Progressive Islam=Deism?
-
Peace,
My question is, where is the willingness to set aside one's personal political views if they conflict with the Word of God among this movement? I think that the search for truth should not be a quest for watering down a given message into a mushy, weak theology, of "do what you feel is right, and God'll love you all the same"
How do you distinguish between "what you feel is right" and "what you feel god feels is right"?
Nadeem
-
Peace,
How do you distinguish between "what you feel is right" and "what you feel god feels is right"?Nadeem
In terms of Quran-only Islam, or Miqra (scripture)-only Judaism, the answer to the latter is a historico-grammatical exegesis of all passages relevant to a topic, and the deduction of a logical conclusion. The process sounds complex, but serves to remove as much personal bias as possible from the reading of Scripture to learn what God is saying, on His own terms. In Karaite history, this model of study established a kind of "scientific method" we can all have differing opinions/hypotheses of what God's will is on a subject, but it's only after gathering in information from the entirety of the Scriptures and other objective fields of human inquiry that we can arrive at a conclusion.
However, and please do correct me if I'm wrong, much of the articles on progressive Islam simply provide a conclusion first (say, a lack of a weekly day of worship, a ban on corporal punishment in all forms, anti-creationsim, etc.) and then pick through various ayaat as "proof" that their hypothesis is compatible with the Quran. Sometimes, the text is heavily allegorized to meet this purpose, and other times, the text is interpreted hyper-literally (ex the Al-Fatihah Foundation (an Islamic LGBT activist group) claims that ayah 2755 is simply dissaproving of "gay lust", and not men having sex with men overall, since it technically mentions the word Shahwat (lust).
If you are uncomfortable with the Quran, or the idea of Divine Revelation, or of an objective set of commandments that regulate all aspects of life, then why not be honest about it? On the other hand, if you're serious about God and living according to HIS guidelines, then shouldn't we see more articles about people proclaiming "not my will, oh God, but Yours be done" (like on many Qurani and Karaite websites)?
Just giving my 2 sheqels (or dirhams, lol)...
-Ya`aqov
-
...the answer to the latter is a historico-grammatical exegesis of all passages relevant to a topic, and the deduction of a logical conclusion.
Are you saying the above method cannot be found in al quran?
...much of the articles on progressive Islam simply provide a conclusion first...
This is a fairly common structure in many articles, whether on Islam or not. Generally, the purpose of an article is because "you have something to say" so usually whatever it is is often mentioned at the beginning or at least alluded to. Not sure what you can conclude from that... I assume that is why you used "much" so as not to deduce something based on a generalisation.
If you are uncomfortable with the Quran, or the idea of Divine Revelation, or of an objective set of commandments that regulate all aspects of life, then why not be honest about it? On the other hand, if you're serious about God and living according to HIS guidelines, then shouldn't we see more articles about people proclaiming "not my will, oh God, but Yours be done" (like on many Qurani and Karaite websites)?
Very little can be considered 100% objective. Using reason/logic is part of us, so there will almost always be a subjective part, and opinions can and will differ and al quran recognises and addresses this .
-
My question is, where is the willingness to set aside one's personal political views if they conflict with the Word of God among this movement?
A fair question Is it Good because God says so or God says so, therefore it is Good? (Socrates)... I think it is both. Our logic is God's ruh (revealed knowledge) and it works on 19 Rules of inference. We all share that logic system.
Let me a bit modify your question and let the answer for both question hover in the air
"My question is, where is the willingness to set aside traditional and cultural political views inherited from previous generations if they conflict with the Word of God among this movement?"
Peae,
Edip -
It can sometimes look like those who are called "liberal or moderate or progressive Muslims" view islam/quran through a Western/secular lens and "tend to prioritize the values of the Secular West, and use those values to judge the veracity of their given texts.", but quite simply, bring forth the evidence.
For example, if you feel XYZ is definitely a secular/Western thing/value and is definitely not a quran/islam thing/value, yet "progressive Muslims" or "religious left movements" are saying it is, simply cite the examples and present the evidence.
I have not studied this, so would be interested to see if there were any solid examples.
Peace
What value to you attribute to 'itjehad' in 'interpreting the Quran'. Personally, I believe that the Quran provides a moral framework. Hence I am not sure such a thing really needs to be applied to the Quran. One of the (many) problems with the Sunni/Shia holy books is that they tie them down to very specific ways of doing things . Everything else is 'innovation'. This makes their religion like a straightjacket.
Roshan
-
Be honest I have not seen anykind of link with members of this site and any other political ideology. people here debate the Koran. It may agree with some political thought and it may not. The reality is there is no real political system in the Koran. edip presented one(federal,secularism) but he based that on the Medina agreement and not the Koran. Most people here argue about Koranic verses and how it can be interpreted.
The way I look at it is I try to see what was the role of the prophet and why was he sent. Sunnis look at what he did and what he said, without asking whether this is why he was sent. They basically try to imitate his biography. The Koran clearly states what was the role and job of the prophet.
1682 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message .
6107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides Him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you a guardian over them.
479-80 Say'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."
1753-54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner. Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe .... Hence, We have not sent you with power to determine their Faith.
24.54. Say "Obey God, and obey the Messenger. but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message).
8821 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.
3941 Assuredly, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. Whoso guided himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper.
426 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach ....
6412 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.
6725 26 And they ask, "When shall the promise be fulfilled if you speak the Truth?" Say, "The knowledge of it is verily with God alone, and verily I am but a plain warner."
10.99-100. If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe! No soul can believe, except by the will of God, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand
I find it hard to see what this has to do with a political system. It seems to me that people assume that because circumstances led him to govern, then it must have also been part of his prophetic mission and job. But we know many prophets preached but never governed. Yet the Koran treats them all as the same. This is because they all preached the same message.
-
A fair question Is it Good because God says so or God says so, therefore it is Good? (Socrates)... I think it is both. Our logic is God's ruh (revealed knowledge) and it works on 19 Rules of inference. We all share that logic system.
Let me a bit modify your question and let the answer for both question hover in the air)
"My question is, where is the willingness to set aside traditional and cultural political views inherited from previous generations if they conflict with the Word of God among this movement?"
Peae,
EdipWell said, Dr. Yuksel - in fact, much of my case regarding "heavy allegorization" & "hyper literalism" as a means for - at least some - progressive Muslims to create a religion after their own likings was also argued against in your article, "Conspiracy against Conspiracies or Words in Wonderland".
(http//www.yuksel.org/e/religion/arab.htm)"I agree with some of his arguments and disagree with the most. I find some of his arguments being inconsequential word choice, such as the meaning of DYN being way of life rather than religion, which I think, ultimately means the same thing. However, his argument aiming to eliminate Salaat and Hajj rituals are radical, yet fragile and unsupported. His arguments against rituals occasionally appear strong when they are compared to the traditional corrupt interpretation of some verses. In other words, the strength of his position mostly relies on the weakness of mushrik Sunni and Shiite (mis)translation of Quranic verses...
...This is another abuse and exploitation of the Quran Alone message. Aidid is not the first nor will be the last brave warrior who will use the powerful message of the Quran Alone against tradition to justify esoteric and absurd claims."
Again, while I am fluent in Hebrew and follow the faith of the Prophets as embodied in the much older Miqra (Hebrew Scriptures), I agree that sophistry and confirmation bias (http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias) are roadblocks to the true understanding of any nonfiction text.
Shalom `Aleikhem/As-salaamu 3alaykum -
-Ya`aqov
-
Edip presented one(federal,secularism) but he based that on the Medina agreement and not the Koran. Most people here argue about Koranic verses and how it can be interpreted.
You might be justified to reach such a conclusion based on a quick answer I posted here. But, in my articles and books (especially in my Turkish book titled "Devlet/Demokrasi/Oligari/Teokrasi", I shared with the reader the Quranic verses that led me to such a conclusion.
I believe that if you search the Quran a Reformist Translation (its electronic version can be downloaded at http//groups.google.com/group/19org ), you will find the Quranic references for the concept "federal secularism",
Federal Secularism, in brief, can be defined as governing a diverse population under multiple jurisdictions that accommodate multiple legal/religious systems that co-exist under a single leader and constitution. In such a system religions are accommodated fully without allowing them to impose their specific rules over others, and religious affiliation is inferior to the rule of law agreed by all parties.
I also recommend Natural Rupublic (Layth) for Quranic references.
Peace,
Edip -
Peace,
Again, while I am fluent in Hebrew and follow the faith of the Prophets as embodied in the much older Miqra (Hebrew Scriptures), I agree that sophistry and confirmation bias (http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias) are roadblocks to the true understanding of any nonfiction text.
Such a statement infers the present as the origin of reference. This method of reference has it's shortcomings as it founded on a historical boundry which creates and promotes exclusion. Your movement begins from the PRESENT towards a PAST. Thus you can claim it as older. May I ask you, is Jesus included as a prophet in your faith? Is Mohammad included as a prophet in your faith?
If the creator is the reference of origin, then ''your'' scripture, Miqra, is in fact the youngest and the qur'an is the eldest. The life of prophecy contained within the qur'an includes all the life of prophecy, without exclusion. When humans become the origin of reference, the order of things becomes lost in the process and disorder becomes the norm. We should be careful with falsifying identities, as it founds confusion.
adjwi
-
Rather than searching for the true faith of the Prophets of God, it seems that all of the "religious Left" movements (whether liberal Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) tend to prioritize the values of the Secular West, and use those values to judge the veracity of their given texts.
Hi Ya`aqov,
What are the values of the secular west that you are talking about here?
I am asking you this becouse freedom of speech, movement, believing/disbelieving, freedom of choice, expression, gender equality are viewed as western values which is not true.
The above mentioned and other values are God given to every single human on earth, which at this point in time are more exercised in the west.
I think that common sense rather than Secular west is the priority of most of the people in this forum when discussing divine revelations.Peace.
