Peace and common ground between Muslims and non-Muslims alike

[kamals]

Mustardseed, you asked a number of questions, scattered through a few different threads, some in reply to replies to previous questions of his.

My replies are simply my best efforts to the extent of my capacity; spiritual and intellectual; to the extent of my limited knowledge and understanding.  To better deal with this mass of interlocking questions, I will confine myself to dealing with one question at a time, and its implications.

These are matters far greater men than I spent years exploring, in some cases lifetimes. None are simple topics, to adequately explain Islam’s stance on a certain question it is necessary to put it in a wider context. Moreover since your explicit aim seems polemical; your questions of Islam are to buttress your views, rooted in your understanding of Christianity, it is necessary for me to reference Christianity in my answers. In many cases a normative Christianity (or at least historically predominate expression of the faith) really doesn’t differ from Islam greatly in some of these matters.

What unites essentially may be greater than what divides, and what some think divides us may simply be a matter of a limited perspective.

I have to admit; I agreed to answer with certain unspoken reservations and suspicions lacking overt proof. I suspect no matter what answer I give, fault will be found with them. Indeed you expressed frustration that none of your questions were answered – but it should be noted that in actuality your questions were answered, copiously, by others – simply none were answered to *your* satisfaction, or perhaps in accordance with what you expected, or desired, the answer to be. When I look back through these threads plenty of questions have been answered and replied to.

So I ask of you three things; one comprehension, that you encounter my words, read them thoroughly, and comprehend them to the degree of your capacity, before you reply; two honesty, that you examine your assumptions to the same degree that you examine ours; and three, etiquite, no insults, no barbed statements, I expect you to engage my words with rigor – it is obvious that you find Islam to be highly distasteful and that you believe it to be a false religion.  You need not hold your pen or tongue here, but I do expect maturity and that such is expressed in a rigorous and responsible manner. We are meeting on the plane of ideas and when we clash, we should do so in the best of manners, and not the lowest.

I seek not only honest exchange of ideas and knowledge, but honest engagement; not polemics. It is clear by being a Muslim, Christian, or neither, one finds fault with essential points within another’s view.

iT IS MY BELIEF that one should question one’s own assumptions as ruthlessly as one questions the other, that it is possible that while you have issues of grave concern with Islam, a Muslims may you’re your concerns trivial due to his knowledge or belief; and vice versa those issues a Muslim finds enormous with Christianity, a Christian may find trivial based on his knowledge or belief.

Fundamentally we will reach a point where we must agree that we disagree. But it is possible that we may find a greater degree of harmony between our views than before, or perhaps not. It is ok to disagree, conflict is ok.

We should always have humility in the face of seeking knowledge, the probability of one being seriously wrong in one’s worldview is enormous, Muslim, Christian, New Ager, Pagan, Jew; and the reason is that Perception is NOT reality, to disagree with post-modern thought. Perception is the illusion of reality, beneath all perception, beneath all illusion, is a fundamental matrix of Being that alone can be called The Real. All of our attempts to apprehend its being are contingent on the finite natures of our manifest corporeal beings. 

These are answers according to my knowledge; the questioner can not reply that “his questions are not being answered” because frankly they are being answered here; he can only reply that they are not being answered to his satisfaction, or that he suspects the intent of the answerer (Mustardseed’s offensive barb at “taqiya” for instance) -  which is really a function of the questioner’s comprehension. I can’t be responsible for how the questioner takes the answer given, I can only give the answer to the best degree of my capacity.


Question 1 asked by Mustardseed:

- Do you believe that in order to fully understand the content of the Koran and the Hadith one must understand Arabic (CA - Classical Arabic)?


My answer – with NO dissimulation, and a straight face, is that it depends on what you mean by “fully”

It depends on what you mean by “Understand”.

And it depends on what you mean by “content”.

This is not a dissimulation nor an evasion, it’s a statement of reality. Many modern readers approaching these problems have a HIGHLY simplistic understanding of language, religion, and what is at stake with such questions.

There is Essential understanding and ADEQUATE understanding. I argue that a reader, believer or non-believer, can arrive at an adequate understanding of the meaning of a text, say the Quran, if it is translated into another language.

This is a matter of contention amongst Muslim scholars so there is no consensus, regarding adequate ranges of meaning. Almost all scholars of knowledge will agree that full and comprehensive understanding of the meanings of the Quran is impossible without a THROUGH knowledge of Classical Arabic, in its 7 main dialects, its rare dialects (including the Southern ones of Yemen), vocabulary, syntax, and grammar, as well as a good deal of gnosis (‘irfan and ilham) and a pure heart.

Obviously this is a tall order.

I believe, and many Muslims would agree with me, that Allah doesn’t expect this full depth of understanding, we believe that the Quran “gives” to each his or her capacity as long as he or she approaches it with the right attitude.

As for adequate understanding, I say “YES” contingent on the skill of the translator, the skill of the reader (for reading and comprehension are skills), and the degree of adequacy we seek.

A good deal depends on one’s receptivity to the text and openness to what it says, that is an OPENESS TO ENCOUNTER IT ON ITS OWN LEVEL without imposing one’s own agenda and limited understanding.

Frankly this is what should be expected when one approaches ANY text in ANY language.

In every act of translation there will always be depths of meaning lost, however.
Few who possess command over multiple languages, and who have a superior degree of literacy, will disagree with this.

In other words, anyone with any degree of linguistic sophistication.

To “fully” understand the Quran and Hadith, it is necessary to read them in their original language as well as possess some degree of spiritual aptitude.

To “fully” understand the Quran and Hadith is an act of several lifetimes.

JUST AS to fully understand the Baghvad Gita, or the Old Testament, or Shakespeare, it is necessary to be conversant in the original languages of these discourses, in generalities and particulars. Shakespeare is MODERBN English, in fact Shakespeare almost invented modern English since he has the largest set of neologisms of any English writer in history (a more contentious claim is that Chaucer all but established middle English in a similar manner)

By that reasoning any dolt who graduated high school should be conversant with Shakespeare and 4 or 5 generations ago this was the case. It is not the case today.

The bible is far more important than Shakespeare. There are very few I have seen who really understand the King James Bible in spite of its being one of the foundational texts of High Modern English. Some do, which is why lots of little black church ladies in the deep south pepper their speech unconsciously with Tudor English. The secular bulk of modern Anglo-American society, however, is utterly un-conversant with the King James Bible and hence the constant requirement that its language be "dumbed down" into an increasingly vulgar and crude parlance.

Instead of raising people in understanding, what you regard as the word of God is being debased along an increasingly downward trajectory.

I argue that few in the traditional pre-modern world would have seriously disagreed with my claims, prior to the rise of Protestantism. I am open to criticism on this point, but I suspect that few will find any solid grounds to critique this point. I argue that it was taken for granted in most societies, and I am being generous, that to fully understand a religious text it was necessary to read it in its original language… and to understand that language in great depth.

This is why all religions have had liturgical languages as opposed to lay languages. Why do you think Orthodox Churches still preserve Old Slavonic and Greek? Why not just make the liturgical languages Russian or Serbian?

Why is it that until Vatican II (And many Catholics STILL contest this) Latin was the language of liturgy?

Why is it that Parsis and Zoroastrians still preserve one of the oldest Indo-Aryan languages known to man, the language of the Avesta that pre-dates or at least shows more archaic features than even the Oldest forms of ancient Persian? And the Hindus preserved Sanskrit, a dead language based on a re-ordering of the languages of the Vedas (the Vedas were not written in Sanskrit, rather a more ancient Indo-Aryan dialect VERY similar to the language of the Persian Avesta)

Why do the Jews still preserve Biblical Hebrew?

Because in spite of our vast theological gulfs they all agree with the Muslims on one superficial point and that is the utter importance of understanding a text in its original language.

On a secular level; it is impossible to fully understand any poem outside of its language since the very act of translation is a selective filtering process, reliant on human judgment as to what apparent or subtle meanings in a text to render literally, or figuratively.

And most religious texts are, in essence, akin to sacred poetry. If Goethe can not be fully understood in English (and English is a very close language to German) only one who has not considered the question fully, one who is ignorant of the issues, or one who is downright obstinate would insist that what characterizes the  inferior (secular poetry) does not characterize the superior (sacred poetry and scripture).

I contend that there is immense loss of meaning in even a responsible act of translation: that anyone who truly knows Latin or Greek can look at the King James Bible and see leagues of distance in the loss of subtle meaning; subtle allusions, word plays, and the internal non-overt correspondences between words and passages.

The only way out of this bind is to claim that a given translator is acting by divine inspiration or a superior degree of illumination and intuition. This is an act of intellection, par excellence; what Catholic theologians and the philosophers called intellectual intuition. By this one can argue that the ancients translated the Tanakh into perfectly adequate Greek and this translation was by divine inspiration, and the Greek texts of the New Testament (many of whom may possibly have originally been written in Aramaic) were perfectly adequately rendered into Latin.

To argue that an English translation of a Latin Translation of a Greek Translation or an Aramaic or Hebrew original perfectly preserves the fidelity of the original is, frankly, teetering on the edge of the abyss of perfect absurdity.

As for a translator’s illumination in his translation, a non-believer is free to reject such a one’s claims to possessing this degree of intuition and illumination in his or her translations unless evidence or superior authority merits otherwise. A believer will tend to take this on faith, I regard faith ungrounded in knowledge to be inferior.

Since Protestant protests regarding translation of the bible arose 1600 years after Christ - I can safely dispense with its protest that the bible can be translated with full fidelity into any language.

Since the ONLY Christians I’ve met who take Islam to task for the requirements of Arabic are by and large Protestants or Catholics under the influence of the thoroughly modernistic Vatican II conference, and in EVERY case I have encountered anyone with significant knowledge and erudition in these matters do not make such theological broadsides against Islam (they sensibly choose easier stones to throw at us) my first instinct is to simply not take such protests seriously.
 
MOREOVER I doubt that Calvin or Luther would have fully intended that the Bible, or any inspired text, could be COMPLETELY understood in translation – again what we are probably considering is adequate meaning: does God lay burdens upon us greater than we can bear? The Quran says no, so as a Muslim I regard this as an existential fact – since most of the world is not ‘Arab, Allah does not expect us to know Arabic with full fidelity, Allah expects us to follow what we know and have been taught or learned. We are held accountable to the degree of our knowledge, and god knows best.

As for as I know the scholars of Islam do not claim that learning Arabic perfectly is incumbent upon all Muslims, it is not “Fard ‘ayn” it is only incumbent on a collectivity to have some  people able to understand the sacred texts and TEACH their ESSENTIALS and fundamentals to the collectivity, this it is “Fard Kifiyyah” – or obligatory on the collectivity to the degree that if a few possess this degree of knowledge the majority are exempt and excused.

But anyone seeking the heights will seek the heights, and those who are content with the depths fall to the depths, and Allah lays not upon ANY of us more than what we can individually bear.

“Fully understand” is a boundless oceans since traditional Muslims believed (based on the statement of Ali Ibn Abi Talib) that here are 7 meanings to every verse of the Quran, and the Sufis believed that the words of the Quran are a boundless ocean of esoteric and inward meaning. Even the external legalists realize that many of the words in Arabic have multiple harmonizing meanings conveying different shades of meaning.

And why should this be a surprise since even modern English possesses multiple meanings to most words, and middle English possessed a greater degree of complexity and ancient Anglo-Saxon an even greater degree of internal complexity even while possessing a smaller actual vocabulary.

Every truly sacred text is an ocean. I believe that only one who is ignorant can believe that he understands the essence of the Tanakh without knowing ancient Hebrew.
Every learned Jew would laugh at this,

Biblical scriptures’ verses have outward meanings and subtle implications to them and frequently engage in word-play and various rhetorical devises that convey meaning on levels of depth  (Beth on this forum wrote a book on this.)

As to whether I speak “CA” this is a simplistic question, I am LEARNING Quranic Arabic, modern Standard Arabic (the Arabic of newspapers and general business discourse) is based on “CA” entirely though is a bit less complex in its vocabulary and syntax. As for “CA” Classical Arabic is a misnomer, there is the “Fusha” which tends to be the dialect of the tribe of Quraysh. Any serious Islamic scholar will possess facility with multiple dialects of ancient Arabic, the corpus of Pagan Arabic poetry, and the Quran. A non scholar is not expected to possess this but there are still many alive today – in particular in Yemen -  who natively speak an Arabic incredibly close to ancient Arabic, and anyone who is educated and went to college speaks Modern Standard Arabic with perfect fluency and thus can read the Quran with a high degree of comprehension.

Your question on Abrogation is one best suited for a scholar, I am not a scholar, so I will simply repeat the well known (“Jumhur”) views on the issue noting of course that there is NOT total consensus on the range and degree of abrogation. It is an issue that can not be dumbed down for an internet forum given that people spend years researching and studying just this one issue. And that will have to wait for another day

[Mustardseed]

Dear Kamals
Thanks for the reply. I will look at it in depth on monday as I work all weekend, but just wanted to let you know I saw it. I would like to thank you for your attitude, one of respect and sincerity. I shall do my best to reply in the same manner.

My first question and really a important question was answered well, and within what I myself believe. You explain it well. My reason for this question is that I have engaged in several discussions over the years and have found that Muslims who have no answer, or have been cornered in an argument, will often use this argument to leave with their dignity intact. I say cornered, but do not mean this in an aggressive way.

These sweeping type of answers, serve to only further complicate things. My point is, that if we, who do not speak CA, cannot "understand" the Koran, we have no right to ask questions about its content. Another similar sweeping argument is incidentally the one you used about the question of abrogation.

Your question on Abrogation is one best suited for a scholar, I am not a scholar, so I will simply repeat the well known (“Jumhur”) views on the issue noting of course that there is NOT total consensus on the range and degree of abrogation. It is an issue that can not be dumbed down for an internet forum given that people spend years researching and studying just this one issue.

The question of Abrogation is probably the single most important question in this debate, as it holds within itself the direction of Islam, and as you know, the future of the world. If the doctrine of Abrogation is accepted as proper, Sura 9:5 (the verse of the sword), is the chronologically latest sura, and stands as the last command, regarding a Muslims attitude toward the Kaffir, agreed?

If only a scholar can tell, how do we know what is right or not. If scholars disagree and do not believe Abrogation is acceptable, how do we know that they are not applying "Taqiyya", as denying abrogation would be the absolute perfect dissimulation.

I am studying these issues and look forward to your point of view.

Regards Mustardseed

PS for those of you who would like to take a more in depth view of these questions here are a few links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_%28exegesis%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya

[CFTraveler]

I am very happy to see a positive thread on what I consider to be a very important subject and applaud Ambient Sound in starting it.
I do agree with most in it that we at this point in time have been used to see the differences in the way we see things, and all have reacted defensively when aggression has been perceived, something that seems to be 'the way things have been lately' in the world.
I hope this develops into one of those threads that all can come to look at to see how things should be done in matters of religious diversity and the understanding that what we really want to do, regardless of religious affiliation is come together for mutual peace and if possible, understanding.
Peace all.

[AmbientSound]

Well-put, Kamals, I agree with what you have said about respect, examining our own beliefs as we would the beliefs of others, and that a text will be best understood in its original language. I also agree that what unites is typically greater than what divides. I believe that it is better to live in a world in which people can agree to disagree when necessary and allow others to be different as they wish to be. All knowledge and wisdom has common ground, even if we cannot always put our finger on it. It is important that we step back and examine this common ground in order to observe how another may have come to their own conclusion.

All knowledge that flows from the pen to the paper must pass through the mind of a human - unless it is somehow magically manifested by greater spiritual entities (I have yet to see evidence of this happening). As you convey the information that comes to you to the best of your ability, so too do those who have made the attempt to pass on the knowledge and wisdom that has come to them, including all the world's most important spiritual and religious figures.

I applaud and thank you for your lengthy response. I have read it all the way through and it is obvious that you have put great time and care into it. I appreciate your viewpoint on these matters and look forward to whatever knowledge and wisdom you wish to share with the rest of us.

[Mustardseed]

Hi Kamals

I now read through your post. It was very long and I wonder if we should maybe try as best we can to keep them a little shorter. I know that you wanna be detailed to explain well, but It gets very complicated and as you yourself noted regarding MY many questions, they all get interwoven and hard to pull out.

Before we get into more issues, I would like to ask you 1 very important question, actually 2.

Do you as an individual, have a moral standard for yourself, any other than what can be derived from and understood in the Koran?.

The reason I ask this is: If you accept actions and ethics as they are laid out in the Koran ONLY, and do not judge behavior based on human rights, we could be talking in vain.

Let me give you an example. In one post I questioned the Islamic doctrine of death for apostasy. One of the posters said that he did not personally know what was the proper interpretation of the Suras relating to this issue, but if a death penalty was chosen by scholars to be the appropriate way of dealing with the issue it would be ok with him.

In my own opinion this is where I draw the line. If any pastor, minister or Christian in general, be he the Pope or what-have-you proved from the Bible that God wanted me to kill people who left the faith, I would leave such a faith.

This means that I as a person have limits, I have things that I will not do, and if a religion tells me that I have to do things that strives against my own standard, my UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE OF GOD, I will leave such a religion. Do you have any such personal limits?

Incidentally it brings us to another equally important issue. Nr 2 Who speaks for Islam? Is it possible for you as an individual to believe differently than your Immam. Is there allowance for a personal interpretation of the Koran, or is the Koran interpreted for you, like fx in Catholicism. In Catholicism the Pope decides what is proper doctrine, and anyone who publicly disagrees will be excommunicated. This goes to a lesser degree for many other denominations  and stems from a scripture that states "No scripture is of a private interpretation"   

So if you have time, I look forward to your answers. I also appreciate your input. I am a bit hurt that you count me an enemy of Islam and a protagonist, I am not. (I will get over it ha )  I have however not seen very much love in Islam and have been attacked threatened and maligned by Muslims ever since I started asking questions about the religion. Just for asking questions.

Look forward to your post

Regards Mustardseed

[liam123]

Religion and the modern time is a hotly debated item. Here you see a prime example. Throughout time and throughout world you see a great deal of conflict over the subject matter. As for Islam and Christianity, it's a tough pair. They are in my mind a lot alike. Extremist views in both sects, 2 very large bodies on opposing sides but the same. They both originate from pretty much the same region. I really don't know that much about either, besides some brief study.

The violence of the past few thousand years, the turmoil, the red painted about the world in the name of God is intrigueing. Some say it's due to the religion, I'm not all too sure. Perhaps it's an excuse to do for another purpose. i.e. Nazis didn't reclaim Jewish Property solely for Racial Purity, it was a Profitable issue also

War, Religion, Sex, Morales, Ethics. They will be debated for a lot longer. Someone will always be argueing what is right and wrong. Ultimately should some survive through it all. I feel a middle ground will be found, and all of what we hold dear today will be shunned and forgotton tomorrow.

Especially as the human mind/body/soul are fully understood by Science and or True Seekers of Truth... Not dogmatic or otherwise ignorant specimens.

[kamals]

Hello Mustardseed, Ambientsound, and others. Thank you for the cogent replies to my post. While I prepare (and try to trim down to size) my post on abrogation I will try to briefly answer the question posted below - without straying too far into another thread of discussion.

Mustardseed, you ask:

1. "Do you as an individual, have a moral standard for yourself, any other than what can be derived from and understood in the Koran?."

The reason I ask this is: If you accept actions and ethics as they are laid out in the Koran ONLY, and do not judge behavior based on human rights, we could be talking in vain."

After this question you laid out the example of the classical Sunni ruling of death for apostasy - a topic that is highly nuanced and best saved for a later response to your older questions. For now I confine my answer to this:

- I believe assuming that a discourse is in vain, when the two sides of the discourse do not share particular fundamental axioms or all aspects of a common worldview, is at  worst a "cop-out", and at best a well-meaning but TRAGIC expression of regrettable despair.

This is because, invariably, both sides usually share something essential in common
that may transcend narrow contested axioms, and this attitude denies the essential humanity of the other because it assumes that the other is so distant from one as to preclude effective conversation, this is a dehumanizing act. It is a type of sublimated violence, in a sense.

- I accept certain sources of knowledge as having binding authority on my moral, ethical,
social, and spiritual behavior, decisions and transactions

These sources are consistent with classical Islamic views as expressed by our men of knowledge. There may be differences here and there regarding one or two sources, or their ordering, but their being privileged as sources of information is fully in line with Classical Islamic worldviews.

They form an epistemological hierarchy in which some forms of knowing are regarded as ontologically superior, and thus possessing a greater priority, than others.

1. The Quran and its meanings - as the revealed Word of God.

2. The Sunnah - or normative wont - of the Prophet Muhammad, as either expressed
in textual transmission (Hadith) or in the living patterns of the normative behavior
of his earliest community in Madina. This second source is primarily esteemed by the Malikite school, which I follow, and may in cases trump recorded Hadiths.

3. Logic, analogy, intellection and reason - "mantiqu", "qiyas", "'aql" respectively in Arabic.

4. "Firasat" or perspicacity and intuition.

5. Inner Illumination, Gnosis - known as "marifa" or "irfan" in Arabic, it is non-discursive direct knowledge "by taste" (bi'dhawq) by presence in which, to varying degrees, the object known is experienced as a form of union with the knower and thus becomes, in a sense, a subject: in this mode MEANINGS are more or less EMPOSSED
on the heart of the knower, the images and forms before her are simply loci in which meanings are apprehended and behelden.

No Muslim, of any significant degree of education, would ever say that the Quran alone is the sole source of knowledge, though she may say that the Quran contains in itself a synthesis of all possible knowledge in an implicit way. This is an esoteric matter, regarded by the people of unveiling and gnosis, and is simply mentioned in passing.

I believe that you are mixing up modes of knowing and priorities. You mention a legal judgment in conjunction with a private moral stance, and assimilate the two together. I think this is, with all due respect, a muddling of things. This is inevitable, perhaps, without a clear criterion and set of inward principles.

You make a moral stance on the notion of “human rights” but can you clearly define these “rights” define their source, and their locus, from whence they come, and by what they are conditioned? Or do you simply accept the notion in a vague and hazy way?

-I note that the very notion of "human rights" itself is particular to a certain worldview, betraying certain Historical origins and influences. There is no judgement in any of this stated below, these are observations made upon culture and civilization.

Here is an observation: I have Canadian friends who view universal dental coverage as "a human right", most Good 'Ol Boys in Kansas would certainly not view this as being the case. This is not frivioulsy, universal dental coverage may well be a highly important right, health care (as anyone who has watched Michael Moore’s “Sicko would attest) is important, highly so, and one can argue that a responsible civilization invests in its citizen’s healthcare. One can indeed argue that this is a right we have, to be protected medically. However this is a debate, which indicates that we are in the realm of the relative and historically conditioned, not absolutes.

Here too is an observation, again in the realm of the relative and historically conditioned, we see in one generation Gay rights and Gay marriage, more or less on the margins of the civil and human rights discourse until the 1980's, have become pressing issues of human rights today. 100 years ago the very phrase "human rights" barely existed, 100 years ago the British Army, the most civilized Army in the world, had the death penalty for homosexual officers. Really, it is a historical fact look it up.

No one questions the essential foundations of Anglo-American society due to historically embarrassing treatment of homosexual Army Officers. Such treatment was seen as right and just, a RIGHT of the state and society, 100 years ago. Today it is seen as unjust and wrong, and a violation of the RIGHT of the individual. 50 years from now no one here has any idea what will or will not be considered a right in Anglo-American culture (or global monoculture)

What is or is not considered to be a human right has changed considerably in our lifetimes, several times. None dispute this. Some attribute it to progress, the notion of progress itself I regard as an absurdity founded upon a gross type of dialectical materialism and evolutionism. Today there are, in sheer numbers, more Slaves alive than in 1900, or in 1800 for that matter. Proportionately who knows, globally. Ottoman Sultans no longer have slave girls and concubines, but a lot of imporverished raped and coerced girls from Belarus and the Ukraine walk the night in the most progressive European cities as sex-slaves, facing HIV, beatings, and murder and selling their sex and souls as commodities…

Not much has changed, there is no progress, there is only change.

Spanking one's children is a violation of their human rights in some Nordic countries. 100 years ago this was not the case, it is NOT the case in Ohio though if some goody-two-shoe policy wonks had their way it would be

With this in mind some thoughtful persons, who truly, honestly, reflect on the issue, must acknowledge that "judging behavior based on human rights" is contingent to the notion of human rights held by the ones doing the judging and their unique cultural context.

Many such thoughtful persons have reflected on the issue, in absence of a transcendent core principle in their being, and this tends to leave them in some existential angst when doing so….

Others who do not lack transcendent reference points may have different reactions.
With this in mind I increasingly reject the discourse of "human rights" as being a cynical manipulation of the idealistic by the jaded for the purposes of social engineering or maintain a certain useful social order...

This is why I regard the idea of Universal Human Rights as laughable.

Human rights do exist, but the particular expression of “human rights” articulated by some sectors of modern Western society are entirely particular, historically conditioned, and far from general or universal.

This is not an excuse for evil and oppression, it is a fact.

When this is pointed out some have a tendency to react, emotionally, and make veiled insinuations concerning fascism and such like. I trust that the readers here are more honest, and more sophisticated.

Social order is highly useful, but it is far from ultimate truth.

A man who possesses principles that are immutable and regarded by him as superior would fain set them aside for the passing progressive whims of the general populace.

Human beings DO have rights, some of these rights are immutable, but some are contingent and contextual and are mutable, it is a matter of which rights, and what the context is.

Human beings also have duties and mutual responsibilities, and indeed their rights are rights upon others, which indicates a reciprocal analog which are DUTIES, and duty is the dirty four-letter-word that our generation is uncomfortable with because a duty requires effort. And it requires obligation, and no one wants to feel obliged, because feeling obliged makes our egos feel bad.

You are obliged.

You are obliged to treat your neighbor with justice, to feed and clothe and nurture your child. This is obligation, it is also their right; you SHOULD do it out of love and tenderness, however at its root it is still an obligation and I question the maturity of an outlook that rejects this, or persists in a certain discomfort here. Grow up. I OWE you something, and you OWE me something, and these things we owe to each other are rights and duties depending on which side of the fence we sit upon.

The Quran lays out certain obligations, duties, describes certain rights and attitudes to be taken. In that my soul recognizes the Quran as the word of Allah I would be a fool not to take them seriously.

- I believe that the Quran is the world of Allah, not to be taken literally as the English phrase "word of God" may imply, it is a highly nuanced and context driven matter, but in general however the words of the Quran are loci of meanings communicated to humanity by its existential source of being - Allah - and in itself is a Symbol, of the archetype of
Divine speech itself, the Logos, and as such its statements, prohibitions, commands, encouragements, riddles, and similitude are to be regarded with a certain primacy.

Since I view morality as an ontological matter, and not rooted in social respectability or judgments, but in the nature of Being itself, that moral laws are natural and supernatural, in turn, laws reflecting The Real, “al-Haqq” (being one of the 99 names of Allah) the Quran's statements are moral injunctions par excellence.

It does not follow, however, that the Quran is alone top be regarded as a source of moral
injunctions. But as a Muslim I must give it primacy.

I may not understand certain of the Quran’s positions, and to reflect on them is to understand them in greater depth, and they may or may not make uncomfortable due to my social conditioning, but this social conditioning is contingent, derivative, and unique to particular times and conditions.

The Quran, being the Word of Allah, possesses a dimension that is a-historical, and stands outside the flux of history. If one examines it carefully, many of its laws and injunctions are very similar to, or identical with, injunctions and divine laws in other past archaic traditions from the most ancient of the Romans and Greeks, the most ancient Hebrews, or Indians or Persians, or Mayans – modern eyes tend to gloss over these things and see only what they WANT to see in ancient law, ancient Dharma.

The notion of sacred Law is found in all of the earliest traditions, or a sacred way of being and acting in which acting in accordance to it brings felicity, and in opposition to it brings abasement. This is expressed in metaphysical and naturalistic terms in some traditions, like the Ancient Chinese Tao or some ancient Indian teachings, or in theomorphic or deistic terms in other traditions such as Judaic, Christian, or say the European Paganisms.

Regarding the specific issue of the classical judgment of Death for an Apostate, this is extra-Quranic, in any case, is not found in the Quran, though it is possible that certain ayats (verses) may be interpreted as alluding to such. This judgment is a matter of fiqh (sacred law) derived from the understanding of the Prophet's Sunnah by the earliest scholars of the community.

In making this derivation they did not rely on the Quran alone and thus their "moral standard" in this matter was not restricted to "what can be derived from and understood in the Koran.."

Neither is mine.

Not quite a nutshell, but this is a complex question.

[Mustardseed]

Dear Kamals
Your posts are very long and very complicated. I have to again ask for patience as I will have to study your answer in debth.

you said

I believe that you are mixing up modes of knowing and priorities. You mention a legal judgment in conjunction with a private moral stance, and assimilate the two together. I think this is, with all due respect, a muddling of things. This is inevitable, perhaps, without a clear criterion and set of inward principles.

You make a moral stance on the notion of “human rights” but can you clearly define these “rights” define their source, and their locus, from whence they come, and by what they are conditioned? Or do you simply accept the notion in a vague and hazy way

I do not think I have mixed anything up but that I was very clear. I asked as to YOUR standard, what YOU believe. I did not ask for your considerations in the matter, nor did I ask for a reiteration of the complexity of my question.

I asked

1. "Do you as an individual, have a moral standard for yourself, any other than what can be derived from and understood in the Koran?."

The reason I ask this is: If you accept actions and ethics as they are laid out in the Koran ONLY, and do not judge behavior based on human rights, we could be talking in vain."

My question stands. Do YOU  as an INDIVIDUAL have a moral standard for yourself.......

Pretty simple question. You seem to have gotten hung up on human rights, and the example of dentistry in Canada, shows that you shift the focus to the Human rights , instead of the main focus which was YOU.

So let me rephrase my question. Do you believe that humans have any rights, if they are not Muslims. Do they have the right to live side by side with Muslims in or outside a Islamic state, without paying taxes to Islam, without being discriminated against, etc.

Personally I believe that Muslims have these rights to equal opportunity, freedom of religion, freedom of sexual orientation etc I am a Kaffir, so what do you think being a Muslim.

Regards Mustardseed

[AmbientSound]

Kamals, you said:

"In making this derivation they did not rely on the Quran alone and thus their "moral standard" in this matter was not restricted to "what can be derived from and understood in the Koran.."

Neither is mine."


From this, I deduce that you do have a moral standard, and that it is not derived from the Quran alone. I am not going to ask you to elaborate on this, as I think it sufficiently answers the question for me. I cannot speak for others regarding this matter.


I believe that Mustardseed's use of a legal judgment with a private moral stance was to provide an example of a private moral stance on said legal judgment. In Western societies, an individual is supposed to have the freedom to explore ideals and values. This is one reason why Western governments on the whole are rather complex. Democracy in its purest form is actually a terrible idea- the possibility that 49 percent of the population is ruled by the other 51 percent is not one I care to experience. Hence, modifications have to be made. The government needs to be divided into regions, and then regions within those regions, and so on until it gets down to communities and neighborhoods, family households, etc.

The idea is that you find the group of people who have similar values to your own on a larger scale, and work your way down to the right neighborhood, etc.



You also said:

"Here is an observation: I have Canadian friends who view universal dental coverage as "a human right", most Good 'Ol Boys in Kansas would certainly not view this as being the case. This is not frivioulsy, universal dental coverage may well be a highly important right, health care (as anyone who has watched Michael Moore’s “Sicko would attest) is important, highly so, and one can argue that a responsible civilization invests in its citizen’s healthcare. One can indeed argue that this is a right we have, to be protected medically. However this is a debate, which indicates that we are in the realm of the relative and historically conditioned, not absolutes."

When we as a group of people burden a government with responsibilities, such as our medical treatment, we give up a portion of our sovereignty. I am of the opinion that we are all entirely responsible for our own existence. Even so, I use the system of health care available to me and I hope that my government will do everything in its power to invest in the well-being of its citizens to the extent of the responsibilities and duties with which it is burdened (which, hopefully, aren't beyond its abilities or numerous enough to create imbalance in an individual's responsibilities for their own existence).

[Mustardseed]

You see my problem is this Kamals.!!!

Most Muslims who post on these and other boards are of 2 different categories.

1st one is a Muslim or Muslims, who live in the mid east who have a basic knowledge of Islam, and a chip on their shoulder against the west. Most of these folks are very unhappy about Islam as it is played out in their day to day lives, (living in a country ruled by sharia is a drag) yet they would rather have Islam in the whole world than live as second hand citizens. They envy the west its wealth, most of it has been stolen from the 3rd world anyway, and are actually quite destructive in their attitude. Sort of in a, if I cant play no one should play, kind of way. They say they are Muslims, adhere to the stricter line, endorse Jihad, death for apostasy, Dhimmies paying tax etc the whole packet, connected with Islamic supremacy. All they want is a fair world.

2nd one are Muslims living in the west. Most of those are quite educated. They see Islam as an IDENTITY. THEIR identity. They embrace Sufism, some of them Wahabism, but generally they are anti establishment, and believe in the establishment of the Kaliphat. They are educated enough and smart enough to realise that sharia has never worked, as a good system, but is corrupt to the core, so they project their wishes for Islamic supremacy onto a future state, the Kaliphat, "where righteousness will rule and PROPER sharia will be instated". Their problem is they have no credibility. They have been educated by the west and enjoy western rights of free speech equal opportunity etc and know very well that sharia will never be instated in the west. Actually they are personally pretty abhorred by some of the antics of Muhammed, (marrying a 6 year old and f......her at 9). Yet they have to apologize for these actions. They also realize that Dhimmitude is not possible but have to apologize for the doctrine. They also know that Death for apostasy is barbaric but they have to....apologize for it. In general they are quite aware of the barbaric qualities of Islam, yet because it has become their identity, with feigned words, lofty elaborately constructed theories they .....apologize for it.

They are called apologists.

Maybe there is another group. please let me know. You yourself, either by choice or by ignorance, speak in such complicated English that people simply avoid your posts. I am not a native English speaker, and it takes me hours to read them. It irritates me to no end, and while you may think it is quite the show and very sophisticated, it is actually pretty disrespectful and does very little to further dialog. I find it condescending. With all your education you have got to know that your language borders "Lower syllable latin" to most posters.

Put your cookies on a lower shelf Kamals and lets talk about these issues. Lets address actual problems, and stay away from lengthy boring discourses on Muslim philosophy etc. I really would like some answers and I believe that you do too. What do we have in common.

Regards Mudstardseed

[AmbientSound]

Mustardseed seems to perceive disrespect and offense from the long posts, though I do not necessarily agree. I find no disrespect in long posts, though I understand people do not have loads of free time on their hands to read them and I can understand how frustrating it might be to read something that long when it is not one's native language. If this were a general problem on the forum in all topics and subjects, the moderators could simply limit posts to a certain number of characters, say, something between 4,000 to 8,000 (this is possible to do using HTML and/or Java-script programming).

Actually, Kamals, I did not read the entire post, but since I was able to grasp your style of forum dialogue, I understood how your post was structured and was able to read according to that.

Kamals, perhaps there is a way to maintain the long posts so that you get to say everything you want to say, but structure them differently so that, for example, there's a short answer in bold and then it is explained in its own indented paragraph. I can tell from your posts that your thoughts start with a general idea and then go in depth to each part of that idea. I have a similar style of analysis, which is why I am so interested in system analysis and engineering.

Anyway, my point is that minor changes can be made so that everyone can have what they want. I must once again express my gratitude and thanks for your efforts and time spent on trying to answer some questions about Islam. I pray that this open discussion can remain free of negativity and insults. This one has a far better chance than the last two and my faith remains strong.

[Mustardseed]

So Kamals what can we deduct from your absence? Until you answer my questions and actually take a stand in your own life to some of these issues I will deduct nothing? I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you have an exam, maybe you are busy with your garden or your many other activities, or maybe you have decided that you will only engage in a debate with those who either are undecided or pro your point of view. Who knows?

I would like to know what you think about the issues I brought out. How do you negate or explain the obvious fascist attitudes found in the Sunnah the Koran and the Hadith, toward Christians and Jews? What is your explational model. How do you justify your own life as a Muslim, living and enjoying the hospitality of a nation of Kaffirs? What does Jihad mean to YOU and not to some 1600 century Muslim?

As I said, down to earth questions, and I am looking forward to your answers.

Regards Mustardseed 

PS I think I gave you plenty of time