From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:53:10 GMT

Graham:
>>Thus I have a single syntactic definition (the words he wrote) but
>>many semantic definitions (interpretations of those words).
(Behnam Sadeghi) writes:
>Then you are really looking for the "true interpretation." 

Sure I am. The term *one true Islam" cleary refers to interpretations
as otherwise it is pretty meaningless.

Graham:
>>There is no "one interpretation" of Islam that is "the true Islam".
>>The problem of interpretation ensures this. Yet Sandra's whole
>>argument is based on the premise that there is a "true Islam",
>>namely that described by her interpretation.
(Behnam Sadeghi) writes:
>No, there _is_ one True Islam.  I didn't wish to imply that there isn't
>a true Islam.  Please note this distinction:  To say that
>there will naturally be different interperpretations is _not_ to say
>that all these interpretations are equally valid and that therfore 
>there's more than one true Islam.

How do I know who has the correct interpretation? Given two 
interpretations of the same passage how do I know which one to pick?
Lets give a simple example from english usage

	"I went to the park with the dog"

Now there are two possible interpretations of this sentence. By
your reasononing above you would say that these two interpretations
are not equally valid. Care to tell me what criterion you use for
ascertaining the validity of the two interpretations? Once you have
done that you could tell me why you chose those criterion over other
possible criterion. Then you could apply this type of thinking to
your position on the Quran.

(Behnam Sadeghi) writes:
>The true Islam is defined as what the intention of God and his 
>Pophet is.Some Muslims' interpretation will be in line with true Islam,
>some Muslims won't (and there's a spectrum in between).

Sure this is indeed the true Islam, but the problem is that no-one
actually knows what the intention of God and his prophet is. They have
some words in a back which purport to define that intention but as
you admit above everyone has a different interpretation of those
words.

You are making a simple mistake here. To saying that some 
interpretationsa stray from the true Islam and some don't is indeed
true since if we have two interpretations of the same thing both
cannot be right. But the issue here is given two interpretations
I1 and I2, how do I chose which of them is correct? Surely to
chose one is to imply that you have a standard by which you judge.
But how do you know if that standard is correct?

Graham:
>>BZZZT! You are falling into the same trap as Sandra. You say "refer
>>back to the definition ..". But the definition is just syntax - devoid
>>of any meaning. Only interpretations have meaning and there are more
>>than one of these so you cannot "refer back to THE definition" as
>>it is not *unique*.
(Behnam Sadeghi) writes:
>I don't know why you think the definition is "devoid of any meaning."
>There's no book that can be said to be "devoid of any meaning."  This
>applies to the Holy Qur'an as well.   

Oh dear - the definition of Islam is the literal words written on
the page. These words do not have a unique meaning. The word "slug"
for example has two meanings that I can think of. So until you
interpret the words in the book the words themselves have no meaning.
They only acquire meaning when you interpret them.

(Behnam Sadeghi) writes:
>You say the definition is not unique; but it is.  We have only one Holy
>Qur'an, only one Prophet Mohammad, and only one God.  Maybe you mean 
>interpretations aren't uniqe.

I mean interpretations aren't unique. Obviously you only have one
book and therefore one syntactic definition, but what good is a 
syntactic definition? It doesn't tell you anything. The semantics
of what these words mean gives the book meaning, but there is more
than one possible semantic for the book!

Graham:
>>Nope - if a passage in the Quran has more than one interpretation how
>>can I condemn an action. The action may be right in one interpretation
>>and wrong in another.

(Behnam Sadeghi) writes:
>Then one has to condemn the action that's based on the *incorrect* 
>interpretation.  Yes, one interpretation is incorrect. 

Er and how am I to judge which is the incorrect interpretation?
Once again you seem to think that there is one true interpretation
of the words of Mohammed.

(Behnam Sadeghi) writes:
>The fact that a Muslim may 
>pick this incorrect interpretation does not imply that the 
>interpretation is >valid (which is what you're implying).  

No that is not what I am implying. What I am implying is that there
may only be one correct interpretation but you have no way of knowing
what that is.

(Behnam Sadeghi) writes:
>From a _probabilistic_ standpoint, it is possible that *every* Muslim 
>chooses wrong interpretations on a given issue.Then ALL of them would 
>be wrong!

I could not agree more. What I want to know is how can you admit that
all interpretations could be wrong and still insist that there is
*one true* Islam? Islam is surely the interpretation of the words,
and not the words themselves, as the words are just syntax.

(Behnam Sadeghi) writes:
>>>"One true Islam" exists and is very meaningful.  For a precise
>>>definition of it see my first paragraph.
Graham:
>>Syntax is not meaningful.
(Behnam Sadeghi) writes:
>Only "math people" like yourself (and myself) would waste their time
>on such arguments!

It has nothing to do with mathematics and everything to do with the
nature of knowledge.

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au