"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

So I don't have to repeat myself:
http://www.islamicboard.com/533571-post3.html

Peace.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Both the theist and the atheist view each other as lost, and both may be offended by the other's view.

The theist believes that the atheist is blind to religious truth and will suffer without the glory of god etc. Some theists believe the athiest will even be punished or tortured for his lack of belief

The atheist believes the theist is lost in self delusion. The atheist sees the theist as believing in fairy tales and falling for a story passed on from the theists society.

Both of these views can be seen as offensive I'm sure.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Salaam
Atheist think about Allah all the time too.

What on earth makes you think this? Dawkins is one guy. I personally think he's got a bit of an unhealthy obsession with religionists or fear of them. Most atheists I know don't think at all about religion until they run up against religious people trying to push it on them.

 

[Joe98]

Salaam

Atheist think about Allah all the time too.

Wrong! This Athiest only thinks about people!

 

[Curaezipirid]

Wrong! This Athiest only thinks about people!

Well then an atheist whom is at essence a true thinker thinks about Allah all the time too. Joe98 this is not intended as an insult to yourself in the slightest; and please try to let me explain.

There are two different phenomena which pass as thought. One is without words, pictures, shapes, repeats, strings of consequetive repeated pattern, or any attitude. Only a sensiblity that most often goes unnoticed. And a consciousness that goes without description of what we are experiencing. Then the fact that our experience is forming associations in our mind and causing a pattern of mental processing is a different form of thought. The first is of Human Spirit and the second of each our own self.

There are plenty of folk whom in essential Spirit are in Allah but whom disregarded what they have been taught to mind of Allah. Most commonly only because they were initially taught incorrectly. It is very difficult to change a persons education. Thinking in Allah is a sort of consciousness that is the simplicity of knowing beyond every possiblity of doubt.

If you know any matter as provably true and unable to be disproven; then when you are knowing that you are in Allah. This is a part of the definition of Allah.

It is why Islam wins.

wasalam

 

[Pygoscelis]

There are plenty of folk whom in essential Spirit are in Allah but whom disregarded what they have been taught to mind of Allah. Most commonly only because they were initially taught incorrectly. It is very difficult to change a persons education. Thinking in Allah is a sort of consciousness that is the simplicity of knowing beyond every possiblity of doubt.

I'm not sure the above paragraph is coherent. I couldn't make any sense of it. What are you trying to say here?

If you know any matter as provably true and unable to be disproven; then when you are knowing that you are in Allah. This is a part of the definition of Allah.

huh? I'm thinking of a pink elephant. I know I'm thinking of a pink elephant, its true and unable to be disproven. So I'm in your conception of a deity? What on earth is this supposed to mean?

It is why Islam wins.

Wins what? What do you win for me knowing I'm thinking of a pink elephant? That makes your religion win some kind of prize? Thats just peculiar.

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings czgibson,

If you want to find peaceful verses from the Qur'an, you will find them; if you want to find violent verses, you will find those too. It is strange that, among god's many perfections, clarity of thought, or the ability to write a coherent narrative (which most people are able to do by the time they reach secondary school) are not among them.

I did not quite understand how the connection was made here between "violence" and "clarity of thought" or writing with "coherence". The issue of "violence" is one thing: where it can be clarified that unjust killing is forbidden and that just because permission to fight is given, this does not mean barbarianism or calling for wars whenever possible. But what does this have to do with clarity of thought or writing with coherence? The verse is written plain and clear for all to comprehend; perhaps what is required is knowledge on behalf of the reader. A schoolchild might be confused by a writing of shakespeare, but does it mean that the work is written incoherently... or is it more likely to be the case that the child who knows little about shakespeare requires an explanation from a teacher?

Greetings Pygoscelis,

What I understand from Curaezipirid's post is that people might see or experience God's signs, yet they mistake or disregard these as being meaningless experiences, (possibly) due to the teaching they have received during their uprbinging. Yet those who have the concept of God hold on to something that is provably true and cannot be disproven, as once truth is found and error distinguished, how can there be a return to error?

Peace.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Muhammad,

Good to talk with you again.

I did not quite understand how the connection was made here between "violence" and "clarity of thought" or writing with "coherence".

My point was that having the supreme lawgiver of the universe alternately calling for peace and then violence is liable to give rise to great confusion. The evidence that it has caused confusion is all around us if we look at the current world-picture.

The issue of "violence" is one thing: where it can be clarified that unjust killing is forbidden and that just because permission to fight is given, this does not mean barbarianism or calling for wars whenever possible. But what does this have to do with clarity of thought or writing with coherence?

In terms of clarity it would help greatly if we knew how the decision should be made on whether a war is just or unjust.

The verse is written plain and clear for all to comprehend; perhaps what is required is knowledge on behalf of the reader.

If the Qur'an actually was written with clarity, there would be no need for the scholars to work besides giving advice on practical issues as they arise. The whole tafsir industry would be redundant, surely, if the book's message was 'written plain and clear for all to comprehend'.

A schoolchild might be confused by a writing of shakespeare, but does it mean that the work is written incoherently... or is it more likely to be the case that the child who knows little about shakespeare requires an explanation from a teacher?

This is an unusual question, and an even stranger analogy. Let's see what the connections are:

Why might somebody be confused by Shakespeare's writing?

The most common reason is the language he uses (Early Modern English). This difficulty would mean the writing was inaccessible for the reader, but they would be unable to judge on its coherency at all without being able to read it, unless they used a translation.

Why might somebody be confused by the Qur'an?

The language of the Qur'an is often a barrier to understanding it in the non-Muslim world. However, we're talking about coherency here, and this can surely be judged from translations, unless we have serious doubts about the quality of the translation.

In what ways could Shakespeare's writing be considered 'incoherent'?

Shakespeare was a poet, and, as poets regularly do, he often presented us with seemingly contradictory thoughts, whether voiced in his 'own' persona in the Sonnets or through characters in his plays and poems. Poets aim to make us think, and if they use contradictory phrases in order to express ideas that they otherwise can't, that's fair enough. Often in Shakespeare's plays, the opposing thoughts given in the characters' lines together form a kind of discussion that takes place through the play. Does this make the writing incoherent? Well, it depends what you mean. The characters disagree with each other, so it's incoherent in that sense, but overall, how else to show the progression of an idea?

In what ways could the Qur'an be considered 'incoherent'?

In his book, Dawkins makes the bold assertion that early Islamic scholars found the Qur'an to be a document filled with contradictions, and so invented the concept of abrogation. I don't know enough about it to be able to comment, but surely abrogation would not be necessary in a document written with clarity and coherence that was supposed to be a crucial part of an inerrant god's final message to humanity?

Also, the crucial difference between the authors of the Qur'an and the works of Shakespeare is that only one of them claims to be perfect, to have all the answers on how people should live their lives and to have perfect knowledge of past and future. In comparison, Shakespeare can afford to be incoherent if he wants to, since he's never claimed to be anything other than a fallible human being. (Although, as mentioned, it's unclear in what way Shakespeare could be considered to be incoherent, since his writings were largely and essentially works of fiction).

As any leader or manager knows, when giving instructions it is best to be clear. Rather than giving a document that has required constant hermeneutic study, annotation, explication and interpretation from thousands of scholars through the centuries, could the Almighty not have given humanity something clearer in terms of moral direction (e.g. should Muslims take non-Muslims as friends?), on issues such as violence (where many Muslims disagree on the interpretations of verses)?

These are my thoughts on the Qur'an / Shakespeare analogy, but to be honest I'm not sure where that leaves our discussion...

Peace

 

[glo]

Hi CZ

I don't think this reply will b helpful from a Muslim perspective, so I will keep this to be my personal view as a Christian.

For me, it is those seemingly contradictory verses and parts of the Bible, that make it to be God's word, which can be applied in all situations and cultures throughout the ages - exactly because they require people to sit down, question, ponder and decide how to apply the word to life as they know it. (By people I don't just mean scholars and clerics, but also congregations and individuals)
Am I explaining what I mean? :?

If I just blindly followed written instructions, without weighing the words in my heart and my conscience, it would have no meaning to me at all.
If God's word was so clear and prescriptive that I did not need to think about it myself and draw my own conclusions, I would just be a mindless follower ... I don't think that's what God wants me to be.

(As I said, this is only my personal view, and many believers - Muslims and Christians alike - may disagree with me!)

Peace

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hello Callum,
The major flaw I've noticed in your arguments is that you immediately assume the infallibility of the human mind in interpreting scripture, such that any percieved dissonance in directives is immediately attributed to ambiguity in the scripture. Don't you think it is possible that some people may purposefully interpret a directive in a way that suits themselves? For example, if you tell your students, "finish this essay for homework" that is a pretty clear statement but someone could always twist around your words and say that by 'finish' you meant incinerate, by "for homework" you meant in lieu of other household chores that they would normally complete, and so on. Also, sometimes clear directives may not be understood due to emotional or cultural baggage someone has in interpreting them. Or certain directives that elucidate other directives may be denied if they conflict with one's strongly-held convictions. No matter how many instructions you provide, elucidating and explicating everything you mean, the possibility of divergent results will always remain. It is not fair to always attribute such divergent results to insufficient clarity in the instructions, though that may be a cause. Just because a student does bad in your class doesn't mean that you were a bad teacher. I am sure you can relate to that!

To use another example, it is pretty clear why certain arguments are blatantly fallacious but that doesn't prevent people from committing them.

My point was that having the supreme lawgiver of the universe alternately calling for peace and then violence is liable to give rise to great confusion.

The falsity of such a notion is something that I have clearly exposed in the following seventy-plus-page refutation:
Commonly Misquoted Verses and Narrations
The problem is not that the Qur'an provides contradictory directives; the problem is that people MISQUOTE and MISTRANSLATE the Qur'an, rob its passages of their context, and ignore the methodology that it has outlined itself for its interpretation. I guess myself is inevitable is some discussions, so here is the post I linked earlier:
http://www.islamicboard.com/533571-post3.html
Divergent interpretations of the same text is something INHERENT in language; ANY text can be subject to misinterpretation and misquoting. This is why a book was not sent on its own but rather with a human messenger to explicate its directives and leave no confusion. The confusion that exists today is a result of people abandoning the methodology outlined by the Qur'an itself and instead trying to pick up the text and interpret it according to their whims and without knowledge.

The evidence that it has caused confusion is all around us if we look at the current world-picture.

I'm sorry but that is frankly rubbish. If that were the case then confusion would abound regardless of the era we are living in. But 'confusion' did not abound in such matters until only recent developments in world affairs and it is due to the prevalence of sheer ignorance amongst the masses concerning 'Ulûm Al-Qur'ân (sciences of the Qur'an). The 'current world-picture' is the result of sociopolitical conflicts and developments in various regions of the world. It is not the result of religious confusion; consider the fact that acts of terror have been condemned unanimously by all Muslim scholars - i.e. those with real knowledge of the Qur'an and Sunnah. Once educated, hundreds have abandoned their former views [*]. Others may resist changing their views due to their emotional attachment to their previous ideas, not due to their failure to comprehend the evidence provided.

If the Qur'an actually was written with clarity, there would be no need for the scholars to work besides giving advice on practical issues as they arise. The whole tafsir industry would be redundant, surely, if the book's message was 'written plain and clear for all to comprehend'.

If someone has sufficient knowledge about the verses of the Qur'an, the prophetic teachings of Muhammad pbuh, the arabic language, principles of logic, etc. then they would have no problem understanding the directives. But most people don't. Tafsîrs do not bring interpretations for verses out of the blue! They follow very strict principles, the most fundamental of which is that different parts of the Qur'an explain eachother. So the tafsîr of one verse will quote other verses in the Qur'an on the same subject to show the reader how the Qur'an itself elucidates the topic. As such, tafsîr in no way contradicts the clarity of the Qur'an but in fact as a standing testimony to the greatness of its clarity.

However, we're talking about coherency here, and this can surely be judged from translations, unless we have serious doubts about the quality of the translation.

First, the vast majority of english translations suffer from serious flaws. You can list a dozen translations for me and I could show you the ignorance, blatant bias, distortions, etc. of the translator. There are a few exceptions that are better than the others such as Saheeh Int'l and F. Malik, although none are perfect.

Secondly, you are correct that the coherency can still be judged by a translation of the meaning but it precludes any selective quoting of passages on the part of the one who judging the scripture. I have authored approximately fifty articles refuting alleged internal contradictions in the Qur'an:
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=472&section=indepth&subsection=Glorious Quran

In his book, Dawkins makes the bold assertion that early Islamic scholars found the Qur'an to be a document filled with contradictions, and so invented the concept of abrogation.

Dawkins SERIOUSLY compromises his credibility by relying on anonymous sources over the internet who are notorious for their bigoted views and obscene attacks on Islam and Muslims!! It is certainly audacious on Dawkins part to attempt to comment on the detailed Islamic sciences of An-Nâsikh wal Mansûkh, Takhsîs, etc. without even a basic understanding of these bodies of knowledge! Could he not have cited some classical sources on this issue or at the very least quoted the explanations of some contemporary scholars? I've already addressed this issue in my article on abrogation:

With regards to abrogation (Ar. naskh), it is a confirmed Islamic doctrine in the Qur'an. Since the Qur'an was revealed gradually over a period of twenty-three years, the legal rulings were not imposed on its adherents all at once. Rather, it gave them time to grow in faith and become accustomed to Islam. As Shaykh Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi mentions:

Among the blessings of Allaah to the Companions is that He revealed to them the laws of Islaam gradually, and thus made it easier for them to adopt these laws. Initially, there were no specific laws of halaal and haraam. The Companions during the Makkan stage were being trained spiritually so that they could form the nucleus of the future Muslim state in Madeenah. Once they had passed this stage, Allaah then completed the revelation of the sharee'ah in gradual steps, so that they could adapt to the lifestyle of Islaam.(Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'aan, Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution 1999, p. 86)​

And as Makkee ibn Abee Taalib (d. 1035CE) mentioned regarding abrogation:

And this (meaning naskh) is from Allah, and is meant to be for the betterment of His worshippers. So, He commands them with a ruling at a specific time, since He knows that it will be for their betterment for that particular time, but He already knows that this command will be removed from them at a later time, since at this later time that particular ruling will not be for their benefit. (An-Nahaas, p. 116.)​

Thus, abrogation does not imply any imperfection whatsoever on the part of God, as critics allege. It does not mean that God made a mistake or that he didn't foresee an event. Rather, God knew in advance, and intended to send temporary laws for the early Muslims that would later be abrogated once the Muslim society became established.

It is analogous to a Professor who asks his students to perform 30 minutes of studying everyday for the first week. During the second week, he 'abrogates' his initial command and asks his students to perform 1 hour of studying every day. The Professor did not make a mistake initially, nor did he react to an unforeseen event. Rather, he had always planned to give a lighter load the first week to his students, and then increase the workload the next week because he knew they would be ready for it. In fact, he had his plan for the entire course written down and recorded. So when he initially gave the order to perform 30 minutes of homework, he knew that he would later abrogate this command.​

Similarly, Allah initially gave some rulings that were later abrogated, but He knew and intended

As we can see, this does not negate God's inerrancy in any way.

(e.g. should Muslims take non-Muslims as friends?)

That is actually a very simple issue; see my quick explanation here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/refutations/30728-non-muslims-friends.html?highlight=friends#post532564

on issues such as violence (where many Muslims disagree on the interpretations of verses)?

I think the media contributes to this notion amongst westerners, that there is a prevalent disagreement on verses of peace and violence amongst Muslim scholars. That is false.

Peace!

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings Callum,

It is nice to see you on the forum again!

This is an unusual question, and an even stranger analogy.

I think you may have taken my analogy too literally and considered it too deeply. I mentioned Shakespeare because I was trying to give the example in a familiar setting for you, not that I actually wanted to compare the Qur'aan with Shakespeare's writings. It could have been replaced with any other book, and my point was that a failure to understand does not automatically mean there is fault with the 'author'.

Peace.

 

[Avicenna]

Dawkin's relies on Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina for his argument against Islam. These two need to be refuted for good.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Ansar,

The major flaw I've noticed in your arguments is that you immediately assume the infallibility of the human mind in interpreting scripture, such that any percieved dissonance in directives is immediately attributed to ambiguity in the scripture.

I don't assume the human mind is infallible in interpreting any text, unless we're talking about some variant of reader-response theory. However, when a book of guidance is interpreted in different ways, it's possible that ambiguity is a cause of this.

Don't you think it is possible that some people may purposefully interpret a directive in a way that suits themselves?

I'm sure they do - this is another cause of confusion.

It is not fair to always attribute such divergent results to insufficient clarity in the instructions, though that may be a cause.

We agree that it may be a cause, then.

The falsity of such a notion is something that I have clearly exposed in the following seventy-plus-page refutation:
Commonly Misquoted Verses and Narrations
The problem is not that the Qur'an provides contradictory directives; the problem is that people MISQUOTE and MISTRANSLATE the Qur'an, rob its passages of their context, and ignore the methodology that it has outlined itself for its interpretation.

Ansar, I'm sure you deserve nothing but respect for the articles you've produced, but essentially what you're doing is attempting to explain why the Qur'an, on many, many occasions, does not actually say what it appears to say. Can we agree that we're not dealing here with a text that is clear for the ordinary reader?

I'm sorry but that is frankly rubbish.

Sorry for not being clear: the incoherence of the Qur'an is only one factor in the current global situation, and you're right to point to other causes.

If that were the case then confusion would abound regardless of the era we are living in. But 'confusion' did not abound in such matters until only recent developments in world affairs and it is due to the prevalence of sheer ignorance amongst the masses concerning 'Ulûm Al-Qur'ân (sciences of the Qur'an).

Do you mean that no-one ever found the Qur'an confusing and incoherent until now?

It is not the result of religious confusion; consider the fact that acts of terror have been condemned unanimously by all Muslim scholars - i.e. those with real knowledge of the Qur'an and Sunnah.

Really? Are you suggesting that all Muslim scholars have a unanimously agreed position on suicide bombing, for instance?

If someone has sufficient knowledge about the verses of the Qur'an, the prophetic teachings of Muhammad pbuh, the arabic language, principles of logic, etc. then they would have no problem understanding the directives. But most people don't.

So if the Qur'an can't be used to explain anything without recourse to abundant explanation of itself first, how can it be useful?

Tafsîrs do not bring interpretations for verses out of the blue! They follow very strict principles, the most fundamental of which is that different parts of the Qur'an explain eachother. So the tafsîr of one verse will quote other verses in the Qur'an on the same subject to show the reader how the Qur'an itself elucidates the topic. As such, tafsîr in no way contradicts the clarity of the Qur'an but in fact as a standing testimony to the greatness of its clarity.

There have been millions of doctoral theses, articles and studies on the works of Shakespeare. Why? Because he is one of the most ambiguous writers in history. A hundred people looking at a page of Shakespeare will most likely find a hundred different things that strike them about it. There is case for saying that 'literariness' itself actually consists of a measure of how many interpretations could be made of a text.

This is why you do not get literary criticism being written about bus timetables or instruction manuals. They are meant to be clear, practical and comprehensible by as many people as possible. Now I know the Qur'an is a much more complicated text than these, but it is reputed to be clear, practical and for all of humankind.

The more that is written about a book, the less of a case there is for claiming it to be clear and unambiguous.

First, the vast majority of english translations suffer from serious flaws. You can list a dozen translations for me and I could show you the ignorance, blatant bias, distortions, etc. of the translator.

I agree. This is a great shame.

With regards to abrogation (Ar. naskh), it is a confirmed Islamic doctrine in the Qur'an.

Where is it explained in the Qur'an? Anywhere more fully than 2:106 and 16:101?

As we can see, this does not negate God's inerrancy in any way.
That is actually a very simple issue; see my quick explanation here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/refutations/30728-non-muslims-friends.html?highlight=friends#post532564

Right - how could god create such a confusing text on such a simple issue?

I think the media contributes to this notion amongst westerners, that there is a prevalent disagreement on verses of peace and violence amongst Muslim scholars. That is false.

Among scholars there is a majority concensus, but not unanimity. Among ordinary Muslims there is widespread disagreement. True?

Peace

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you czgibson;

Among scholars there is a majority concensus, but not unanimity. Among ordinary Muslims there is widespread disagreement. True?

Of course there is and also in Christianity and atheism, it would be a truly sad world if everyone believed exactly the same as I did.

Even though all my beliefs are exactly right;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

We must learn to value people searching in many ways, we must learn to value diversity.

In the spirit of searching

Eric

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I don't assume the human mind is infallible in interpreting any text, unless we're talking about some variant of reader-response theory. However, when a book of guidance is interpreted in different ways, it's possible that ambiguity is a cause of this. [...]
We agree that it may be a cause, then.

Of course; in general, ambiguity of the text itself could be a reason for confusion, but I've explained previously why I feel this is not the case with Islam.

Ansar, I'm sure you deserve nothing but respect for the articles you've produced, but essentially what you're doing is attempting to explain why the Qur'an, on many, many occasions, does not actually say what it appears to say. Can we agree that we're not dealing here with a text that is clear for the ordinary reader?

Okay, let's take an example. In august last year, on the radio an anti-islamist alleged that the injunction "wipe out the infidels to the last" was found in verse 8:7. However, anyone who looks at verse 8:7 would find that the Qur'an - speaking in the context of God's victory to the Muslims at the Battle of Badr - states that this happened because God had intended to cut off the root of the disbelievers. There is no injunction here at all, much less a universal injunction for muslims to kill all infidels to the last, as the critic put it.

So again, most of these miquotations are resolved by examining the textual or historical context of the verse. Instructions of any kind always assume some basic knowledge on the part of the reader. For example, the prohibition of intoxicants entails that one understands that there are such substances.

Do you mean that no-one ever found the Qur'an confusing and incoherent until now?

I mean that no one with sufficient knowledge has found it confusing or incoherent. For instance, if something doesn't have sufficient knowledge to realize that pigs do not live underwater, they would find the prohibition on pigs to be incoherent in light of the permissibility of sea food. Don't you agree?

Really? Are you suggesting that all Muslim scholars have a unanimously agreed position on suicide bombing, for instance?

Well all Muslim scholars agree that suicide is forbidden, which is what the Qur'an very clearly states. What some individuals suggest is that what has become known as 'suicide bombings' does not constitute 'suicide' since that is not the intent of the person involved. So the controversy is over the situation, not the clarity of the Qur'anic text.

So if the Qur'an can't be used to explain anything without recourse to abundant explanation of itself first, how can it be useful?

It is useful because it can and has been used successfully by laymen and scholars to implement Islam into their lives and guide their spiritual relationship with God and social relationships amongst human beings. The vast majority of the time, one can quote a verse on a subject without needing to cite all relevant verses for a deeper understanding. I'm sure the forum provides ample evidence of this.

The more that is written about a book, the less of a case there is for claiming it to be clear and unambiguous.

I think it is because there are so many different lessons and reflections one can draw from it. To give an example, when Islam encourages effective use of one's time, there is so much one can write about time management skills, its importance, its meaning, its application to different tasks, and so on. Detailed commentary does not necessitate ambiguity in the original text, though that may sometimes be the case. As another example, when the Qur'an enjoins prayer, one could write a mountain of volumes on all the topic related to prayer examining it from spiritual, social, societal, legal, judicial, political, technical, lingusitc, [etc. etc.] perspectives.

Where is it explained in the Qur'an? Anywhere more fully than 2:106 and 16:101?

It is explained with recourse to the Sunnah which the Qur'an endorses as the elucidation of its verses.

Right - how could god create such a confusing text on such a simple issue?

I don't think the text is confusing.

Among scholars there is a majority concensus, but not unanimity. Among ordinary Muslims there is widespread disagreement. True?

Maybe not as widespread as you might be think, but I would agree that it is easier to find disagreements on such issues amongst less educated Muslims, which goes back to ignorance as I mentioned earlier.

Peace!