 |
literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org
Literature, Poetry, Essays, Dialogues, Philosophy, Theology
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sitaram
Site Admin
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 1079
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 4:11 pm Post subject: The Evils of War and The Unqualified Good of Plato |
 |
|
I am posting my ongoing thoughts here, with a link at
http://www.progressiveislam.org , in order to keep my replies there brief,
in deference to Laury Silver's reasonable request regarding the
conversational nature of such threads.
I understand how dreadful war seems, and that killing innocent women
and children (as opposed to combatant soldiers) seems like 'boiling live
puppies in oil".
It is not hard to imagine puppies boiled in oil in Surah 81
| Quote: |
[81:4]
YUSUFALI: When the she-camels, ten months with young, are left
untended;
PICKTHAL: And when the camels big with young are abandoned,
SHAKIR: And when the camels are left untended,
[81:5]
YUSUFALI: When the wild beasts are herded together (in the human
habitations);
PICKTHAL: And when the wild beasts are herded together,
SHAKIR: And when the wild animals are made to go forth,
[81:6]
YUSUFALI: When the oceans boil over with a swell;
PICKTHAL: And when the seas rise,
SHAKIR: And when the seas are set on fire,
[81:7]
YUSUFALI: When the souls are sorted out, (being joined, like with like);
PICKTHAL: And when souls are reunited,
SHAKIR: And when souls are united,
[81:8]
YUSUFALI: When the female (infant), buried alive, is questioned -
PICKTHAL: And when the girl-child that was buried alive is asked
SHAKIR: And when the female infant buried alive is asked
|
I see a certain difficulty in the Qur'an, which complicates this Platonic
inquiry into unqualified good.
Many progressive Muslims have one foot in the world of Muhammed and
the Qur'an, and the other foot in Western culture and philosophy.
What results is a comparison of apples to oranges.
I hate to be blunt, but, the personality of Allah as depicted in the Qur'an is
the sort of personality who would boil puppies in oil:
| Quote: |
[4:56]
YUSUFALI: Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire:
as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for
fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power,
Wise.
PICKTHAL: Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose
them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange
them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Lo! Allah is ever
Mighty, Wise.
SHAKIR: (As for) those who disbelieve in Our communications, We shall
make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will
change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely
Allah is Mighty, Wise.
[18:29]
YUSUFALI: Say, "The truth is from your Lord": Let him who will believe,
and let him who will, reject (it): for the wrong-doers We have prepared a
Fire whose (smoke and flames), like the walls and roof of a tent, will hem
them in: if they implore relief they will be granted water like melted brass,
that will scald their faces, how dreadful the drink! How uncomfortable a
couch to recline on!
PICKTHAL: Say: (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then
whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. Lo!
We have prepared for disbelievers Fire. Its tent encloseth them. If they
ask for showers, they will be showered with water like to molten lead
which burneth the faces. Calamitous the drink and ill the resting-place!
SHAKIR: And say: The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please
believe, and let him who please disbelieve; surely We have prepared for
the iniquitous a fire, the curtains of which shall encompass them about;
and if they cry for water, they shall be given water like molten brass
which will scald their faces; evil the drink and ill the resting-place.
|
One day, I asked an orthodox Jewish rabbi what his tradition teaches about the end of the world and hell and torment. He explained that the righteous will dwell with God forever, and the wicked simply cease to exist. Period. No hell. No fire. No suffering.
Remember that the fire bombing of Dresden during World War II, and the
bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were situations where babies and
puppies and old women got roasted. War is a nasty thing, but rest
assured that such extreme measures will be taken without blinking an
eye, when circumstances become grave enough. In a sporting boxing
or wrestling match, certain punches or holds are illegal and considered
dishonorable (such as biting off someone's ear). But in a fight to the
death, then you do whatever you can, including biting off ears, noses and
gouging out eyes, if it will assure your survival. Morality, ethics and compassion go right out the window.
| Quote: |
http://islamicate.typepad.com/islamicate/
There is no moral high ground in this war and their can be no winners. If
the Arabs are angry because Muslim women and children were
massacred, where is the anger for the sectarian killings in Iraq? Why is
the Arab world so mired in a cycle of humiliation that they no longer care
about who is being killed, but rather who is doing the killing?
Speaking with some Arab acquaintances, none of whom are Lebanese, it
seems to me that they were excited by this war and the potential for
damage Hizbollah might inflict on Isreal. They seem less concerned by the
hopes of peace eroding, the damage in Lebanon, or the lives lost, than
with the prospect of hurting Isreal. There will be no progress in the Middle
East unless Muslims become more concerned with improving their own
lives then with the destruction of others.
|
What people are doing here is groping for any philosophical or moral idea,
from any source, to use a a weapon against the Israeli assault upon
Lebanon. And such an effort is understandable and laudable. But
let us imagine that one DID find some quotation from Plato or Aristotle
which was an ironclad condemnation of Israel in this conflict. In point of
fact, a conservative clerics reaction to such a principle would be, "If it
is also in the Qur'an, then it is superfluous and redundant, and if
it is NOT in the Qur'an, then it is blasphemous." Hence, from an Islamic
standpoint, to convince that cleric, one must confine oneself to
arguments from Qur'an and Hadith.
Here is one good overview of Plato
http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/PhilRel/Plato.htm
and also
http://www.fred.net/tzaka/plato2.html
I must give this thread more thought.
I shall explain my development of though at
http://literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org/ftopic1062.php
entitled "The Evils of War and The Unqualified Good of Plato"
The the problem I see, from the side of Plato, is the famous "Euthyphro"
problem, "Is the good good, ipso facto, because God wills it, or is the
good inherently good, and is God obliged to will it because of its inherent
goodness?"
The problem I see from the point of view of the Qur'an, is that Allah may
"abrogate" any commandment and Allah is not even constrained by
his own dictums.
Consider the passages in the Qur'an on warfare:
| Quote: |
[2:216]
YUSUFALI: Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is
possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a
thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.
PICKTHAL: Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but
it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may
happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know
not.
SHAKIR: Fighting is enjoined on you, and is an object of dislike to you;
and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may
be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you
do not know.
[2:217]
YUSUFALI: They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month.
Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of
Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent
access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and
oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until
they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn
back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in
this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will
abide therein.
PICKTHAL: They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in
the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to
turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the
Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel His people thence, is a greater
with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease
from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your
religion, if they can. And whoso becometh a renegade and dieth in his
disbelief: such are they whose works have fallen both in the world and the
Hereafter. Such are rightful owners of the Fire: they will abide therein.
SHAKIR: They ask you concerning the sacred month about fighting in it.
Say: Fighting in it is a grave matter, and hindering (men) from Allah's way
and denying Him, and (hindering men from) the Sacred Mosque and
turning its people out of it, are still graver with Allah, and persecution is
graver than slaughter; and they will not cease fighting with you until they
turn you back from your religion, if they can; and whoever of you turns
back from his religion, then he dies while an unbeliever-- these it is whose
works shall go for nothing in this world and the hereafter, and they are
the inmates of the fire; therein they shall abide.
[5:33]
YUSUFALI: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His
Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land
is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from
opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world,
and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
PICKTHAL: The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His
messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be
killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off,
or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the
world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;
SHAKIR: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His
messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they
should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be
cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a
disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a
grievous chastisement,
[17:5]
YUSUFALI: When the first of the warnings came to pass, We sent against
you Our servants given to terrible warfare: They entered the very inmost
parts of your homes; and it was a warning (completely) fulfilled.
PICKTHAL: So when the time for the first of the two came, We roused
against you slaves of Ours of great might who ravaged (your) country,
and it was a threat performed.
SHAKIR: So when the promise for the first of the two came, We sent over
you Our servants, of mighty prowess, so they went to and fro among the
houses, and it was a promise to be accomplished.
|
This shall be a work in progress, so, please revisit my link after several
days, if you are interested in this.
http://literarydiscussions.myfree...opic51.php&highlight=abrogate
The question "are Shakespearean tragedies more tragic than Greek
tragedies" arose during a conversation about fate/destiny/necessity/predestination/election vs. freedom. And that
discussion arose because I am trying to help the person who posted in
the Sophocles sub-forum regarding fate/destiny in Antigone and Oedipus
Tyrannis.
What I had been saying (to the person in the bookstore) is that there is a
kind of spectrum which ranges from the gods of Hesiod and Siddhartha
Gautama, who are subject to fate and necessity and karma, ranging to
Allah, who is not even bound by Allah, but may abrogate*** and revoke
and change rules, and ranging all the way to a godless world of Sartre in
which we are CONDEMNED to be free, and condemned in the sense that
we must take total responsibility for all actions and consequences. SO,
the idea is that, somehow, for the Greeks, someone like Oedipus is
predestined or fated to suffer certain things, and there is nothing he can
do to escape it,.... whereas for Shakespeare, there is perhaps MORE
freedom of choice available to his characters, and hence MORE TRAGIC in
the sense that those who suffer COULD have conceivably acted
otherwise... so, when something tragic is unavoidable, then perhaps it is
less tragic and more inevitable that something which COULD have been
avoided. This is more or less where the question is coming from. I don't
know if all this casts the question in a different light, or sheds more light.
<=============F O O T N O T E S==============>
***
Surah 2 verse 106
(There is a noticible difference in these three translators' interpretation,
but I think that the underlying idea is the same, when stripped of all
rhetoric.)
YUSUFALI: None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be
forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou
not that Allah Hath power over all things?
PICKTHAL: Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we
abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the
like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?
Mentor Books Pickthall from 1970
When I look at my old copy from 1970, I find that it reads "Surah 2,
verse 106, "Such of Our revelations as We abrogate or cause to be
forgotten, we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou
not that Allah is Able to do all things?
SHAKIR: Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be
forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that
Allah has power over all things?
He who is master of himself is slave to himself. Hence a Deity who is
bound by its own word and is therefore voluntarily self-limiting (think of
Tsimtsum, the divine contraction, which we encounter in the Life of Pi by
Yann Martel), is not quite as powerful as a Deity who is not even bound or
limited by its own words but may abrogate or change anything.
Compare and contrast with the Judaeo-Christian portrait of the Deity
Bible
"with Whom there is no shadow of turning" (James 1:17),
Who is "the Lord, who changeth not" (Malachi 3:6),
Whose Word "endureth forever" (I Peter) 1:23-25
for God cannot lie (Heb. 6:18),
What I had been saying (to the person in the bookstore) is that there is a
kind of spectrum which ranges from the gods of Hesiod and Siddhartha
Gautama, who are subject to fate and necessity and karma, ranging to
Allah, who is not even bound by Allah, but may abrogate and revoke and
change rules, and ranging all the way to a godless world of Sartre in
which we are CONDEMNED to be free, and condemned in the sense that
we must take total responsibility for all actions and consequences. SO,
the idea is that, somehow, for the Greeks, someone like Oedipus is
predestined or fated to suffer certain things, and there is nothing he can
do to escape it,.... whereas for Shakespeare, there is perhaps MORE
freedom of choice available to his characters, and hence MORE TRAGIC in
the sense that those who suffer COULD have conceivably acted
otherwise... so, when something tragic is unavoidable, then perhaps it is
less tragic and more inevitable that something which COULD have been
avoided. This is more or less where the question is coming from. I don't
know if all this casts the question in a different light, or sheds more light.
http://literarydiscussions.myfree...pic237.php&highlight=abrogate
And the ultimate of all ethical paradoxes from antiquity is Plato's dialogue,
"Euthyphro," when Socrates asks whether God loves the Good because of its
inherent goodness, or is the Good good simply by fiat, because it happens to be
what God likes or commands. And let us not forget that our very word "fiat"
comes from the first words of Genesis in Latin vulgate translation: "Fiat lux"
(let there be light.) If we say that God loves what is good for its inherent
qualities, then we cast a doubt upon God's omnipotence. God is not free to hate
what is good. God is not free to lie. This is the position of the
Judeo-Christian heritage. If, on the other hand, we take the opposite position,
and say that God is so powerful that, by fiat, whatever God proclaims as good,
IS good, ipso facto, because of God's endorsement, well then we wind up in the
position of Islam, which portrays God as so omnipotent that God may even
abrogate His own commandments. Such a God is a capricious God who is not even
bound by His own words.
http://literarydiscussions.myfree...pic215.php&highlight=abrogate
Sitaram wonders if our purpose in a meaningless universe is to find
meaning in the meaninglessness, create meaning where there is no
meaning, impose meaning upon that meaninglessness. Perhaps
meaninglessness is a necessary ingredient for freedom. If there is a
pre-existing meaning and order, then that which pre-exists becomes
law for us, and law constricts our freedom.
Stop and think how even the omnipotence of God is threatened by
laws and order. There are two verses in the Bible (Titus 1:2;
Hebrews 6:18) which state that "God cannot lie."
Allah of the Qu'ran, on the other hand, is more free and potent than
such an honest-Abe Jehovah, for Islam states that Allah has the power
to abrogate and overturn any and every established rule or command.
Sura 2:106 "Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be
forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know
that Allah has power over all things?"
Plato presents us with the famous "Euthyphro Dilemma" which asks:
"Is what you're doing pious because it is loved by God, or does God
love what you're doing because what you're doing is pious?"
Honest-Abe-Jehovah is forbidden to lie because of the pre-existing
absolute standard of good and evil to which even God is subject. So
Jehovah loves virtue because of its intrinsic objective absolute
nature as something good. Allah on the other hand, is more powerful
since Allah is free to designate whatever Allah pleases as pious and
virtuous, and is not even bound by Allah's own judgment, but may
abrogate that judgment at any time and designate something
completely different as pious and virtuous.
Confronted by meaninglessness, we seek transcendence to rise above
and escape.
Sisyphus must struggle perpetually and without hope of success. So
long as he accepts that there is nothing more to life than this
absurd struggle, then he can find happiness in it, says Camus.
I am reminded of the Old Testament Biblical passage where God commands Moses to essentially commit genocide with regard to the Amelakites.
1 Sam 15:3 are the words "put to death men and women, children and infants " or as the KJV has it "but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling".
I am also reminded of that verse in Psalm 137:
Remember, LORD, against Edom that day at Jerusalem. They said: "Level it, level it down to its foundations!" Fair Babylon, you destroyer, happy those who pay you back the evil you have done us! Blessed are those who seize your children and smash them against a rock.
Harsh words and images!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
