Yeah. You still don’t get it. It’s OK though. You don’t have to.
If we want to speak “historically,” then we know full well that the sources that illustrate Muhammad’s life are disputable at best. They were codified centuries after his alleged death by men with their own personal and political agendas. The crafting of the story has already been done! The usage of the symbolism of Muhammad has already been exploited. I’m just saying we could do it
again.
It’s the same as the example of Jesus in the Bible. Regardless of what may have been written and codified about him in the scriptures over the centuries, the “historical” Jesus will always remain an elusive figure. Others have capitalized on the idea of the meek messiah and made the symbolism of the Jesus figure work for their own objectives throughout the ages.
No matter how many details you fill in, it’s like trying to base a religion on the deeds of the “historical” Robin Hood. It’s Ludicrous. In the face of this lunacy, though, comes the freedom to do with those symbols what you will.
This is the point I’ve been trying to make, and I’m not convinced you’ll ever get it.
Similarly, certain words in the Quran are like that in which they have a particular meaning but the dawaghandists take it to mean something else all together.
I'm all for positive engagement but not when it is dishonest and requires you to abandon common sense.
Also, Muhammad was a white man, Zion is Pakistan and Islam allows you to drink alcohol because who has the right to tell me I can't reinterpret historical facts, events and figures as it is my human right. If this sounds rather silly to you it's just as silly as what I've read from the examples.
The Qur’an contains numerous unique words that can only be understood using the definitions given to them by mufassiroon decoding the text after the fact. Look through any tafsir book and see how many times
“wa qeela annahu…” is used: “And it is said that it means…”
Maajid Nawaz actually makes this point about alcohol, and I agree with him. Some early mufassiroon only considered wine made from grapes to be considered khamr, excluding drinks like whiskey, beer, etc. There is nothing saying that this interpretation is incorrect apart from the fact that it diminished in acceptance over the years.
Further - and I get that you were just trying to reduce my argument to an absurdity, but I’ll go there with you - one actually CAN make the case that Islam allows the consumption of alcohol. If you look beyond this ad hoc nonsense of abrogation, then certainly the Qur’an does recognize the use of alcohol.
Surah Nahl, verse 67 reads: “And from fruits of the date-palm, and the grapes, you take therefrom intoxicant and a provision good. Indeed, in that (is) surely a Sign for a people who use reason.”
Further, Surah Nisa Verse 43 reads “O you who believe! Approach not the prayer when you are in a drunken state until you know what you utter.”
So yeah, this verse clearly describes believers getting drunk.
And lastly, the verse that supposedly prohibits alcohol all together never actually says that alcohol is forbidden. It encourages believers to avoid it in order to be successful. It is the same language that is used to encourage believers to avoid suspicion. It doesn’t necessarily mean that suspicion is a forbidden act. It could be understood as an act that should be avoided.
Ultimately, the Qur’an leaves it up to the individual to decide what they will do regarding alcohol, “
fa hal antum muntahoon” – “Will you then desist?”
Even looking at what's there in the text, the argument against alcohol is not as water tight as the literalists would have you believe. Imagine if you stop understanding the text as literal and divine all together? It opens the doors for the light of reason to shine in on them. And there is still plenty someone from a Muslim background might extract from these traditions.
Muhammad was a white man, Zion is Pakistan
Again, I get it. Reductio ad Absurdum. It’s a good technique for dismissing an argument, but I’m afraid you’re still missing the point. If you do not take a text literally, then you can interpret it to fit into the understanding and the reality in which you find yourself. The argument can be made that this was the intention all along, and many have done so.
I used the example of Rastafarian theology because they are often dismissed as a silly or uninformed religious movement. When you look closer, though, you see a deliberate attempt at reclaiming symbols that had been used to oppress an entire people.
They understand that the Hebrew bible does not say that Zion is Ethiopia or that the Messiah was black. But faced with an oppressive creed that was forced upon them, they reclaimed the symbolism and made it work for them in new and creative ways. It’s a way to truly break free from the shackles of the symbolism, stories, and abstract concepts that exist at the heart of all religions.
So, yeah, it’s really not that hard to approach the Qur’an without all of the layers of imposed interpretation and scholarship medieval jurists have forced onto the text. You can claim all you want that there is some pure, original version out there, but there isn’t. It’s all up to interpretation and there is really no one whose approval I’m going to wait for as I figure out what the text will mean to me. I do believe that this is an approach that can work.
And I still love you, Jedi.
Topic: Why must Maryam Namazie take on the left in her critiques of Islamic extremism?