From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:48:38 GMT

(Sandra Rayes) writes:
>You are right...the "system", but not the religion.  The "system" is
>culturally-based first, not religiously-based...show me one true
>Islamic country.  Any system which oppresses women is anti-Islamic,
>IMHO.
Graham:
>The IMHO gives away the fallacy in this sentence Sandra. What is 
>"a true Islamic country". It does not exist because no-one knows
>what the "true Islam" is - you may have an opinion about it (hence
>the IMHO) but there is no clear definition of it. Your statement
>does not mean much then ...
Sandra:
>A fallacy is an error in logic.  By stating IMHO doesn't necessarily 
>make my statement fallacious, that is incorrect, but just means that
>this is my interpretation.
>
>The fallacy here is in *your* statement. You state no one knows what
>true Islam is....[because] there is no clear definition of it.  Do you
>want *the* "true Islam" or the "definition"...or should I say, one of
>the definitionS. 

"One of the definitions"? You told me that there was ONE true Islam.
Now you are telling me that there exist more than one definition of
the true Islam. This sounds dodgy to me.

Sandra:
>So do I, Selim.  I constantly bicker with even Muslims who try to use
>a twisted interpretation of Qur'an to oppress women.  But I also 
>oppose OUTSIDERS, who know nothing about Islam, who use twisted media-
>induced visions of Muslims and Middle Easterners to pass judgement on
>ALL Muslims.
graham:
>Here we have the "true Islam" fallacy again. The Qu'ran is open for
>interpretation - it is not clear what its message is in detail.
>How do you know that those Muslims who use the Qu'ran to oppress 
>women are in fact not just doing God's word?
Sandra:
>Be careful.  You are suggesting that "true Islam" IS a fallacy.  I
>wonder what you know about Islam, personally. (Aside from media-
>inspired generalizations)

I never suggested that Islam is a fallacy. I suggested that the notion
that there is one clear interpretation of the Quran is a fallacy.

Sandra:
>Explain how you know the message of the Quran is not clear in detail,
>or I must assume another error in logic has been made.

Look at all the groups around the world who have different interpretations
of the Quran. QED.

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

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:
>I don't accept man-made changes...or twisted interpretations of Qur'an
>to oppress women, or races, for that matter.  What I do is try to work
>within the system, not to pass judgement, but try to learn everything I
>can.  The problem is we Muslims need some influential women scholars.
>So we have to work in the system to educate women.  Again, these are
>cultural problems, not religious ones.
Graham:
>No the problem is again this clinging to a notion of the one true
>Islam. I really can't understand how you can consider this notion
>meaningful.
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.

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.

The interpretation of these words is the meaning of Islam. Now there
is more than one interpretation of the words of Mohammed. To say that
there is not is foolish. 

Hence the notion of the *one true islam* is spurious. There is indeed
one defintion, namely a bunch of words without meaning. But surely the
*one true Islam* refers to the meaning of these words ...

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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism