For some reason the blog I posted a little over a year ago on multiple wives is the blog that has attracted the most attention. Apparently, that post struck a cord with some of you and has prompted me to post a sequel (albeit a year later).
There is a movement underway in Qur’anic scholarship to engage in a new interpretation of the Qur’an. Throughout Islam’s history, interpretation of the Qur’an has been traditionally the duty and responsibility of men. The problems with this are obvious. By not letting women have a say in interpretation, a major perspective is being silenced.
Amina Wadud, in her book Qur’an and Women: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman’s Perspective, makes a strong case for this new reading and provides some decent interpretation herself (to be fair there are some significant holes in some of her specific examples but for the most part her argument stands up).
Better still is Nimat Hafez Barazangi’s Woman’s Identity and the Qur’an: A New Reading. Barazangi calls for a new reading of the text, not with women in mind, but with justice in mind. Her argument is that the Qur’an is innately just and that if read with justice in mind, all manner of social justice beliefs would be apparent, including gender justice.
Apparently there is a stigma attached to the feminist label. Wadud goes out of her way to say she is not a feminist (although after reading her book I don’t see how she can make that claim) and Barazangi frames her thesis in terms of justice not feminism. Regardless of the label, I concur with both of their general arguments- women need to be more assertive in claiming the role of interpreter. This will only help diminish the negative connection that many make between Islam and the treatment of women.
Posts like this confuse me. How can you both embrace relgion (which presumably means you believe it has some truth) and yet acknowledge that a correct understanding of religion requires different “interpretations” or “viewpoints”?
To me, relgions (at least Abrahamic religions like Islam and Christianity) can only have value as sources for “Truth” if they speak in absolutes. This is because these religions sell themselves as being based on a “Book” that is the “Infallible Word of God.” How can a book both represent infallible truth and require interpretation through an unknown viewpoint?
Put differently, if the Quran has to be “interpreted” through a certain external perspective (from the male perspective, from the female perspective, from the justice perspective, whatever) but WE DON’T KNOW WHAT THE “CORRECT” PERSPECTIVE IS, then by definition the book has no value as an instrument for truth, for we still don’t know what is correct and what is not. In the end, each perspective has as much validity (from a logical perspective) as the other…
Tell me how I’m wrong…
I’m not sure I fully understand your argument but let me give it a shot. I think what you are saying is that if a religion claims that its primary text is the truth then there is no need for interpretation. On the face of it that is a logical argument, however, we live in the real world. People do interpret the Qur’an, Bible or whatever, some to promote a particular agenda, others in an honest attempt to understand the text as best as possible. Either way, interpretation happens and it is a little too easy to just dismiss the idea of interpretation as not in keeping with the “truth” of the text.
Second, religious texts are written in specific times and places, but the religion itself is universal and timeless. The Qur’an is roughly fourteen hundred years old and was written in and around Mecca and Medina. While it may have represented the best wisdom of its time, that time has come and gone. Religious texts need to be re-interpreted from time to time in order for the lessons contained within to remain valid for a new day and age.
Hope that makes sense.
I appreciate your thoughtful reply. In some ways, however, it simply underscores my point.
Let me give you a little background. In my prior post I was somewhat vague because I did not want to offend you. However, I am an atheist, and I am — generally speaking — against the idea of religion as a whole. I think it causes more bad than good in the world, etc., etc. Because of my views, I enjoy engaging in debates that highlight the fundamental flaws in abscribing to any particular religion.
I understand that we live in the real world, that religious texts are interpreted from different viewpoints, and that these interpretations change over time. However, I was intrigued by your post because, to me, that is one of the key facts highlighting the paradox of modern religious belief.
The factual propositions and ethical tenets in a religious text are either true or they are not. If in the light of modern knowledge and modern ethics they are NOT true, no “interpretation” is going to make them so.
In the end, my problem with this issue is this: When someone wakes up and realizes that what they are reading in their holy book is contrary to their own sensibilities, they need to be strong and REJECT THE RELIGION. Instead, however, people try to “reinterprety” the text so they can shoehorn it into the modern world, for which it was not written. THIS, I submit, is what continues to give religion — with all its negative and dogmatic ramifications — a foothold in modern society.
The people who interpret these obsolete texts with a “justice” or “feminist” perspective, their hearts are in the right place, but it just highlights the fact that you get out of religion what you bring to it. Hell, you could just as easily interpret Steinbeck, Orwell, Ayn Rand, or even friggin’ Harry Potter, and learn “great wisdom” if you interpret it from the right perspective.
Sorry for the rant…
“Interprety” is not some new word I made up. It was a typo. I meant to type “interpret.”
Sorry, one more point. This is more directly related to my original comment.
My original point about interpretation is this: Religious texts, for those who believe them, are supposedly the word of God. They have value because they supposedly speak the truth, which is what you would naturally expect when the speaker is an infallble divine being.
However, when the religious book has to be interpreted to be understood, you are no longer reading the words of an INFALLIBLE divine being, but of a FALLIBLE human being, because the meaning of the original words are being changed by the FALLIBLE human interpreter.
In that case, how can you know that you are getting the “correct” information when the “speaker” is no longer God? The answer is, you can’t, and so you are left in the same position as you were in the beginning — i.e., searching for truth, and unable to find it.
So what I’m saying is, only if a religious text speaks in absolutes does it have value as explaining the “truth.” Granted, I’m not saying I agree with the concept of absolute right and wrong. I don’t believe such absolutes exist. I’m simply trying to point out the logical problem with people continuing to rely on religions that they concede are either unclear or contrary to their own beliefs.
I may not be Bennett, but far be it from me to stay out of this one.
This all depends on what you mean by “true”. Texts, by definition, are open to interpretation - they are not mathematical constructs, so it doesn’t make sense to evaluate them in such black and white terms. The fact that people find meaning and value in these works might just be enough.
Ugh. Religion aside, the vast majority of people don’t have a foothold in the “modern society”. In fact, I would argue that there’s really nothing all that “modern” about our “modern society”. If intellectualism and public discourse is of any evidence, we were far more “modern” 250 years ago. Hell, we’re even in the middle of a crusade. But I digress…
You seem to assume that there’s something innately bad about religion, but, like anything else, religion used for good produces good and religion used for evil produces evil. In other words, it takes PEOPLE to fuck them up. You hint on this in your later point without really getting to the nitty gritty. When people want to use religion as a means to subjugate, it’s really not the fault of those “of the faith” - it’s the fault of those in charge.
When atheists start hosting the weekly dinners for the homeless, then, maybe, I’ll start conceding to their moral authority.
Incidentally, it’s this precise line of thinking that makes me dismiss Dawkins and the New Atheists on principal - not to mention that they’re wrapped up in a Western, bourgeois, elitism. Oh, and I did I mention that I think Christopher Hitchens is a prick?
And while we may have resolved nothing, the fact that I, a devote agnostic, have just spent time defending religion may mean that Hell just froze over.
Obviously, people can find deep meaning through religious works. I don’t disagree with that. People can find deep meaning by interpreting art, poetry, or anything else. Hell, people can find deep meaning by staring at a wall for hours on end a la certain Zen Buddhists.
However, that doesn’t mean that you can’t judge a religious text for its factual accuracy. Religious texts — particularly those of the Abrahamic faiths — contain FACTUAL PROPOSITIONS ABOUT HISTORY. Historical factual propositions are either true or false. Their truth cannot change over time.
Not only do religious works contain factual propositions, but most people who follow the Abrahamic faiths will tell you that these factual propositions comprise one of the core facets of their religion — i.e., you must ACCEPT the factual propositions as TRUE in order to be “saved” (or to get whatever other Good Thing the religion says you get when you die). Maybe you don’t need to accept every last detail, but at least certain core facts MUST be believed. For instance, would any Christian tell you that you can go to Heaven even though you DOUBT whether Christ was the son of God, was born of a virgin, performed miracles, and/or even existed? Probably not.
So, if a religion is going to say that it’s factual propositions are true, and is going to “hang its hat” on that so to speak, it should be judged for its ability to prove those factual propositions — NOT for its ability to make people “feel good” or even “do good.”
Trust me, I fully recognize that religion causes some people to do good, which is a great thing. I simply believe that, on balance, it encourages more bad/unnecessary/”evil” behavior than “good” behavior. It causes people to place importance on things that are irrelevant, and to kill, fight, and die for those irrelevant things. Meanwhile, the people who do good in the name of a religion, well, I generally believe that those people would have done good regardless, and that they simply used religion as their “outlet.” I know this is a controversial statement, but I don’t think the same is true for the people who commit “evil” in the name of religion — I think many of those people would NOT have done evil had the religion not existed.
You read much more into “modern society” than I intended. I simply meant “today.”
Your reponse on this point raises an interesting paradox, however. Overall, your comment purports to defend religion. Here, however, the only problem you identify as keeping out society from being “modern” in comparison to previous intellectualism has to do with religion — i.e., a Crusade.
In a way, you prove my point. People are stuck in the past because of religion, when they should be rejecting religion and moving forward into more modern “rationalist” thought, with “humanism” as a logical basis for their morality. As a result of the continued legitmizing of religion by people whose hearts are in the right place (i.e., those “religious moderates” who think that religion can simply be reintrepreted over time), you end up encouraging/legitimizing the idotic zealots of the world like, say, our very own backwoods, inbred born-again, GW.
People aren’t stuck in the past because of religion. They are stuck in the past because political and economic policies keep them there. Is religion a part of those policies? Absolutely. It’s a great tool for oppression when placed into the wrong hands - just like any other hierarchy.
This is straight out of Dawkins - categorize all religions as definitively fundamentalist, ignoring all of the other social, political, and economic parameters that drive people to fundamentalism (which, really, is not part of the religious mainstream even if they do get the TV time), and then throw the baby Jesus out with the bath water - as if somehow people of faith are defective. It’s all very easy to do when your situation allows for you to ponder such things.
It’s kind of where Dawkins and Christian fundamentalism merge. I wish I could take credit for this view - but I’ll direct you to an interview with Chris Hedges in Salon. I think he makes the point much better than I can.
I’m not sure how much further we can go here. Ultimately, I agree with you that “rationalism” and “humanism” are fundamentally (oops!) good. I just don’t think they negate or exist independently of faith and religion.
You seem eager to simply lump me in with the so-called “New Atheist” group, so you can take the opportunity to attack that group, as opposed to me and my points.
Making matters worse, the stereotyping that you are engaging in seems to be what you are accusing ME of.
I don’t believe, and I never said, that all religious people are fundamentalists. Obviously they are not. I’m simply saying this: By trying to keep religion relevant after history and knowledge have shown it to be factually inaccurate, the religious moderates of the world, while perhaps doing some good by encouraging certain people to lead morale lives (something that I believe could be accomplished even without the religion), are also encouraging and legitimizing fundamentalists.
The logic works like this: On their face, religious works encourage and espouse fundamentalism. This is because they say certain things in straightforward, literal terms, which are sold as the Words of God. Under those facts, it is ENTIRELY RATIONAL that people interpret these texts literally and, because of those literal interpretations, do Bad Things. (And I ain’t just talkin’ about flying planes into the WTC. I’m talking about repression of women and gays and minorities throughout the world. I’m talking about lack of support for legitimate scientific advancement like stem cell research. I’m talking about blindly supporting born-again presidents to fight unjustified wars in the middle east. I’m talking about voting for an idiot president because you think he’s going to “fix” the “problem” of gay marriage. In each of these decision, religious belief has played a part.) In fact, one could legitimately argue that, once you accept that a book is the Word of God, the ONLY rational result is to interpret it literally and commit whatever heinous acts that interpretation entails.
Then, in walk the religious moderates. Religious moderates understand that, to the extent possible, the core factual claims of religion have been contradicted by science and the passage of time, and that many of the ethical precepts supported by religion are no longer consistent with those of the majority of society. Nevertheless, they see something in religion that they like. Often, these people are simply “spiritual” in disposition. They generally believe there is “something out there,” but rather than simply acknowledging that they will never know what this “something” is, they inexplicibly decide that this “something” is, well, whatever religion is down the street, or whatever religion their parents belong to, or what have you. In other words, they fail to reject a religion as wrong even after they know it to be so.
But still they have the contradition. So, they try to “reinterpret” the religion to make it palatable to their modern sensibilities and their modern knowledge. Meanwhile, however, they say to the world “Yes, I AM RELIGIOUS. Yes, I BELIEVE THAT THIS BOOK IS THE WORD OF GOD. Yes, the fandamentalsts, at bottom, HAVE IT RIGHT, THEY JUST NEED TO REINTREPRET THINGS A BIT.”
This, in fact, ENCOURAGES fundamentalism because it initiates a debate with fundamentialists that the moderates cannot win. Why can’t they win? Because before the debate even begins, they have already conceded to the fundamentalists the core point — namely, thet their book is holy, that it is the Word of God, and that it is the source for Truth. Once you concede that point, you can no longer blame people for following a facially accurate, literal initerpretation of that book. You simply can’t.
I recognize that this argument is similar to those espoused by certain so-called “New Atheists,” like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. However, I do not subscribe to every one of these individuals’ views, and I certainly do not susbscribe to the New Atheism as it is described by Chris Hedges. Incidentally, Hedges seems to have more of a problem with the New Atheists because of their supposed alignment with the neo-cons on the issue of how to “deal” with fundamentalist Muslims and the middle east, with is something I do not support.
In fact, I’m not even sure the New Atheists as a group really support that. True, Harris made statements leaning in that direction in the End of Faith, and frankly I don’t know much about _____, so I can’t say about him. But Dawkins, I’m pretty sure, is against the Iraq War and is much more of a pacifist. I certainly don’t think he would say he aligns himself with the American neo-cons at all. He’s just a good ol’ biologist fighting for scientific truth.
I do have to say, though, that Hedges completely looses me when he starts to call the New Atheists “secual fundamentalists.” Someone does not become a fundamentalist simply because he or she strongly believes a certain fact and strongly advocates for it. What’s next, are we going to call physicists “Gravity Fascists”? Or how about teachers? Are they “Education Fundmentalists”? There needs to be some recognition of the fact that the secularists generally base their factual statements on reason and observation, rather than on reliance on supernatural texts. If criticall distinctions like that have no significance, then these debates are just a farce.
Sorry, that blank was supposed to be filled in with “Christoper Hitchens.”
This will be my last comment for a couple reasons. I am clearly not as passionate about this subject as you are. While I’ve definitely enjoyed the debate, I’m fairly certain we have run our course, and out of respect for Bennett, who has remained suspiciously silent in granting the use of his website for this public tête-à-tête, I think it’s time to draw this particular thread to a close. If you’d like the last word, then, by all means, take it, but this will be all for me.
Here’s where we agree.
Do I think secular humanism and rationalism are “better” groundings for determining moral values? Yes. (I wouldn’t phrase it quite that way. Whatever.)
Do I think the poor decisions of religious leaders of various faiths have contributed and continue to contribute to many injustices in the world? Yes.
Do I believe that religious fundamentalism tends to bring about injustice? Absolutely.
I’m sure we agree on more, but I think that’s the crux of our agreement.
Ultimately, I just don’t agree that a religious text can not be interpreted or re-interpreted as an effective means of bringing those values into the modern-by-temporal-placement-only times. I just don’t think it’s that black and white. You disagree. Well, then…
I don’t believe religious faiths necessitate prejudice, injustice or intolerance. Presumably, you disagree. I am the product of a Jewish and a Catholic marriage. I’m a secular humanist and my girlfriend is a Catholic. Our neighbors, who are engaged, are getting married in both a synagogue and a Catholic church. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. Clearly, these religious values are not as divisive as you, intentionally or unintentionally, make them sound.
And lastly, I don’t presume that I have enough authority to tell people the best way for them to make sense of their time on this mortal coil - nor do I assume that my “secular humanist” path would work for everyone. Ideally, I hope most, if not all, people agree on the moral ends even if they arrive at it by a different means. I don’t think that’s too lofty or too unreasonable a hope, even in our ethically turbulent times. That’s my belief, anyway - your mileage may vary.
I probably am not as hyped-up about it as I seem through the written word. In any event, I apologize if I overstayed my welcome. I am a debater by nature (and by profession), and I was probably a bit amped by the fact that I got a decent response from an intelligent and well-read individual.
Thanks for the discussion. And remember the immortal words of They Might Be Giants:
We were once so close to Heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us “The Nicest”
of the Damned.
Road Movie to Berlin, Flood
Well that was fun! I quite enjoyed this debate and applaud you both for your well thoughout and even-tempered discussion.
Sorry if I was “suspiciously silent”. Mainly I didn’t toss my hat into the ring because (a) you two were doing just fine without me and (b) the debate turned down a path that I, quite frankly, am just not overly interested in. Debating the truth of a religion is perfectly legit, just as debating the merits or demerits of atheism, but for me that is somewhat irrelevant. The reality is, religions exist and I am much more interested in seeing what kind of effect religion has on the society at large (religion and politics, religion and gender, religion and art, etc). Again, I don’t want to be dismissive of your debate. I found it quite interesting and fun to read.
Now, maybe I’ll post something on Star Wars and we can debate just how stupid it was to have Darth Vader building C3PO
Han shot first!