|
Debate
with Prof Lammi:
Part 2: Developing the Dialogue
by Prof.
Walter Lammi
31 March,
2006
[Editor: We are publishing Prof. Lammi's
response intact. Our response will follow in a couple of days]
- Dear
Mr. Khan,
-
- Thank
you for printing my letter, for your response, and for the opportunity
to reply. Our common purpose is open discussion of these very
important matters, and to fulfill that purpose let us think of
ourselves not as antagonists but as friends who are working together.
Therefore I would like to register the mild complaint that your
title for my letter, "Prof. Lammi: Islam-Watch is Irrelevant,
Misdirected and has Misunderstood Islam" is rather more
provocative than I would have wished for mutually respectful dialogue.
Also, while it is true that I am a teacher in Cairo, I am by no
means an expert on Islam. That is not my field at all. My experience
of living here has given me a certain perspective, but that should
certainly not be confused with expertise. I speak without authority.
-
- This
means that I am not the person with whom to debate textual evidence.
I do have friends with some expertise in that regard, and to the
extent that our discussion requires turning with more care to
the text, I will be happy to consult with them. But for this letter
at any rate, I thought I should simply respond on my own as best
as I can.
-
- You
begin with quotations from the Koran and Hadith to the effect
that apostasy should result in death. Or rather, that's what
the cited Hadith say.
- Here
they are:
- "Both
Koran and Sunnah are very categorical about apostasy from
Islam as serious crime which bears punishments ranging from
"greatest punishment" (~death?) to death. I am quoting
a few relaxant sections from the Koran and Hadith that deal
with apostasy.
-
- 1.
They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved,
so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from
among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's
way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them
wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend
or a helper [Q
4:89]
-
- 2.
Make ye no excuses: ye have rejected Faith after ye had
accepted it. If We pardon some of you, We will punish others
amongst you, for that they are in sin [Q
009.066].
-
- "Ali
burnt some people [hypocrites] and this news reached
Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would
not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish
(anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have
killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim)
discards his religion, kill him.' " [Sahih
Bukhari 4.260]
-
-
Volume
9, Book 83, Number 17:
Narrated 'Abdullah: Allah's Apostle said, "The blood
of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be
worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be
shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married
person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one
who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the
Muslims."
-
-
Volume
9, Book 89, Number 271:
Narrated Abu Musa: A man embraced Islam and then reverted
back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with
Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?"
Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted
back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not
sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah
and His Apostle."
|
- We
would have to examine the provenance of the Hadith in question
in order to explore this further. As I understand it, none of
the Hadith is considered absolutely certain but there is a range
of probability. Let me note that the matter is complicated by
an error on my part. My statement "context is everything"
may not always be true. There may be statements that apart from
context stand on their own as authoritative. Perhaps the clear
statement in the Koran "no coercion in religion" is an example.
Your two quotations from the Koran are much more difficult to
understand, and off the top of my head, even without context,
I can think of alternate interpretations for each. For example,
the first could have to do with a phenomenon I've run across
many times, that those who wish to do wrong always try to get
others to join them. You are assuming there's nothing problematic
about the meaning of "disbelieve as they have disbelieved,"
but there may be many ways to disbelieve. And can we be so sure
what "belief" means in the first place? A Sufi of my acquaintance
distinguishes between "belief" and "faith." "Faith,"
he says, is openness to the truth of religion "belief"
is dogmatically closed. The second Koranic quotation doesn't
seem on the face of it to indicate a sentence of death, but rather
the judgment of God, which could go in different ways.
-
- I
find the difference between your Koranic citations and the Hadith
quite striking. It's interesting how according to your own
examples the Koran is so much more difficult to take literally.
After all, it's originally poetry. Indeed, one could argue
that all religious speech, not just Muslim, is poetic. Maybe
that's why the Koran is said to be untranslatable. It has been
said of poetry in general that any good translation of a poem
is a new poem. In poetry language, sound, and meaning are
inextricably linked. I doubt that we can have an informed discussion
of the meaning of the Koran without taking the nature of the poetic
word into account. But hey, I can't read Arabic. As I
say, I'm truly ignorant of these matters. That's not false
modesty, believe me. So let me, with apologies for my ignorance,
move on.
-
- Your
method of arguing by quoting paragraphs with replies is quite
effective, and I will proceed in the same way with the rest of
my reply to your reply. Unfortunately, however, this becomes unwieldy
and I suspect that further exchanges will require more selective
summarizing. But here goes for now:
- Me (call me Walter):
-
- "However, I must question the political
relevance of your work. To be anti-Muslim, especially in
a secularist direction, plays well in the West, and
the representatives of that decision, like Wafa Sultan,
are universally acclaimed not only for their courage
- which is indeed admirable - but also for their
positions. However, the real problem it seems to me
is not Islam and not religion in general, but religious
fanaticism. This problem is simply not addressed in
wholesale rejectionism, for you are, so to speak "throwing
out the baby with the bathwater."
-
- You: "In the Western secular democracies, courageous
people like Wafa Sultan's are definitely valued. The
reason is very simple: What Western secular societies today
and it's evolution from the very turbulent and disturbing
past to modern stage resulted from the courageous stands
of the people like Wafa Sultan. Since the beginning of Enlightenment
movement 4 centuries ago, people like her (who have always
been hated by the common people) stood up and spoke of the
tyranny and barbarity of religious or secular nature with
uninhibited conviction. There has been sacrifice on their
part, yet they helped transform the theocracy-driven barbaric
Western societies of the middle ages into modern secular
democracies. Muslim societies have failed to accommodate
people like her. They are not safe even under the protection
of the Western countries."
-
- About throwing baby with the bathwater, this is nonsensical
analogy. That is a matter between the baby and the mother.
For the mother, the baby is an investment - emotional,
psychological and material. But for an apostate, nurturing
Islam is nurturing death, torture and punishment for himself.
How do you want me to regard Islam that has no contribution
to my life (other than 40 years of feeding hatred against
non-Muslim community when I was a Muslim), that cripple
my life in so many ways and of course, that orders it followers
to kill me? Of course, the tragic barbarity of Islam on
mankind since its inception and its continuance is needed
to be taken into account."
|
- The
first shots of the European Enlightenment by Descartes drew so
carefully from religious doctrine that scholars are still divided
over the question whether or not he was a good Catholic. Later
Enlightenment figures did indeed criticize the Catholic Church.
That-and not Christianity in general-was the target of Voltaire's
famous "crasez l'infme!" One cannot simply separate
the Enlightenment from effects of the Protestant Reformation,
which was not at all a matter of denying Christianity. Nor does
one want to ignore the malaise of modern secularism. It may be
a big relief to have liberated yourself from dogmatic religion,
but I think that it would be a huge mistake to think that you
are thereby liberated from the religious questions, the questions
of life, death, and meaning. My more narrow point here is that
neither the Reformation nor the Enlightenment can be seen as wholesale
rejections of Christianity, so the parallel you are drawing, while
worthy of consideration, needs to be examined more carefully.
Personally I am rather cautious about historical parallels. We
have been hearing a lot these days about the need of Islam for
its own Reformation, but I am not comfortable with that parallel
either. There is something deeply amiss all right-on that we
are in accord-but I'm not sure that reformation on the European
model is a meaningful or possible response. I have even heard
the argument that Islamist fundamentalism represents the beginning
stages of such a reformation, a view with which I have little
sympathy. But "reform" in some sense does seem to be a more
realistic alternative than outright rejection of the religion
of, how many? A couple billion people? That's another way putting
my question about the political relevance of your work.
-
- I
like your demolition of my baby and bathwater image, although
it was a figure of speech rather than an analogy, as I indicated
by adding "so to speak." The phrase actually comes from
the 1500s, when baths consisted of a big tub filled with hot water.
First the males of the family, then the women and children, and
last of all the babies got to take baths. By then the water was
so dirty that you could lose somebody in it, hence the saying.
Whether one loved the baby isn't really at issue. But let me
not pick any nits here. Your point is valid, that many people
have suffered from contemporary forms of Islam and consequently
feel not affection but anger toward the religion as a whole. I
respect this anger even though I would wish to mitigate it.
- On to the next exchange:
- Walter: "Take for example an article from your website, Ali
Sina's "From Rags to Riches." This purports
to be a refutation of the Koran, accomplished by juxtaposing
quotations. As a hermeneutical exercise, however, I
am afraid that it is quite worthless. In reading,
context is everything, and a study of the Koran no less
than the study of any book that we take seriously cannot
legitimately proceed by lifting individual statements for
polemical purposes. This reflects exactly the same
literalism as the fundamentalists!"
-
- You: "We agree that there are chances of errors in analysis
of isolated sections of book and arriving conclusion. This
chance of error is application to any books. We do not know
why and how you conclude that one is more likely to commit
such errors while studying the Koran (also probably Bible/Torah?).
Which universally accepted thesis has established such a
notion? Would you please give us the reference?
-
- In regard to Dr Ali Sina's article, we have agreed that
there are chances of errors. But we need to point out to
those errors. Such a thing has not been done. There hasn't
been any alternative explanation of these verses of the
Koran. All the Islamic Ulemas, legists and jurisprudence
seem to agree to such analysis, as to the fundamentalists.
And Prophet Muhammad himself explained those verses of the
Koran in exactly the same manner as Dr Ali Sina has analyzed
and so do the extremists. What we are waiting here for is
that someone come and give us (misunderstanders of Islam)
and the radicals a proper and convincing interpretation
of those verses (of course, for the first time) - so
that they (fundamentalists) can correct themselves. That
will solve the terrible problem the world faces today. We
should be credited for creating an opportunity and space
for such a possibility. Our effort is not worthless as you
suggested."
|
- I'm
not sure I have grasped the question in your first paragraph.
You ask for a "universally accepted thesis" that establishes
the notion that one is more likely to commit errors when ignoring
context with the Koran, Bible, and Torah than any other books. First
of all, what is a "universally accepted thesis"? I
don't know what that means. Secondly, I say "a study
of the Koran no less than the study of any book we take seriously"! I
believe you may have read my sentence too hastily. Nevertheless,
it is possible that the sacred books of the Western (i.e., post-Greek,
including Islamic) tradition present particular interpretive difficulties
and it is also possible that those difficulties vary according
to the particular sacred book. So I would respond that you are
pointing to a valid question and a very interesting one too.
-
- The
second paragraph, alas, requires textual discussion beyond my
competence, as I have confessed. Tell you what, though.
Depending on how our dialogue goes, maybe I can ask around for
some help. It's a good challenge. I do have some immediate
reservations about your claim that Mohamed, Dr. Ali Sina, and
the extremists all have the same interpretation. Mohamed as reported
where, and when? Which extremists? I happen to have read Seyyed
Qutb's Milestones, and find his explanation of relevant
passages of the Koran quite fantastic. Are you really sure about
this unanimity? In any case, I don't believe I said that your
effort in the website is worthless, but rather that the interpretive
method of singling out fearsome quotations regardless of context
is worthless. Different kind of insult. Different object of scorn-not
people, but methodology.
-
- Do
you see my point about literalism? That one's close to my heart.
I run across it all the time. It applies to poetic myth as well-among
the ancient Greeks, for example, where a literalist interpretation
of the myths of the gods led eventually to polytheism as we understand
it today. I suspect that literalism is a particular problem in
interpreting writings that are intended on multiple levels, where
there are teachings for the many as well as more subtle messages
for the few with "eyes to see." To stay with the Greeks
for a moment, Plato's writings are famously of that sort.
Scripture may be as well. If so, the interpretations taken
as authoritative at any given time might possibly be quite wrong.
I offer this not as an assertion, but a hypothesis worthy of consideration.
Another way to put it is: What is the difference between
dogmatic prescription and literature? Is the Koran fully
graspable as a list of injunctions-so that everything is either
"haram" or "hilal" (as it's often understood here)-or
might it possibly be what the term "text" implies, a woven
fabric of meaning that constitutes a work as a whole?
- Moving on:
- Walter: "If we do not accord the Muslim "book of
ultimate significance" the same respectful care with
which we would approach any other book anointed for its
greatness by more than a millennium of study by highly
intelligent people, we render ourselves irrelevant to serious
discussion. If we do not respect religion, we render
ourselves irrelevant to serious dialogue and risk descending
into mere polemics."
-
- You: "Why religion is needed to be respected? One respects
somebody or something when the latter adds value to one's
life. I respect democracy; I respect secularism because
it adds definite value to my life in substantial measures.
Islam did not and does not add any value to my life but
instead, it cripples my life in every step. Islam might
add value to the life of the Muslims and let them respect
their religion. I am at disadvantage in so many ways because
of Islam. I am not morally and logically obligated to respect
Islam and any such thing that has similar effect on my life.
-
- You have said Islam is a "book of ultimate significance"
to Muslims. Would you please enumerate as to how Islam/Koran
adds significance or value to Muslims' life, in particular
to those living in the West. How is it helping them, enriching
them and their neighbors?"
|
- Actually, the term "book of ultimate significance" refers
not so much to those who find it significant, as to the ultimate
significance of its subject matter. Thus I would apply the term
equally to, say, the Vedanta or the Bhagavad-Gita. However, I
do know people, decent people, who feel that the Koran does enrich
their lives. I understand and respect your justified anger, but
your experiences do not necessarily apply to absolutely everybody
else whose life has been touched by Islam. I guess the issue between
us is whether or not there is something "respectable," in
the sense of "worthy of respect," in the book or the religion. I
think there might be. We don't have to lock horns here;
there is room for exploration. Contrary to an article on your
website, I do see moderate but devout Muslims, all the time. I
read them too. Here's a reference: Islam, Fundamentalism,
and the Betrayal of Tradition, edited by Joseph Lumbard. Check
it out.
- Moving along:
-
- Walter: "A more fruitful direction of inquiry, it seems
to me, is: how does religion, especially a religion
of law like Islam, come to conceptual language? How
is the traditional dialogue within Islam
changed under the globalized influence of the European Enlightenment? What
is the relation of religious "belief" and "theology"?"
-
- You: "This section of your comment is a bit fuzzy. Would
you please deliberate a bit more in simpler language understandable
by earthly human beings?"
|
- Sorry about that. I'm running out of time for my day job so
I have to be brief, but hopefully not so hopelessly obscure. Christianity
developed in opposition to Greek philosophy, from which it nonetheless
took its conceptual bearings. This means that in Christianity
theological doctrine has historically been more emphasized than
in Judaism or Islam, both of which are more directed toward the
law. Thus St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, felt it necessary to
defend Christianity before the bar of philosophy, whereas Averro-s'
Decisive Treatise is a defense of philosophy before the
bar of sacred law. This means that Christianity was more "philosophical,"
so to speak, although ecclesiastical authority bent Aristotelian
philosophy for purposes of dogmatic orthodoxy, whereas Islam left
free-thinkers free to think as a private matter. This had implications
for the greatness of Islamic civilization in its heyday. Now,
however, that the effects of the European Enlightenment have been
globalized, all religions and all religious experience comes to
conceptual language. Everybody does the same kind of theology,
and often that just means bad philosophy in the sense of poor
conceptual thinking. Take, for example, the way that Native American
spirituality has been turned into insipid New Age books (no offense
to my New Age contemporaries who might read this-I get to criticize
my own generation). Islamist fundamentalism is an ideological
theology that goes back only to the end of the 18th
century. What makes modern Islamism new is the arrogant (or
ignorant) rejection of the Islamic legal tradition, whose four
schools have always given rise to discussion and debate and hence
freedom for thought, in favor of a one-dimensional ideology that
calls for an ahistorical "return" to a poorly-conceived
"pure Islam" by way of repressive laws. Religious "belief"
has become dogmatic "theology." Islamism represents the
extreme of this tendency, but to some degree perhaps everybody
is infected. That might have something to do with your negative
experiences.
- OK, let's finish:
-
- Walter: "To sum up, with particular reference to Koranic
interpretation: How and when did a rich civilization
give way to an impoverished ideology? That is
the question of Islamicist fundamentalism. Muslims used
to study the universe in order to understand the Koran;
now, for the most part, they ignore the universe and only
read the sound of words."
-
- You: "Who are those Muslims? Prophet Muhammad? Or his
immediate associates namely Abu Bakr, Omar, Ali, Osman,
ibn Walid? These are the finest heroes of Islam and we have
sufficient knowledge about their activities and interests.
But never such things came to our attention. Maybe we have
missed it! Or there may be other great heroes of Islam,
who might have done that. A bit detail would be helpful.
-
- However, your assertion is flawed. Islam is the (only)
perfect code of life and Koran is the ultimate minefield
of knowledge and wisdom. Koran is complete. This
is the fundamental doctrine of Islam. The saying that one
needs studying the universe (gaining knowledge from other
sources) to understand the Koran is contrary to the basic
thesis of Islam. It amounts to insult to the Koran and Islam
and should technically amount to blasphemy or heresy. Many
of the 8th to the 14th century philosophers and scientists
of Islam (not theologians) tried to do that and they were
termed heretics and apostates and many of them had to pay
the ultimate price for that. Instead, it is the Koran that
contains all the knowledge and mysteries of the universe
(ask Mourice Bucaille & Keith Moore et al., who
recently discovered all the minefield of science in the
Koran, which Muslims couldn't do in 14 centuries)."
|
- Ah,
but I'm right about this. It's not a matter of individuals,
but of the atmosphere of a civilization. Islamic art, which is
a style of great artistic (especially architectural) accomplishment,
cannot be traced to specific individuals but it can be traced
to the unity of religious experience or revelation. As far as
I know, the great scientific accomplishments, notably the invention
of the zero and algebra, without which European science could
never have taken off, are also anonymous. The "completeness"
of the Koran as a textual whole certainly did not prevent the
civilization that was based upon it from exploring the world.
Sure, many suffered persecution, as happened likewise throughout
European history. And many suffered from the same kind of political
infighting that happened throughout European history. Indeed,
in both places the religious and the political have always tended
to merge, when they did not collide. Civilization is a strange
and complex phenomenon. But Islam had it, its basis was religion,
and its religion deserves respect. There's timeless truth hidden
therein. That's my claim. OK, your turn.
|
|
|