Opinion
and Truth
Critic:-
I am not sure what purpose some of your
articles serve. Are you trying to create a Quran-only Islam? You are just
giving your opinion.
Comment:-
If you read my articles you will note that I
am by no means a Quran-only person. But I understand the Hadith as secondary,
as supporting and explaining the Quran and not as contradicting it. Therefore,
the Quran, being the primary authority, that is what I quote.
The purpose of the article to let readers,
Muslim and non-Muslim know what the gist of the Quranic instructions are.
Muslims can assess themselves and others by these, and non-Muslims can
hopefully stop mounting their naive, trivial and superficial attacks on Islam.
Even if it does not shame the attackers, the contrast between these teachings
and the points of attack should be glaringly obvious enough.
Critic:-
And then there is the question of abrogation.
If one simply collects proof texts at random from the Quran one might well get
the texts in the wrong order. Of course, one might simply deny that any part of
the Quran abrogates any other part. Do you?
Comment:-
None of the verses I quoted are abrogated.
Abrogation does not refer to the Quran but to what has been forgotten or
changed from past scriptures (2:106). They are replaced with the same or
something better, which, therefore, includes and enhances the former. There are
verses in the Quran that supersede others - e.g. instructions about drinking
intoxicants, but the original verse still exists in the Quran because it also
has other meanings and indicates how things can be introduced gradually.
I have not chosen anything at random and I
have pointed out several times that the whole of the Quran should be studied.
But I cannot quote the whole in a short article. What would be the point when
the Quran already exists as a whole.
Critic:-
As you are doubtless well aware, it is often
not so easy to decide when the Quran is addressing doctrine, theory, philosophy
or ritual and when it is addressing "practical" matters. In fact, one
might question whether this distinction is even applicable to the Quran.
Comment:-
I am not aware of any such limitation. I know
that the Quran is multi-dimensional, having several levels of meaning. It is
meant to affect perception, motive as well as action. The separation and
contradictions or conflict between these aspects of man is only a recent
development.
Nor does the Quran have a strict temporal or
other sequence of ideas. It is a whole and should be understood as whole such
that the parts are connected to each other in multiple ways. It is perfectly
possible to take one part and find it connected with numerous other parts.
When I say "Practical Islam", I
mean taking the verses as instructions for practices, rather than as doctrines.
This could apply to physical action, to motives or to ways of thinking. I do
not mean ritual in the sense of "ritualism" (mindless behaviour), nor
"dogmatism" (habits of thought). The ritual in Islam are not meant to
be merely external actions, but are connected with inner states of awareness,
of thought and desire.
Apart from being sources of instruction,
doctrines, values and motives the Quran is prayer, meditation and technique for
expansion of consciousness, conscience and will.
I am surprised that people who appear to have
studied the Quran still have so many misconceptions about it.
Critic:-
When we approach the Quran (or the Bible) we
should want to do "exogenesis". We should want to read out of the
Quran what the Quran says, not what we want the Quran to say.
I believe that the Quran means Christian by
terms such as Kafir. If my reading is correct the Quran allows marriage to
those unbelieving women who are not Christians. That would imply Jews, Sabians,
Magians, Hindus, Buddhists, Scientologists and even Atheists. If you listen to
certain Christian evangelists it implies Catholics, Orthodox and Masons. Note
that I have concluded that the Quran makes a sharp distinction between Jews and
Christians and that "People of the Book" means only Jews.
Comment:-
You are telling us what you believe, not what
the Quran says.
The People of the Book are those who have the
Taurat, Zaboor and Injeel. God sent other Messengers besides Moses and Jesus
with His word. By analogical extension, it could mean the followers of other
genuine Prophets sent by God, the teachings through whom are also the Word of
God. Read Quran 2:62, 22:76, 78, 16:36
Do you think it is up to a non-Muslim to
decide what is or is not true or allowable in Islam?
Critic:-
You are Right. I am telling you what I
believe the Quran says. My opinion is exactly as valid as yours. No more and no
less.
The Quran, literally, says nothing. It is,
nowadays, a book and not a speaker. The closest literal saying would be its Arabic
text and even here we would have to decide whether or not to include the vowels
and other such marks including those that differentiate consonants. And we
would have to decide how to understand the Arabic of the Quran, which is has
not been anybody's native language, if ever, for well over a millennium. How
one actually reads the Qur'an is exegesis. To be blunt about it, standard Islam
puts both Jesus and Mary on a much higher pedestal than do a large number of
Christians. Such Christians believe that both the Catholic Church and Islam
have gotten carried away into fantasy about these matters which are of no
significance compared with urgent social and mystical problems. And, of course,
we feel the Qur'an is no more infallible than the Bible.
Islamic literature is filled with warnings
about the dangers of using analogy. In any case such extensions are theology
and not exegesis.
Comment:-
I do not agree with you.
The understanding that people had of the
Quran in the past has certainly been passed down through oral and written
channels.
The Quran is about Truth, and the experience
of truth, not about opinion. Opinions have value only in proportion to their
closeness to truth. I reject the idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid.
It is obvious to anyone that the opinion of someone who has greater knowledge
has greater validity. The Quran requires us to study, observe and not to go by
speculation, guesswork, prejudice and fantasy but to seek knowledge.
The trouble is that confusion is caused by
persons who do not have an Islamic
attitude to the Quran - i.e. they do not
think it contains the word of God, but is an ordinary book that is fallible and
contains contradictions, and they mix it up with other writings or comments.
They do not read the Quran according to the instructions in it, as it was
written and meant to be read.
You have demonstrated that you do not know
enough about the Quran. Even if my knowledge is not as great as that of some
others it is greater than that of many others.
Critic:-
I am aware that in the earliest days of Islam
there was a strain of thought that the Quran was a secret book which should be
kept away from all but professed Muslims. I believe that strain was not
accepted by Islamic tradition as a whole.
Comment:-
Correct. That is because the Quran speaks at
several levels from that which can be understood by the simplest person to that
which can be understood by the most sophisticated. There are literal verses
giving instructions and allegorical ones. And there are many similitudes and
examples.
The Quran has to be studied, meditated upon
and applied. Its purpose is spiritual development, to expand awareness and
knowledge, conscience, motives and will. To deny access to it is clearly a
contradiction of its purpose.
As it says, the Quran is a revelation in the
hearts of believers. It is not understood by those who have a negative
attitude.
Another Critic:-
In your article about Religion, Philosophy
and Science, an important question is missing:- What is "theology" if
not the sacred science of religion? Why is "theology" omitted? Isn't
there also an Islamic "theology", as well as Islamic
"science" and "philosophy"?
Comment:-
Read your own contradiction above! You say
Theology is a science and I have mentioned science. I did not mention any
particular science including Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Psychology
either.
Theology is included in science and/or
philosophy. It is also an aspect of religion. It depends on how it is treated,
just as physics can be a Science or Natural philosophy, and Ethics can be a
subject in Philosophy or an aspect of Religion. It can also be studied as
science.
Critic:-
As I have repeated many times before
"science" is the ability to produce solutions in some problem domain.
Visit the Internet sites about Science. One explains the difference that you
apparently do not understand between the 'ancient' or 'classical' use of the
term 'science' and its relatively modern equivalent, that is 'empirical' or
experimental "Science". I quote:-
"Science as it is known today is of
relatively modern origin, but the traditions out of which it has emerged reach
back beyond recorded history. The roots of science lie in the technology of
early tool-making and other crafts, while scientific theory was once a part of
philosophy and religion."
Comment:-
I do not disagree. Science consists of both
these factors.
But I have given a description of
"science" in my article from the point of view of the continuation
and differentiation of systems of life. And you have given a different
definition. "Science" keeps changing in its attitude, methods,
concepts and findings not only over the years but also from subject to subject,
but it still remains science. I use the general sense of the word, not the
particular, as you wish to do. You have to understand the article from that
point of view.
Critic:-
Muslim theology is the theology that derived
from the Qur'an and the Prophetic traditions. The contents of Muslim theology
can be divided into theology proper, theodicy, eschatology, anthropology,
apophatic theology, and comparative religion. These branches or divisions can
be found in the Qur'an and the Prophetic traditions.
Comment:-
I have not denied this anywhere, but I am
speaking of a different aspect. You appear to be arguing about the word
"Theology". I do not really care about the name, but the subject.
Critic:-
No Islamic "theology" is a branch
of Muslim knowledge that allows us to produce solutions in some problem domain.
Comment:-
I disagree entirely. My idea of Theology is
not the same as yours. As I wrote, It depends on how it is treated, just as
physics can be a Science or Natural philosophy, and Ethics can be a subject in
Philosophy or an aspect of Religion. It can also be studied as science.
I said that here I am interested only in the
Muslim ideas and ideas compatible with Islam, NOT in Western Philosophy, which
you keep pushing. Ideas based on that can be irrelevant to Islam or contradict
it. If they are compatible with Islam then I will consider them. If I want to
discuss Western Philosophy or Theology I will go to a website where they do
this. I suggest that you do the same.
You have to know the context. If you keep
mixing up systems of thought owing to narrow habits of thought, instead of
attempting to understand, then you will fail to comprehend and remains
confused.
If you read the Quran you will come across
the following verses:-
"And follow (or pursue) not that of
which you have no knowledge; verily, the hearing, the sight, and the heart, of
all of these it shall be asked (to give an account)." 17:36
"But most of them follow naught but
conjecture (suspicion, fancy, guesswork, speculation); verily, conjecture can
by no means take the place of (or avail against) truth. Verily, Allah is Aware
of what they do." 10:37
This means that research has to be done. That
is what is compatible with Islam.
People can understand things best when they
verify things in their own experiences and experiments, as distinct from mere
dogmatism or systematisation of ideas. Those who have done so can also guide
others best.
Critic:-
Did you not state earlier that Muslim
"theology" did not contain the divisions of philosophy (i.e.
interpretations of Islamic doctrine and the defence of these interpretations),
dogma or articles of the faith (i.e. Islamic doctrine that is proclaimed as
true without proof), apologetics and comparative religion (i.e. discursive
reasoning) and, that these ideas and concepts were purely, as you said:
"... a Western view of Theology, and there are also other views of it in
the West."? Now, you are artfully saying they are?
Comment:-
No I said no such thing. You appear to be
mixing up contexts. Is this simple misunderstanding or are you doing it
deliberately? I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
(1) I said the Quran is not Dogma, but Truth.
(2) I said: People can treat Theology as an
aspect of religion when they base their life on it, or as a Philosophy when
they discuss its ideas, or as a science when they investigate it to increase
knowledge.
(3) I said: here on this web-site I was not
interested in Western Philosophy but in what is compatible with Islam.
(4) I said: What is compatible with Islam
follows the following principle:-
"And follow (or pursue) not that of
which you have no knowledge; verily, the hearing, the sight, and the heart, of
all of these it shall be asked (to give an account)." 17:36
(5) I said: Muslims are required to judge by
what Allah has given and not by extraneous standards.
In so far as the Western idea of Theology is
as stated by "MA", I reject it. He said:-
"In the domain of theology, there are
only three alternative categories of work: philosophical theology, dogmatic
theology, and Christian or Jewish or Muslim apologetics."
I reject that definition or description of
Theology. The view of Theology I have described is wider than that. You can see
that by comparing this with what I have said above.
I do not deny that Theology includes Philosophical
Theology, called Ilm. That, however, is only one of the three sources of
knowledge:- Ilm-ul-Yaqin, Ayn-ul-Yaqin and Haq-ul-Yaqin.
Note:- I do not reject Western or non-Islamic
ideas just because they are non-Islamic, but they do arise from assumptions or
foundations that are not Islamic and are likely to be incompatible with Islam.
They can certainly contain truth, goodness or be useful. In that case we must
accept them, because they are true, good or useful, not because they are
Western. Some Western ideas may well be compatible with Islam. If they are,
then we can also consider them, apply or adapt them. It is also necessary to
explain Islam in contemporary terms.
What I do object to is:- people pushing
Western or any other extraneous ideas in order to judge Islam. This is
distortion. Those who are conditioned by Western ideas or "worship"
or "idolise" them as you seem to do become incapable of understanding
Islam except in a superficial manner. When studying Islam or what is compatible
with Islam these extraneous judgements are irrelevant.
Is this difference too difficult to
understand?
----------<O>----------
Contents