From: guncer@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Selim E. Guncer )
Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 03:59:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.163104.17827@cco.caltech.edu>, bes@cco.caltech.edu (Behnam Sadeghi) writes:
> In article <graham.711855673@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
> 
> >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.

This is what I think the most dangerous thing about religious belief. The 
idea that there are "true" and (consequently) "not-so-true" versions of
a religion.  Then it follows that there are "true" believers who
take matters into their own hands and teach the "unbelievers" of their
version of the religion. The problem is all sides believe they are the
"true" believers and that's where religious conflict comes from.

This idea of "true" belief is the main cause of clashes within the
religion. In the Islamic case, the most notable is the clashes between
the Sunnis and Shias. This is, ofcourse, not limited to blood-sheddingg
only, but intense religious discrimination. 

Now, I recall Sandra defining her concept of "true Islam" (sorry, my
newsfeeder deleted the articles, I thought I could find time to respond),
what is termed as the "asr-i saadet" (actual Latin inscription may be
different, I am using the Turkish spelling), the system existing at
the time of the prophet Muhammed. Clearly when you use such a definition
the era of "true Islam" does not span more than a few decades. The logical
question is "Why did this period end? Why cut it at Hz. Ali's death?"
I normally tend to identify civilizations according to their advancement 
and collapse periods. For Islam, the turning point of advancement was 
the "closing of the gates of Ichtihat" by Imam Gazali (12th century?). 
After that Islamic civilization started a recession and gradual decline. 
This is an interesting turning point. Throughout history civilizations
die because of natural causes, corruption, the emergence of more advanced
civilizations which overtake the other etc.. In the Islamic case however, 
the halting of the inquisitive mind is for the preservation of the theocratic
status quo. Christian Europe avoided the same fate through reforms and
numerous blood-shedding. Reform in Islam never took place, hence the
current situation in the Islamic world. Masses living under authoritarian
regimes under poverty.  Isn't this much of a clue enough to acknowledge
that at least "something" is wrong with the system?

Coming back to "women's rights" it is wrong to distinguish the system
from the dogma. We have over a thousand years of social data characterizing
the system.  We have correlations of the system with other patriarchial
societies. We also have numerous data from utopic societies. They
don't work. 

Selim Guncer

--
Selim E. Guncer               | Jaca negra, luna grande,
CSSER-ASU                     | y aceitunas en mi alforja.
(602)-965-4096                | Aunque sepa los caminos
guncer@enuxha.eas.asu.edu     | yo nunca llegare a Cordoba.. (FGL)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism