In his post, at the end, Jojo complains about the length of my
response. It's long because Jojo raises, in a single post, many
issues. If he raised one only, the response would be much briefer. A
very brief response may necessarily, to be honest, uncivil. I call an
argument, below, "pigshit." That was brief. I could respond to the
entire post with that word, but ... how useful would this be?
Jojo raises some real issues, exposing the foundations, to some
extent, of his misunderstanding. If he actually wants to understand,
he will probably have to do some work, to read what bores him. When I
write polemic, it's designed to punch through noise and disinterest.
These discussions have not been, for me, polemic. They are
explorations of evidence and argument, and often I don't take a
strong position, at least not at first.
Jojo, below, attributes this to a debate tactic, to an unwillingness
to be clear about what I believe.
But, actually, I don't "believe" anything except in a pragmatic way.
I have my memory, my own experience. I don't believe that it is
"truth." It is just my memory. Yes, I might even insist on aspects of
it, but that's not "belief," it is just actual practice. In any case,
what Jojo is talking about is how I explore a topic; I attempt to
begin with an open mind, as empty as possible. I may then disclose
assumptions, but I may avoid applying those assumptions until I've
reviewed evidence.
To do this in writing takes a lot of words. Later, when someone asks
me a question, though, I may be able to answer briefly, *because I
went through this process.* Depends on context.
I am disclosing here how I learn. I learned about cold fusion this
way, as an example, but many other subjects as well. I developed my
own career in a similar way, by exposing myself to material, and
setting aside the normal reactions of "I don't understand this." I
just kept reading, and, when possible, working and testing and trying
things out, and that's how I became an electronics engineer. No
formal training.
At 03:23 AM 1/2/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Hadiths are one of the sources of muslim teachings, and Sahih Muslim
and Sahih Bukhari are some of the most respected and venerated, but
you still consider them unrealizable and corrupted.
The term is "unreliable." Further, to be clear, what is accurate
about my consideration is that they are not *completely reliable* and
they are *sometimes* corrupt -- in a technical sensee, as a message
or fact can be distorted when transmitted through a chain of
informants, as in the "telephone game." As anyone who actually
studies Islamic scholarship will realize, scholars debate the
authenticity of hadith, including those in Buhkari and Muslim.
There are Muslims who seem to "venerate" certain sources, but that,
itself, could be regarded as a corruption. Only the Qur'an has that
central place in Islam. Acceptance of the Qur'an is central to the
*legal* identification of a person as Muslim. However, the Arabic
word "muslim" has wider application.
Some Muslims totally reject hadith, and they do not thereby "leave Islam."
And yet, you take wikipedia and Internet Blogs as more reliable than
these venerated sources.
That comment deserves no other reply than "pigshit," if that.
Wikipedia and blogs are far more corrupt, in the sense I used the term.
My friend, something is wrong with that picture. It's like me
saying wikipedia is more authoritative than the Bible.
You said it, I didn't. Reliable *for what*? Everything in Wikipedia,
in theory, is sourced. (If you see a questionable fact on Wikipedia
that is not sourced, it's highly questionable, suspect a defect in
Wikipedia process. Every edit on Wikipedia can be tracked to a
specific editor -- or IP address. (Wikipedia's anonymity policy
makes this far less useful than it might otherwise be, but one can
still look for signs of bias.) If a Wikipedia article is sourced to a
blog, usually that would also be a violation of Wikipedia policy.
*However*, sometimes blogs or other sources can be External Links, or
can be a source for notable opinion.
If all Hadiths are suspect and corrupted, what then is exactly the
source of muslim history.
Good point. *History* is "suspect and corrupted,* period. However,
this is *relative.* Just remember this: Early Muslim history was
written by the winners. You will find little in it from the losers'
perspective, so to understand what *actually happened* can be difficult.
The Qur'an makes a point about the crucifixion. "Those who argue
about it don't know." And what the Qur'an actually says about the
crucifixion is ... interesting. It does not confict with "Christian
history," or any history, for that matter, as to what we have of *any
history.* We have, at best, the testimony of witnesses. Often we
don't have even that, we have unattributed "fact," unverifiable.
Who knows what *actually happened*? The Qur'an says that what (some)
Jews said about the crucifixion ("We killed Jesus, the son of Mary")
was "how it appeared to them" And that is all a witness can ever
testify to. And then it says that "No, we raised him to ourself." And
then it says that those who argue about it don't know.
So who *actually knows* what happened? When Muslim scholars write
about history, in particular, they will add, and have added for much
more than a millenium, "And God knows best." They are not claiming
ownership of truth. Truth belongs to God, it is the domain of God,
his realm of sovereignty. Challenge that, you are in trouble.
Does every muslim then just take their own understanding and run
with it. That's anarchy.
Yes. We are responsible to God, not to some "religion." We return to
God, not to some plastic or brittle concept. We return to Reality,
"for him who thinks death's honesty will not come upon him naturally,
life sometimes must get lonely." -- Bob Dylan.
You could call it anarchy, but you will have missed something. The
Qur'an. The Qur'an is central to Islam as a distinct religion. Now,
there are people who accept the Qur'an as a message from God, who do
not thereby take on the "shari'a," or the practice of Islam as
exemplified by the Prophet's life. There was even a book written on
this by a Catholic scholar, in which he clearly took the position
that the Qur'an was, indeed, a message from God to the Arabs, and,
remarkably, that book had the imprimatur and nihil obstat of the
Catholic church. Now, *that's* catholic.
What is the status of these people with God? *God knows best,* and
this is between them and God. The Qur'an says that God will not leave
a people without guidance. As with some sayings from Jesus, this
indicates to me that God leaves his servants among *all peoples,*
and, yes, that would mean that there are some Evangelical Christians
in this category.
How could that be? Simple. Maybe "theology" isn't all that it's
cracked up to be. Maybe it's what is in the heart that counts. I have
heard Evangelical Christians on the radio, and *every word* was a
reflection of truth to me, and I have heard others, and, OMG, how
does this guy get away with this? Same apparent faith, but one was
expressed with heart and practical wisdom, the other was pure dogma
that makes other wrong, that is highly judgmental.
No wonder muslims find it justified to do just about anything.
Human beings do this. However, the Qur'an is quite clear about
certain things. Jojo has focused on peripheral texts and has ignored
the central one.
Cause by the same standard Lomax is using, they just do what their
own "research" says is OK.
Yes. However, if they don't "research" the Qur'an, but claim to be
Muslim, all bets are off.
But it's more than that, much more than that. God does not leave a
people without guidance. But people don't follow their guidance,
often. Some say that most don't, only a few are "saved." (Others say
that almost everyone returns to the favor of God, that this is God's
ultimate plan.) What the Qur'an says about those who believe
themselves to be saved, because they are the "saved people," is, "Do
you have a promise *from God*? If so, you can trust it." And,
otherwise, "beware of a fire whose fuel is men and stones."
If I have a promise, how would I know it's from God? To me, the
answer is obvious. God has given us the capacity to recognize him, it
is *instinctive.* The analogy used is "as a child recognizes his
parent." And we recognize by marks, at least initially: peace,
wisdom, justice, transcendence, compassion and mercy, and, yes,
power, a power that succeeds *without effort,* because it only "says
to a thing, be!, and it is."
So, Jojo, you know. You are responsible for what you know. I am not
your judge, God is, and God will judge you through *you* and how you
judge others. This judgement is real, and it cannot be manipulated by
magic, i.e., with magical incantations, like, "in the name of ..."
There is a story from Rumi about this, about the dogs that guard the
castle of the master, who will ignore "in the name of the master,"
and tear the intruder to shreds, *unless he is actually clinging to
the cloak of the master.* This is about reality, Jojo, not fantasies
-- or fairy tales, all of which, *at best* can remind us of our
actual relationship with reality.
I started out thinking that islam is a more or less unified violent
religion; now, I know that I was wrong.
Yes, but I see little sign that you get the full dimensions of your error.
It is a non-unified violent religion.
And how would that happen? Jojo is here manifesting a particularly
Christian pathology. That is, it's common among Christians, it is not
exclusive to them, and we find it among some fundamentalists in all
religions, and among some atheists. That is that Man is inherently
Evil. Only if a severe and strong discipline is applied can this be
ameliorated and harm prevented. Anarchy? It must be *eliminated*.
Freedom? *Dangerous.* Mercy? *Not for them, only for us!* Justice?
"For them! We, however, deserve forgiveness because we have said the
Magic Words.*
A rabid mad dog with one head is dangerous, but a rabid mad dog with
multiple heads is even more dangerous.
Indeed. Therefore? *Man* is dangerous.
In one of the first verses of the Qur'an, the angels ask God, who has
said he will create a governor on the earth, "What! Will you place
one there who will make mischief and shed blood?" They knew, but they
did not know everything. God responds by "teaching Adam the names,
all of them" and telling Adam to say them to the angels. Language,
folks. It's very clear. Word.
And God says, "I know what you do not know," and commands the angels
to bow to Adam, and they do, *except Iblis,* who is also called
Satan. Was Iblis a rebellious angel? That's an interpretation, but
not the only one. Satan was, it's clear, a "jinn," another order of
creation, and that's outside our purpose here. Satan was *proud*, and
vowed revenge. And God permitted that, as well, for a purpose. You'll
find this story in the Bible, as well, though the perspective may be different.
If you are indeed this divided in your history and teachings (last
count; there are 4 or 5 major islamic schools of thought and jurisprudence);
Yes.
and you belong to one which claim that it is not justified to kill
infidels (as you claimed);
That is the majority position, practically unanimous, though all the
schools. It is not allowed to kill people because they are
"infidels," and the practice of the Prophet was clear on this. The
area of dispute would be over "justice," and it *is* allowed to kill
in self-defense.
The fundamentalists (and that's not one of the major schools) argue
that "insult to religion" is a capital offense, harming people by
lying to them, and they adduce stories that might show that, but the
majority view is that killing is, first of all, the province of the
sovereign, and, no, in spite of Jojo's "anarchy" idea, the majority
-- the word for majority is "sunni" -- personal killing for "justice"
of the kind considered here is unlawful, and to be punished. And,
secondly, establishing peace in the world is much stronger than
abstract ideas of justice.
what gives you the authority to represent other islamic schools of
teaching (wahhabi).
I definitely don't represent the Wahhabiyya, and some would kill me,
immediately, if they got the chance. They murdered many, many Muslims
in their historical struggle for power. However, on many of the
issues that have been raised, the Wahhabiyya would agree with me.
They are corrupt, generally, as fundamentalists and believers in
their own absolute rightness are corrupt everywhere. The Wahhabiyya
are generally Hanbali, but have their own scholars with idiosyncratic
opinions, generally harsh and highly judgmental of others.
How can you say that islam is a religion of peace (ala CAIR
propaganda), when in fact you can not agree with other islamic
schools of thought.
It is quite possible to disagree peaceably. You ought to try it,
Jojo. The word "islam" does imply peace. It would be more accurate to
say that it means "acceptance." Acceptance of what? Reality, at root,
and this meaning for islam is ancient. It's not about the shari'a of
Muhammad, that's a *detail*.
How can you say that islam is a religion of peace when you can't
even get along with each other?
Interesting question. Ask yourself about Christianity. Beware of the
"no true Scotsman" argument, okay?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
PS. You are correct in that I do not generally read all your
posts. I do not have the patience to read it all. It's tiresome and boring.
Or challenging. When my kids are challenged, they will often reject
the situation as "boring."
However, I do scan most of it and generally responds to the
first impressions I get.
Bingo. And your first impressions are, first and foremost, knee-jerk
responses based, not on a consideration of what I've said, and often
radically divorced from what I've said, on your own pre-existing
mindset. It is very easy to identify disagreement, or more,
accurately to *make it up.*
What you have done, however, then, is to *completely ignore*
evidence, because in those posts was reference to source texts, and
even, in one particularly brilliant sequence, to *your own evidence*.
Which you did not reread and check, because it was "boring.* "After
all, don't I know my own evidence"?
Actually, Jojo, you don't.
So, if you are using nuance and subtlety to bring home your point,
it would be missed in my scanning.
How about if I'm using direct and clear evidence? Cited and linked in
the post? And thorough in consideration?
So, I suggest you learn how to write in a more direct and
succinct way to be more effective in your debate.
Great idea. I'm being trained to do just that. However, I'm not
engaged in debate here. That's a fundamental misunderstanding. I'm
learning, and I learn by exploring arguments and evidence. Others are
welcome to follow with me, or to participate, or not.
I do have a subsidiary motive here, applying to *this* set of
conversations, which is not to leave the web record radically
imbalanced. People will search for, say, "Allah Moon God" and find
the threads, and what turn out to be deceptive arguments should not
be left unanswered, in situ, if possible. It would be enough if the
moderator shut down a thread as disruptive, but Bill has not done
that. So I have *some level of obligation* to respond, where I have
relevant evidence or argument to present. Especially the evidence part.
I"ve been engaged in this process since the mid-1980s on the
W.E.L.L., where I was a conference moderator and participant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_WELL
I saw, then, a potential for on-line conversations that remains,
still, only partly realized. Long story.
I'm not sure how much of the misunderstanding is due to your long
winded essays.
Some, perhaps.
Keep is short, my friend, if you want people to not be confused; but
then again, this confusion is probably what you're after to begin with.
No, that would be trolling. However, is your confusion my
responsibility? That's a question, not an assertion.
You do not want people to fully understand what it is exactly you're
saying so that you can squirm out of a difficult position later
on. A tactic I've seen you attempt to do.
The view implies that I'm engaged in debate, and that I want to win,
or at least to avoid looking bad. That doesn't run me, though aspects
of that are part of the human condition that I must beware.
The view also implies that "full understanding" is possible. Maybe. I
rather doubt it, though, if the reader isn't willing to do some work.
It takes me hours to write some of these posts, it might be fair to
expect a few minutes to read them, or a bit longer if sources are
checked. However, I've always welcomed requests for clarification.
My original post to which Jojo was responding can be found at
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg74987.html
