To Mo on logic and reason in Islam

Submitted by Plato (United Arab Emirates), Jan 26, 2007 at 04:23

"...The Part about purity; pure Islam is that from the Quran and Sunnah, now we can derive four main schools of thought..."

There you have it. In your own estimation there are four ways of interpreting the Koran and Sunnah. And what you seem to be saying is the four schools emerged because in those days communication and access to various geographical regions was difficult and these four schools were accepted in the Islamic world.

The question that I am asking you is, since the Koran itself says it is a "clear book easy to understand (54:17,22,32,40) why does it need interpretation. Once you say it needs interpretation it means its message is not very clear and you have to wrack your brains to figure out what is being said. People being unable to communicate easily does not solve this problem. It would also amount to saying that either all are wrong or only one is correct. You therefore have at least three if not all four corrupted versions of the message of Allah. You cannot possibly have or have had four pure versions.

"... Scholars, at least the majority of scholars now derive their understanding from direct sources...all aim to highlight Islam to the masses for their understanding."

The burden of your second para seems to be that scholars have worked hard to interpret the Koran for the masses. The hadiths came about two and half centuries after the prophet. So critics of Islam ask if Koran can be understood only with the help of scholarly study, which started late, what kind of Islam did the masses follow during the two and half centuries. This need to have scholars to reveal the secrets of the Koran and Sunnah again goes against the Koranic claim of being a clear book easy to understand. Or is there a context here or an abrogating verse.

"...The pure Islam, or should I say, a more acceptable Islam should be that which is within the framework of Islam, the schools of thoughts and scholarly opinions that has a consensus amongst the ulemas. My reference to Islam here is in relation to jurisprudence, the laws and regulations set out."

Now Mo, when you say the more acceptable Islam it raises the question by whom is it acceptable or who decides what is acceptable. You answer by saying consensus among ulemas. During these 1500 years there has been no consensus.The proof is in the various sects of Islam, including the Shias, Ahmedias. And the simple reason is that the Koran is a jumble of verses many of them jumping from topic to topic without any linkage. You know Meccan and Medinan verses have been mixed up. Can you claim this was Allah's design. Why would he want to confuse his readers.Sometimes a whole chapter like 111 makes no sense at all unless the context is known and even then you are left wondering what it is doing in the timeless Koran.

And most importantly context. This is a favourite device of Koran apologists. They forget that when you plead context you are saying that the verse is now irrelevant. It applies only to that time or event. For instance in:

009:005: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

009.013 : Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!

009.023 : O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong.

8:67 It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

9:30 The Jews call 'Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
003.085 : And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.

If you cannot plead context you will find that almost the whole of Surah 9 is about Allah asking Muslims to break their covenants (9:3), asking them to fight and kill, Jews being abused (9:30), unbelievers being called unclean (9:28). The whole chapter inspires terror in non-Muslims and plainly, it was meant to. Your only escape is to plead context. In which case you may as well delete most of the verses.

For 8:67 you will have to point out that it is meant only for Mohammed, ie the prophet is being told not to take POWs but to slaughter plenty before he takes captives. Again context. Otherwise it may be mistaken as a command to slaughter prisoners, since a good muslim is expected to follow in the Prophet's footsteps.

002.241 : For divorced women Maintenance (should be provided) on a reasonable (scale). This is a duty on the righteous.

Verses like 2:241 clearly (hopefully) has no context.

"...That is why we (the majority of Muslims) follow the mainstream, Ahl sunnah wal Jamma', or more literally "the people who follow the way of the Prophet" ..."

I will give one example of the way of the prophet: Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 234:

Narrated Abu Qilaba:

Anas said, "Some people of 'Ukl or 'Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. So the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they went as directed and after they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached the Prophet early in the morning and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they were captured and brought at noon. He then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, They were put in 'Al-Harra' and when they asked for water, no water was given to them." Abu Qilaba said, "Those people committed theft and murder, became infidels after embracing Islam and fought against Allah and His Apostle ."

Go to http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html .Using search words ' uraina and medina' will give about four hadiths on this incident.

Mo, would you recommend this kind of punishment?

"...There may be a certain action we Muslims do that for the average non-Muslim there may be no logical basic, but we do it because we as Muslims accept it due to faith, and we go further and say that if it enhances our belief through these actions it is reason enough and logical in that sense."

Mo, that is the worrying part about Muslims which scares the pants off people like Noah, Dhimmi No More and me. That is the window of opportunity used by Islamic terrorists. Slamming planes into buildings is an act of faith for those who did it. Suicide bombing of Israeli school buses is an act of faith for the Muslim who did it. Faith by definition has no reason and if you limit it to your belief, taboos or actions which do not affect non-believers, it is fine. But the moment you bring unreason into activities that affect others and anchor it in your faith, it has us unbelievers reach for our guns or nukes as Noah or Susan would.

You know Mo, the hogwash about context does not wash with many believers. For them Surah 9 is a license from Allah to curse, kill and maim unbelievers. I do not know Arabic but you could enlighten me, what verses from the Koran do the Bin Laden groupies chant when they saw off the heads of unbelievers. The problem with the Koran is that it can be interpreted to suit any taste, from justifying the actions of a mass murderer to that of a Sufi saint.

"....But we reason from a religious angel also, and that says that Muslims must transform lands that are not under shariah."

When I read that statement of yours I also wanted to bring out my nukes. Why are you again being coy about the fact Islam recommends, as a matter of faith, conquest of other people's lands for the crime of being unbelievers. Once before you said "changing the political dynamics of the lands". This is like saying I will rearrange your face instead of saying I will disfigure it. It fools no one. We saw what happened when Afghanistan was transformed under sharia. I may be wrong but you also seem to have connected the Islamic act of prayer and ablutions to conquest. I hope I am wrong.

I will await your reply on war booty. I will point you in the right direction. In the web page( http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html ) just type in 'booty' for 116 hadiths and similarly in (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchquran.html ) for references in the Koran. Happy reading.

About the taunting, here are the hadiths. It is given in much more detail in Ibn Ishaaq's Sira. I will give you the page numbers later as the book is not with me now. I suggest you purchase it from Amazon and go over it a few times for some eye-popping incidents in the prophet's life.

Volume 2, Book 23, Number 452: &453

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

The Prophet looked at the people of the well (the well in which the bodies of the pagans killed in the Battle of Badr were thrown) and said, "Have you found true what your Lord promised you?" Somebody said to him, "You are addressing dead people." He replied, "You do not hear better than they but they cannot reply."

Narrated 'Aisha:

The Prophet said, "They now realize that what I used to tell them was the truth. "And Allah said, 'Verily! You cannot make the dead to hear (i.e. benefit them, and similarly the disbelievers) nor can you make the deaf hear. (27.80).

With good wishes for your Arabic studies.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".