aalaap_team

How Valid Is It To Insist that Allah "Ordained" Anything To Justify
Moral Bullying Over Others?

A response to Mr Musaddeque Hossein's comments on e-forum, Nabic-L
[Response-I]

S Munir I
USA

My greetings and thanks to member Mr M Hossein for sharing his
religious views. I clarify 'religious' because a proposition that
something was "ordained" is based on faith, and may not merit as a
valid basis in a discussion that aspires to remain untethered by
imposed, interpretive limitations on human thought.

Faiths in general can be chameleon-like: they can offer peace and
cooperation OR agitation and bullyism. Human history has on record
both variations instigated by Abrahamic world faiths; Islam is no
exception. When interpretive dexterity and 'zero-sum' claims over
meaning of arcane texts are primary approaches by which to contend
what a religion has indeed "ordained"--when in reality several
conclusions of their meaning may exist, some of which can even be
contradictory--not a single such interpretation could carry greater
weight than its siblings, regardless of the headcount of its
endorsers. In addition, such jockeying with arguments does not equate
to proof--the way it is recognized in civil law, beyond reasonable
doubt--as to the universal validity of any such ordainment.

It is also a fact that only in hindsight certain interpretations have
been tagged as "incorrect," but people mandating such interpretations
didn't consider such possibility when claiming those were "ordained"
according to their faith. Humility in light of this historical fact
may help reduce inflated faith claims.

Please note that claiming "we have been ordained" when telling others
what they can or cannot purchase, consume, or eat just as publicly as
Muslims can purchase, consume and eat is little else but moral
bullyism and supremacist attitude. Fervent shouts regarding this
unprovable empowerment can hardly be called reasonable at any level.

Consider the weakness of the mythological factoid Mr Hossein shared as
evidence to support alcohol ban in Islam. Why did the Supreme Being
have to witness the drunkenness of any primitive group of Arabs, from
which to become so alerted as to ban alcohol for the rest of
humankind? If He is to be believed as someone who not only knows the
past and present in hindsight but also the future by foresight, (or
perhaps all of it by foresight) why did any incident of drunkenness
had to occur in order for Him to ordain a ban on alcohol? This is the
primary falsity of using the factoid.

Second, if a ban for all on an activity must be preceded by the
reckless behavior of only a few, could we justify a ban on cars
(reckless driving), fathers and daughters living in the same house
(incest by select fathers), or airplane pilots (accidents due to
reckless piloting by select pilots)? How about a ban on Islam, if the
murderous rampage of a few Islamic radicals who claimed to have been
Islamically inspired to kill kafirs must be THE deciding factor,
following the logic, if any, of the factoid? Do exceptions make the
rule, or is it the other way around?

The validity of Mr Hossein's conclusion against ban on alcohol using
this factoid rests upon a faith..."it was ordained", by citing which
he assigns this ban a special status, whereas other examples following
a similar rationale might be viewed differently because he and others
may not have faith that God has also "ordained" those bans. How
defensible is that religious position? Evidently in matters of faith
logical contradictions are possible and A can be 'non-A'.

Let's explore the notion of ordained ban some more, as I understand it
to be within the Islamic faith to let people explore thoughts freely.
Is there an ordained ban against marrying 6 year-old girls, waiting
for three years, and then consummating the marriage by a pious Muslim
man in his fifties, after he became a widower? (If the age is now
debated, why was it not debated for centuries?) Is there a ban
against marrying one's stepson's wife after they divorced? If in
either scenario there is no ban, how many of our readers would
consider either acceptable for themselves to do? In case not too many
have raised their hands, is whether something is 'ordained' indeed the
only reason for which a Muslim would consider either doing or
refraining from an activity?

The law of the excluded middle in logic suggests that every statement
is either true or false. Yet circular arguments defending most
faith-based statements seldom stand on their own but, typically,
require interpretive and vague (sometimes claimed as 'scholarly')
references and dependence on some other faith statements, arguably to
offer smokescreens to veil their logical weakness. While some faithful
engage themselves in this endeavor, they also deny the need to nuance
their faith claims. That road, often traveled, leads to nowhere
logically.

This brings me to something incidental but not directly relevant to
the main topic. Consider fasting during Ramadan. Does anyone ever
consider the life of the poor who do not have the 'option' to fast
from dawn to dusk for a month but must accept starvation most of the
time, until of course they die? Are all the poor that way because the
rich robbed them?

If anyone says yes, then please consider the case of two attorneys, a
couple, that pull in $300k a year. They're earning what their
education has afforded them in a free market of services with no wage
controls by the government. Did they rob any poor? Besides, what is
the clear definition of "rich"? If I made $250k in the stock market
in one year by following market trends, etc., must I feel guilty or
could I enjoy the earnings? Could a 40% federal tax bracket--revenue
(largesse, really) with which the government seeks to manage poverty
in society, among other noble functions we trust it to do--suffice for
my duty to the poor?

There may also be a larger, more philosophical question that we often
leave out. For someone allegedly all powerful, would it not have been
simpler if God removed poverty and hunger in lieu of the
largely-ineffective ritual of fashion-fasting once a year to
commemorate the stomach pangs of the poor? What do Muslims do
generally and collectively to eliminate poverty? Why did Bangladesh
earn the honor of being the most corrupt country in the world? Is
that labeling an indication that its majority Muslims have learned
from fasting and feeling the hunger pangs of the poor? For poverty
endures out there and quite nakedly, too.

Besides, why should it be the headache of Muslims if God is alleged to
love all EQUALLY? If in case it were indeed only due to human evils
that the poor remain poor, couldn't an all-powerful God override such
evils? Is it reasonable to inquire about these, or must we shut up
and do what is generally believed to have been "ordained," with no
room for "debate"? If asking these legitimate questions should tick
off the God some of us perceive to exist, is He a totalitarian
dictator--the "just-shut-up-and-do-what-I-tell-you-to" type?

Suppose a couple has four children. If they claim they love all
equally and "ordain" that three of the four must fast once a month
while the fourth must starve all the time, could the fourth child
reasonably question their claim? Or must he or she have "faith" that
in some strange and what appears to be arbitrary and unfair way, the
couple STILL love all their children equally?

Quite possibly the faithful from any world faith can offer a litany of
arguments, most of which would contradict each other if viewed from a
holistic, comprehensive perspective. Some faithful who have mastered
the art of arguments to a degree routinely fail to acknowledge the
error of premise in virtues that they commonly assign to their gods;
hardly any of those is self-sufficient.

In light of this reality, is it not unreasonable to contend that, for
those who choose to believe any such ban was ordained, they have no
right to restrain others while they can enjoy the freedom to tether
themselves to it? Claiming they were "ordained" by God is not good
enough and, arguably, such claim is a lie to justify behavior that
which cannot be defended rationally. In addition, please recognize
the probability to justify any random, inexplicable behavior of
imposition of beliefs upon Muslims by others who may believe something
totally opposite as having been equally "ordained." If one slaps
someone else, the reactive slap back ought to be acknowledged as a
reasonable possibility. For coercion may not elicit the spirit of
cooperation.

Clearly, not everybody that consumes alcohol does so to get drunk,
just as not everybody who embraces Islam does so to become a radical
fanatic who'd kill civilians and justify it in yet-another of the
myriad circular ways, pretending to be God's footsoldiers.

Why must the French believe the Hijab was "ordained," when not all
Muslims shudder at the thought of taking it off and, furthermore, when
some even disagree that it was so "ordained"?

Before anyone seeks to remind me that I am mixing up a lot of things,
please note that life seldom offers us the luxury to keep every topic
compartmentalized, in order to gloat in circular analysis of each.
The underlying general issue I am bringing up is the validity of the
Muslim claim as to what God has "ordained", and I contend that it is
not a valid, rational argument to impose one's view on others.

If someone considers himself a Muslim and also chooses to consume
anything forbidden, why can it not be his personal issue with God?
Why must some supremacist bully, feeling empowered by the 'faith' as
to what God has ordained him to do, take it upon himself to prevent
the former from consuming what he wishes?

Let's not kick in drugs in this context because there is no
'religious' ban against modern drugs, quite possibly because God did
not have the blessing to witness their consumers in action, way back
when He ordained the ban against alcohol. The simple reason, quite
likely, was that those were yet to be invented. Darn! Another strike
against a claim of His foresight. Most possibly.

Separately I am sending an article on the French ban on Hijab which,
if released, will expose the aggregate readership of this eforum to
ideas different from whatever they may believe to have been ordained
from any supreme being for its enforcement. French history of
secularism or secularism itself as a theory is never claimed to be
perfect or ordained; it is moldable as the society evolves. Let us
not forget that Muslims have evolved, too, and majority of them no
longer do many things that were permitted during the times of Muhammad
and sometimes done by him even, despite the absence of any ban against
those.

It may not be a bad idea to learn why in Europe and later in the US
religion was separated from the government but not discarded
altogether, only privatized. It becomes ridiculous to engage in an
adult argument when, from a strict position of faith and little else,
one side aspires to offer rational or logical arguments to defend
faith-based dicta where the fundamental flaw of premise remains, that
of faith being hardly defensible as an outcome of rational or logical
considerations, in the manner their general definitions are presently
understood in every other aspect of human endeavors.

With a humorous comparative I wish to conclude. Assume that there is
a group of religious people who are non-Muslims comprise the majority
in a country where Muslims are minority. What if they feel it was
ordained by their God to force everyone to conform to their faith's
dicta? What if they ban Muslims from buying and selling halal meat
but permit them to do so only from select diplomatic shops, and
perform halal killing of cattle and poultry only in their homes? What
if their religion "ordained" women to strut about publicly only in
bikinis and they enforce such non-dress dress code on minority Muslim
women? What if their religion "ordained" flogging of anyone who'd
publicly stick their behinds up while kneeling, as Muslims do during
prayer, because they consider it a carnal gesture of female
four-legged beasts in heat?

The point of these not-yet-observed but probable phenomena is that it
seems ridiculous to argue something is "ordained" by one's God and,
therefore, it must be enforced upon others, with no room for questions
or "debate." How meaningful is that in a world of pluralism? Such
"therefore" is hardly a logical conclusion but disguised as such,
albeit not too smartly.

Addressing these issues may not be equal to losing one's faith so if
anyone should worry from that fear, please rest assured, for one's
faith must be strong enough to defend itself. I am asserting my
opinion and offering some comparative scenarios to challenge the
inherently supremacist claim of religious ordainment that cannot be
open to debate.

Would Mr Hossein have offered a different perspective on the French
Hijab issue had the French claimed its removal was "ordained" by their
faith and the mandate against it was NOT a matter of debate? Anyone
can claim anything as "ordained" by their deity who has been
hibernating for as long as we can remember and whose visit to this
earth one last time can be only a matter of faith, most assuredly an
open item for debate. For, after all, what if it was a hallucination?
How do we know for sure it was not, especially when a faith in Him
often seduces us to gloss over our supremacist attitude when we're the
majority, but we also purport to reject laws of others when we're the
minority, no matter how rational their arguments?

Arguably, therefore, humility in these matters in place of bullyism by
faith might not be too ungodly.

BTW, I respectfully suggest that Mr Hossein, and anyone else who might
be interested, to consider checking out an Egyptian movie titled
"Closed Doors." Try to understand the character of the teenage boy
Mohamad and his interpretation of what was "ordained" by Islam. It is
quite reasonable to contend that many other Muslims, young and old,
harbor the same arrogance to justify imposition of their values on all
others in their society. Yet the same folks would refuse to accept
imposition of others' values upon themselves.

In the real world this clear double-standard can be maintained
primarily by being militant and violent, since our claims as to what
God ordained are effectively reducible to "It is so because I said
so." If the creator is indeed intelligent, it seems reasonable to
doubt that this would be His best line of defense, but then again...

[P.S. My thanks to all others who offered their thoughts on my post to
which Mr Hossein responded.]
__________________________________________________ ____________
Courtesy: Nabic-L, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nabic-l/message/2905
In response to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nabic-l/message/2898