From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 05:07:03 GMT

Sandra Rayes:
>There is ONE ISLAM...the one Islam related by God in the Quran and as
>explained by Muhammad.  You wanted a definition, there it is.  The
>problem here is not the philosophy of Islam, but the implementation
>of the philosophy of men, with all their diversities and personal
>agendas.

Lets make this really simple. There may indeed be one definition of
Islam, namely as you suggest above. The problem is that no-one in
fact knows what this definition is. They do not have access to the
definition, they only have interpretations of the definition (they
read the definition - the Quran - and in reading it they make 
interpretations).

So technically you are right when you say there is only one true
Islam, but no-one knows what this true Islam is.

Or are you going to tell me that you can read the Quran without
interpretation? You can read it and get its exact meaning?
If you are not going to claim this, then what use is your one true
Islam? It becomes a theoretical construct which no-one can in fact
access in practice - like invisible particles!

Sandra:
>I didn't say "what do all the groups around the world think...", I
>asked YOU to explain how YOU know the level of clarity in details of
>the Quran.  A simple question...

From passages people have posted here. From Muslims friends. From 
reading and having several passages read to me by said friends.
Now before you go and argue that this is such a flimsy base to
build my argument on, I suggest you take a close look at my 
argument. My argument is independent of how much you know about
the Quran. It relies solely on the position that you cannot read
something without interpreting it. This is true of any book, be it
the Bible, the Quran or a mathematical textbook.

Sandra:
>I *know* that Muslims who oppress women are NOT doing God's word,
>because God said:
>	The blame (of wrongdoing) is only against those who
>	oppress mankind with wrong-doing and insolently transgress
>	beyond bounds through the land, defying right and justice;
>	For such there will be a grievous penalty.  
>				As-Shura, 42
Graham:
>Oh dear - you can only use this passage to justify your position that
>oppressing women is bad because you have a pre-conceived notion
>that oppressing women is bad. For example say I thought that oppressing
>women was ok - they are inferior so ruling them is fine. Now I read
>the above passage and I think that it does not apply to me. It says
>"oppress mankind with wrong-doing" - well I am not oppressing women
>with "wrong-doing", since I do not think oppressing inferiors is
>wrong.
>
>Perhaps this is too subtle for you ...
Sandra:
>In a sense, you are correct...I do have a pre-conceived notion that
>oppressing women (or anyone) is bad.  However, the language of the
>Quran is clear (if you could read it in Arabic, you would understand
>what I mean). Allah makes it clear that oppressing ANYONE, male/female,
>races, even ANIMALS, is wrong.  I simply brought you one verse to
>illustrate the foundations of my belief.  There are many more verses
>that support the notion of "oppressing" or the maltreatment of women
>is a serious crime, as well as hadith the clearly express the same
>concern.  If you want an indepth discussion about this, I am willing
>to discuss this by email with you when I get back from vacation.

As I demonstrated the language of the Quran is not clear. I can make
a very easy interpretation of the above which does not say that
"oppressing women is bad". So much for the Quran's clarity.

Sandra:
>About the second part of your statement above...you are making a big
>mistake because you are "assuming that verse does not apply to you".
>The Quran is the LAW for all Muslims, whether they choose to obey or
>not, or squirm out of their religious responsibility in favor of
>culture/tradition.  

I am not "assuming" that the Quran does not apply to me. I am simply 
making the logical statement that "IF one assumes a different standard 
of bad and good BEFORE you read the above passage THEN the above 
passage does not say that oppressing women is bad".

Now I ask you "where did you get these notions of good and bad that
you use to INTERPRET the Quran passages? And please do not answer
"from the Quran" as that sort of argument is trivially circular.

Sandra:
>The second thing you do, which is totally wrong, and invalidates your
>point, is you assume that you CAN oppress women because they are 
>"inferior" to you.  No Muslim believes that women are inferior to men.
>Islam is again VERY clear about this.  This is a debate which has taken
>place in Christianity, but never Islam.  The Quran clearly ascribes 
>religious

You have missed the point. You read the above passage and you 
INTERPRETED it based on your preconcieved notions of what good
and bad were. Now I had different pre-concieved notions so I read
it and got a different intepretation. What does this tell you about
your notion of the one true interpretation of the Quran?

Now where did you get these notions of the what good and bad were
that you used to interpret the Quran? And how do you know that your
notions were in fact correct? Maybe my notions were correct? How
can you know? You could try to argue that you got your notions from
reading other parts of the Quran but I will then say "well when you
read those parts you had some other pre-conceived notions ....". 
Perhaps you could try to say that at some point you were able to read 
the Quran without having pre-concieved notions - a kind of blank state.

To me however it seems plainly absurd that you could read a book 
without pre-conceived notions. That would be to deny your humanity.

Sandra:
>No, the problem is "you can't understand how you (I) can consider this
>notion meaningful".  Because *you can't understand*, or in this case,
>differentiate between definition and interpretation, suggests you 
>don't have a workable base in Islamic philosophy, and maybe this is
>a thread better left to those who do.
Graham:
>I can differentiate perfectly between 'definition' and 'interpretation'
>It is in fact you who cannot differentiate. The 'definition' of Islam
>is the words written by Mohammed - the actual words, their syntax etc.
>This definition has no meaning as syntax is devoid of meaning.
Sandra:
>Oh please....you are assuming an awful lot here...This is MY religion,
>obviously not yours, and it took me many years of study to get to my
>understanding.  I don't need this condescending attitude.  If you are
>TRULY interested in studying this problem, then do so by reading 
>some fatwas concerning this debate instead of making a pack of
>assumptions based on your limited, western understanding of MY
>faith.

I am not being condascending. You seem to be failing to understand
what I am driving. I am not denying that you have studied Islam
far more than I have. All I am suggesting is that you may have
studied Islam but always with an assumption about its nature. For
example I have studied mathematics but I will be the first to admit
that mathematics is all about interpretation - the one true mathematics
is as big a fallacy as the one true Islam.

Moreover as I noted above my argument does not rely in knowledge of
the Quran - I would never take you up on such a point as I would
undoubtedly lose.

Graham:
>>Hence the notion of the *one true islam* is spurious. There is indeed
Sandra:
>Only to those who haven't taken the time to study Islam.  

Study of Islam is irrelevant. Anyone who knows anything about
how humans learn and live will see the simple truth in what I say.

Graham:
>one defintion, namely a bunch of words without meaning. But surely the
>*one true Islam* refers to the meaning of these words ...
Sandra:
>Words are without meaning to those who are illiterate.  For those who
>are ignorant about Islam, then the words that define it would naturally
>be without meaning.  But for those of us who have taken the time to
>pursue Islam, those words have something MORE than just "meaning"...
>they have purpose.

Simple test - what is the meaning of the word "house"?
Now what is the meaning of the same word in the sentence "I painted
my house blue"? And the same word in the sentence "I went to my
house to see my mother and father"? Please answer these questions and
think carefully about youyr answers - they may seem frivilous but they
encapsulate the core of the argument.

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