Sunday, January 20, 2008

Muslims against Sharia and that damned Logical Principle of Non-Contradiction


Now this is interesting.

It reminds me a bit, somewhat incongruously perhaps, of John Henry Newman's efforts to bring Anglicanism back to its origins and to create some kind of reconciliation between the CofE and its apostolic Christian roots. Of course, in this investigation Newman was too honest and diligent and his work brought him into the Catholic Faith. (While others of his clique, carried on in their desperate delusions, bringing us the weird and surreal house of mirrors known as "high" or "traditional" Anglicanism.) Perhaps it reminds me of Newman's solution for the Protestant Problem because there are certain correspondences between that and the Muslim Problem.

It strikes me also that the item gives us a hint of why the so-called "liberal left" is currently so dedicated to the Islamic project of world domination. It is not just that they are both bent on the same goal, to wit, the utter demolition of Christian culture and the philosophical assumptions upon which it is founded. It is deeper than that.

Adherents to the modern authoritarian leftism currently in fashion in places like the newsrooms of the BBC and Guardian, are making common cause with the Mahometans and their brand of authoritarianism because their ideology comes from Protestant authoritarianism. The "new left" is merely a logical extension of the ultra-authoritarian Calvinism that preceded it. Calvinism also, if you recall, required its adherents to slavishly submit to the words of the Bible as though it is the literal word-for-word dictated message from God. It also required its followers to conform their thoughts to an unquestioning acceptance of a number of logical contradictions. To a 17th century Calvinist, the idea of interpreting the bible was a capital offense.

Similarly the proposal to examine and edit the Koran to bring it into line with Christian moral values seems to be a self-defeating and self-refuting proposal, one that neatly exposes the inherent logical contradiction at the heart of Islam.

I wonder what an honest, objective Muslim who is not normally inlined to become a "homicidal zombie", would make of the Koran when approached in the way these people seem to be suggesting.

It does create a little dilemma doesn't it? Islam requires unconditional and unexamined submission to Allah; this requires submitting to the notion that the Koran (unedited) is the actual literal faxed-to-earth-by-angels words of Allah. But because of the manifestly evil and self-contradictory content of the Koran, to do this, they must turn off both their conscience and their intellect.

But if Muslims then edit the Koran to make it nicer (and, let's face it, more Christian), how can they possibly "submit" to it? It would then have to be admitted that it is not the literally dictated words of Allah, but a book written by human beings for their own purposes. The entire religious proposal of Islam then collapses.

The problem of Islam is this:

The Koran is the literal word of Allah,
but the Koran is manifestly wicked, and is full of contradictions,
leading to only two possible logical conclusions: that Allah either does not exist at all and was invented by an evil megalomaniac to further his dreams of world conquest, or is a ravening demonic monster who must under no circumstances be mistaken for the living God.

This leads us to the next problem:
Islam requires submission to Allah, as revealed to man in the Koran.
But human beings are endowed naturally by their Creator with the ability to tell right from wrong and are created with the freedom to choose between them.
If a man submits to Islam, he knows that he is submitting either to the demonic monster Allah, or to something he knows is false. Either way, in order to submit to it, he must do violence to his nature and suppress his conscience and his intellect in order to do something wicked and dishonest. He must, in other words, become a wicked and dishonest man himself.

But to try to solve this dilemma by making the Koran better, by trying to make Allah into the True God, he is back to dishonesty again. If he remains a Muslim, since the only thing a Muslim is required to believe, the only "tenet" of Islam is utter submission to the Koran as it is, he must admit that his religion is wrong, false. To say he submits, but only to parts of the Koran, is to say he submits only to his own preferences, and we are back to dishonesty and internal contradictions again.

The only way out is to ask the question, "Can the Koran in its entirety be the true word of God?" And if we are starting with Christian presuppositions about the nature of God (He is always good, cannot will evil and cannot ever contradict His own nature), we are obliged to say that the idea of a good God is always and can only be utterly contrary and opposed to the savage beast represented as God in the Koran.

What they seem to be admitting is that the only way to be a good Muslim is to be a bad Muslim.

Now, the human intellect, will and conscience, in its natural un-deformed state, is ordered to that which is objectively good because it was made not by man, nor by the monster Allah, but by the true God who can only make good things and only will the good.

From this it naturally follows that no human being who wants to do good can submit to the Koran without deforming his conscience in some way. Either by using the pretense of obedience to the wicked instructions in the Koran to excuse the evil he wants to do in life anyway (beat his wife, murder people who disagree with him, rape, launch Human Rights Commission complaints against magazines and publishers, and blow up buildings) or he can pull a Winston Smith and masochistically force himself to submit and love something he knows is false. His religion requires that he become, in other words, either a bad man with a hopelessly deformed conscience, or a self-enslaved dhimmi living a lie.

Both of which will make him into the kind of monster so beloved of the demon Allah.

Which is precisely what we have seen.

Anyway,

Muslims against Sharia, it seems to me, are trying to figure out a way out of this impossible logical contradiction: they are trying to be good men and good Muslims at the same time.

“Islam, in its present form, is not compatible with principles of freedom and democracy,” it proclaims.

“Twenty-first century Muslims have two options: we can continue the barbaric policies of the seventh century perpetuated by Hassan al-Banna, Abdullah Azzam, Yassir Arafat, Ruhollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, Hizballah, Hamas, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, etc., leading to a global war between Dar al-Islam (Islamic World) and Dar al-Harb (non-Islamic World), or we can reform Islam to keep our rich cultural heritage and to cleanse our religion from the reviled relics of the past.

“We, as Muslims who desire to live in harmony with people of other religions, agnostics, and atheists choose the latter option. We can no longer allow Islamic extremists to use our religion as a weapon. We must protect future generations of Muslims from being brainwashed by the Islamic radicals. If we do not stop the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, our children will become homicidal zombies.”

25 comments:

Muslims Against Sharia said...

“two possible logical conclusions: that Allah either does not exist at all and was invented by an evil megalomaniac to further his dreams of world conquest, or is a ravening demonic monster who must under no circumstances be mistaken for the living God.”

We believe that you missed the third, more logical conclusion: the Koran has been corrupted over the centuries.

“the only thing a Muslim is required to believe, the only "tenet" of Islam is utter submission to the Koran as it is”

That is not correct.

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

what,

no fatwa?

Muslims Against Sharia said...

Well, if you insist,

We, Muslims Against Sharia ___ to ___ for ___. You fill the blanks.

Zach said...

the Koran has been corrupted over the centuries

Pardon my ignorance, but I thought that was considered impossible.

Wikipedia agrees with me, at least, and references Surah 15:9, which seems to argue that the text of the Koran cannot be corrupted.

So, it seems you're back to the problem Hilary points out of needing to be bad Muslims to be good Muslims.


peace,

Muslims Against Sharia said...

"Pardon my ignorance, but I thought that was considered impossible."

The Koran contains contradictory concepts, i.e., "respect the People of the Book" and "kill them wherever you find them". Since God is infallible, the Koran cannot be the literal word of God.

Steve said...

The problem, as I understand it, is the principal in Muslim theology known as "abrogation". According to this principle, Allah can always contradict himself later on if he sees that a greater benefit will come for himself, the prophet, or his people by a change in the game plan.

This is why the significance of the various Surah should be ranked chronologically in order of when they were written, not simply in the order they appear in the Koran (which is non-chronological).

It's an ends-justify-the-means approach to adhering to divine truths, which becomes pretty hard to swallow when we're talking about inviolable laws dictated by the almighty himself.

It would seem that the more reasonable people of Islam would see these blatant contradictions and find themselves reaching the same conclusion as Muslims Against Sharia here...that the Koran cannot be the literal word of God.

But if this is not so, it more or less underlines the entire religion, which is so heavily based upon the very notion that the Koran is precisely that.

It's an untenable place to stay for a thinking man, and with any luck, many won't.

steve said...

"underlines" should have been "undermines".

Muslims Against Sharia said...

The doctrine of abrogation contradicts the doctrine of God's infallibility, therefore it is false.

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

So, basically you're saying that any of the tenets of Islam that you don't happen to like are "untrue".

According to what criteria are you making this judgment? And who has decided what those criteria are?

I'm afraid that most of what I have seen about Islamic theology is more or less contradictory. So much so that it has led me to the conclusion that there is nothing in Islam that warrants the name "theology" in the way we understand it.

It is another one of those assumptions made by western post-Christians to imagine that what we understand to be philosophy and theology, that is, well constructed and examined principles developed with the help of the basic laws of rational thought (like the L. P. of Non. C) are universal. As far as I can see, Islam has no equivalent to Aristotle, Augustine or St. Thomas.

And never can.

Muslims Against Sharia said...

There are five universal tenets (or pillars) of Islam that are untouchable. The rest varies between different movements.

“According to what criteria are you making this judgment?”

Common sense. If the Bible said that you could drink molten steel, would you believe it or would you question the validity of that statement?

“And who has decided what those criteria are?”

That doesn’t matter. What matters is that no one in their right mind would argue with common sense.

“I'm afraid that most of what I have seen about Islamic theology is more or less contradictory.”

You are welcome to try to find contradictions in our Koran.

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

"Your Koran"

Yeah, I think you're actually kind of missing our point.

If we are talking about God, the rules about Him aren't subject to change, only further discovery. Addition, not editing for personal preference.

I'm sure it's a lovely read, but the fact that you have taken the Koran and fiddled it to suit your personal preferences is what makes me not interested in reading it.

Why should I bother? Any more than I would waste my time with Jefferson's edited bible?

What I detect here is the same impulse as that of what we call the Cafeteria Catholics who have decided that a bunch of the tenets of Catholicism are "untrue" because they don't personally like them. As such, I'm afraid the entire project starts from an intellectually dishonest point.

Which is my point.

I'm not at all interested in arguing the tenets of Islam with you. What I'm saying is, that when it comes to universal truths, you don't just get to choose according to personal preferences what you happen to like.

That just makes you another bunch of self-serving, self-worshipping liberals.

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

Which means it does indeed matter who decides what the criteria are.

Especially since you have just admitted that there is no such thing as an authoritative, unified Islamic theology, just five pillars to be interpreted according to personal whim.

Yet another reason the Muslims and the post-Protestant "liberals" get along so well.

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

and duckie,

I think the modern world has amply proved that there is no such thing as "common sense".

There's truth and falsehood and the illogic of your basic starting point proves that you have a hard time with those.

Muslims Against Sharia said...

We believe that the Koran has been changed over the last 14 centuries and we’re cleaning it up, reverting it back to the original as close as we can.

“What I'm saying is, that when it comes to universal truths, you don't just get to choose according to personal preferences what you happen to like.”

If you believe that universal truths could contradict each other, this discussion is senseless.

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

Boy o boy, are you ever not getting what anyone is saying to you.

There are universal truths that cannot be changed.

These flow from the existence of a God whose nature does not change and cannot be contradicted.

But Islam proposes that the Koran is the revelation of this unchanging God. It therefore cannot be altered.

But you've come along, applied, frankly western, Judeo Christian and Greek philosophical ideas to your problem (that the Koran as it is today is manifestly evil) and decided to continue to try to cling to it by just taking out the bits that conflict with what you have neatly dismissed as "common" sense. But this common sense is not common. It is western, it is Greek, it is Jewis and it is Christian.

You believe the Koran has been changed. Fine, it probably has. But what you are proposing is an inherent contradiction, since Muslims must believe that the Koran is the literal word of God.

The point of all this is that you as mere humans don't get to change it, if it is the word of God.

If you do get to change it according to what you happen to prefer, that means it isn't the word of God any more is it?

The problem you are having is that there is nothing in Islam but the Koran. There is no philosophical or theological Tradition supporting it. It's just submit to the Koran. It can't be interpreted, it can't be examined (in the classical philosophical manner) and it can't be changed. Unless you are willing to admit that there is no divine origin to it. It's just some book.

You believe it has been changed. Ok, well, change it again. But either way, you can't claim that it is still an infallible inspired text.

Your proposal is inherently illogical.

But this sentence:
If you believe that universal truths could contradict each other, this discussion is senseless.

shows that you are actually failing entirely to grasp what anyone here is saying.


But you're liberals, so it makes perfect sense that you cannot grasp this.

Muslims Against Sharia said...

“Boy o boy, are you ever not getting what anyone is saying to you.”

Of course not. We are just dumb Muslim liberals. How can we compare our feeble minds to those of the wise non-Muslim conservatives?

“Islam proposes that the Koran is the revelation of this unchanging God.”

No it doesn’t.

“Muslims must believe that the Koran is the literal word of God.”

No, they don’t

“The problem you are having is that there is nothing in Islam but the Koran.”

You must have gotten you theology degree at a community college, didn’t you?

“But either way, you can't claim that it is still an infallible inspired text.”

That’s your opinion, with which we do not agree.

“Your proposal is inherently illogical.”

With your community college Ph.D. in theology you are hardly in the position to discuss logic.

“But you're liberals, so it makes perfect sense that you cannot grasp this.”

Of course, not. You’re either a conservative or a moron; there is no other choice. However, since you’re basing your conclusions on groundless assumption, you must not be a conservative.

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

ah yes.

the ad hominem refuge.

well, good luck with that whole making up your religion as you go along thing.

and thanks for proving me right.

Kirk out.

Muslims Against Sharia said...

Dear,

No matter what we say, in your head it will be a proof of you being right. You know next to nothing about Islam, that's why your "scholarly" opinions don't make much sense.

Zach said...

"muslims against sharia",

You know, good luck and God bless with your project of reducing the number of homicidal zombies (a noble goal!).

But, the more you argue, the more my initial suspicion is strengthened -- that is, you sound remarkably like an Islamic version of the Jesus Seminar.

That's not a compliment, I'm afraid.


peace,

Steve said...

No matter what we say, in your head it will be a proof of you being right.

It's not simply in her head. It's in the head of anyone with an ounce of reason.

You say that Islam does not propose that the Koran is the revelation of an unchanging God. Yet the book is believed by Muslims to be literally the "recitation" given to the prophet of divine truth, received from the angel Gabriel.

I have never seen any other theory put forward. What is yours? If it is not the literal word of god as transcribed by Mohammed, what is it?

I agree that there is more to Islam but the Koran. The five pillars, however, as important as they are, are hardly indicative of what you really believe. (For those who don't know them, they are:

1. Faith (iman) in the oneness of Allah and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad (indicated by the declaration [the Shahadah] that, "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah").

2. Keeping of the five scheduled daily prayers (salah).

3. Almsgiving (zakat).

4. Fasting (sawm).

5. Pilgrimage (hajj) to Mecca for those who are able.)

There is also the Sunnah (the "way" of the prophet) found through the Hadith, which offer more insights into the dangerous mind of Mohammed.

Then, of course, there is Sharia law (which you rightly oppose from my viewpoint, though I'm not sure how you can as a Muslim) the precepts of which are derived from the commandments of the Koran and the Sunnah, are they not?

Am I missing anything else?

As for the principal of abrogation, you deny it, but it is contained within the Koran itself, is it not?

"2:106. Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We {Allah} abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?"

Further, you cannot claim a text infallible while simultaneously declaring it to not be the revelation of an unchanging God or the literal word of God, or that it has been changed and that you can change it back to what you think it should have been (though how you know this has yet to be explained).

Something infallible MUST be immutable. To claim otherwise is to violate logic. I imagine in some fashion you must recognize this, or you wouldn't have switched tactics from reason based arguments and factual disputations to ad hominem attacks. Ad hominem is the last resort of the man who is losing the debate.

This isn't a gang-up session. If you have a valid argument against these points, bring it to bear. Otherwise, don't expect those of us who are still posessed of our senses enough to think that the Crusades were in large part a good thing (insofar as they drove the Muslims back out of the Christian West) to roll over and accept the whole "Islam is a religion of peace" thing.

Muslims Against Sharia said...

Zach,

“But, the more you argue, the more my initial suspicion is strengthened”

Do you suggest we just ignore the bullshit without calling it bullshit?

Steve,

“Yet the book is believed by Muslims to be literally the "recitation" given to the prophet of divine truth, received from the angel Gabriel.”

Think about it for a minute.
A. The Koran contains contradictions.
B. God is infallible
The only logical conclusion is that some parts of the Koran did not come from God.

“If it is not the literal word of god as transcribed by Mohammed”

The Prophet could not write. The Koran was recorded many years after the Prophet’s death. 9/11, which happened just a few years ago, was the most documented even in human history. Yet, we already have versions of events that are diametrically opposed to each other. Doesn’t it give you at least a suspicion that the Koran that we have today might differ from what was revealed to the Prophet?

“There is also the Sunnah (the "way" of the prophet) found through the Hadith, which offer more insights into the dangerous mind of Mohammed.”

Again, records created generations after the events could hardly be considered accurate.

“Sharia law (which you rightly oppose from my viewpoint, though I'm not sure how you can as a Muslim)”

Where does it say that if you’re opposed to Sharia you cannot remain Muslim? If you are opposed to the Inquisition or anti-Semitism, does that make you non-Christian?

Re. 2.106: the doctrine of abrogation contradicts the doctrine of God’s infallibility, therefore it cannot be true.

“Further, you cannot claim a text infallible while simultaneously declaring it to not be the revelation of an unchanging God”

When did we do that?

“Ad hominem is the last resort of the man who is losing the debate.”

You are confusing ad hominem attacks with descriptions. When somebody uses faulty statements to come up with conclusions, it is reasonable to doubt that person’s intelligence.

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

OK, that's enough boys.

Everyone has made their little points and its time to have a cup of tea now.


Don't make me come in here with the fire hose.

Zach said...

Aww ... just as we were really starting to have fun.

Party-pooper.


peace,

Steve said...

Doesn’t it give you at least a suspicion that the Koran that we have today might differ from what was revealed to the Prophet?

I don't believe anything was revealed to "the prophet" at all - at least not by God. I'm trying to understand your belief. It's your crazy religion, you make some sense out of it. For the life of me, I can't.

HJW said...

STEVE!

what did I say?!