From: bes@cco.caltech.edu (Behnam Sadeghi)
Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:31:04 GMT

In article <graham.711855673@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:

>I have after a clear meaningful definition. I do not have that since
>Mohammed is dead and hence I cannot ask him the meaning of the words
>he wrote. All I can do is guess at their meaning.
>
>Thus I have a single syntactic definition (the words he wrote) but
>many semantic definitions (interpretations of those words).

Then you are really looking for the "true interpretation."   Even if
the Prophet (pbuh) were alive to answer our questions, even then his answers
might be interpreted differently by different people. 

>Sure we could hardly expect anything else. That is my point.

Point well-taken (so far).

>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.

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.

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).

>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*.

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.   

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.

>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.

Then one has to condemn the action that's based on the *incorrect* inter-
pretation.  Yes, one interpretation is incorrect. The fact that a Muslim may 
pick this incorrect interpretation does not imply that the interpretation is 
valid (which is what you're implying).  From a _probabilistic_ standpoint, it 
is possible that *every* Muslim chooses wrong interpretations on a given issue.
Then ALL of them would be wrong!

>(Behnam Sadeghi) writes:
>>"One true Islam" exists and is very meaningful.  For a precise
>>definition of it see my first paragraph.
>
>Syntax is not meaningful.

>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

Only "math people" like yourself (and myself) would waste their time
on such arguments!

Behnam Sadeghi


Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14707 news.answers:2314