59. Religious Truth
A Critic wrote:-
No two Muslims seem to agree completely on what the Quran really means. They have been dodging and weaving so long that words no longer really mean anything to many of them, particularly as the meaning of words are made so flexible as to cover almost anything a person wants them to mean
Comment:-
There are certainly differences of opinion. Which religion does not have them? Even when, unlike Islam, it has an organized Church and Priesthood to tell them what to believe. Is everyone agreed in Politics or on any subject, even in science?
Human beings have limitations. Therefore, given the total amount of data, their minds have or select only a certain limited amount of it. This means that different people can have different kinds and amounts of data. They will also interpret and systematize this differently according to their different inherent temperaments, experiences and interests.
The only way agreement can be obtained, apart from brain washing and control of information, is when everyone has the total amount of data. But this, by definition is only known to God. Therefore, it is progressive approach to God that brings unity.
As for the flexibility of words, things in nature are flexible and changeable to different degrees and we have only a small number of words to describe a much greater number of phenomena in the world. That is why one has to deal with classes and analogies. If one restricts the meaning of words as philosophers tend to do then language deals with artificiality. It is not real phenomena that it describes, but it selects only those phenomena or their aspects which fit the formal definition.
Critic:-
It is good to see that you are capable of seeing the truth of the matter. (more or less, having the total amount of data is not, by definition, limited to God.)
Comment:-
I note that you have assumed the role of judge as to what is Truth and of my capacity of seeing it. Unfortunately you have understood what I wrote rather superficially owing, perhaps, to the desire to score points over me rather than trying to understand.
The Quran tells us that God has created the Universe with Truth and that He surrounds all things and is aware of all things. We may, therefore, regard the Universe as being like thoughts in the mind of God. As this cannot apply to anything else, we may assume that Total Truth is only that which Allah knows. But He does reveal some of it to us through the Prophets and Messengers. He also reveals some of it through our capacity for consciousness - the Spirit of God is in us. (32:9). The aim of Islam is Surrender to Allah, to be "at-one" with Him and this also implies Self-realization - i.e. that we are, in reality, spiritually part of Allah's Spirit.
Critic:-
It is strange that you are unable to see the logical conclusion of this, that absolutist dogmatic interpretations of such matters are inherently claptrap.
Comment:-
Your faith in logic is touching. There are also things such as senses and insight, understanding and consciousness. Even Reason is a wider concept than Logic.
There are three types of knowledge (called in the Quran Ilm ul-Yaqin, Ayn ul-Yaqin and Haq ul-Yaqin):- Verbal, experiential and categorical (or gnostic) knowledge. You can, for instance, hear about a "table", see it or understand it. Strictly speaking hearing about it is information, not knowledge. And different people can interpret the words differently. Even when something is experienced, different people can describe it differently. For instance reporters in different newspapers do this.
To continue the analogy of the table, it can be seen as having a flat surface with four legs or even only one central one. But a table has meaning with respect to other things. For instance, it is part of a group called furniture that is part of larger group of household goods, and so on. It is something round which people sit on chairs to eat meals. Or it can hold books or computers and office work can be done on it. This connects it with a culture and so on. Things can be known to different depths in wider and wider contexts.
But though different people may certainly understand things to different levels, the person who looks at the object and says: It is a table is not wrong. But if he says it is a chair he may well be wrong, though some people do sit on tables, thereby converting it into a chair for the duration. However, the purpose of the object is to be a table. It is better suited for that function and less suited for the function of chair.
Critic:-
You are well aware of the problem, yet fall into the trap of propagating your interpretation as the only possible valid one. Worse still, you impugn those of others.
Comment:-
You have made an unjustified assumption. When and where did I say that my interpretation is the only valid one?
I am not writing a Quran. I am writing in order to share as much as I understand of the teachings of Islam. I do not claim infallibility. You can accept, amend or reject as you like.
Or is it your assertion that no one is allowed to make any statements whatever about anything, except, of course, those who agree with you?
The point of the article and other similar articles I have written is that there is a difference between the reality of a thing, the experience of it, and the description of it. There is the Quran as a reality, but different people may have different experiences of it and their interpretations of it may vary and is always limited. It is necessary not to mistake the interpretation for the reality. When this mistake is avoided, conflicts will cease. What we ought to do instead is to continue to study and expand our knowledge, experience, understanding and consciousness. That is what is called "The Straight Way". But it is the duty of those who have more knowledge to share it with others. This can only be done if these latter wish to receive and have the necessary capacity and if there is free exchange of ideas so that each can assess and learn.
Critic:-
You have mentioned several problems in the application of Islam in the modern world, but failed to mention that there is a problem with Islam itself.
Comment:-
There is no problem with Islam itself. It provides us with a world view, a goal and a method to get to it.
Critic:-
None of this is relevant to whether or not there is a problem with Islam.
Comment:-
I am sorry you cannot see the relevance. One thing leads to another:-
Reality > A View of Reality > A purpose or goal > A Method of reaching it.
The problem is with people who do not understand it, do not wish to understand it, or do not apply it.
Critic:-
Substantiate this. The problem is that the Islamic frame work provides no means to protect against violent people once they become established within it. This is a weakness in Islamic theology itself.
Comment:-
When you see a table, can you, and do you need to, substantiate it to someone who cannot see or will not look?
Let us reverse this, and ask you to substantiate your above statements.
Whereas God himself has left man free to make his choices, you wish us to establish a system by which this is taken away? You are asking Islam to have a method by which it can control the minds and actions of people. In other words you want it to have an established Church with a priesthood. But I am sure you know that this has led to much abuse. It is these which have corrupted religion by using it, both in doctrine and practices, to control people for the sake of their own wealth, power and prestige or for the sake of Kings, Merchants and States. The Churches themselves have organized violence, prejudice and wars until their power was taken away. These institutions themselves have lost all purpose but self-propagation. They have separated people from religion - the religious actions are done for them by the priests and the theology has become the property of the Church, which the lay public cannot understand or question. This makes religion absolutely ineffective, into a superstition, because it destroys the central idea "as a man sows so shall he reap".
The purpose of Islam is to create a direct link between man and God without mediator. Everyone is his own priest and has the right and responsibility to study and act for himself. He is directly accountable to God. Islam makes religion available to all mankind.
Unfortunately, of course, self-appointed priests have arisen owing to the laziness of people and the desire to relinquish responsibility to someone else. But the fact remains that this attitude of independence and self-reliance has influenced some people and has, in fact, brought about the modern world.
As Islam is the name given to all True religion as brought by any genuine Messenger from God, the ultimate Reality, then if anything had been wrong with it, it would have been wrong with all religion.
Critic:-
This is a demonstration of the dogmatic writing that you have asked me to identify for you. You may believe this to be true, but in fact it is only valid within your own world view and should not be held as being a fact.
Comment:-
True. It is a fact within our World View.
But we think it is an objective fact because:-(a) it is a revelation of the creator of the Universe. (b) The word "Islam" means "surrender to Allah" and that is how we define religion, to become at-one with the Creator. We also define "Prophet" or "Messenger" as one who has contact with Allah, the fundamental Reality. Therefore, the statement above is true by definition.
If you wish to define all these terms in some other way then you will not understand Islam, and you will be speaking about something other than Islam. In that case there is no communication between us. You may not see it and you may not believe it or wish to believe it. But that is your problem not ours.
But all religions, or rather their adherents, degenerate owing to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That is why they need renewing. This has certainly happened to Christianity and also to Islam.
Critic:-
This is pseudo-scientific clap trap. It is quite evident that you have no idea what the 2nd "law" of thermodynamics is.
Comment:-
Perhaps you will enlighten us.
I understand it as follows:- According to this Law energy tends to flow from a place of greater concentration to a place of less concentration. Therefore, ordered systems tend towards disorder - that is, entropy increases. E.g. things that are hot cool down spontaneously and buildings collapse spontaneously but they do not build themselves spontaneously. Crockery when dropped shatters, but the parts do not come together spontaneously to form them. Conscious efforts are required to build things, to produce order. This is because according to the theory about chance there are many more ways in which things can be disordered than there are ways in which things can be ordered - there is, therefore, a greater probability that they will become disordered. The notion of "causes" and "information" are connected with this. We need a "cause" to explain the existence of order. Information or truth refers to order. Chaos gives no information.
Critic:-
Why do people persist in trying to obtain "scientific" credibility whilst totally ignoring the requirements of science is beyond my understanding.
Comment:-
Let me try to explain. From the Islamic point of view the value of science lies in allowing an increase in understanding and in the beneficial application to the process of living. If it merely creates technology designed to entertain, invent amusements, make profits, gain political dominance, or prestige for the scientist, then it is relatively useless. So we are required to interpret the data of experience, observation and experiment in the most valuable way possible. That is, in fact, a much more natural way of proceeding.
Critic:-
You say Christianity etc. have degenerated. Support this assertion.
Comment:-
It is self-evident for those who study and look. There is a difference between the teaching and the behaviour of people. And there is a difference between how seriously the teachings were taken in the past and how they are taken today.
But in Islam the Scripture is still in tact and regeneration is possible.
Critic:-
Claimed to be intact is different from being actually being intact. The claim of intactness can not be sustained, due to the deliberate destruction of earlier texts of the Koran.
Comment:-
The Quran was originally a Recitation. The verses of the Quran were memorized and written down by many people. Any one reading the Quran will also note that the same ideas are repeated several times though in different ways. It is, therefore, impossible that the destruction of a particular text can change the Quran.
It is also unreasonable to suppose that the Caliph, a believer and close companion of the Prophet Muhammad (saw), under whose orders our present Quran was gathered together, invented or distorted the text. There is no record of this having caused a major crisis and conflict in Islam.
Apart from this, though you will not believe it, it is a promise from God that the Quran will be preserved. This, no doubt, applies to the meaning and truth and remains in the community, in the minds of a succession of teachers.
Critic:-
You say that Christianity and the other religions can only be revived through Islam. Claims of the intactness of Jewish and Christian scripture can be sustained much more than similar claims for any Islamic text. You make a dogmatic statement with little basis in reality.
Comment:-
You obviously do not know what Christian Scholars have discovered about these Scriptures. But even a superficial examination of the Christian Gospels tells us that they are reports by third parties about the sayings and doings of Jesus and the accounts vary.
But it is not so much the Scriptures themselves which we are concerned with, but with the interpretation and the selective application of them. The renewal of a teaching means that it has to be looked at with a fresh mind from another angle, not one conditioned by tradition. This fresh look is provided by Islam.
As for fault finding. We have to know what is true and good and what is false and bad. These are two sides of the same coin. Many Muslims are well aware of the faults of Muslims as well as of others. But they have to point out the faults of others when these others insist on presenting their fallacies, prejudices and fantasies as truths.
Critic:-
The problem with Islam is that it provides no mechanism for knowing what is true and good and what is false and bad. It only provides a mechanism for accepting someone else's views on this without question.
Comment:-
This accusation is true of a religion that has an organized Church and a Priesthood, which Islam does not, or should not have.
The proof of what is good and evil lies in the God given conscience that is part of the nature made by God.
Though conscience, as consciousness and will which deal with perception of Truth and falsehood and with appropriate and inappropriate action, have become dormant in most people, the Quran tries to awaken them, and provides methods of doing it.
What do you wish? Can you establish what is good or evil by external means and proofs without some method of increasing the capacity for perception? We are dealing here not only with the capacity for perception but also with motives and the ability to do - in short with the human nature as a whole. Where on earth do you find a system, other than real religion, Islam, which has a method of transforming man.
Though it is true that it is not universally in use, there are certainly a number of groups and communities where the system is in use. Even if it applies to 1% of Muslims, that makes a considerable number.
But this discussion is probably futile because there is a fundamental difference in attitude between the critic and a Muslim:-
Critic:-
People ought to rely only on Logic. There is no other way of reaching truth. Logic consists of the rules of Reason.
Comment:-
How do you establish the validity of logic. By logical argument? This is a vicious circle. You have faith in logic. But it is misplaced.
The fact, however, is that Logic deals in words. It deals in concepts abstracted from experiences, not with objects and events. It consists of defining terms, putting these together to form premises, and combining premises to extract inferences from them. A logical argument will go wherever motives take us. If we wish to reach a conclusion, then we need only define our terms appropriately and select the appropriate premises. That is why arguments between different people who have different motives will be endless and futile. We can see this in all departments of private and public life. In fact, we are not conscious of most of our motives. The intellect does not work by itself. Thought, feeling and action are interconnected and depend on the nature of the individual. This is why Islam is much more interested in human development than in particular faculties.
However, Logic has its uses. It is good for solving problems where the goal is already known and appropriate data is sought. Reason and Logic are tools like any other, which can be used correctly or incorrectly and for good or evil purposes. Perception requires receptivity and knowledge is a revelation. It cannot be invented. If a person is unable or unwilling to see all this, then further discussion is liable to be futile. One can merely beg to differ. " To you your religion and to us ours."
Another Critic:-
It is blasphemy for you to say that "the Universe is like thoughts in the mind of Allah." There is no justification for this in the Quran.
Comment:-
I think that if the critic is not merely trying to be argumentative, then he has fixations on words. Everyone can see that my articles are not the Quran and that I quote the Quran in inverted commas, mentioning chapter and verse. Do all articles and books that are not the Quran have to state that their contents are not Quranic Truths?
I also qualified the statement under question by saying "we may suppose"
Most people know, or ought to know, that ultimate and transcendental things are not like the mundane things within our experience. They know quite well that God is not like an object or person and that we can only speak about Allah by using familiar notions in a symbolic manner. In writing these articles I do assume that the readers will have some education and that not all have negativistic mentalities like the anti-Islamic trolls. Fixation on words is also a form of Idolatry which makes people react to the sound or sight instead of understand what is being said.
There are quite a few verses in the Quran which I think support my view:-
"....for Allah surrounds all things." 8:47
"..that Allah has power over all things and that Allah indeed encompasses all things in knowledge. " 65:12
"Vision comprehends Him not, but He comprehends all vision, for He is the Subtle, the Aware" 4:104
"He is Allah the Creator, the Originator (or Maker out of naught), the Fashioner; His are the Most Beautiful Names; whatever is in the heavens and the earth declares His glory; and He is the Mighty, the Wise. " 59:24
"...and Allah is Aware of all things." 64:11
"He told me Who is the Knower, the Aware of all things." 66:3
"Should He not know, He Who created? And He is the Knower of the Subtleties, the Aware. " 67:14
So the Quran tells us that Allah surrounds all thing, has created all things from nothing and that he is the Aware. So I have substituted the word Mind for Awareness because I wanted to point to something. If a reader does not like the word or phrase he can ignore it. The purpose of the word is to point to something else, not the word itself.
Critic:-
We only know about God because He reveals himself. In other words, if God chose not to reveal Himself, no one would be any wiser. The Mullas are saying that the attributes of God are defined by their terms, so they tend to treat God like an object they are in control of (at least in their interpretation). I'm arguing based on the past scholars' works that the rudimentary knowledge of God is defined by Him and what He says about Himself. To think otherwise would mean that God is actually subservient to the human thoughts and have to "fit" in to what humans think is acceptable. This trivializes the concept of God.
Comment:-
Correct. But it is the meaning that has to be understood. The words used are meant to convey the revelation, they are vehicles or vessels. Fixation on words is a form of idolatry. When this happens then even the terms used in the Quran limit God for the person suffering from this malady.
In what way does it trivialize to say that "The Universe is in the Mind of God" It implies that God transcends the Universe.
There are a great many books that are not the Quran. Some of these are also commentaries or explanations of the Quran and use words other than those in the Quran. Do you wish to reject them all?
Critic:-
You can try to interpret the Quran, but that does not make it true.
Comment:-
Thank you. Some people benefit from this. There is not much point in having the Quran unless it also understood. Some understand more than others and try to share their understanding. But there is no benefit in rejecting it. I myself have benefited from the interpretations of many scholars and also from the interpretations of the Prophet (saw).
----------<O>----------