From: rayes@Snake.mcs.kent.edu (Sandra Rayes)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
Date: 24 Jul 92 14:29:03 GMT
Organization: Kent State University

In article <graham.711856118@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>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.
>
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.

>Sandra:
>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.
>
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...
	
>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 ...
>
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.

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.  

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
duty and reward equally for men and women.  In the last sermon of 
Muhammad, he said that there is no "superiority" of humans in Islam,
no women over men, or men over women, black over white (or vice verse),
or Arab over non-Arab (or v.v.)...you get the point...but that Allah
only knows superiority in terms of "taqwa" (faith in Allah and good
deeds, loosely translated).  

>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.

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.

>
>Hence the notion of the *one true islam* is spurious. There is indeed

Only to those who haven't taken the time to study Islam.  

>one defintion, namely a bunch of words without meaning. But surely the
>*one true Islam* refers to the meaning of these words ...


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.

Sandra.

>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