to the necessary exclusion of others that we have problems. By the way, aren`t you mistaking the Qur`an saying `take the best meaning`, with `apply the best meaning`... In the context of your sentence, it makes a huge difference!
But I never argued that some text can be interpreted differently, and so your repeated explanation of method is really unwarranted. Here is the crux:
``Where I think you are having a problem is the use of Qur`anic verses as justification for specific civil legislation - Women as half valid as men and of course minorities``
Yes. Will now provide chapter and verse presently for the disbelieving :)
``...and call to witness two witnesses of your people; but if there be not two men, let there be a man, and two women of those whom ye shall judge fit for witnesses: if the one of them should mistake, the other may cause her to recollect.`` (2: 281).
Let me even help you a bit with the interpretation/context part: This is in the context of a contracting of a loan/debt. Specific? Why should the same measure not be applied elsewhere and everywhere? What more full understanding of women in the Qur’an is there to counter the interpretation that it SHOULD? (this question is not rhetorical)

`` (by the way, I am still waiting for Muslims as minorities, I hope you will not think that I do not mean to obtain an answer)``
Please let me know what answer you are waiting to hear, since the one I provided earlier apparently was not to your liking. In the meanwhile, please check out scout’s #37 on Bina’s “bitter or Sweet” board for an inkling.

``In order to arrive at a general understanding of women and minorities as legally equal to men, and for that understanding to have Qur`anic sanction, our only recourse is education``
If you have the education enough to reach that understanding, of what significance is the Qur`an? Why do you need its sanction? You`ve already met your ends. Why this pressing need to bring all and everything in line with the Qur’an? But if you insist, please tell me how you would counter an argument against slavery. Scenario: I have just acquired some slaves from some culture in Timbuktu where slavery is quite the norm. I am now residing in Riyadh. Oh, I do treat my slaves very well.
Please do comment! You keep speaking of applying education to ‘improve’ interpretation. Here is your chance to prove it is possible. If slavery is too tricky, perhaps you can try polygamy and concubines.

``- we cannot of course legislate it into Qur`anic understanding - our other recourse is to rethink the method of using particular Qur`anic understanding as justifications for legislation that do not meet our present day standard of equality of all before the law.``
You do realize that your assumption that there will always be some method to bail you out is really a HUGE one, don’t you? Anyway, I’ve requested you to please attempt providing a method to rethink the Qura’nic understanding as justifications for slavery and polygamy. I trust that you are theories have do practical application, and would like to see them in play now.

``Another problem, I think you are having is equating Shariah with Qur`an and equating man made Shariah with the Revealed Word of God.``
No. I have been careful to say `Quran` when i mean Quran and `shariah` when I mean shariah.

`` Shariah as an institution is mired is in an understanding of Qur`an, in many instances more than a millennia out of step with understanding of Qur`an - whereas knowledge has evolved, Shariah an institution that most desperately needs to use knowledge, refuses to acknowledge that knowledge has evolved and that it`s risks irrelevance if for it`s intransigence. ``
Hobbyty, please, we`re not in Islam 101 here. :)

``I would be the last person to deny that the Qur`an has directives and that they can be misused and have been misused. But the contention that there are no values in Qur`an is an intellectual insult upon you and I encourage a more careful.``
OOoh boy! Talk about bad reading skills!! I said ``I contend that there are Qur’anic directives -- not values -- [that are misinterpreted.]”. Please look for ‘methods’ to interpret that sentence other than those which insult you. It shouldn’t be that difficult for an expert in Method! :)

``So, am I correct in understanding that you do reject in total Dr. Berlas and Dr. Panizzi`s papers?``
To not accept totally is not to reject totally. Panzini’s work has its merits, and I may even agree with his conclusions, though I think his method (specifically, his sampling) is ill-suited to his endeavour. Would you be comfortable if I were to extrapolate my findings on Muslim and Hindu marriage practices in Sindh to a theory that Islam and Hinduism are the same in this regard? I am surprised (then again..) at your eagerness to cite Panzini.

``Please do reconsider if it is proper to define for me, my reality ``
I`ll do that when i find myself laying you down on a couch and subjecting you to hypnosis. Until then, it really shouldn`t be an issue.

``Do reconsider why it is so much easier for you to equate Qur`an and the present day laws of Pakistan - Before the particular laws came into effect, did you equate Islam and the laws of present day Pakistan?``
Hobbyty, drop it. I know my Islam from my shariah from my Quran. Before the laws of present day Pakistan came in being, there was still those verses quoted above.

``You may not be aware but recently there was a case where a woman who became Muslim in South Dakota had her child taken away by court order because the judge agreed that she had begun be behave strangely and had become a a Muslim, is it correct to ascribe this behavior by the judge to Christianity? or to ignorance?``
To ignorance, since there is nothing in Christianity to justify such acts. I wish the same could be said for Islam with respect to death penalties for apostates. However, there is much nonsense that has been committed in the past that I COULD lay at the door of Christianity, just so you know I`m not merely anti-Islam.

re. my pointing out the significant difference between the Quran and the Bible, you write:
``Rubbish, I`m floored that you thought I would let you get away with that bit of obfuscation - Ten commandment are the word of God, as are the lives of the prophetic tradition and no faithful denies ``Divine`` inspiration.``
Hobbyty, the only obfuscation here is in the failure to mention vital distinctions. Divine inspiration is one thing, ‘divinely revealed’ to the last nuktah is something else. Pray tell, which of the books other than the Quran claim THEMSELVES to be God`s word--complete, perfect and all. It is another matter that followers of the Abrahamic faiths at one time or other have chosen to believe their scripture were such. Which of the books adherents are called to believe that not a word of their scriptures can be changed because it is exactly as God proposed. Which of the books adherents see their scriptures as but ‘inspired writing’ by men of faith who were thus prone to error just like any of us. Which?

``Are the texts different, indeed they are , are you conscious that you are making Dr. Panizzi`s point? That the role of ignorance is underrated in our confusion between culture and religion?``
Nice one! Is it inconceivable that Panizzi has it slightly wrong? Or that he may even have it right on the issue of treatment of women (which I already granted) but wrong on other matters?

By the way, the texts are not only different, but, to hear it from Muslims, corrupted, in the case of the other scriptures. But I suppose you must have it both ways. You must, as a Muslim, believe that the other texts are corrupted YET believe them to be of valid divine value—why else the need to bring our (secular) values in line with their sanctions??

``What planet is this? And what was the history of the Vatican or the holy Roman empires, or Torquemada about? And why is there the Church of England, the Church of England and not just the Church?``
Hello? just because the renaissance was possible in Christendom, exposing the Church/state authorities for the power mongers they were, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the same is possible with Islamia. I repeat: the Bible could never be justified as God`s word in the sense the Quran CLAIMS ITSELF to be. The history of the Bible, the Nicene council’s actions etc, have always been well known. And Paul’s letters to the Gentiles isn’t quite in the same league as God’s own words revealed in a cave, now are they? This allowed, though was not wholly responsible for, the Reformation. Hell, you didn`t have The Church of England, Torquemada, or the Pope, citing chapter and verse of the bible as they okayed divorce, burnt heretics or charged redemption monies. Their power depended on the complete ignorance-- the illiteracy-- of the faithful-- a chief reason why reading the bible was strictly prohibited.

Converesly, opposition arose when the faithful were encouraged by likes of Luther and Calvin to READ the scriptures. There was no issue of difference of interpretations or method involved here, Hobbes. So you see why the Reformation Model of Christianity may ill-apply to Islamia?
The problem within Islamia is more a parallel of what you see in SOME present day Evangelical circles, such as the back-to-the-Bible call in the bible belt-- a tradition with which all manner of bigotry against non-Christians (and even against Catholics) is justified, even sanctified. Yes, on the fringes you will find those, who through their greater education and values, foster a more inclusive understanding of Christian scriptures, but I am led again to ask, what need for the bath water when you already have the baby out?

As an aside, I often stump my fundamentalist Christian friends with the simple question: ``Why do you believe that the Bible is God`s word? Does even the Bible claim so?`` Needless to say, they are left with no answer. I could not, however, put this question to a Muslim.

Fortunately for the West, since religion and state are constitutionally separated, obscurantist readings of the scriptures has little impact on law, except in times of extreme stress.
The danger with Islam is that church and state cannot be separated (or do you question this?), and so, while we may gain from the more `evolved` understanding of some, we are always just as likely (history would say infinitely MORE likely) to have LAW informed by the obscurants/literalists. And who can blame them? So, Mr. Hobbes, maybe living in the US, you do not see the practical dangers of ‘many meanings’. However, I do, recognizing that religion (esp. Islam and Judaism) is political as well as personal. Christians have ‘The greatest Law is Love the Lord … and thy neighbour…”. Muslims have stipulations for a great deal more in the Quran. Any attempt at equivalency of the two scriptures in ANY sense is, IMHO, an exercise in futility or desperation.

Which is why, I (and Prem) claimed that you’d be better off focusing on the GENERALITIES of the Quran (justice, brotherhood), but abandon the attempt to find Qur’anic sanction on particulars. How you can do this remains a bit puzzling, I would have to admit.

I wrote: ``Yes, I agree. But it DOES NOT follow that those languishing in jails in Pakistan on account of blasphemy or apostasy charge are NOT victims of variety of interpretation.``
You replied: But it does not follow that they are - what kind of argument is arguing the negative?
Very nice Hobbyty! Turn and twist. Let me rephrase: Those languishing in jails in Pakistan ARE victims of interpretation. Would you disagree?

You: ``And who is funding this legal action - Muslims are! not the state!
Not the state, no. But not only Muslim organizations. Heard of the ACLU?

``My neighbors are not funding these constitutional challenges - Muslims are.``
Many non-Muslim in NYC have joined hands with their Muslim brothers/friends. But that is not the point. The point is that there is no constitutional justification for holding them, based on biblical interpretation. That is, thanks to the principles of secular humanism.

``Is there an injunction in Pakistan for minorities to fund legal challenges? or publicize their case?``
Sure, with the fiat of divinity against them, I`m sure every other Pakistani minority is ready to take his protest to the streets, to meet the fate of Salamat Masih. Hello? Any idea of the percentage of general population who share Asif`s understanding of blasphemy injunctions? Take a trip to Pakistan. Perhaps that will help put the (un)importance of distant perfection-in-interpretation in better perspective.

``Are not Pakistan newspapers constantly criticizing these laws and their basis?``
And I suppose the lawmakers in Pakistan are all religious obscurants/ignoramuses as is Asif Naqshbandi? The majority of newspaper articles criticizing these laws do so from a Human-Rights (Shudders!!) perspective. Many writers cite the very forgiving nature of the prophet as an argument against these laws, only to have verses, and other incidents from the Prophet`s life thrown at them. By the way, you have yet to explain how the `compete reading as a unit` of the Quran can somehow abrogate those verses. And before you ask me to quote the verses again, please recall Asif`s (and Hamidm`s) efforts on the Blasphemy board.
btw, Fukiyama has been heavily discredited of late... will post more on that later.
Rgds,
PM

Hobbes:
I wrote:
``Please tell me what `interpretation,` what ingenuity of method -- will afford a reading of the Qur`an in a light more in tune with our more evolved ideas of equality of humans.``
You replied:
``Recall our agreement to not put word in each others mouths? ``ingenuity of method``? - please note that in the same paragraph in which you pose this question, you deny that it is possible to use interpretation to arrive at any such understanding - now, a few sentences later, you want an answer that uses the method that you deny can yield the answer?``
Hobbes, I didn`t deny anything. I simply asked a question. Why the confusion? Why not just answer the question?

You continue: ``Confused - but once again, I will elaborate, I am using the word ``knowledge`` to include, all values, training and method, any interpreter brings to the text. This ``training`` of the interpreter, allows for the evolution of the values and quality in the interpretation - because knowledge evolves, therefore the knowledge that that is used to interpret, also evolves, therefore interpretation evolves.``
Sometimes; not always. You cannot squeeze water out of a stone, no matter what knowledge you apply. Hobbes, there really is no need to repeat for the hunderdth time your understanding of how new knowledge affects interpretation. This may surprise you, but stripped of the big words, it is something we do all the time. It`s called reevaluting. And it has it`s limits.

You continue:
``How can we deal with the specifics you mention? I think you may not have been around when I presented a work by Soroush, in this regard. The position, once again is that values evolve, after all, doesn`t any interpreter bring values outside of Qur`an to the interpretation? And does not Qur`an say, Apply it`s ``best meaning``? ``Best meaning`` suggests that values are evolving,”

Not necessarily. ‘Best meaning’ most often simply means ‘as best understood” and may have nothing at all to do with an implicit admission to change of values. But if that is the amount of latitude you wish to extend to interpretation, I cannot and will not argue. But I am promoted to ask a question: If our values and knowledge change, what is the relevance of the ‘sacred texts’ to begin with? I don’t mean just the Qur’an… Any of the so called sacred text are supposed to be a repository of values, more than anything else (would you agree?). Yet, as you claim, values may evolve outside these texts. So, what is the baby and what is the bathwater here?

Let’s take a specific example: Say polygamy. It is clearly allowed. Now, may I presume that you or Soroush would hold that in the light of our evolved values regarding gender relations, the text ‘take two, three, four (as long as you can be fair to each)” has to be interpreted in a way so as to virtually outlaw the practise? I know this may be quite presumptuous on my part. The attempt is not put words in your or Soroush’s mouth, but to illustrate a point. The example may be inappropriate, but I trust the point is made. What is the relevance—the NEED—for the ‘scared texts’ once we assume that we have values that can inform us better?

“Qur`an in this case does not say apply this particular meaning, it says apply the ``best meaning`` - We can have multiplicity in ``best meaning`` - I have no problem with that.``
Me neither. It`s when ONE of the meanings drawn is to the necessary exclusion of others that we have problems. By the way, aren`t you mistaking the Qur`an saying `take the best meaning`, with `apply the best meaning`... In the context of your sentence, it makes a huge difference!
But I never argued that some text can be interpreted differently, and so your repeated explanation of method is really unwarranted. Here is the crux:
``Where I think you are having a problem is the use of Qur`anic verses as justification for specific civil legislation - Women as half valid as men and of course minorities``
Yes. Will now provide chapter and verse presently for the disbelieving :)
``...and call to witness two witnesses of your people; but if there be not two men, let there be a man, and two women of those whom ye shall judge fit for witnesses: if the one of them should mistake, the other may cause her to recollect.`` (2: 281).
Let me even help you a bit with the interpretation/context part: This is in the context of a contracting of a loan/debt. Specific? Why should the same measure not be applied elsewhere and everywhere? What more full understanding of women in the Qur’an is there to counter the interpretation that it SHOULD? (this question is not rhetorical)

`` (by the way, I am still waiting for Muslims as minorities, I hope you will not think that I do not mean to obtain an answer)``
Please let me know what answer you are waiting to hear, since the one I provided earlier apparently was not to your liking. In the meanwhile, please check out scout’s #37 on Bina’s “bitter or Sweet” board for an inkling.

``In order to arrive at a general understanding of women and minorities as legally equal to men, and for that understanding to have Qur`anic sanction, our only recourse is education``
If you have the education enough to reach that understanding, of what significance is the Qur`an? Why do you need its sanction? You`ve already met your ends. Why this pressing need to bring all and everything in line with the Qur’an? But if you insist, please tell me how you would counter an argument against slavery. Scenario: I have just acquired some slaves from some culture in Timbuktu where slavery is quite the norm. I am now residing in Riyadh. Oh, I do treat my slaves very well.
Please do comment! You keep speaking of applying education to ‘improve’ interpretation. Here is your chance to prove it is possible. If slavery is too tricky, perhaps you can try polygamy and concubines.

``- we cannot of course legislate it into Qur`anic understanding - our other recourse is to rethink the method of using particular Qur`anic understanding as justifications for legislation that do not meet our present day standard of equality of all before the law.``
You do realize that your assumption that there will always be some method to bail you out is really a HUGE one, don’t you? Anyway, I’ve requested you to please attempt providing a method to rethink the Qura’nic understanding as justifications for slavery and polygamy. I trust that you are theories have do practical application, and would like to see them in play now.

``Another problem, I think you are having is equating Shariah with Qur`an and equating man made Shariah with the Revealed Word of God.``
No. I have been careful to say `Quran` when i mean Quran and `shariah` when I mean shariah.

`` Shariah as an institution is mired is in an understanding of Qur`an, in many instances more than a millennia out of step with understanding of Qur`an - whereas knowledge has evolved, Shariah an institution that most desperately needs to use knowledge, refuses to acknowledge that knowledge has evolved and that it`s risks irrelevance if for it`s intransigence. ``
Hobbyty, please, we`re not in Islam 101 here. :)

``I would be the last person to deny that the Qur`an has directives and that they can be misused and have been misused. But the contention that there are no values in Qur`an is an intellectual insult upon you and I encourage a more careful.``
OOoh boy! Talk about bad reading skills!! I said ``I contend that there are Qur’anic directives -- not values -- [that are misinterpreted.]”. Please look for ‘methods’ to interpret that sentence other than those which insult you. It shouldn’t be that difficult for an expert in Method! :)

``So, am I correct in understanding that you do reject in total Dr. Berlas and Dr. Panizzi`s papers?``
To not accept totally is not to reject totally. Panzini’s work has its merits, and I may even agree with his conclusions, though I think his method (specifically, his sampling) is ill-suited to his endeavour. Would you be comfortable if I were to extrapolate my findings on Muslim and Hindu marriage practices in Sindh to a theory that Islam and Hinduism are the same in this regard? I am surprised (then again..) at your eagerness to cite Panzini.

``Please do reconsider if it is proper to define for me, my reality ``
I`ll do that when i find myself laying you down on a couch and subjecting you to hypnosis. Until then, it really shouldn`t be an issue.

``Do reconsider why it is so much easier for you to equate Qur`an and the present day laws of Pakistan - Before the particular laws came into effect, did you equate Islam and the laws of present day Pakistan?``
Hobbyty, drop it. I know my Islam from my shariah from my Quran. Before the laws of present day Pakistan came in being, there was still those verses quoted above.

``You may not be aware but recently there was a case where a woman who became Muslim in South Dakota had her child taken away by court order because the judge agreed that she had begun be behave strangely and had become a a Muslim, is it correct to ascribe this behavior by the judge to Christianity? or to ignorance?``
To ignorance, since there is nothing in Christianity to justify such acts. I wish the same could be said for Islam with respect to death penalties for apostates. However, there is much nonsense that has been committed in the past that I COULD lay at the door of Christianity, just so you know I`m not merely anti-Islam.

re. my pointing out the significant difference between the Quran and the Bible, you write:
``Rubbish, I`m floored that you thought I would let you get away with that bit of obfuscation - Ten commandment are the word of God, as are the lives of the prophetic tradition and no faithful denies ``Divine`` inspiration.``
Hobbyty, the only obfuscation here is in the failure to mention vital distinctions. Divine inspiration is one thing, ‘divinely revealed’ to the last nuktah is something else. Pray tell, which of the books other than the Quran claim THEMSELVES to be God`s word--complete, perfect and all. It is another matter that followers of the Abrahamic faiths at one time or other have chosen to believe their scripture were such. Which of the books adherents are called to believe that not a word of their scriptures can be changed because it is exactly as God proposed. Which of the books adherents see their scriptures as but ‘inspired writing’ by men of faith who were thus prone to error just like any of us. Which?

``Are the texts different, indeed they are , are you conscious that you are making Dr. Panizzi`s point? That the role of ignorance is underrated in our confusion between culture and religion?``
Nice one! Is it inconceivable that Panizzi has it slightly wrong? Or that he may even have it right on the issue of treatment of women (which I already granted) but wrong on other matters?

By the way, the texts are not only different, but, to hear it from Muslims, corrupted, in the case of the other scriptures. But I suppose you must have it both ways. You must, as a Muslim, believe that the other texts are corrupted YET believe them to be of valid divine value—why else the need to bring our (secular) values in line with their sanctions??

``What planet is this? And what was the history of the Vatican or the holy Roman empires, or Torquemada about? And why is there the Church of England, the Church of England and not just the Church?``
Hello? just because the renaissance was possible in Christendom, exposing the Church/state authorities for the power mongers they were, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the same is possible with Islamia. I repeat: the Bible could never be justified as God`s word in the sense the Quran CLAIMS ITSELF to be. The history of the Bible, the Nicene council’s actions etc, have always been well known. And Paul’s letters to the Gentiles isn’t quite in the same league as God’s own words revealed in a cave, now are they? This allowed, though was not wholly responsible for, the Reformation. Hell, you didn`t have The Church of England, Torquemada, or the Pope, citing chapter and verse of the bible as they okayed divorce, burnt heretics or charged redemption monies. Their power depended on the complete ignorance-- the illiteracy-- of the faithful-- a chief reason why reading the bible was strictly prohibited.

Converesly, opposition arose when the faithful were encouraged by likes of Luther and Calvin to READ the scriptures. There was no issue of difference of interpretations or method involved here, Hobbes. So you see why the Reformation Model of Christianity may ill-apply to Islamia?
The problem within Islamia is more a parallel of what you see in SOME present day Evangelical circles, such as the back-to-the-Bible call in the bible belt-- a tradition with which all manner of bigotry against non-Christians (and even against Catholics) is justified, even sanctified. Yes, on the fringes you will find those, who through their greater education and values, foster a more inclusive understanding of Christian scriptures, but I am led again to ask, what need for the bath water when you already have the baby out?

As an aside, I often stump my fundamentalist Christian friends with the simple question: ``Why do you believe that the Bible is God`s word? Does even the Bible claim so?`` Needless to say, they are left with no answer. I could not, however, put this question to a Muslim.

Fortunately for the West, since religion and state are constitutionally separated, obscurantist readings of the scriptures has little impact on law, except in times of extreme stress.
The danger with Islam is that church and state cannot be separated (or do you question this?), and so, while we may gain from the more `evolved` understanding of some, we are always just as likely (history would say infinitely MORE likely) to have LAW informed by the obscurants/literalists. And who can blame them? So, Mr. Hobbes, maybe living in the US, you do not see the practical dangers of ‘many meanings’. However, I do, recognizing that religion (esp. Islam and Judaism) is political as well as personal. Christians have ‘The greatest Law is Love the Lord … and thy neighbour…”. Muslims have stipulations for a great deal more in the Quran. Any attempt at equivalency of the two scriptures in ANY sense is, IMHO, an exercise in futility or desperation.

Which is why, I (and Prem) claimed that you’d be better off focusing on the GENERALITIES of the Quran (justice, brotherhood), but abandon the attempt to find Qur’anic sanction on particulars. How you can do this remains a bit puzzling, I would have to admit.

I wrote: ``Yes, I agree. But it DOES NOT follow that those languishing in jails in Pakistan on account of blasphemy or apostasy charge are NOT victims of variety of interpretation.``
You replied: But it does not follow that they are - what kind of argument is arguing the negative?
Very nice Hobbyty! Turn and twist. Let me rephrase: Those languishing in jails in Pakistan ARE victims of interpretation. Would you disagree?

You: ``And who is funding this legal action - Muslims are! not the state!
Not the state, no. But not only Muslim organizations. Heard of the ACLU?

``My neighbors are not funding these constitutional challenges - Muslims are.``
Many non-Muslim in NYC have joined hands with their Muslim brothers/friends. But that is not the point. The point is that there is no constitutional justification for holding them, based on biblical interpretation. That is, thanks to the principles of secular humanism.

``Is there an injunction in Pakistan for minorities to fund legal challenges? or publicize their case?``
Sure, with the fiat of divinity against them, I`m sure every other Pakistani minority is ready to take his protest to the streets, to meet the fate of Salamat Masih. Hello? Any idea of the percentage of general population who share Asif`s understanding of blasphemy injunctions? Take a trip to Pakistan. Perhaps that will help put the (un)importance of distant perfection-in-interpretation in better perspective.

``Are not Pakistan newspapers constantly criticizing these laws and their basis?``
And I suppose the lawmakers in Pakistan are all religious obscurants/ignoramuses as is Asif Naqshbandi? The majority of newspaper articles criticizing these laws do so from a Human-Rights (Shudders!!) perspective. Many writers cite the very forgiving nature of the prophet as an argument against these laws, only to have verses, and other incidents from the Prophet`s life thrown at them. By the way, you have yet to explain how the `compete reading as a unit` of the Quran can somehow abrogate those verses. And before you ask me to quote the verses again, please recall Asif`s (and Hamidm`s) efforts on the Blasphemy board.
btw, Fukiyama has been heavily discredited of late... will post more on that later.
Rgds,
PM

AlephNull:
#5 from Dictionary.com is, i believe, a definition not different from the one used by Hobbes.
It is largely unspoken premise, though not always a true one, that the rule of/for/by the people will necessarily be a just one.

Hobbes, you write:
``To summarize [Whitehead]:
1. Reason is fundamental to religion and faith
2. Reason evolves - it is based on knowledge and knowledge evolves.
3. Principle of religion ought to be based on reason.``
Hobbes, is your #1 a normative or factual statement? I have no problems at with it as normative. It is, however, quite fallacious, unless, of course, you define Religion itself. Which is what you, Iqbal and Whitehead seem to want to do. Again, I have no problem with that. A higher idea of religion, incorporating reason-- who could be against THAT?? I have been calling for it all my life!
BUT, BUT BUT...
Saying something ought to be isn`t the same as saying something is. Moreover, saying something ought to be in a certain way doesn`t even necessarily mean it CAN be.
You continue:
``All knowledge and reason evolves, and therefore all understanding of religion evolves.``
This is very ambiguous, Hobbes. If you mean our understanding of the precepts and principles, and our judgement of those principles evolve, well, that is one thing. But you would have to then admit that this new understanding may lead us to the rejection of certain principles or precepts of the said religion. For Religion, to the extent that it makes PARTICULAR prescriptions, runs the risk of flying in the face of our evolved vreason and knowledge. I have presented two possible cases of such a conflict in my last post.
Religion, you see, is not the completely open system that it would NEED to be in order to continually evolve with our evolving knowledge and reason. Buddhism comes nearest this ideal, and Christainity perhaps more closely appraoches it. It is not an indictment on Islam to suggest that, despite it`s inherent calls to Reason, it is, again inherently, not as open to change as those two.
``To confuse cultural contructs as constructs of religion is to abandon reason as an analytical tool and to ignore God`s command to employ ``best meaning``.
`Best` and multiple meaning/s may be well and good. But what if the `best meaning` eked out of a religious text is just not good enough?
Hobbes, your treatise on Religion is quite appealing. I find Souroush every bit as appealling as Tillich and Bonhoeffer, my eariest influences. However, it would be irresponsible on my part to assume that such an understanding of religion is accomodated by the texts and spirit of all Religions.
Put simply, a book`s call to it`s readers to be rational in appraoching it, does not guarantee that it will always itself withstand the test of rationality. Perhaps the very use of reason may lead to the rejection of parts of the book. This is in fact, the way Christians have come to approach the Bible--even the new testament. No `reasoning` Christian believes that ``if ye hand should cause you harm, it is better that ye cut it off``. Metaphor? Ok well, but not all language is metaphorical in scripture, would you agree?
Now to your questions:
``1. Is Justice a concept of reason? Can justice exist without reason?``
Hate to spoil the party, buddy. But the answer to that question lies in ONE understanding of justice. The correct answer is `maybe`. To some, it is ``Definitely` , to others, ``No``. And even among those who answer in the affirmative, there may be considerable variance as to the idea of `reason`. After all, as Hume demonstrated, even reason is based on certain `self-evident` (i.e, non-reasoned) premisses. To one believer, one precept may be the premise of his reasoning; To another, some other, or none.

``2. If the mission of the Muslim is to build a more Just society, does this not mean that reason is the most lementary of method for the Muslim? And does this not mean that we ought evaluate our progress in the achievement of our mission, in the light of reason?``
I suppose it does. But unless you have some sort of common understanding at least of what it means to be `reasonable`, you have not solved any problem; only reproduced it!

``3. Can we assert that laws such as blasphemy, and apostasy, or testimony of a woman as partly valid as that of a man, as they are construed in the Pakistani penal codes, meet the standards of reason? or are more akin to emotion in their motivation and aim?``
I don`t know Hobbyty. To you and me they may be more akin to emotion in their motivation aim. To others, reasonableness may consists of adhering to the basic precepts. I hope I am wrong here, though. Or it may be that the values WE hold to be reasonable (that is, the equality of genders) may but be outcomes of some emotional content.

``4. Can we assert that such laws do Justice?``
``We``? No, of course WE don`t. Others do. Your job is to sell this idea of reason, in fact, YOUR understanding of reason, to those who do. Otherwise, this is so much of preaching to the choir.
I see the inherent difficulty, though: It is your task to convince some that to take a reasonable approach to religion might mean the rejection (not merely choosing of `best meaning`) of divine injunctions. Unless you know of some `better` meaning of `kill apostates`, or `half worth as witness` that is.
I sincerely hope that I am wrong in assuming this inherent conflict between application of Reason and the understanding of the Qur`an as `literal and perfect word of God.` My honest search for harmony between the two has not met with success. (Neither Iqbal nor Soroush provide answers to the questions I have jsut asked.) Perhaps you will help me see the light, that I may be better able to argue your case with my Muslim friends who find themselves conflicted in this dilemma.
Thank you.

Pervaiz Mushraff wows them at Harvard

From The Friday Times``
``Twenty heads of state speak at Harvard each year. Our Perve got a standing ovation. He then went on to shine at the Question and Answer session.``

Tokens, you listening?

Centrality of Reason in Religion and all Life

The role of reason is as central to Islam as is the role of faith. Indeed, Allahmah Mohammad Igbal Lahori, benevolent scholar, patron saint of the idea of Pakistan, asserts that in his ``The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam`` that faith ``is more than mere feeling. It has something like a cognitive content and the existence of rival parties - scholastics and mystics - in the history of religion shows that idea is a vital element in religion.`` He goes to quote Whitehead, religion `is a system of general truths which have the effect of transforming character when they are sincerely held and vividly apprehended`. Now since the transformation and guidance of man`s inner and outer life is the essential aim of religion, it is obvious that the general truths which it embodies must not remain unsettled. No one would hazard action on the basis of a doubtful principle of conduct, indeed. IN VIEW OF IT`S FUNCTION, RELIGION STANDS IN GREATER NEED OF A RATIONAL FOUNDATION OF IT`S ULTIMATE PRINCIPLES THAN EVEN THE DOGMAS OF SCIENCE...THAT IS WHY...`THE AGES OF FAITH ARE THE AGES OF RATIONALISM`.``
To summarize:
1. Reason is fundamental to religion and faith
2. Reason evolves - it is based on knowledge and knowledge evolves.
3. Principle of religion ought to be based on reason.
All knowledge and reason evolves, and therefore all understanding of religion evolves. To confuse cultural contructs as constructs of religion is to abandon reason as an analytical tool and to ignore God`s command to employ ``best meaning``.
Questions:
1. Is Justice a concept of reason? Can justice exist without reason?
2. If the mission of the Muslim is to build a more Just society, does this not mean that reason is the most lementary of method for the Muslim? And does this not mean that we ought evaluate our progress in the achievement of our mission, in the light of reason? 3. Can we assert that laws such as blasphemy, and apostasy, or testimony of a woman as partly valid as that of a man, as they are construed in the Pakistani penal codes, meet the standards of reason? or are more akin to emotion in their motivation and aim?
4. Can we assert that such laws do Justice?
From DAWN - dated today`` ``Quran`s rational approach
By Prof Muhammad Rafi
In our present times and all times to come, we have to understand that Allah`s message is based on sound and rational foundations. `O mankind, Verily there has come to you a convincing proof from your Lord` (4:174). There has always been a tussle between man`s own standards of how this life should be lived and the absolute standards or values brought by Allah`s Messengers.
Allama Iqbal believes that religious ambition soars higher than the ambition of philosophy and is not satisfied with mere conception; it seeks a more intimate knowledge of, and association with, the object of its pursuit. The Messengers pragmatically proved the Divine revelations by living their lives according to them.
`You have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the ``final day``.` (33:21) The prophets brought one message from God (6:84 to 89) which, somehow, the people could not easily digest as they were used to a life of luxury and sin. We have entered the new millennium and the world is still unable to grasp the simple message brought by these Messengers, the last of which, Mohammed (peace be upon him) delivered the final message that is preserved for all times in the Quran.
The Quran stresses the importance of knowledge and refers to it in more than 500 places. Although man has probed the frontiers of knowledge, yet the ultimate knowledge, truth and guidance are from Allah. He alone has total authority over every thing. The Quran helps those who wish to seek guidance from it.
``This is the Book. In it is guidance - sheer, without doubt to those who fear Allah`` (2:2) It must be remembered that the religious ones fear and love Allah deeply and reject all other authorities. An infidel has his own `Ilahs` and worldly standards and hence seeks guidance from them. `Yet there are men who take (for worship) others beside Allah,`` As equal they love them as they should love Allah. But those of faith are overflowing in their love for Allah (2:165).
We generally believe that Quran`s guidance is for Muslims only. This is a wrong conception because the Quran says: `Wherewith Allah guides all who seek His Good pleasure to ways of peace and safety and leads them out of darkness (5:16) At another place the Quran says that it is a guidance and instruction for those who fear Allah (3:138) The message of Allah is universal and hence infinite. We claim that we believe in Allah and His divine message, but in practice everyone has his own standards and pays only lip service to Allah`s message. `O mankind! there has come to you a direction from your Lord and a healing for the disease in your hearts and for those who believe a Guidance and a Mercy` (10.57)
Allah wants us to be guided towards His mercy and abstain from the ways of the devil. `Those who eschew evil and fall not into its worship and turn to Allah (in repentance) for them is good news` (39:17) `Those who listen to the word and follow the best meaning in it are the ones whom Allah has guided` (39:18)
Throughout our lives we strive for different aims and goals and sometime feel disappointed when we fail to achieve them. Disappointment looms large when the outcome of our efforts does not yield the desired results. In such circumstances we should always turn to the Ayats of the Quran and apply them practically in our lives. `And those who strive in Our cause, We will certainly guide them to Our Paths`. (29:69)
Our efforts in the way of Allah can never go in vain. The Sirat-e-Mustaqeem, or the righteous path is given to us by Allah we strive and yearn for it. Those who deny his Ayats will never receive his guidance.
There is a general misconception that a born Muslim will always be good and right, that nobody can prevent him from going to heaven. Such concepts have led our namesake Muslims to lofty claims of superiority over others. Little do they realize that this is not the way Allah`s system works. `Do men think that they shall be left alone saying `we believe`, that they would not be put to test`?`` (29:2) `And to all are assigned degrees according to their deeds which they have done And Allah will recompense their deeds. No injustice would be done to them` (46:19) `Such will be the garden of which you are made heirs for your (good) deeds in life` (43:72)
True guidance in all respects can only come from Allah and that should be our primary objective. `O you who believe! guard your souls: if you follow right guidance no hurt can come from those who stray. The goal of you all is to Allah. It is He who will show you the truth of all that you do` (5:105) `Allah has bound Himself to shower His blessings on those who believe in His Ayats and act accordingly.` (6:54)
Quran is the only guidance we have to turn to; all other man-made standards are fallible and misleading. Only Allah knows what is true guidance. (28:85) And `Let nothing keep you back from the Ayats of Allah` (28:87). Whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks` (2:256)
The foremost message of the Quran in the form of an injunction is against those who fragment themselves into groups, sects, and schools of thought. Quran prohibits this: `As for those who divide their religion and break up into sects and groups, you have no part in them` (6:159) `Those who split up their religion and become sects and groups - each group rejoicing in that which is with itself`. (30:32)
Unfortunately, after the early years of Islam, people injected their own concepts and beliefs into Islam and changed it from `Deen` to `religion.` Traditions gave birth to Shias, Sunnis, Ismailis, Ahle-Hadis, Wahabis, Ahle-Sunnat, Deobandis, Barelvis, etc. All these sects devised their own faith. In the garb of Islamic jurisprudence the Hanafis, Shaafais, Maalikis, Hanbalis, and Jafaris entered the fold of religion. When Pandora`s box was opened, there was no end. More sects, groups and sub-sects were born in the name of mysticism.
The Quran guides us in this respect and tells us that Islam is the Deen of our father Ibrahim and that `It is He who has named you Muslims`. (22:73) All religions of the world expect their followers to follow them blindly.
Islam is not a religion, but `Deen` which lays down the relationship between man and Allah; the Quran gives the spiritual commandments and laws through which men can live in peace and harmony with himself and his fellow creatures. It leads to an inner awakening and more evaluated approach to values of life. Unlike other religions it does not negate the study of the laws of nature.
In fact, it encourages the search for truth amidst the grandeur, beauty and mystery of the universe; and to a greater understanding of the primordial force and authority which is responsible for we see and feel around us. Above all, we are never expected to follow the Quran blindly: `Now have come to you from your Lord, proofs (to open your eyes) if any will see it will be for the good of his own soul. (6:104) It has been sent for the convenience of the mankind: We have not sent down the Quran to you to be for your distress`. (20:2)
All over the world we find Muslims who claim that they believe in the Quran and yet we see them humiliated in more than one way. They are ruled, controlled, tortured, exploited, guided, ordered, and subjugated by non-Muslims. So, keeping Muslim names and professing to be followers of Islam and Quran without any practical manifestation and conviction will eventually place such people amongst those who deny the Quran and hence will never receive Allah`s mercy.
`We sent down in the Quran that which is a healing and a mercy to those who believe and to the unjust nothing but loss after loss.` (17:82) Those who believe in His message do so with strong faith and belief and for them Allah will fulfil His promise and He will provide for them a double portion of His mercy. (57:28)
The Quran is immutable and will remain in its original form till the last date. Western thinkers have even accepted this fact about Quran`s originality and infiniteness as compared to other books and religions. It contains simple, matter of fact and close to human nature concepts, which are appealing to inquisitive minds. They see the respect Quran gives to humanity: `We have honoured humanity as a whole.` (17:70) It means that all humans are equal. The criteria of one`s position in society are determined by his deeds; And to all are assigned degrees according to their deeds`` (46:19) br>``

-- IF ONE HAS SET OUT ON A JOURNEY TO A DESTINATION WITHOUT A MAP - HOW LIKELY IS ONE TO ARRIVE AT THE DESTINATION ONE STARTED OUT TO ARRIVE AT?

hobbes #317

{Do you even understand that Democracy is the rule of law?}

-----------

This reminds me of the following passage from Lewis Carrol`s ``Through the Looking Glass``: [see http://www.coli.uni-sb.de/~stwa/alice.htm]

{{
`I don`t know what you mean by ``glory``,` Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don`t--till I tell you. I meant ``there`s a nice knock-down argument for you``!`

`But ``glory`` doesn`t mean ``a nice knock-down argument``,` Alice objected.

`When I use a word,` Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more or less.`

`The question is,` said Alice, `whether you can make words mean different things.`

`The question is,` said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master--that`s all.`
}}

-----------

A look at Dictionary.com indicates. for `democracy`:.

1.Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

2. A political or social unit that has such a government.

3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

4. Majority rule.

5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

[American Heritage Dictionary]

1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people.

2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic.

3. Collectively, the people, regarded as the source of government. --Milton.

[Webster`s Revised Unabridged Dictionary]

An English word sometimes acquires connotations quite different from those indicated by its non-English or archaic roots, to the point that its primary denotation changes. But in the case of `democracy` the Greek roots demos (people) + kratia (rule) are common knowledge to educated people, so this has not occurred. Certainly Hobbyty`s Humpty-Dumpty style redefinition of `democracy` to suit his own ends will find little favour with lexicographers or people at large.

------------

Instead of sticking to the dictionary defintion, one might choose to examine what features it would be desirable for democratic governments to have. A case can then perhaps be made for rule of law as one of the desirable features, together with checks and balances, and decentralisation of powers and responsibilities, and active participation by an informed citizenry, and the cultivation of strong institutions, and so on. However, that does not establish either a definitional or logical equivalence between `democracy` and `rule of law`.

------------

The sly stratagem (or innocent error, if you want to be charitable) of Humpty-Dumpty style humbug `definition` is a frequent recourse of dogmatic True Believers - whether in a religion or a dictator - together with that other perennial favourite, Circular Reasoning. A free tip to Reverend Hobbyty - this tactic may serve you well when your audience is comprised of your true-believing cerebral clones. It is considerably less effective when you are preaching your gospel to an audience of derisively sceptical heathen.

Sadna, #165

The way the EC Pakistan is moving about conducting elections in Oct, 2002, I suspect a massive deliberate fraud. You see, the ``process`` is taking much longer leaving very little time for the parties to campaign.
They are talking of symbols now when elections are less than a month away. Then the EC would want to take time to ``publisize`` the symbols so that no one ``objects`` and that waiting period would be another 10-20 days. Then by the time, the EC would ask the parties to campaign it will be 2 days before election day. Then one day before election day, the EC would ask the parties to stop campaign and so on....

So, even though there may not be rigging per se, there is ``process`` manipulation which in other words, is another term for rigging.

News: Uncle Mush says that Kashmir election is rigged.

How does he know?...Hmmmm....Been there, Done ``that``?

my dears Prem and PM -- i can see that chowk`s whirling dervishes prof hobbes has you two spinning in his web of circular arguments, of meanings and interpretations:-)

you guys don`t feel dizzy? -- yet:-)

Hobbyty,
``Let`s make a deal.`` - Deal made - now lets workd to keep our deal.
The ``Impotence`` of a statement like mine ? A Low blow?

`` Also, the position that the non-separation of the text from it`s reading does not fly in the face of any such position. A text may give rise to many interpretations-- for all of which it (the text) may be `responsible`.`` If an interpretor is doing the interpreting, how is the text responsibile?? - I will not resort to ``low`` blows - but making sense, though some say, with faculties located on a higher plane, can still be equated wirth a ``low`` blow.
``If you necessarily separate the reading from the text, as a principle you are in no position to evaluate the rightness or wrongness of any one position at any given time.``

This statement is more important than you realise. How does one recognize or evalute the rightness or wrongness of any given position in the reading of the text? Does the knowledge and values to do this suddenly appear? Do values evolve, change? Does knowledge?

``But I don`t really wish to engage in a prolonged discourse on realtive value of interpetability.``
Then, why bring it up? If you cannot be bothered to defend a position you hold, why employ it to begin with?

``I do not ascribe to the intrepretationists position to beign with.``

You mean subscribe. I do not know what an ``interpretationist`` postition is - however; my position is that the revealed texts are open to interpretation (certainly not it`s entirety) that interpretation is dependent on the knowledge of the day, the knowledge the interpreter brings to the task, and that is then is the lens through which the text is interpreted - if you disagree with this position - there is little else to discuss and we are left with the agreement to disagree.

But overlooking any such agreement to say: `` Let`s get specific... Take the issue of rights of minorities ... say the value of a non-Muslim`s testament in a court of law. Or of a woman, for that matter.

Please tell me what `interpretation,` what ingenuity of method -- will afford a reading of the Qur`an in a light more in tune with our more evolved ideas of equality of humans.``
Recall our agreement to not put word in each others mouths? ``ingenuity of method``? - please note that in the same paragraph in which you pose this question, you deny that it is possible to use interpretation to arrive at any such understanding - now, a few sentences later, you want an answer that usees the method that you deny can yield the answer? Confused - but once again, I will elaborate, I am using the word ``knowledge`` to include, all values, training and method, any interpreter brings to the text. This ``training`` of the interpreter, allows for the evolution of the values and quality in the interpretation - because knowledge evolves, therefore the knowledge that that is used to interpret, also evolves, therefore interpretation evolves. How can we deal with the specifics you mention? I think you may not have been around when I presented a work by Soroush, in this regard. The position, once again is that values evolve, after all, doesn`t any interpreter bring values outside of Qur`an to the interpretation? And does not Qur`an say, Apply it`s ``best meaning``? ``Best meaning`` suggests that values are evolving, Qur`an in this case does not say apply this particular meaning, it says apply the ``best meaning`` - We can have multiplicity in ``best meaning`` - I have no problem with that.
Where I think you are having a problem is the use of Qur`anic verses as justification for specific civil legislation - Women as half valid as men and of course minorities (by the way, I am still waiting for Muslims as minorities, I hope you will not think that I do not mean to obtain an answer) In order to arrive at a general understanding of women and minorities as legally equal to men, and for that understanding to have Qur`anic sanction, our only recourse is education - we cannot of course legislate it into Qur`anic understanding - our other recourse is to rethink the method of using particular Qur`anic understanding as justifications for legislation that do not meet our present day standard of equality of all before the law. - Another problem, I think you are having is equating Shariah with Qur`an and equating man made Shariah with the Revealed Word of God. Shariah as an institution is mired is in an understanding of Qur`an, in many instances more than a millennia out of step with understanding of Qur`an - whereas knowledge has evolved, Shariah an institution that most desperately needs to use knowledge, refuses to acknowledge that knowledge has evolved and that it`s risks irrelevance if for it`s intransigence.

``Both Prem and you seem to forget that Islam`s mission is to create a more just society - we can judge ``failure`` whenever we confront the question, ``where are we along this path``. I think a problem both of you are having is that when speaking of Islam, it is never particular to you - Islam is a hazy, like any other religion - yes, it is and no it is not, to it`s adherents.

``I have to wonder as to the value of the central text when we apply such elaborate knowledge and understanding in an effort to eke out meaning suitable to a given time and place.``
Do not fear ``elaborate`` knowledge - once you are familiar with it, it is not ``elaborate`` - fear ignorance - If one is truly conscious that once is being called to God, to live in Guidance, must we also complain that the rules are hard? Fast and easy food I know, the same applies for the understanding some, especially obscuritanists, seek to engender in society.

BUT I have serious misgivings about approaching ANY book in any exclusively eternal sense,..``
Here I will assume responsibility for the not expressing myself clearly. When I spoke of the ``Eternal`` character of the Qur`an, what I was referring was the fact that as the evolution of knowledge is eternal (to the degree that someone will always be seeking meaning and developing tools to arrive at an understanding of it) - so this evolving knowledge allows for the refreshment of the understanding of Qur`an. I did not mean to suggest that a particular understanding of Qur`an is eternal.

``I contend that there are directives -- not values -- in the Qur`an that ARE easily used as historical forces of oppression. And this has NOTHING to do with a subjective understanding. Perhaps you have some means by which to understand the half-value of a minority`s testament, or of a woman`s right of possession-- all clearly stipulated in the Qur`an.``
I would be the last person to deny that the Qur`an has directives and that they can be misused and have been misused. But the contention that there are no values in Qur`an is an intellectual insult upon you and I encourage a more careful read. Can you please do me a favor - Can you please list the specific verses with regard to women and minorities, please do also provide the context of these verses (to the degree you can) - So, am I correct in understanding that you do reject in total Dr. Berlas and Dr. Panizzi`s papers?

``And I ask again, how does a reading of the Qur`an `as a whole` prevent an understanding of the above, or do away with the call for death for apostasy.``

PM, you are a great friend to the obscuritanists - for it is convenient to you to see Qur`an through their eyes - but it is a great mistake. Please highlight specific verses and their context in this regard - but once you do and I present verses that provide guidelines as to how we may approach this issue - I have an expectation that from you, I will see and hear, acknowledgment that the obscuritanists interpretation is not the only one valid to Muslims -

``Hobbes, i sense the central problem with your position. You stated in an earlier post that Islam is not about political dispensation. For you, and Dr. Berlas, Islam is the open system into which one may find personal meaning and direction -- and from which readers may draw different meanings depending on what they bring to the table. Please correct me if I am wrong. But that is not the reality at all. The reality is that -- beyond there truism that the personal is the political -- any injunction calling for punitive or legal action, (not in a merely suggestive manner either) IS political. Having half the rights of testimony IS political. Being jailed or executed for expressing a matter of conscience IS, again political.``

Please do reconsider if it is proper to define for me, my reality - Do reconsider why it is so much easier for you to equate Qur`an and the present day laws of Pakistan - Before the particular laws came into effect, did you equate Islam and the laws of present day Pakistan? You may not be aware but recently there was a case where a woman who became Muslim in South Dakota had her child taken away by court order because the judge agreed that she had begun be behave strangely and had become a a Muslim, is it correct to ascribe this behavior by the judge to Christianity? or to ignorance?

I fail to understand how the detailed prescriptions in God`s Own word can be anything but the framework of a legalistic/political superstructure. I also fail to understand how any of the prescription mentioned above are amenable to change through new knowledge and/or new method, at least as long as the concept of half, one/fourth, apostasy and death are kept fixed.``

They are only kept fixed by the consistent refusal to acknowledge that new knowledge and method, offer a different vision. They are kept fixed because the power they yield is a strong deterrent to social transformation.

`` Perhaps you will provide some of these important answers, which you in fact failed to do on Urstruly`s Blasphemy board. ``
Mere Saahab, Khuda bhi Rahman hai, kia app uus ke baande ko naihi bashk kar saktey? Yeh kai se mahsooliat? Be patient with you and me - we`ll get there.

``I fear the rush towards homogeneity that so many seem to want to herd us into. Doesn`t Qur`an say ``best meaning`` - does that mean that both best and meaning will change?``

``no one begrudges believers their variations in understanding and experience except -- EXCEPT -- when certain understandings impinge on the rights of others to live their lives according to their consciences-- or threaten their very lives. I don`t know about you, Mr. Hobbes, but I am not in favor of granting the obscurant the `right` or privilege to live out his understanding of the Qur`an if it allows him to kill me (even through the due process of Shariah Law) for my sin of apostasy. I might also not be too amenable to the idea that my word be worth half of his in a court of law.``

If this is the case, what is your beef with what I am saying - in your critique, you choose to look at Islam only through the eyes of the obscuritanists - you reject the method I propose, the counsel and method Dr. Berlas outlines and the findings of Dr. Panizzi and the conclusion of Dr. Fukuyama - you do so because you do not understand the method and find the knowledge `elaborate`` - but, you yourself have a training that you bring to this exploration, is this not so?

`` Will you now stop suggesting that any one of us is playing thought police? Of course, I may criticize the content of your conscience if I think it is the cause of more harm than good, but that is what holding a value judgment is all about, is it not? Or must you have it both ways?? ``
So we both think the other is playing thought police?
In our case, between the three of us - we have a fundamental divergence when it comes to method. I maintain, as does Dr. Berlas, as does scholarship in the Church and Islamia and Judaism, that revealed texts are best approached with the consciousness that any approach colors the text, based on the training an examiner brings to the texts.``

Yes, but ONLY TO AN EXTENT-- which is limited by the nature of the text, by the specificality and direction of prescription. Neither the New Testament nor the Torah make claims to Divine authorship, so you already have one SIGNIFICANT difference in both the choice of method as well as in the understandind that will necessarily result.
Rubbish, I`m floored that you thought I would let you get away with that bit of obfuscation - Ten commandement are the word of God, as are the lives of the prohetic tradition and no faithful denies ``Divine`` inspiration. Are the texts differnt, indeed they are , are you conscious that you are making Dr. Panizzi`s point? That the role of ignorance is underrated in our confusion between culture and religion?
`` The Qur`an cannot but lend itself to political/legal consideration, beyond appealing to personal conscience. The Bible (at least the new testament) is quite the opposite in this sense. Again, this has little to do with the training or knowledge of the reader.
What planet is this? And what was the history of the vatican or the holy Roman empires, or Torquemada about? And why is there the Church of England, the Church of England and not just the Church?
``So, in sense, talking about apply the same method of hermeneutical appraoch to the three books may in fact be quite inapropriate.``
Perhaps the same hermenutical method may not be appropriate, however the fact is that there is a great deal of disagreement with your contention. It is not for no reason that Hans Jorg Gartamer and Peter Berger or Robert Bellah are most respected figures among Muslim scholars or that the very same scholarship that illuminated 10-13 century Islamia, also animated the rennaisance?
``Not really Hobbes. I understood what (Dr. Berlas) it said, and in that regard, posed the question of how a reading of it as a UNIT would change all the understanding of it.
It would give you context and allow you to discover it`s coherence - it`s coiherence and yours are two seperate things.
`` In oother words, you choose simply to deny that Quran does, should, have a say in how it is to be approached - seems to me that you confirm by this approach the proposition that the reader color or views the texts with the lens of his or her training? wouldn`t you agree?``
`` What I have been stressing for some time now is that NOT ALL understanding is colored by the lens of the reader. Kill apostates means kill apostates through any lens, and one Muslim male means one two Non-Muslim males, in any language.``
Easy swifty, Not so fast - Not without context, not without examining whether it is a particular or general verse - have you done that ? or again, is it convenient ot jump on the bad wagon of belligenerence?
Secular Humanism - ``is in fact, not mutually exclusive in relation to many understanding s of religion.``
It is to mine.
``Yes, I agree. But it DOES NOT follow that those languishing in jails in Pakistan on account of blasphemy or apostasy charge are NOT victims of variety of interpretation.``
But it does not follow that they are - what kind of argument is arguing the negative?
`` Brute power can only go so far on its own. It is aided very much with the fiat of divine injunction. Would you not agree? ``
I would and do.
``There is vocal and now leagal challenges to the unconstitutional holding of Muslims in America post-Sept 11 (not that I am equating their discomfort with that of the those blasphemeres in death row in Pakistan)-- thanks to the ACLU, amongst others. Where do you see such oppostion arising on the streets of Pakistan? Wither the moral grounds for such opposition? Dr. Barlas? You? What about Asif? ``
And who is funding this legal action - Muslims are! not the state! My neighbors are not funding these constittutional challenges - Muslims are. Is there an injuction in Pakistan for minorities to fund legal challeneges? or publicise their case? Are not Pakistan newspapers constantly criticising these laws and their basis? -
``I very sincerely hope you can reach some of your goals here. However, you will forgive me if I have serious doubts about the likelihood of success, given it`s failure even among the already educated oppostion on this site.``
Please - lets fight the good fight - as for Chowk being representative of the ``educated`` - give me a break - most persons on Chowk are educated in a ``particular`` ideology - on ethat is not just hostile to Islam but to the very notion of any religion other than secular humanism - and most don`t even know what that is - don`t you recall, when Hoodby came up with his araticle in ``DAWN`` - these clowns were looking a dictionary definition of it, no history, no context, no knowledge of the ideas involved, the personalities and thie work. - It doesn`t matter who knows what or how they know it, all we can do is to put it out there - at least as far as Chowk is concerned - in other places, PM, you will not believe the success - especially among non-Muslims - Those Muslims who have the heart to study the scholars, need not change their point of view - victory is to just get them to think about it - You know that many Muslims are scared of what we talk about, they thuink it will shatter the walls of tradition - and they are right, but we will save the foundation, that the traditionalist risk - as you know most Muslims are stuck in a religiosity of emulation - that is they do not wish to think or study about this most important issue - they fear ``doubt``, we welcome ``doubt`` - most think ``certitude`` is the path to follow, we say, ``faith`` is the path to follow.
As a Christian Pakistani, this may seem even comic to you, and God know those of us to whom the oppressive laws do not apply, we cannot begin to fathom the hurt - but the stuggle is not between Islam and some other - the stuggle is for Islam itself, it is internal, Dr. Berlas is not writing for Christian pakistanis or Hindu Indians, She is writing primarily for Muslims. Shall we succeed? Of course, we will. The Obscuritanist are hollow shells. In our challenege to the obscuritanists, we remian conscious that they are not the only one who wish us to fail.
``Am not giving up on Islam, much less Muslims. Am only suggesting that looking for all answers in the book, no matter what your tools of interpretation, is going to take you down a torturous road to reach a destination you could get too with much less pain employing other approaches -- less pain for all! ``
It would be a gross error to think that I am proposing that all answers in the book - I am doing nothing of the sort - Islam play so central a role in the lives of Muslims, and their institutions, that it is very imprtant to examine the content of the understanding of islam, an understanding that informs these institutions, builds the world view, sense of self, relations with others.
Look carefully at my post to Prem about what the processes of social change may be - that will be a clue as to the kind of understanding it is vital to create of Islam. Consider some of the paradigms - Transition from a tradditional to a post traditional society - What is modernity? What are the intellectual and moral foundations of democracy? Obligations and Duties vs Rights Carrier , What is the engine of social transformation? What is Secularism and how might we approach its understanding? In a world in which traditional religions are in retreat, what is the proper role of Islam in society? What is religiosity and are there types of religiosity? Ought a Muslim be educated with the newest knowledge or ought he/she remain ignorant?
See, PM, once you begin discussing these in the context of Islam - A quick realization is arrived at: We need method - a basic understanding that in turn allows us to examine larger propositions. With method more than half the battle is won - because we wish to discuss these in view of Islam, we in effect examine these not only by the values in herent inthem and in the cultures where they grew, we use that ``training`` to then posit meaning and support from within Quran - We create an intellectual foundation, on which to build - a foundation that is solid where ever there are Muslims .

re: Hobbes # 367

I surely will, but first, please let`s get out of this absurd ``history mode.``

You told me that you don`t subscribe to that ``look-we-screwed-you`` cr*p, and I believe you completely. Now, please don`t keep repeating ``YOUR-ideas-of-the-Muslim-done-us-wrong`` mantra to me. That is patently false, and unbecoming of you. You don`t need such impotent rhetorical crutches to strengthen your arguments.

Evaluate ideas for what they are. Look at some very basic and simple propositions, and decide for yourself if those make sense or not. Forget this paradigm or that paradigm for a moment. Try to break out of any paradigm that holds you back, that keeps you running around in circles. Do Kuhn proud. Just use the greatest instrument on earth that Allah Mian has given to you and me - our brains, and trust that instrument.

There is such a thing as paradigm shift. It is occurring as we speak. This knowledge is not arrogance. It`s common sense.

I will write about some of these things. Give me some time, please. I will be travelling from tomorrow and shall return home very late Monday night. Tuesday night, or Wednesday afternoon, I will share a couple of my thoughts on processes of change as I see them.

Meanwhile please do give some thought to an issue that PM has so eloquently raised: HOW do you convince Asif Naqsbandi that the gentleman talks through his hat when it comes to basic issues of justice? What logic or methodology will work with the likes of him? I hope you won`t tell us that you agree with him, or that he has a right to his beliefs, howsoever barabaric they may be. Because if ijtehad is to work, you can not sit back and let people hold such un-Islamic views.

Cheers.

Prem

I remian interested in the social process of change you had talked about, I will repeat my questions and hope you will provide some answer: ``Prem, So social process of change is a religiosity, an awareness of the need to create a faithful relationship? Did I understand you correctly? And that the religiosity in question is also related to a civic responsibility, a civic religion? WHY, is this social process being effected? What values are involved? Is it supporting paradigms or creating them or both ? and what are these paradigms?

If you are genuinely interested in making your pointof view understood, I strongly encourage you to explore the answers to my questions.

re. ``the Quran is about social justice``
No one is arguing with that. However, so is the Little Red Book and Das Kapital-- especialy if you allow it`s advocates the kind of latitude in interpretability that you seem so generous with with respect to tradional religions.

``You have told everyone on Chowk a couple of times now about the ``thousand years`` during which Muslims kicked Hindu`s ``rear ends.`` Why does this ``fact`` (I am not even sure if that was the fact) weigh so heavily on your mind? Since it does, you open yourself to being asked whether you believe that success for a Muslim lies only in being able to ``kick others` rear ends? ``

Prem - this is not what I say, this what the Hindutva squad says - This is exactly the kid of mentality that Pankaj Mishra questions in his piece ``How the British created Hinduism`` - You obfiscate and evade that my response focused on Imam Ghazalli`s role - something that will not fit into your ideas of the Muslim done us wrong - and it need not. I`m willing to discuss these issues but I do not take the effort to evade as a serious effort.

``Why do you, Hobbyty, take it as an affront when I raise my voice, as I will continue to do, against religious bigotry no matter where we find it?``
Why do you, Prem, find that yoiu acn only forward your position by mispresenting the positio of others? Is your position so weak that the only way it can withstand critical inquiry is to mispresent the position of those who would examine critically?

``But no book itself can be completely absolved of what millions read in it.``
Absolution by men? Premmi - you are so off the mark, it astonishes me - who died and allowed you to think that men ought to begin evaluating the word of God, to decide if they can absolve His word? Premmi, it is time you acknowledge that you harbour a hostility that is blinding you:
In the previous posts and in this, you claim that you agree that the training of the reader colors the reading and in the same breath, you argue against this idea . ``Doesn`t the mere fact that I give readers SO MUCH power to shape the meaning of any book tell you that I very well know the role played by the readers?`` - Prem you have no power to give any reader - the power in inherent in the reader, not you - ``all the meaning is put into it by its readers. It has no message of its own. No book, religious or otherwise, is ever like that.`` - More misrepresentation, Who has ever put forward that ``ALL`` them meaning is put into it by the reader??????? Have I? Has Dr. Berlas, Has Quran itself???

I want you to reevaluate the self assurance, the arrogance you display with regard to this issue - I understand and I do not deny that it must be open to critical inquiry - however; your inquiry is neither open, nor informed, it is not even critical - it`s simply denial. Inform yourself of the works by the cholars I mentioned, understand the method - and then if you can justify and find fault with their method, by all means employ the criticism - I will join yu if I shall become convinced of the fact that you understand the works and ideas and that therefore the intellectual foundation of the criticism you hope to offer, is reflected in the mastery of the subject - in the meantime, is it unfair, is it unfriendly, to point out the lunacy of so emphatic a position, as you claim?
I must tell you that your writing has created a strong impression on me that, your understanding of God and His religions are one, that I cannot, in conscience, accept as anything other than base. The rhetoric of of the religions of God, I grant, hide ideologies that are the very antithesis of His message to mankind. I find it curious that while you call for the rejection of religious bigotry, you refuse to include among the content of religious bigotry the ideology of secular humanism. I think you and others, genuinely seek a overarching position, a overacrhing religion which may include all - you find this all inclusive religio to be secular hiumanism - I do not deny that secular humanism doesnot include all, with the exception of those who continue to in the revealed religions. Your call for the rejection of religious bigotry is not rejected by anyone, and any suspicion that in calling for the rejection of bigotry, you hope paint the revealed religions as the content of that bigotry, is a responsibility you shoulder.

brgds