Slifkin's true agenda over here is to show that the 13 ikarim are not all that absolute, people can disagree with one of them and not be classified as heretics. If Rashi was a corporealist, that lends credibility to his argument.
He then begins with his proof. Rashi could have been a corporealist, it is certainly conceivable. Why? Because it is a legitimate opinion, from the list of Rishonim that held like that.
He will of course seize your comment as proof that there are, and that this is the mainstream chareidi position, that theft is ok. He will parade your comment around forever like a float at the Macy's day parade unless you clarify.
He has ammo already. I'm not scared of showing people to learn the sugya carefully
Anyone is welcome to learn the sugya. Stealing is more complicated but hafkaas hakvaaso is mutar and barring the Rambam that is the normative shita even for taxes. That's all if the govt is not Jewish but even if they are, in Israel acc to the Ran no one has a right because no one can own the land... There may be even more fundamental reasons behind that (מוכס שאין לו קצבה)
But most times chilul Hashem is at play which is an even worse problem no doubt, question is if that applies to chilonim which is complicated (since it may be they who are stealing and to not let someone steal from you is a whole different story)
Hello, a Muslim here and a regular reader of Slifkins and Irrationalist modoxisms posts.
Regarding the previous discussion in the comment section on corporealism among Muslims:
There are 3 schools in Islamic Theology (Aqidah): Ashaira and Maturidiyyah. The absolute vast majority of Muslim scholars and Muslims (including me) belong to them.
The 3rd ones are the salafis (pejoratively called wahhabis). This proving islam guy from twitter is a staunch salafi. I know him, we used to cooperate in refuting xtian missionaries.
All Muslims agree that nothing is similar to God: لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَىْءٌۭ ۖ Nothing is like Him (Qur'an, surah 42:11)
There are many other verses saying the same directly or indirectly.
When it comes to such verses mentioning Gods hands, Gods face etc. the salaf i.e. the first three generations of Muslims (the companions of Prophet Muhammad saws, his successors and their successors) simply accepted the wording of these verses as they are and did not delve into them. We know that nothing is similar to God, so whatever e.g. "Gods hand" means, we accept it. If hand is a majaaz (i.e. metaphor) for strenght, then ok. If it means something else, thats fine too. Whatever God intended with that phrase, we accept it. This method is called tafwid تفويض which means delegating (...the meaning to God).
Later Islamic scholars pushed more for tawil, which means metaphorical interpretation, and there is evidence that the salaf practiced that occasionally, too.
The self-proclaimed "salafis" reject any metaphorical interpretation. They say: "No, it says hand, so accept hand. God does have a hand, its not a metaphor, but its a hand unlike a human hand. Since nothing is similar to God, how Gods hand looks like, we do not know, but it is what it is."
Salafis oftentimes get accused of being corporealists مجسمة by mainstream Islamic scholars (entire books have been written on both sides on this subject) or that their methodology is at the very least confusing and might lead to anthropomorphism/corporealism. I have studied from salafi scholars too and I do not think that it is anthropomorphism, but it might lead to it.
For example salafis say, that we should only ascribe to God, what He has ascribed to himself in the Qur'an or his Prophet saws in an authenticated narration/quote (Hadith) of his.
If you ask whether God has a body, thats a bad question, since the Arabic word jism (body) can refer to a literar human-like body (which would be anthropomorphistic hence heretical) but it could also mean entity, i.e. that God is a Real Existing Being, and that meaning would be correct, in thatcase you van say that god has a jism (body). So, to avoid these possible linguistical misunderstandings, lets just stick to terms used in the Qur'an and authentic Hadith.
This approach is ok, problem is that salafi laymen, especially on social media who oftentimes do not speak Arabic (proving Islam is one of them), completely misunderstand and misapprehend it.
When you ask salafis whether God consists of materia, they might get reluctant to deny and they get combative. They do not get that in english, materia has no acceptable or heretical meaning, you can freely deny that God consists of materia. The Muslim convert and youtuber Jake Brancatella (who is an expert in refuting the trinity) is a salafi, but he got attacked on twitter by salafis for denying that God has materia.
P. S. : I am surprised that you guys know Haqiqatjou.
When it comes to Javad, do not listen to him. He is our slifkin. Well, slifkin at least is fluent in hebrew, javad fails in basic arabic. Secular academia misrepresents Islam even more than judaism, since Islam is the only serious challenge to secularist world order.
Fascinating stuff, thanks! Pardon my ignorance, but are all the groups you mentioned sunni? shia? both? neither? Is there somewhere I could get a basic outline of where all of the ideologies you mentioned map out in relation to each other?
Also, is the Arabic you're familiar with similar to the style used in medieval times? Like, would you be able to read a work such as Maimonides' 'Guide For The Perplexed' in the original?
-I speak fusha i.e. normative standard Arabic. Its not just that the Qur'an is the same as in the time of the Prophet saws, but God preserved also its original language, so I would be able to understand Morech Nevuchim in the original
However, Rambam spoke judeo arabic, hence he mixed jewish and aramaic words and phrases which I might not know and there might be Arabic expressions that are out of use today.
-They are all Sunni. We Sunnis are 90% of the worldwide Muslim population and most of Islamic contributions to the world in law, politiology, sociology, science, art, culture etc. are from us. We are considered normative Islam.
Shiism started like this: after the death of the Prophet saws, the question was raised who the political leader should be.
According to Islamic Law, a political leader (i.e. Caliph which means successor) must be elected by a parliament/panel of Islamic jurists, politicans, military commanders etc. That panel is called ahlul hali wal 'aqd (Hence many Muslims are angry and hostile to the incompetent and corrupt politicians and dictators in the Islamic world today, with their ridicolous artificial post colonial states, that mix our Sharia Law with colonial law. Modernist concepts of state and law cannot be reconciled with Sharia, something ISIS doesn't understand. The Arab Israeli Xtian Professor of Islamic Law at the Colombia University Wael Hallaq once said, he would prefer to live in Umayyad Caliphate over a modernist state. He wrote a book on that, which I highly recommend: The Impossible State which is available online)
The ahlul hali wal aqd elected Abu Bakr (Prophets saws father in law) as the Caliph. After his death, Umar was elected. After his death, Uthman was elected. A small group of Muslims thought of Ali (the son in law of the Prophet) as politically more qualified than Uthman, however, they accepted Uthman, including Ali himself, who was wary of power. After Uthman, Ali was elected. These four are called the 4 rightly guided Caliphs of Islamic history (Khulafa Rashidin).
Throughout history, those who just thought of Ali as more qualified than Uthman (called Shia of Ali, shia meaning party) radicalized themselves into a religious sect, that said that Ali should have become the First Caliph, and that this is a Divine appointment, so shall his sons and their sons become Caliphs, too. Supernatural abilites were attributed to them (that they control every atom in the universe, a dogma called wilaya at-takwiniyya) and Ali and his next 11 descendants were called Imams (leaders). Hence, hatred of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman also rose, considering them as usurpers. Throughout centuries, shia sources attributed them worse and worse crimes and demonized them. Shias adopted rituals like flogging themselves (called tatbir) similar to catholics to commemorate the death of the third Imam. An old and banned form of marriage (called Mut'ah marriage) was adopted by the shias and was throughout centuries turned into, basically, prostitution.
Shiism changed similar to how xtianity apostatized from judaism and developed into a religion of its own. The differences between Islam amd Shiism became so great, that classical shia scholars (contemporary ones don't do that) questioned the authenticity of the qur'anic text itself (since it does not contain even the name of Ali, let alone all these fabricated powers).
Since the 11th imam died without children, the shia clergy claimed that his son is hiding and will return on the Day of Judgement as a Messiah-like figure to take revenge (the official president of Iran is the 12th imam, as per the iranian constitution)
There were some shia dynasties throughout history (the Shia Fatimid dynasty in the 11th century ordered the destruction of churches and synagogues, which triggered the first crusade, the zaydi shias in yemen persecuted jews in 12th century, hence Rambam wrote his letter to them) but these dynasties disappeared.
Shias were always a little heterodox persecuted sect in the underworld of whats today Iraq.
Only in the 16th century, the shia dynasty of the Safavids managed to conquer Iran, eastern Iraq and Azerbeijan and they genocided or converted the Muslim population. Hence Iran and Azerbeijan today are Shia countries, and Iraq has a 60% shia population.
When the shia clergy assumed power in 1979, they started arming amd radicalizing shia minorities in four countries (syria, yemen, iraq, lebanon), causing all the wars there. At this time, e.g. Hezbollah was founded.
However, note that not all common shias are aware of the heterodox fabrications in their classical scholarship, nor do they adhere to it. In last time, we are witnessing a rise in shia reformist scholars, too.
1) Have you ever seen this article? https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ I would love to hear your thoughts re its accuracy. I'm always skeptical when I read reports written by outsiders, given how comically inaccurate some media depictions of Orthodox Jews are. (I don't think it's all down to malice. I think outsiders genuinely tend not to 'get' it, even when they're sympathetic.)
For context: ISIS was founded in 2003 after the american invasion and overthrow of the arab socialist and nationalist dictatorship of saddam hussein. Iraq was then taken over by iran influenced corrupt shia politicians, clerics and militias (shias are 60% of the iraqi population) who are terrorizing the Muslim population (especially the government of PM nuri al maliki was notorious for that).
ISIS was founded by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as a defense against the american secularist occupation forces and its shia proxies. Zarqawi refused to let iraqi intelligence agents, officials and military officers who were previously serving under saddam to join isis, cuz he considered them opportunistic secularists and socialists.
After his death, isis elected Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as its leader who allowed (some analysts say actively hired) saddams officials, since baghdadi wanted to organize a real state with infrastucture, ministries and administration.
The problem with isis and al qaeda is not that they want to defend themselves, bring back the Caliphate and Sharia Law (hence isis uses all these religious legal terms as the author of the piece constantly notes). The problem is they are not doing it the right way. THAT is what we mean when we say that isis has nothing to do with Islam, and thats what the author missed.
- It is prohibited to kill civilians, especially women and children or to indiscrimnately kill non-Muslims. Non-Muslims are, in Islamic Law, in one of 4 possible categories. In three of these (dhimmi, mu'ahad, mustaman) it is categorically prohibited to kill them, in one (harbi) only armed combatants can be killed (which can include women, old people and monks who are armed and trying to kill you, but it is usually prohibited to kill them https://sunnah.com/muslim:1744b)
- We all want the global united Muslim Caliphate back and we are tired of these failed artificial post colonial divided nation states. However, there are specific rules for how a Caliphate gets established and how the Caliph gets elected and how the islamic legal system gets organized and who even the right has to be Caliph and wazeer (minister). Isis did not fulfill any of these. Dr. Zijad Ljakić (one of the most famous Bosnian Islamic scholars, from whom I also studied Islamic Law) made back then an entire over an hour lecture on this topic and showed how isis failed at fulfilling the criteria. Note: dr. Ljakić fought as a jihadist in the Bosnian war. He is a veteran and a scholar, certainly not some liberal or reformist. Even the saudi salafi islamic scholar Sulayman al-'Alwan whom nobody can accuse of being biased in favour of secularists (he is an imprisoned critic of the saudi regime and labeled by it as "al-qaeda mufti") rejected isis claims of a Caliphate in a leaked audio (the saudi regime does not allow him to speek freely): https://youtu.be/W4d1Y6g-bWs?si=60-iPj8ECzGeRndb
- After getting condemned and corrected by Muslim scholars and institutions all over the world, isis started targeting us Muslims, instead of just admitting its mistakes.
Isis is a bunch of accursed terrorists: saddams former proxies who have found a way how to reestablish their power.
"The problem with isis and al qaeda is not that they want to defend themselves, bring back the Caliphate and Sharia Law (hence isis uses all these religious legal terms as the author of the piece constantly notes). The problem is they are not doing it the right way. THAT is what we mean when we say that isis has nothing to do with Islam, and thats what the author missed."
Would you agree with the following quote from the article?
"The term Salafi has been villainized, in part because authentic villains have ridden into battle waving the Salafi banner. But most Salafis are not jihadists, and most adhere to sects that reject the Islamic State. They are, as Haykel notes, committed to expanding Dar al-Islam, the land of Islam, even, perhaps, with the implementation of monstrous practices such as slavery and amputation—but at some future point. Their first priority is personal purification and religious observance, and they believe anything that thwarts those goals—such as causing war or unrest that would disrupt lives and prayer and scholarship—is forbidden."
No, not really, even though I am not salafi, I have to defend them against this misrepresentation.
There is a salafi sect called madkhalis who are blindly loyal to whatever government is currently in charge. Jihad in military form (even in self-defense like in the case of the Taliban) is at the very least highly suspicious to them. They are true quietists and opposed to salafis like isis.
"Salafis" are a true example of what happens when you divert from the 1400 year old scholarship, the established schools of jurisprudence and theology and instead try to reconstruct what in your opinion the salaf "actually" believed in. You get all this in-group fighting and ridicolous sectarianism, that also fuels isis' decontextualized and misaprehended attempt of implementation of Islamic Law
ISIS is right that the current governments in the world are bad. But its methodology (declare war on everybody and fight everybody) is destructive and prohibited. The circumstances of overthrowing or declaring war on a government are so specific that its difficult to practically implement it. Obeying the current law as long as it does not directly force one to disobey God and respecting the laws of a country is so important that it is even inlucded in classical summaries of Islamic theology. Sharia Law is necessary, but whenever possible, the peaceful promotion of it is the followed one and the violent one is avoided and if it comes to violence somehow, like it happened in iraq after saddams fall, one must adhere to islamic ethics of war.
ISIS is one extreme.
The madkhalis are another extreme. Their loyalti goes so far to the point thwt they deem any public criticism of a president or king as a possible begin of a slippery slope that might lead to rebellion and civil war.
question: are you familiar with ancient Muslim scholarship? Pardon my ignorance, I'm not familiar with your culture. Scholars like al farabi, ibn sina and on, the ones quoted by Maimonides, are their works still the basis of Islamic philosophy?
I'd be curious to hear a insider Muslim perspective...
Also, can I ask, what got you into RJ and IM? I'm fascinated!
- I was born and raised in a Bosnian Muslim, but very secularist family. I am the only religious one in the family. I was always interested in religion and felt connected to religion since my childhood and I studied all the faiths of the world.
Muslims are good at refuting atheists, xtians, secularists, positivits, naturalists, liberals etc.
We have always been like that. In the 13th century the Damascene jurist and judge Ahmad ibn Taymiyya wrote a 12 volume book seeking to demonstrate that Islam and Reason are in harmony. He also wrote a 7 volume book refuting shias and a 9 volume book refuting xtianity and numerous books refuitng greek philosophers.
However, I have never seen Muslims dealing with judaism or vice versa. All of polemic that I have seen is political ("I don't hate jews, just zionists, cuz they are occupiers..." and topics like that).
I was always interested in judaism and have studied it for years, and thats how I stumbled across these two blogs. Once, with a good deal of difficulty, I could read hebrew from a chumash, cuz I wanted to have access to the original torah text, however I forgot that, cuz I found this website: https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/1-1.htm , which made my knowledge obsolete.
I used to listen and study from all kinds of orthodox rabbis: rabbi sachs, rabbi alon anava, rabbi meir kahana, rabbi yitzhak ginzburgh, rabbi yitzhak breitowitz, rabbi yosef mizrachi, rabbi yaron reuven etc. To Reuven I stopped listening cuz he really turned islamophoic in the last months. I always listened to Mizrachi cuz I find his sarcasm and his extreme israeli accent funny (even though he has been living for 30 years in america)
I have known slifkin for years, and through his blog, I was among the first who read the first article of irrationalist modoxism blog.
- Yeah I am familiar with them.
After Muslims translated greek books, they felt challenged, cuz greeks differed with Muslim theology on key issues.
The Iranian Islamic Scholar Abu Hamid al-Ghazali wrote in the 11th century his book The Incoherence of the Philosophers. In it he divides philosophy in six branches: five are ok, like math, politics, ethics etc
The problem lies in metaphysics. Al-Ghazali identified 20 mistakes by the greeks (3 of these false beliefs constitute apostasy: believing in the eternity of the world, denying the bodily resurrection and I do not remember the 3rd one)
Al-Ghazali sets out to refute the greeks and shows why the Muslim belief is logically correct, necessary and coherent. Al-Ghazali has been the basis of our approach: "I do not need to look how to reconcile Islam with greek philosophy, cuz the philosophers themeselves are demonstrably wrong." Other scholars have written similar works, but al-Ghazali was really the final blow to the philosophers. Hence, Muslims today reject and dislike philosophy (by which they mean greek heretical stuff)
If you actually mean by philosophy logic and logical argumentation, well that is called al-mantiq المنطق. Al-Ghazali wrote books on mantiq, too. His great book of Islamic Law al-Mustasfa (al-Ghazali was besides mysticism/tasawwuf and philosophy more known as a legal scholar) starts with 40 pages of explaining logic. Muslim apologists today like Muhammad Hijab appeal to philosophy and they always had to justify themselves and explain what they really mean by philosophy, since they constantly get criticised by other Muslims for dealing with philosophy
Secularist academia gave Ghazali a lot of hate for smashing philospophy and successfully defending tradition. But Muslims have a balanced view and they did not reject philosophy in and of itself. Rejecting greek metaphysical mumbo jumbo does not mean rejecting science. Centuries after al-Ghazali, up to the 17th, 18th century, Muslims have commented on greek books, corrected them and made scientific discoveries. Robert Wisnowsky wrote a paper on that. The turkish islamic scholar Ali Qushji in the 15th century proved that the earth rotates around itself and he also wrote a book refuting aristotelian astronomy. The mathematician Ibn al-Haytham in the 11th century introducted empiricism but he also wrote refutations of greek thought.
Two volumes of George Surtons history of sciences is basically just Muslims.
Ibn sina, al Farabi and Ibn Rushd do matter in topics like medicine and stuff like that (al-Ghazali was an avid reader of them), but they never played any role in our theology and epistemology, since they did believe in the eternity of the world and the other heretical stuff and they made up far-fetched interpretations of the Qur'an trying to match that.
Islamic scholars have already in the first two centuries of Islam wrotten multi volume books on grammar, morphology amd linguistics (Khalil, al-Sibawayh, Ali Ibn isa etc).
Also from earliest times, Muslims developed a unique way of filtering out inauthentic from authentic sayings of Prophet Muhammad (its called hadith science), through a system of chains of transmission, careful analysis of the chains and the texts.
Since we had the linguistics and the exegesis of the Prophet saws himself, his companions (sahaba) and their students (tabiun) and a demonstrably true mesorah (or sanad as we Muslims would say) it was difficult for our heretics and self-proclaimed rationalists to make up far-fetched interpretations and dismiss everything as "metaphorical".
According to Islam, faith and reason are in harmony (see https://quran.com/al-mulk/9-10 and: https://www.abuaminaelias.com/reason-science-islam/) or at the very least they do not contradict (e.g. existence of angels is not logically inevitable, but it is known through revelation and it does not contradict reason). All Muslims agree on that, Al Ghazali just like Ibn sina, Ibn rush and al farabi. The latter three guys claimed that their far ecthed excuses are the real meanings of the verses.
The translation of their books into latin led eventually to the collapse of xtian dogmas and trust in the church, since xitanity does claim to be an irragional religion. Paul wrote that in 1. Corinthias chapter 1, church fathers like Augustine and Thomas de Aquinas declared inconsistent contradictory stuff like trinity to be incomprehensible matters of faith. That enmity that the so called enlightenment had towards christianity was later generalized to all religions (leading to secularism, colonialism whose effects we can still see today), hence the secularist enmity to Ghazali and the praise of "mavericks" "rationalists" and "free-thinkers" like Ibn rushd, ibn sina al al farabi.
But, that view is selective and biased. They did see themseleves as orthodox Muslims. Ibn rushd was a jurist and judge of Shaira law. If he was alive today, he would be labeled a "radical islamist" (rightfully)
Thanks so much! Your patience is appreciated greatly.
If I can continue bothering you -
1) Is the "tafwid" approach basically just saying that we don't know so we "delegate" the meaning to He who does? Or is it an actual approach with more nuance than that?
"Tafwil" is more what we believe - both "rationalists" like Maimonides and mystics who follow the Zohar both look toward understanding the incorporeal metaphors (such as the eyes and ears being incorporeal concepts of chochma (wisdom) and bina (the deep and meaningful understanding of the 'simple' wisdom), because the (force behind the) eyes see the idea but can't interpret while the (inner force of the) ears interpret but are interpreting nothing more than what the eyes see, similar to chochma which is the idea itself which ultimately understood through the breakdown of the bina, the processing and 'listening' to what the idea is when clarified. Or a simpler example, the head being on top of the body signifying the dominion of the intellect ruling over actions).
But those who are unfamiliar with incorporeality (which can't be understood until we remove ourselves from the body), should rather "delegate" than be ignorant corporealists (like Slifkin and co.)...
2) "However, I have never seen Muslims dealing with judaism or vice versa." It's curious that you've never seen Islamic works dealing with Judaism, but "vice versa", we have plenty. Well, not plenty, but rather one simple idea which is more than enough. I'm sure you know about Maimonides's position, but more importantly, we believe that a prophet who says not to follow the laws of the Torah cannot be a real prophet. Your Prophet says things which are against the Torah, such as permitting camel meat.
Was he not referring to Jews, only to non-Jews, that Jews should continue to keep their commandments? If that's a possibility, are Jews then not heretics according to Qur'an?
No need to resolve contradictions here, I'm just curious, pardon my ridiculous boldness!! (And @Happy, let me know if we're stepping over the line, as I know you guys don't allow atheists...)
Once again, no pressure and you can email me privately if that's better (or if the IM panel would rather not have this discussion here...)
1) There is some nuance. We ashaira and maturidiyyah say: Yeah, just whatever God meant by that, we believe in it. Don't delve into it. Read the verse as it is and move on. This is called tafwidul ma'na: the delegation of the meaning.
Self-proclaimed Salafis say: No, you understand tafwid wrong. We do know the meaning. Hand is hand. Face is face etc. Nothing is similar to God, so how His Hand looks like, we do not know, but it certainly does not resemble our human hands. So we do know the meaning, we do not know the howness of Gods attributes (kayfiyya), since nothing resembles God. Hence salafis reject tawil (metaphorical interpretation).
Salafis themselves are inconsistent, of course. Allah swt says: He is with you wherever you might be (Surah al-Hadid). If salafis were consistent, they would have to interpret the verse like this: "God is with all of us individually, but unlike we humans are with each other. We do not how (kayfa) God is with us." But, even salafi commentators explain it metaphorically, that God is with us through His Knowledge and Omnipotence.
2) Yeah I know Rambam rejected Islam, but there were no multi volume refutations against each other. How many books did Saadia Gaon write against the karaites, and how many about Islam in comparison? The thing is Gaon knew arabic, he could have studied our sources. But he didn't. Sephardi and mizrachi jews well versed in arabic copied often from Qur'an and Hadith, midrashim that were supposed by secular academia to be the sources of the Qur'an turned out to be written centuries after emergence of Islam (https://www.islamic-awareness.org/quran/sources/)- The israeli historian Naftali Wieder wrote a whole book on Muslim influence on jewish prayer
We Muslims never wrote against judaism specifically, cuz we, on the other side, just do not know hebrew nor aramaic. Whenever Muslims debated xtians and pointed out mistakes in the Old Testament, they are thinking: yeah, thats how we are covering judaism too, like two birds with one stone.
There was a jewish moroccan mathematician from the 12th century Samuel al Maghribi who converted to Islam and wrote a refutation of judaism and of a subsequent rabbinical response, but he was a jewish convert to Islam, an insider. I do not know of any born Muslim who mastered hebrew. All examples are contemporary. There was an Islamic scholar from morocco, critic of secularism, nationalism, communism, nazism, naturalis, atheism. He mainly wrote in french, but he did know hebrew. His name was Abdussalam Yassine.
Islam does stress that jews should follow the torah (God is very harsh in the Qur'an on those israelites who did not keep shabbat, some of them were turned into monkeys and pigs) but when the Qur'an adresses contemporary jews directly and when you read these verses in context, what the Qur'an means by following torah is to accept Muhammad saws as a prophet, since he is prophecised in the torah. Moses is the most mentioned Prophet in the Qur'an, cuz God would repeatedly reveal his story (each time uncovering some aspects not adressed in another surah) to Muhammad saws, since there are many parallels between the life of Moses and Muhammad and lessons that can be learned from it.
I think the IM panel is ok with this this discussion, we are basically just describing our beliefs here. If they allow even Natan to post his stuff, I think they are ok with me too
I was born very 'frum' - religious - but starting from like twenty, after a lot of thought and reading, I decided I didn't believe, and that lasted quite a while. But thank God, now I'm back for a few years, full blown 'yeshivish/chareidi" although maybe slightly more even tempered and less zealous in my attitude towards others - I leave the judgment for God.
- Or Noah drinking and being raped by his son whose son he curses (interestingly the cannatines come from him who are thus supposed to be slaves of israelites), Jacob cheating, David murdering and fornicating, Lot having sex with his daughters that give birth to the nations of moab and ammon (which like the cannanite-origin-story reads like a later israelite's racist mockery of these two enemy kingdoms) and stuff like that. In Islam Prophets are supposed to be excellent examples so that we have an idea of what an ideal person would be. I was shocked to be honest when i found out that rabbis are bigger in judaism than even prophets, but then I understood why jews rarely converted to Islam, cuz to them even the jewish prophets are below the rabbis, let alone a goy like Muhammad saws
- According to Islam, every nation throughout history received prophets, whose message throughout the passing of time got distorted, changed, misunderstood, forgotten, etc. Thats were all the differences but also commonalities between world religions comes from(and I am not talking about just the abrahamic ones, but similiarities to taosim, confucianism etc.The japanese islamic scholar Toshihiko Izutsu wrote about this, Islamic Chinese scholars wrote the Han Kitab in the 18th century regarding this). Hence in the Qur'an there are prophets mentioned who are not found anywehere else: Hud, Salih, Shuayb. The Qur'an even mentions the ancient city of Iram, which was completely unknown to anybody at that time (even to jews or xtians) and was only rediscovered by archaeologists in the 1980ies. But Muhammad saws is the last prophet in human history and a prophet to all of humanity, hence torah is believed to be abrogated, cuz it was only meant for the israelites speficially for a specific period of history.
Forgive if the guy is a little bit sarcastic and offensive (thats how many salafis are, he also attacks us asharis and maturidis, evem though he does not even know classical Arabic) but his research skills are impressive. I used to cooperate with him in refuting xtian missionaries.
- I think that rambam was inconsistent in his criticism: in his letter to the yemeni jews he once claims that there is not even a hint to Muhammad saws in the tanakh which he claims forces Muslims to believe in its distortion, but then a couple of pages later, he claims that the appearence of Islam is the fulfillment of a prophecy by Daniel.
I know you guys do not like hearing his name, but I think that rabbi Marc Shapiros book "the limits of orthodoxy" does show, that even many authoritative gaonim and rishonim believed that there were interpolations and/or omissions in the torah text by later prophets and/or scribes. Not all rabbis agreed with this stance of course, but those who did believe in this, were not branded as heretics as todays jews would do.
- I would say that Islam is really the original of what Jesus a.s. actually taught. If you want more, there is a book: Before Nicea : The Early Followers of Prophet Jesus which includes most recent secular scholarship, too.
Hi. Definitely an interesting conversation for this blog. I am not well versed in Muslim literature but I just want to respond to this comment. Most of the examples you give in your first paragraph are either less of a problem than you make it or not about great people. Noah being raped by his son - we don't claim his son was great. Jacob cheating? He married more than one which was acceptable. Lot, although slightly justified with his actions is not relatively a great role model in the Bible. David's story is the only one you mention that needs explanation, which much length in the talmud is given. But even though mistakes of great people are highlighted in the Bible, lets not forget about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (don't know of him cheating), Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel ect. My point is that prophets are also glorified, not just Rabbis.
Through memorization and chains of transmission. It is normal for Muslims to memorize the entire Qur'an letter by letter (such a person is called a hafidh). In mauretania, one of the requriements of a hafidh is that he or she knows how to write down the Qur'an, too.
Thats how it has been since the time of Prophet Muhammad (especially in his time, when books were not so easily available). The founder of sociology Ibn Khaldun in the 14 century memorized the 6 volume book al Mudawwanah (a book on Islamic Law), so that he does not depend on books. The saudi grand mufti Ibn Baz (d. 1999) memorized numerous books, each having 10 volumes (like the Musnad of Ibn Hanbal). So even today we have such scholars.
Also, we have manuscripts of the Qur'an from the time of Muhammad saws, we have hadith science and manuscripts of hadith from that time. If you want more, you can refer to the websites I linked.
"And he had banned me because of these specious claims of misrepresentation."
Now THAT is a severe misrepresentation. I don't think there's anyone, including Hurricane Natan himself, who believes that's the reason you were banned.
Just popping in again to say thank you for perfectly proving my point about how you misrepresent me.
To pick but one example, you present point 3 of my argument as being that "Rashi never explicitly repudiates corporealism". Yes, that would be a pretty weak argument. After all, I'm sure that there are lots of commentaries on the Chumash that never explicitly repudiate corporealism, and it certainly doesn't mean that they were corporealists.
But that's not the argument I make, as can be see in the actual quote from my article. Rather, the argument is that Rashi DOES repudiate CERTAIN TYPES of anthropomorphisms, but not others. Now, you can try (as R. Zucker does, albeit unsuccessfully) to come up with an explanation for that. But you don't even present my argument correctly. I just don't know whether that was a deliberate distortion or whether you didn't even realize that you completely misrepresenting my argument.
Lol, this is the ridiculous sub-argument I mentioned at the end. This new category that you invented, "types of anthropomorphisms" that Rashi repudiates, is a complete figment of your imagination to achieve the end result that you wanted.
We can just as well say, Rashi repudiates the simple meaning of many mitzvos, therefore when he doesn't repudiate the simple meaning of ומלתם את ערלת לבבכם but actually states the simple meaning, that means you have to literally circumcise your heart (https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/a-very-very-problematic-rashi). Do you not realize how silly you sound?
Happy, I think you are being too glib in dismissing RNS' sub-argument. You are not providing a satisfactory substitute theory for why Rashi sometimes decides to repudiate some types of anthropomorphisms and not others. Just pointing to the fact that Rashi doesn't clarify every obvious metaphor as being non-literal and leaving it at that just begs the question.
I would suggest that Rashi possibly took the Raavad's approach to corporealism as not being an ikkar emunah per se, but Rashi did feel that attributing any human-like flaw or limitation to Hashem is not acceptable.
This is why any anthropomorphism in Tanach or Chazal which denotes something negative or limiting about Hashem has to be corrected for his readers. But RNS' insistence that this provides any positive evidence whatsoever that Rashi HIMSELF was actually a corporealist is patently absurd.
The strongest case RNS could make, I believe, is to say the following:
The Rambam asserted with absolute philosophical certainty that for Hashem to have any human or physical attributes whatsoever is BY DEFINITION a limitation and a flaw and is therefore kefirah.
Rashi could be of the opinion that his readership isn't convinced of such philosophical certainty. If someone were to hypothetically make a solid argument that having a some human characteristics is (somehow) in no way limiting or implying any flaw in Hashem on any level, why indeed would it be kefirah?
To repeat: The whole reason incorporeality is recognized as an ikkar by us is because we understand corporeality as inherently placing a limitation of Hashem. What if Rashi's audience didn't agree with that equation? Then there is no need for Rashi to debunk every anthropomorphism. Only the ones that imply a flaw or a limitation on Hashem.
Hi Dovid, thanks for the lengthy explanation. I never imagined that you would be the one defending Natan! I guess Mashiach is coming!
My points was more than the fact that I can find Rashis that don't clarify obvious metaphors. It is that Natan invented a new category out of thin air called "types of anthropomorphisms" that Rashi repudiates. But there is no such thing. Sometimes Rashi explains the יד or the פנים of Hashem metaphorically, sometimes he is silent, sometimes he explains it simply. There are no rules that we can assign to Rashi on this matter. And certainly Natan's "rule" doesn't work at all. Natan found a *fraction* of the Rashis on Tanach regarding these issues and made up a category to explain all of them, but his category neither explains all of the Rashis that he brings nor does it explain countless others like them.
Regarding your strongest case, Natan is saying that Rashi holds that Hashem is a giant body, that Hashem's hand means this giant hand that comes out of the sky, that Hashem's face means a giant face in the sky, that Hashem's eyes are giant eyeballs, that Hashem has giant nostrils that emit no smoke (as this would be disgraceful to Hashem if smoke came out of His giant nostrils). This cartoonishly grotesque description is not how anybody normal would learn Tanach. Even the Salafi Muslims quoted by "Raphael" above don't read it like this. It is beyond obvious that Natan's whole point was to undermine the Mesorah by trying to show that our greatest Rishonim believed such things.
"This cartoonishly grotesque description is not how anybody normal would learn Tanach." And yet Raavad says that greater people than Rambam learned Tanach this way, and Riaz says that some of CHAZAL learned Tanach this way. So I guess either you think you know Chazal/Rishonim better than Raavad and Riaz, or you think that some of Chazal are "not normal."
Hey Natan, I'm surprised you didn't claim yet again I was misrepresenting you!
No, nobody says anybody normal learned Tanach the way you are learning Rashi, What they are referring to is when the Tanach depicts Hashem as a person in prophetic visions , like in the Ma'aseh Merkava, there are those who learn that it is not just a vision but a literal manifestation of Hashem on His throne. This may be wrong but it is not a crazy belief. And there is absolutely no evidence that Rashi believed that either, none of what your brought remotely qualifies as evidence for that and kal v'chomer for what you think Rashi holds.
Again, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not defending RNS' absurd deduction about what Rashi himself believed.
I am just suggesting Rashi was focused on the very minimum necessary to correct his readership's understandable misreadings of Tanach and Chazal's descriptions of Hashem.
Here's the sources from Riaz. First in Sanhedri Gedolah:
אבל אם יחשוב אדם שהקדוש ברוך הוא בעל תמונה, לא הקפיד התורה בכך, וכמה היו מחכמי התלמוד הקדושים, שמהם תצא תורה לישראל, שלא נחנו לבם להתבונן בענין האלהות, אלא הבינו המקראות כפשוטם, ולפי תומם חשבו כי הקדוש ברוך הוא בעל גוף והתמונה
Then in the ksav yad published by Ta Shmah, he elaborates on what this belief was:
צלם ודמות, כבר חשבו בני אדם כי צלם בלשון העברי יורה על תמונת הדבר ותוארו, והביא זה אל הגשמה גמורה לאומ' נעשה אדם בצלמנו כדמותינו, וחשבו שהשם על צורת האדם, ר"ל תמונתו ותוארו, והתחייבה להם ההגשמה הגמורה והאמינו בה, וראו שאם הם יפרדו מזאת האמונה - יכזיבו הכתוב, וגם ישימו את השם נעדר אם לא יהיה לו גוף בעל פנים ויד כמותם בתמונה ובתואר, אלא שהוא יותר גדול ויותר בהיר לפי סברתם, וחומר שלו גם כן אינו בשר ודם, וזה תכלית מה שיחשבוהו רוממות בחוק השם.
He is very clear that the view was that Hashem has actual (albeit not flesh-and-blood) form. This is precisely the view that Happy claims is impossible for any great Torah scholar to hold. So either Happy knows what Chazal believed better than Riaz did, or Happy's views about the beliefs of great Torah scholars are incorrect.
But based on your quote from Ta Shma, he is not talking about the same people.
The first one is referring to great Torah scholars, and is saying that they didn't delve into matters of God's essence.
The second is referring to people who actually did delve into God's essence, and who came to very concrete conclusions about Him, deciding that to deny that He has a hand exactly like ours (except made of different substance and bigger, the view you decide to attribute to Rashi) is to deny His existence. I don't see anywhere in the second quote that those people were great Torah scholars.
You're misrepresenting the Riaz you quoted (unless there is more that you didn't quote). The Torah writes in human terms and kids will think in human terms. Some people never mature and still think that. Even if they delve into talmudic studies and grow tremendously in Torah andd Halacha, they can still think that. Not that it is in any way a correct view, but we can't fault them since they are reading the Torah כפשוטו - the Torah itself portrays itself as such. But anyone who does think about these things knows how wrong it is (and at that point it may even be idol worship (if he applies actual calculated הגשמה to God).
It is simply not a valid approach in actuality, and someone like Rashi, who was much more than a Halachist, would never err in this matter. Period.
ראב"ד says השגות הראבד והאומר שיש שם רבון אחד אלא שהוא גוף ובעל תמונה. א"א ולמה קרא לזה מין וכמה גדולים וטובים ממנו הלכו בזו המחשבה לפי מה שראו במקראות ויותר ממה שראו בדברי האגדות המשבשות את הדעות:
Really? In order for that to be true, you would need to demonstrate why what he raised as an alternate possibility, on pages 19-23 of his Hakirah article, to your argument from silence is really not at all possible. If what he wrote is even possible, then your argument from silence is obliterated. You responded to his alternate possibility with objections in your second Hakirah article on pages 70-72, and he showed why your responses were illogical and/or incorrect in his website article on pages 23-26. If you have a valid response to his argument, please show it. Otherwise it would seem that "albeit unsuccessfully" should be changed to "indeed successfully."
Also, regarding your two stated reasons for banning me:
1. You could have just asked me to refrain from using the objectionable word.
2. I never engage in conspiracy-mongering, liar. Find one comment where I do so. All I said was: "the earth is not a globe because we can see too far" and then explain what this means, along with addressing some of your statements. I only said this on your one post on the flat earth debate. YOU and others are the ones who pollute the discussion with an obvious conclusion and obsessively fixate on it but which is not pertinent to the arguments I present. You care about the implications. I care about the truth.
You should rescind your banning, but I don't expect you to, because you never admit to being wrong about anything of substance.
He represents your equivocation perfectly. As I said in response to test in an earlier comment to this post:
"Also part of the problem for him is the constant equivocation to make his treif views appear kosher. His words on Rashi's alleged corporealism is a case in point. It's absurd on its face, especially given Natan's justifications for making the claim."
You say what you say, then when someone characterizes what you say accurately, you deny saying it, because it was a paraphrase, not a word-for-word quote. Because equivocation.
I don't think he even realises. The yeshivah world of chavrusohs sparring verbally (which is the way he approaches his entire mission here - it's not the same way as your opponents such as RDK and others debate you) does not easily translate to the written word. The general leiztonus tone doesn't help either.
Here's one example, I can't be bothered to do more.
You: Therefore, there is already a DECENT LIKELIHOOD that he was one of them.
It's adding words like 'decent likelihood' that are misrepresentations. And that is the sort of thing you do over and over again. Words mean things, you know. You also remove context, quote out of context, remove earlier or later sentences that qualify the one you are quoting etc etc.
PS full disclaimer: I am not expressing any opinion here on the validity of the underlying argument.
" Thus, it is certainly conceivable that Rashi was part of this group. In fact, according to the testimony of Ramban and R. Shmuel ben Mordechai of Marseilles regarding the prevalence of this view in France, the onus of proof would perhaps be upon one claiming that Rashi was not a corporealist."
This sounds more than a decent likelihood.
Maybe you can't be bothered to do more than one, but at least one?
No. 'Certainly conceivable' is not the same as 'decent likelihood'.
"Decent likelihood" means more likely than not. "Certainly conceivable" means it is within a range of acceptable possibilities, and not totally outrageous. Very different meanings.
You don't have the background to appreciate the nuance in different written terminology when it comes to professional/academic written works. Which explains why you simply cannot appreciate how you misrepresent.
Decent likelihood certainly doesn't mean more likely than not. Decent likelihood means a reasonable likelihood, as in, say, 30% as opposed to .5%.
"the onus of proof would perhaps be upon one claiming that Rashi was not a corporealist."- this is even more than a decent likelihood.
You don't have the background to appreciate the nuance in different written terminology. Which explains why you simply cannot appreciate what "decent" means.
I'm not quibbling over percentages, but however you spin it, decent likelihood is not the same as certainly conceivable. The former is a stronger possibility than the latter, which is misrepresentation. Deatails matter.
"the onus of proof would perhaps be upon one claiming that Rashi was not a corporealist."- this is even more than a decent likelihood.
Here you go again, you missed out the nuance of the word 'perhaps'. Perhaps yes, perhaps no. That is a sentence that adds nothing to the picture, due to the use of the word 'perhaps' and is mere ponitification. Sloppy writing, I agree, an academic should not pontificate with the word 'perhaps' but it does not add anything to the meaning of 'certainly conceivable' in the earlier sentence and does not turn it into 'decent likelihood'. It introduces a technical discussion on 'burden of proof', not a clarification on Rashi's position. A very different thing.
I'm ending this conversation now, as it will not get anywhere. Good bye.
No you got it the the wrong way. The latter is actually stronger than the former. Writing about how something is certainly conceivable and the burden of proof is actually perhaps on the other side makes it sound more than a decent likelihood.
"I'm not quibbling over percentages..." but you are still quibbling, pointlessly. Every response by sycophant to perfectly understandable statements is in the style.
You (the generic you) are the ones making this a "he said-she said" situation by the constant pedantic quibbling. And it is pedantic, in the extreme.
test, Natan's problem is he thinks he is a more capable writer than he is in actuality. He has the vocabulary, but he lacks an ability to express his thoughts clearly. It's kind of shocking how poor his writing is. He is long-winded and would rather post than take time to edit his thoughts. More than once, he has felt compelled to post repeatedly on the same topic because of this, claiming to be misunderstood, and for the sake of clarification adding many more words to his body of work on a subject that clarify nothing.
Also part of the problem for him is the constant equivocation to make his treif views appear kosher. His words on Rashi's alleged corporealism is a case in point. It's absurd on its face, especially given Natan's justifications for making the claim.
Happy's characterization of Natan's Tosafos/Aristotle comparison is a totally logical and very precise distillation of Natan's absurd syllogism. No need to quote his long-winded words exactly. In this case, or any other, really.
The circular argument was not mentioned.
Slifkin's true agenda over here is to show that the 13 ikarim are not all that absolute, people can disagree with one of them and not be classified as heretics. If Rashi was a corporealist, that lends credibility to his argument.
He then begins with his proof. Rashi could have been a corporealist, it is certainly conceivable. Why? Because it is a legitimate opinion, from the list of Rishonim that held like that.
And things go around and around.
This comment here gives him ammunition. https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/the-soldiers-are-really-doing-stuff-82e/comment/41797707
Are there really normal poskim who say it is ok to steal from the state? If so, then that itself is a position that needs to be defended.
I didn't write that there are. Merely that his logic is totally distorted.
He will of course seize your comment as proof that there are, and that this is the mainstream chareidi position, that theft is ok. He will parade your comment around forever like a float at the Macy's day parade unless you clarify.
Exactly!!!
Your comment here gives him ammunition. https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/the-soldiers-are-really-doing-stuff-82e/comment/41797053
Are there really normal poskim who say it is ok to steal from the state? If so, then that itself is a position that needs to be defended.
He has ammo already. I'm not scared of showing people to learn the sugya carefully
Anyone is welcome to learn the sugya. Stealing is more complicated but hafkaas hakvaaso is mutar and barring the Rambam that is the normative shita even for taxes. That's all if the govt is not Jewish but even if they are, in Israel acc to the Ran no one has a right because no one can own the land... There may be even more fundamental reasons behind that (מוכס שאין לו קצבה)
But most times chilul Hashem is at play which is an even worse problem no doubt, question is if that applies to chilonim which is complicated (since it may be they who are stealing and to not let someone steal from you is a whole different story)
Hello, a Muslim here and a regular reader of Slifkins and Irrationalist modoxisms posts.
Regarding the previous discussion in the comment section on corporealism among Muslims:
There are 3 schools in Islamic Theology (Aqidah): Ashaira and Maturidiyyah. The absolute vast majority of Muslim scholars and Muslims (including me) belong to them.
The 3rd ones are the salafis (pejoratively called wahhabis). This proving islam guy from twitter is a staunch salafi. I know him, we used to cooperate in refuting xtian missionaries.
All Muslims agree that nothing is similar to God: لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَىْءٌۭ ۖ Nothing is like Him (Qur'an, surah 42:11)
There are many other verses saying the same directly or indirectly.
When it comes to such verses mentioning Gods hands, Gods face etc. the salaf i.e. the first three generations of Muslims (the companions of Prophet Muhammad saws, his successors and their successors) simply accepted the wording of these verses as they are and did not delve into them. We know that nothing is similar to God, so whatever e.g. "Gods hand" means, we accept it. If hand is a majaaz (i.e. metaphor) for strenght, then ok. If it means something else, thats fine too. Whatever God intended with that phrase, we accept it. This method is called tafwid تفويض which means delegating (...the meaning to God).
Later Islamic scholars pushed more for tawil, which means metaphorical interpretation, and there is evidence that the salaf practiced that occasionally, too.
The self-proclaimed "salafis" reject any metaphorical interpretation. They say: "No, it says hand, so accept hand. God does have a hand, its not a metaphor, but its a hand unlike a human hand. Since nothing is similar to God, how Gods hand looks like, we do not know, but it is what it is."
Salafis oftentimes get accused of being corporealists مجسمة by mainstream Islamic scholars (entire books have been written on both sides on this subject) or that their methodology is at the very least confusing and might lead to anthropomorphism/corporealism. I have studied from salafi scholars too and I do not think that it is anthropomorphism, but it might lead to it.
For example salafis say, that we should only ascribe to God, what He has ascribed to himself in the Qur'an or his Prophet saws in an authenticated narration/quote (Hadith) of his.
If you ask whether God has a body, thats a bad question, since the Arabic word jism (body) can refer to a literar human-like body (which would be anthropomorphistic hence heretical) but it could also mean entity, i.e. that God is a Real Existing Being, and that meaning would be correct, in thatcase you van say that god has a jism (body). So, to avoid these possible linguistical misunderstandings, lets just stick to terms used in the Qur'an and authentic Hadith.
This approach is ok, problem is that salafi laymen, especially on social media who oftentimes do not speak Arabic (proving Islam is one of them), completely misunderstand and misapprehend it.
When you ask salafis whether God consists of materia, they might get reluctant to deny and they get combative. They do not get that in english, materia has no acceptable or heretical meaning, you can freely deny that God consists of materia. The Muslim convert and youtuber Jake Brancatella (who is an expert in refuting the trinity) is a salafi, but he got attacked on twitter by salafis for denying that God has materia.
P. S. : I am surprised that you guys know Haqiqatjou.
When it comes to Javad, do not listen to him. He is our slifkin. Well, slifkin at least is fluent in hebrew, javad fails in basic arabic. Secular academia misrepresents Islam even more than judaism, since Islam is the only serious challenge to secularist world order.
I would recommend as refutations of secularist misrepresentations and strawmen: https://www.islamic-awareness.org/ and
https://www.call-to-monotheism.com/ and
(this two volume book by an al-Azhar professor is only in arabic دفاع عن السنة ورد شبه المستشرقين والكتاب المعاصرين) and https://archive.org/details/StudiesInEarlyHadithLiteratureByShaykhMuhammadMustafaAlAzami_201512 and
https://archive.org/details/OnSchachtsOriginsOfMuhammadanJurisprudenceByM.M.Azami and the papers in
https://independent.academia.edu/FaridalBahraini
Fascinating! Thank you!
Salam alaikum and Allahu akbar!
Wa alayka
Fascinating stuff, thanks! Pardon my ignorance, but are all the groups you mentioned sunni? shia? both? neither? Is there somewhere I could get a basic outline of where all of the ideologies you mentioned map out in relation to each other?
Also, is the Arabic you're familiar with similar to the style used in medieval times? Like, would you be able to read a work such as Maimonides' 'Guide For The Perplexed' in the original?
Thanks again!
-I speak fusha i.e. normative standard Arabic. Its not just that the Qur'an is the same as in the time of the Prophet saws, but God preserved also its original language, so I would be able to understand Morech Nevuchim in the original
However, Rambam spoke judeo arabic, hence he mixed jewish and aramaic words and phrases which I might not know and there might be Arabic expressions that are out of use today.
-They are all Sunni. We Sunnis are 90% of the worldwide Muslim population and most of Islamic contributions to the world in law, politiology, sociology, science, art, culture etc. are from us. We are considered normative Islam.
Shiism started like this: after the death of the Prophet saws, the question was raised who the political leader should be.
According to Islamic Law, a political leader (i.e. Caliph which means successor) must be elected by a parliament/panel of Islamic jurists, politicans, military commanders etc. That panel is called ahlul hali wal 'aqd (Hence many Muslims are angry and hostile to the incompetent and corrupt politicians and dictators in the Islamic world today, with their ridicolous artificial post colonial states, that mix our Sharia Law with colonial law. Modernist concepts of state and law cannot be reconciled with Sharia, something ISIS doesn't understand. The Arab Israeli Xtian Professor of Islamic Law at the Colombia University Wael Hallaq once said, he would prefer to live in Umayyad Caliphate over a modernist state. He wrote a book on that, which I highly recommend: The Impossible State which is available online)
The ahlul hali wal aqd elected Abu Bakr (Prophets saws father in law) as the Caliph. After his death, Umar was elected. After his death, Uthman was elected. A small group of Muslims thought of Ali (the son in law of the Prophet) as politically more qualified than Uthman, however, they accepted Uthman, including Ali himself, who was wary of power. After Uthman, Ali was elected. These four are called the 4 rightly guided Caliphs of Islamic history (Khulafa Rashidin).
Throughout history, those who just thought of Ali as more qualified than Uthman (called Shia of Ali, shia meaning party) radicalized themselves into a religious sect, that said that Ali should have become the First Caliph, and that this is a Divine appointment, so shall his sons and their sons become Caliphs, too. Supernatural abilites were attributed to them (that they control every atom in the universe, a dogma called wilaya at-takwiniyya) and Ali and his next 11 descendants were called Imams (leaders). Hence, hatred of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman also rose, considering them as usurpers. Throughout centuries, shia sources attributed them worse and worse crimes and demonized them. Shias adopted rituals like flogging themselves (called tatbir) similar to catholics to commemorate the death of the third Imam. An old and banned form of marriage (called Mut'ah marriage) was adopted by the shias and was throughout centuries turned into, basically, prostitution.
Shiism changed similar to how xtianity apostatized from judaism and developed into a religion of its own. The differences between Islam amd Shiism became so great, that classical shia scholars (contemporary ones don't do that) questioned the authenticity of the qur'anic text itself (since it does not contain even the name of Ali, let alone all these fabricated powers).
Since the 11th imam died without children, the shia clergy claimed that his son is hiding and will return on the Day of Judgement as a Messiah-like figure to take revenge (the official president of Iran is the 12th imam, as per the iranian constitution)
There were some shia dynasties throughout history (the Shia Fatimid dynasty in the 11th century ordered the destruction of churches and synagogues, which triggered the first crusade, the zaydi shias in yemen persecuted jews in 12th century, hence Rambam wrote his letter to them) but these dynasties disappeared.
Shias were always a little heterodox persecuted sect in the underworld of whats today Iraq.
Only in the 16th century, the shia dynasty of the Safavids managed to conquer Iran, eastern Iraq and Azerbeijan and they genocided or converted the Muslim population. Hence Iran and Azerbeijan today are Shia countries, and Iraq has a 60% shia population.
When the shia clergy assumed power in 1979, they started arming amd radicalizing shia minorities in four countries (syria, yemen, iraq, lebanon), causing all the wars there. At this time, e.g. Hezbollah was founded.
This is a quick basic overview.
If you want more: http://www.twelvershia.net/
However, note that not all common shias are aware of the heterodox fabrications in their classical scholarship, nor do they adhere to it. In last time, we are witnessing a rise in shia reformist scholars, too.
Hope this helped.
"Hope this helped."
Very much so, thanks.
1) Have you ever seen this article? https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ I would love to hear your thoughts re its accuracy. I'm always skeptical when I read reports written by outsiders, given how comically inaccurate some media depictions of Orthodox Jews are. (I don't think it's all down to malice. I think outsiders genuinely tend not to 'get' it, even when they're sympathetic.)
2) https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/48421/9783110709834.pdf?sequence=1
You and the others here might find some parts of the discussion/bibliography interesting. Just do a search for the word 'Islam.'
Thanks for the book recommendation.
Regarding the atlantic article:
For context: ISIS was founded in 2003 after the american invasion and overthrow of the arab socialist and nationalist dictatorship of saddam hussein. Iraq was then taken over by iran influenced corrupt shia politicians, clerics and militias (shias are 60% of the iraqi population) who are terrorizing the Muslim population (especially the government of PM nuri al maliki was notorious for that).
ISIS was founded by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as a defense against the american secularist occupation forces and its shia proxies. Zarqawi refused to let iraqi intelligence agents, officials and military officers who were previously serving under saddam to join isis, cuz he considered them opportunistic secularists and socialists.
After his death, isis elected Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as its leader who allowed (some analysts say actively hired) saddams officials, since baghdadi wanted to organize a real state with infrastucture, ministries and administration.
The problem with isis and al qaeda is not that they want to defend themselves, bring back the Caliphate and Sharia Law (hence isis uses all these religious legal terms as the author of the piece constantly notes). The problem is they are not doing it the right way. THAT is what we mean when we say that isis has nothing to do with Islam, and thats what the author missed.
- Islam categorically bans suicide (even medically assisted one), let alone these bombings: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/217995/ruling-on-blowing-oneself-up
- It is prohibited to kill civilians, especially women and children or to indiscrimnately kill non-Muslims. Non-Muslims are, in Islamic Law, in one of 4 possible categories. In three of these (dhimmi, mu'ahad, mustaman) it is categorically prohibited to kill them, in one (harbi) only armed combatants can be killed (which can include women, old people and monks who are armed and trying to kill you, but it is usually prohibited to kill them https://sunnah.com/muslim:1744b)
- Rape of yazidis is prohibited too. If you want a more jurisprudential discussion with sources: https://www.abuaminaelias.com/consent-marriage-concubines/
- We all want the global united Muslim Caliphate back and we are tired of these failed artificial post colonial divided nation states. However, there are specific rules for how a Caliphate gets established and how the Caliph gets elected and how the islamic legal system gets organized and who even the right has to be Caliph and wazeer (minister). Isis did not fulfill any of these. Dr. Zijad Ljakić (one of the most famous Bosnian Islamic scholars, from whom I also studied Islamic Law) made back then an entire over an hour lecture on this topic and showed how isis failed at fulfilling the criteria. Note: dr. Ljakić fought as a jihadist in the Bosnian war. He is a veteran and a scholar, certainly not some liberal or reformist. Even the saudi salafi islamic scholar Sulayman al-'Alwan whom nobody can accuse of being biased in favour of secularists (he is an imprisoned critic of the saudi regime and labeled by it as "al-qaeda mufti") rejected isis claims of a Caliphate in a leaked audio (the saudi regime does not allow him to speek freely): https://youtu.be/W4d1Y6g-bWs?si=60-iPj8ECzGeRndb
- After getting condemned and corrected by Muslim scholars and institutions all over the world, isis started targeting us Muslims, instead of just admitting its mistakes.
Isis is a bunch of accursed terrorists: saddams former proxies who have found a way how to reestablish their power.
"The problem with isis and al qaeda is not that they want to defend themselves, bring back the Caliphate and Sharia Law (hence isis uses all these religious legal terms as the author of the piece constantly notes). The problem is they are not doing it the right way. THAT is what we mean when we say that isis has nothing to do with Islam, and thats what the author missed."
Would you agree with the following quote from the article?
"The term Salafi has been villainized, in part because authentic villains have ridden into battle waving the Salafi banner. But most Salafis are not jihadists, and most adhere to sects that reject the Islamic State. They are, as Haykel notes, committed to expanding Dar al-Islam, the land of Islam, even, perhaps, with the implementation of monstrous practices such as slavery and amputation—but at some future point. Their first priority is personal purification and religious observance, and they believe anything that thwarts those goals—such as causing war or unrest that would disrupt lives and prayer and scholarship—is forbidden."
No, not really, even though I am not salafi, I have to defend them against this misrepresentation.
There is a salafi sect called madkhalis who are blindly loyal to whatever government is currently in charge. Jihad in military form (even in self-defense like in the case of the Taliban) is at the very least highly suspicious to them. They are true quietists and opposed to salafis like isis.
"Salafis" are a true example of what happens when you divert from the 1400 year old scholarship, the established schools of jurisprudence and theology and instead try to reconstruct what in your opinion the salaf "actually" believed in. You get all this in-group fighting and ridicolous sectarianism, that also fuels isis' decontextualized and misaprehended attempt of implementation of Islamic Law
ISIS is right that the current governments in the world are bad. But its methodology (declare war on everybody and fight everybody) is destructive and prohibited. The circumstances of overthrowing or declaring war on a government are so specific that its difficult to practically implement it. Obeying the current law as long as it does not directly force one to disobey God and respecting the laws of a country is so important that it is even inlucded in classical summaries of Islamic theology. Sharia Law is necessary, but whenever possible, the peaceful promotion of it is the followed one and the violent one is avoided and if it comes to violence somehow, like it happened in iraq after saddams fall, one must adhere to islamic ethics of war.
ISIS is one extreme.
The madkhalis are another extreme. Their loyalti goes so far to the point thwt they deem any public criticism of a president or king as a possible begin of a slippery slope that might lead to rebellion and civil war.
Really really cool stuff!
question: are you familiar with ancient Muslim scholarship? Pardon my ignorance, I'm not familiar with your culture. Scholars like al farabi, ibn sina and on, the ones quoted by Maimonides, are their works still the basis of Islamic philosophy?
I'd be curious to hear a insider Muslim perspective...
Also, can I ask, what got you into RJ and IM? I'm fascinated!
No pressure. (If more comfortable you can email me at davidschulmannn@gmail.com)
- I was born and raised in a Bosnian Muslim, but very secularist family. I am the only religious one in the family. I was always interested in religion and felt connected to religion since my childhood and I studied all the faiths of the world.
Muslims are good at refuting atheists, xtians, secularists, positivits, naturalists, liberals etc.
We have always been like that. In the 13th century the Damascene jurist and judge Ahmad ibn Taymiyya wrote a 12 volume book seeking to demonstrate that Islam and Reason are in harmony. He also wrote a 7 volume book refuting shias and a 9 volume book refuting xtianity and numerous books refuitng greek philosophers.
However, I have never seen Muslims dealing with judaism or vice versa. All of polemic that I have seen is political ("I don't hate jews, just zionists, cuz they are occupiers..." and topics like that).
I was always interested in judaism and have studied it for years, and thats how I stumbled across these two blogs. Once, with a good deal of difficulty, I could read hebrew from a chumash, cuz I wanted to have access to the original torah text, however I forgot that, cuz I found this website: https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/1-1.htm , which made my knowledge obsolete.
I used to listen and study from all kinds of orthodox rabbis: rabbi sachs, rabbi alon anava, rabbi meir kahana, rabbi yitzhak ginzburgh, rabbi yitzhak breitowitz, rabbi yosef mizrachi, rabbi yaron reuven etc. To Reuven I stopped listening cuz he really turned islamophoic in the last months. I always listened to Mizrachi cuz I find his sarcasm and his extreme israeli accent funny (even though he has been living for 30 years in america)
I have known slifkin for years, and through his blog, I was among the first who read the first article of irrationalist modoxism blog.
- Yeah I am familiar with them.
After Muslims translated greek books, they felt challenged, cuz greeks differed with Muslim theology on key issues.
The Iranian Islamic Scholar Abu Hamid al-Ghazali wrote in the 11th century his book The Incoherence of the Philosophers. In it he divides philosophy in six branches: five are ok, like math, politics, ethics etc
The problem lies in metaphysics. Al-Ghazali identified 20 mistakes by the greeks (3 of these false beliefs constitute apostasy: believing in the eternity of the world, denying the bodily resurrection and I do not remember the 3rd one)
Al-Ghazali sets out to refute the greeks and shows why the Muslim belief is logically correct, necessary and coherent. Al-Ghazali has been the basis of our approach: "I do not need to look how to reconcile Islam with greek philosophy, cuz the philosophers themeselves are demonstrably wrong." Other scholars have written similar works, but al-Ghazali was really the final blow to the philosophers. Hence, Muslims today reject and dislike philosophy (by which they mean greek heretical stuff)
If you actually mean by philosophy logic and logical argumentation, well that is called al-mantiq المنطق. Al-Ghazali wrote books on mantiq, too. His great book of Islamic Law al-Mustasfa (al-Ghazali was besides mysticism/tasawwuf and philosophy more known as a legal scholar) starts with 40 pages of explaining logic. Muslim apologists today like Muhammad Hijab appeal to philosophy and they always had to justify themselves and explain what they really mean by philosophy, since they constantly get criticised by other Muslims for dealing with philosophy
Secularist academia gave Ghazali a lot of hate for smashing philospophy and successfully defending tradition. But Muslims have a balanced view and they did not reject philosophy in and of itself. Rejecting greek metaphysical mumbo jumbo does not mean rejecting science. Centuries after al-Ghazali, up to the 17th, 18th century, Muslims have commented on greek books, corrected them and made scientific discoveries. Robert Wisnowsky wrote a paper on that. The turkish islamic scholar Ali Qushji in the 15th century proved that the earth rotates around itself and he also wrote a book refuting aristotelian astronomy. The mathematician Ibn al-Haytham in the 11th century introducted empiricism but he also wrote refutations of greek thought.
Two volumes of George Surtons history of sciences is basically just Muslims.
Ibn sina, al Farabi and Ibn Rushd do matter in topics like medicine and stuff like that (al-Ghazali was an avid reader of them), but they never played any role in our theology and epistemology, since they did believe in the eternity of the world and the other heretical stuff and they made up far-fetched interpretations of the Qur'an trying to match that.
Islamic scholars have already in the first two centuries of Islam wrotten multi volume books on grammar, morphology amd linguistics (Khalil, al-Sibawayh, Ali Ibn isa etc).
Also from earliest times, Muslims developed a unique way of filtering out inauthentic from authentic sayings of Prophet Muhammad (its called hadith science), through a system of chains of transmission, careful analysis of the chains and the texts.
An example from a book that disccues that topic: https://archive.org/details/usool-al-hadeeth-the-methodology-of-hadith-evaluation/page/n33/mode/2up
Since we had the linguistics and the exegesis of the Prophet saws himself, his companions (sahaba) and their students (tabiun) and a demonstrably true mesorah (or sanad as we Muslims would say) it was difficult for our heretics and self-proclaimed rationalists to make up far-fetched interpretations and dismiss everything as "metaphorical".
According to Islam, faith and reason are in harmony (see https://quran.com/al-mulk/9-10 and: https://www.abuaminaelias.com/reason-science-islam/) or at the very least they do not contradict (e.g. existence of angels is not logically inevitable, but it is known through revelation and it does not contradict reason). All Muslims agree on that, Al Ghazali just like Ibn sina, Ibn rush and al farabi. The latter three guys claimed that their far ecthed excuses are the real meanings of the verses.
The translation of their books into latin led eventually to the collapse of xtian dogmas and trust in the church, since xitanity does claim to be an irragional religion. Paul wrote that in 1. Corinthias chapter 1, church fathers like Augustine and Thomas de Aquinas declared inconsistent contradictory stuff like trinity to be incomprehensible matters of faith. That enmity that the so called enlightenment had towards christianity was later generalized to all religions (leading to secularism, colonialism whose effects we can still see today), hence the secularist enmity to Ghazali and the praise of "mavericks" "rationalists" and "free-thinkers" like Ibn rushd, ibn sina al al farabi.
But, that view is selective and biased. They did see themseleves as orthodox Muslims. Ibn rushd was a jurist and judge of Shaira law. If he was alive today, he would be labeled a "radical islamist" (rightfully)
Thanks so much! Your patience is appreciated greatly.
If I can continue bothering you -
1) Is the "tafwid" approach basically just saying that we don't know so we "delegate" the meaning to He who does? Or is it an actual approach with more nuance than that?
"Tafwil" is more what we believe - both "rationalists" like Maimonides and mystics who follow the Zohar both look toward understanding the incorporeal metaphors (such as the eyes and ears being incorporeal concepts of chochma (wisdom) and bina (the deep and meaningful understanding of the 'simple' wisdom), because the (force behind the) eyes see the idea but can't interpret while the (inner force of the) ears interpret but are interpreting nothing more than what the eyes see, similar to chochma which is the idea itself which ultimately understood through the breakdown of the bina, the processing and 'listening' to what the idea is when clarified. Or a simpler example, the head being on top of the body signifying the dominion of the intellect ruling over actions).
But those who are unfamiliar with incorporeality (which can't be understood until we remove ourselves from the body), should rather "delegate" than be ignorant corporealists (like Slifkin and co.)...
2) "However, I have never seen Muslims dealing with judaism or vice versa." It's curious that you've never seen Islamic works dealing with Judaism, but "vice versa", we have plenty. Well, not plenty, but rather one simple idea which is more than enough. I'm sure you know about Maimonides's position, but more importantly, we believe that a prophet who says not to follow the laws of the Torah cannot be a real prophet. Your Prophet says things which are against the Torah, such as permitting camel meat.
Was he not referring to Jews, only to non-Jews, that Jews should continue to keep their commandments? If that's a possibility, are Jews then not heretics according to Qur'an?
No need to resolve contradictions here, I'm just curious, pardon my ridiculous boldness!! (And @Happy, let me know if we're stepping over the line, as I know you guys don't allow atheists...)
Once again, no pressure and you can email me privately if that's better (or if the IM panel would rather not have this discussion here...)
To shulman:
1) There is some nuance. We ashaira and maturidiyyah say: Yeah, just whatever God meant by that, we believe in it. Don't delve into it. Read the verse as it is and move on. This is called tafwidul ma'na: the delegation of the meaning.
Self-proclaimed Salafis say: No, you understand tafwid wrong. We do know the meaning. Hand is hand. Face is face etc. Nothing is similar to God, so how His Hand looks like, we do not know, but it certainly does not resemble our human hands. So we do know the meaning, we do not know the howness of Gods attributes (kayfiyya), since nothing resembles God. Hence salafis reject tawil (metaphorical interpretation).
Salafis themselves are inconsistent, of course. Allah swt says: He is with you wherever you might be (Surah al-Hadid). If salafis were consistent, they would have to interpret the verse like this: "God is with all of us individually, but unlike we humans are with each other. We do not how (kayfa) God is with us." But, even salafi commentators explain it metaphorically, that God is with us through His Knowledge and Omnipotence.
2) Yeah I know Rambam rejected Islam, but there were no multi volume refutations against each other. How many books did Saadia Gaon write against the karaites, and how many about Islam in comparison? The thing is Gaon knew arabic, he could have studied our sources. But he didn't. Sephardi and mizrachi jews well versed in arabic copied often from Qur'an and Hadith, midrashim that were supposed by secular academia to be the sources of the Qur'an turned out to be written centuries after emergence of Islam (https://www.islamic-awareness.org/quran/sources/)- The israeli historian Naftali Wieder wrote a whole book on Muslim influence on jewish prayer
We Muslims never wrote against judaism specifically, cuz we, on the other side, just do not know hebrew nor aramaic. Whenever Muslims debated xtians and pointed out mistakes in the Old Testament, they are thinking: yeah, thats how we are covering judaism too, like two birds with one stone.
There was a jewish moroccan mathematician from the 12th century Samuel al Maghribi who converted to Islam and wrote a refutation of judaism and of a subsequent rabbinical response, but he was a jewish convert to Islam, an insider. I do not know of any born Muslim who mastered hebrew. All examples are contemporary. There was an Islamic scholar from morocco, critic of secularism, nationalism, communism, nazism, naturalis, atheism. He mainly wrote in french, but he did know hebrew. His name was Abdussalam Yassine.
Islam does stress that jews should follow the torah (God is very harsh in the Qur'an on those israelites who did not keep shabbat, some of them were turned into monkeys and pigs) but when the Qur'an adresses contemporary jews directly and when you read these verses in context, what the Qur'an means by following torah is to accept Muhammad saws as a prophet, since he is prophecised in the torah. Moses is the most mentioned Prophet in the Qur'an, cuz God would repeatedly reveal his story (each time uncovering some aspects not adressed in another surah) to Muhammad saws, since there are many parallels between the life of Moses and Muhammad and lessons that can be learned from it.
I think the IM panel is ok with this this discussion, we are basically just describing our beliefs here. If they allow even Natan to post his stuff, I think they are ok with me too
P.S. are you yourself an atheist?
All very interesting.
I was born very 'frum' - religious - but starting from like twenty, after a lot of thought and reading, I decided I didn't believe, and that lasted quite a while. But thank God, now I'm back for a few years, full blown 'yeshivish/chareidi" although maybe slightly more even tempered and less zealous in my attitude towards others - I leave the judgment for God.
If I might ask, why did you turn atheist in the first place? Out of all ideologies I studied, atheism was genuinely the most irrational.
- Or Noah drinking and being raped by his son whose son he curses (interestingly the cannatines come from him who are thus supposed to be slaves of israelites), Jacob cheating, David murdering and fornicating, Lot having sex with his daughters that give birth to the nations of moab and ammon (which like the cannanite-origin-story reads like a later israelite's racist mockery of these two enemy kingdoms) and stuff like that. In Islam Prophets are supposed to be excellent examples so that we have an idea of what an ideal person would be. I was shocked to be honest when i found out that rabbis are bigger in judaism than even prophets, but then I understood why jews rarely converted to Islam, cuz to them even the jewish prophets are below the rabbis, let alone a goy like Muhammad saws
- According to Islam, every nation throughout history received prophets, whose message throughout the passing of time got distorted, changed, misunderstood, forgotten, etc. Thats were all the differences but also commonalities between world religions comes from(and I am not talking about just the abrahamic ones, but similiarities to taosim, confucianism etc.The japanese islamic scholar Toshihiko Izutsu wrote about this, Islamic Chinese scholars wrote the Han Kitab in the 18th century regarding this). Hence in the Qur'an there are prophets mentioned who are not found anywehere else: Hud, Salih, Shuayb. The Qur'an even mentions the ancient city of Iram, which was completely unknown to anybody at that time (even to jews or xtians) and was only rediscovered by archaeologists in the 1980ies. But Muhammad saws is the last prophet in human history and a prophet to all of humanity, hence torah is believed to be abrogated, cuz it was only meant for the israelites speficially for a specific period of history.
- If you want a more detailed elaboration on the Muslim view of Muhammads prophecy in the torah, see: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_W2HLp2VYbh_f5ffRTVecOuNDpBhrgfo&si=Ye6T0Exa6GtrJXAH
Forgive if the guy is a little bit sarcastic and offensive (thats how many salafis are, he also attacks us asharis and maturidis, evem though he does not even know classical Arabic) but his research skills are impressive. I used to cooperate with him in refuting xtian missionaries.
- I think that rambam was inconsistent in his criticism: in his letter to the yemeni jews he once claims that there is not even a hint to Muhammad saws in the tanakh which he claims forces Muslims to believe in its distortion, but then a couple of pages later, he claims that the appearence of Islam is the fulfillment of a prophecy by Daniel.
I know you guys do not like hearing his name, but I think that rabbi Marc Shapiros book "the limits of orthodoxy" does show, that even many authoritative gaonim and rishonim believed that there were interpolations and/or omissions in the torah text by later prophets and/or scribes. Not all rabbis agreed with this stance of course, but those who did believe in this, were not branded as heretics as todays jews would do.
- I would say that Islam is really the original of what Jesus a.s. actually taught. If you want more, there is a book: Before Nicea : The Early Followers of Prophet Jesus which includes most recent secular scholarship, too.
Hi. Definitely an interesting conversation for this blog. I am not well versed in Muslim literature but I just want to respond to this comment. Most of the examples you give in your first paragraph are either less of a problem than you make it or not about great people. Noah being raped by his son - we don't claim his son was great. Jacob cheating? He married more than one which was acceptable. Lot, although slightly justified with his actions is not relatively a great role model in the Bible. David's story is the only one you mention that needs explanation, which much length in the talmud is given. But even though mistakes of great people are highlighted in the Bible, lets not forget about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (don't know of him cheating), Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel ect. My point is that prophets are also glorified, not just Rabbis.
Thanks! You look like you've done your research!
So the claim is that God really always permitted camel meat and it was corrupted like the story with Ahron?
How do they know their stuff wasn't corrupted? At some point we must insert tradition, which we (at least claim to) have...
Through memorization and chains of transmission. It is normal for Muslims to memorize the entire Qur'an letter by letter (such a person is called a hafidh). In mauretania, one of the requriements of a hafidh is that he or she knows how to write down the Qur'an, too.
Thats how it has been since the time of Prophet Muhammad (especially in his time, when books were not so easily available). The founder of sociology Ibn Khaldun in the 14 century memorized the 6 volume book al Mudawwanah (a book on Islamic Law), so that he does not depend on books. The saudi grand mufti Ibn Baz (d. 1999) memorized numerous books, each having 10 volumes (like the Musnad of Ibn Hanbal). So even today we have such scholars.
Also, we have manuscripts of the Qur'an from the time of Muhammad saws, we have hadith science and manuscripts of hadith from that time. If you want more, you can refer to the websites I linked.
(Don't forget Rambam Igeres Taiman...)
Wa alayka,
Refer to my response to shulman
"And he had banned me because of these specious claims of misrepresentation."
Now THAT is a severe misrepresentation. I don't think there's anyone, including Hurricane Natan himself, who believes that's the reason you were banned.
Just popping in again to say thank you for perfectly proving my point about how you misrepresent me.
To pick but one example, you present point 3 of my argument as being that "Rashi never explicitly repudiates corporealism". Yes, that would be a pretty weak argument. After all, I'm sure that there are lots of commentaries on the Chumash that never explicitly repudiate corporealism, and it certainly doesn't mean that they were corporealists.
But that's not the argument I make, as can be see in the actual quote from my article. Rather, the argument is that Rashi DOES repudiate CERTAIN TYPES of anthropomorphisms, but not others. Now, you can try (as R. Zucker does, albeit unsuccessfully) to come up with an explanation for that. But you don't even present my argument correctly. I just don't know whether that was a deliberate distortion or whether you didn't even realize that you completely misrepresenting my argument.
Lol, this is the ridiculous sub-argument I mentioned at the end. This new category that you invented, "types of anthropomorphisms" that Rashi repudiates, is a complete figment of your imagination to achieve the end result that you wanted.
We can just as well say, Rashi repudiates the simple meaning of many mitzvos, therefore when he doesn't repudiate the simple meaning of ומלתם את ערלת לבבכם but actually states the simple meaning, that means you have to literally circumcise your heart (https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/a-very-very-problematic-rashi). Do you not realize how silly you sound?
Happy, I think you are being too glib in dismissing RNS' sub-argument. You are not providing a satisfactory substitute theory for why Rashi sometimes decides to repudiate some types of anthropomorphisms and not others. Just pointing to the fact that Rashi doesn't clarify every obvious metaphor as being non-literal and leaving it at that just begs the question.
I would suggest that Rashi possibly took the Raavad's approach to corporealism as not being an ikkar emunah per se, but Rashi did feel that attributing any human-like flaw or limitation to Hashem is not acceptable.
This is why any anthropomorphism in Tanach or Chazal which denotes something negative or limiting about Hashem has to be corrected for his readers. But RNS' insistence that this provides any positive evidence whatsoever that Rashi HIMSELF was actually a corporealist is patently absurd.
The strongest case RNS could make, I believe, is to say the following:
The Rambam asserted with absolute philosophical certainty that for Hashem to have any human or physical attributes whatsoever is BY DEFINITION a limitation and a flaw and is therefore kefirah.
Rashi could be of the opinion that his readership isn't convinced of such philosophical certainty. If someone were to hypothetically make a solid argument that having a some human characteristics is (somehow) in no way limiting or implying any flaw in Hashem on any level, why indeed would it be kefirah?
To repeat: The whole reason incorporeality is recognized as an ikkar by us is because we understand corporeality as inherently placing a limitation of Hashem. What if Rashi's audience didn't agree with that equation? Then there is no need for Rashi to debunk every anthropomorphism. Only the ones that imply a flaw or a limitation on Hashem.
Hi Dovid, thanks for the lengthy explanation. I never imagined that you would be the one defending Natan! I guess Mashiach is coming!
My points was more than the fact that I can find Rashis that don't clarify obvious metaphors. It is that Natan invented a new category out of thin air called "types of anthropomorphisms" that Rashi repudiates. But there is no such thing. Sometimes Rashi explains the יד or the פנים of Hashem metaphorically, sometimes he is silent, sometimes he explains it simply. There are no rules that we can assign to Rashi on this matter. And certainly Natan's "rule" doesn't work at all. Natan found a *fraction* of the Rashis on Tanach regarding these issues and made up a category to explain all of them, but his category neither explains all of the Rashis that he brings nor does it explain countless others like them.
Regarding your strongest case, Natan is saying that Rashi holds that Hashem is a giant body, that Hashem's hand means this giant hand that comes out of the sky, that Hashem's face means a giant face in the sky, that Hashem's eyes are giant eyeballs, that Hashem has giant nostrils that emit no smoke (as this would be disgraceful to Hashem if smoke came out of His giant nostrils). This cartoonishly grotesque description is not how anybody normal would learn Tanach. Even the Salafi Muslims quoted by "Raphael" above don't read it like this. It is beyond obvious that Natan's whole point was to undermine the Mesorah by trying to show that our greatest Rishonim believed such things.
"This cartoonishly grotesque description is not how anybody normal would learn Tanach." And yet Raavad says that greater people than Rambam learned Tanach this way, and Riaz says that some of CHAZAL learned Tanach this way. So I guess either you think you know Chazal/Rishonim better than Raavad and Riaz, or you think that some of Chazal are "not normal."
Hey Natan, I'm surprised you didn't claim yet again I was misrepresenting you!
No, nobody says anybody normal learned Tanach the way you are learning Rashi, What they are referring to is when the Tanach depicts Hashem as a person in prophetic visions , like in the Ma'aseh Merkava, there are those who learn that it is not just a vision but a literal manifestation of Hashem on His throne. This may be wrong but it is not a crazy belief. And there is absolutely no evidence that Rashi believed that either, none of what your brought remotely qualifies as evidence for that and kal v'chomer for what you think Rashi holds.
Again, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not defending RNS' absurd deduction about what Rashi himself believed.
I am just suggesting Rashi was focused on the very minimum necessary to correct his readership's understandable misreadings of Tanach and Chazal's descriptions of Hashem.
Here's the sources from Riaz. First in Sanhedri Gedolah:
אבל אם יחשוב אדם שהקדוש ברוך הוא בעל תמונה, לא הקפיד התורה בכך, וכמה היו מחכמי התלמוד הקדושים, שמהם תצא תורה לישראל, שלא נחנו לבם להתבונן בענין האלהות, אלא הבינו המקראות כפשוטם, ולפי תומם חשבו כי הקדוש ברוך הוא בעל גוף והתמונה
Then in the ksav yad published by Ta Shmah, he elaborates on what this belief was:
צלם ודמות, כבר חשבו בני אדם כי צלם בלשון העברי יורה על תמונת הדבר ותוארו, והביא זה אל הגשמה גמורה לאומ' נעשה אדם בצלמנו כדמותינו, וחשבו שהשם על צורת האדם, ר"ל תמונתו ותוארו, והתחייבה להם ההגשמה הגמורה והאמינו בה, וראו שאם הם יפרדו מזאת האמונה - יכזיבו הכתוב, וגם ישימו את השם נעדר אם לא יהיה לו גוף בעל פנים ויד כמותם בתמונה ובתואר, אלא שהוא יותר גדול ויותר בהיר לפי סברתם, וחומר שלו גם כן אינו בשר ודם, וזה תכלית מה שיחשבוהו רוממות בחוק השם.
He is very clear that the view was that Hashem has actual (albeit not flesh-and-blood) form. This is precisely the view that Happy claims is impossible for any great Torah scholar to hold. So either Happy knows what Chazal believed better than Riaz did, or Happy's views about the beliefs of great Torah scholars are incorrect.
But based on your quote from Ta Shma, he is not talking about the same people.
The first one is referring to great Torah scholars, and is saying that they didn't delve into matters of God's essence.
The second is referring to people who actually did delve into God's essence, and who came to very concrete conclusions about Him, deciding that to deny that He has a hand exactly like ours (except made of different substance and bigger, the view you decide to attribute to Rashi) is to deny His existence. I don't see anywhere in the second quote that those people were great Torah scholars.
You're misrepresenting the Riaz you quoted (unless there is more that you didn't quote). The Torah writes in human terms and kids will think in human terms. Some people never mature and still think that. Even if they delve into talmudic studies and grow tremendously in Torah andd Halacha, they can still think that. Not that it is in any way a correct view, but we can't fault them since they are reading the Torah כפשוטו - the Torah itself portrays itself as such. But anyone who does think about these things knows how wrong it is (and at that point it may even be idol worship (if he applies actual calculated הגשמה to God).
It is simply not a valid approach in actuality, and someone like Rashi, who was much more than a Halachist, would never err in this matter. Period.
ראב"ד says השגות הראבד והאומר שיש שם רבון אחד אלא שהוא גוף ובעל תמונה. א"א ולמה קרא לזה מין וכמה גדולים וטובים ממנו הלכו בזו המחשבה לפי מה שראו במקראות ויותר ממה שראו בדברי האגדות המשבשות את הדעות:
A. He says they are wrong.
B. He doesn't say that חז"ל learned that way.
A. Correct. But he doesn't say that they don't exist, or that they are "not normal."
B. Correct. But Riaz does.
"albeit unsuccessfully"
Really? In order for that to be true, you would need to demonstrate why what he raised as an alternate possibility, on pages 19-23 of his Hakirah article, to your argument from silence is really not at all possible. If what he wrote is even possible, then your argument from silence is obliterated. You responded to his alternate possibility with objections in your second Hakirah article on pages 70-72, and he showed why your responses were illogical and/or incorrect in his website article on pages 23-26. If you have a valid response to his argument, please show it. Otherwise it would seem that "albeit unsuccessfully" should be changed to "indeed successfully."
Also, regarding your two stated reasons for banning me:
1. You could have just asked me to refrain from using the objectionable word.
2. I never engage in conspiracy-mongering, liar. Find one comment where I do so. All I said was: "the earth is not a globe because we can see too far" and then explain what this means, along with addressing some of your statements. I only said this on your one post on the flat earth debate. YOU and others are the ones who pollute the discussion with an obvious conclusion and obsessively fixate on it but which is not pertinent to the arguments I present. You care about the implications. I care about the truth.
You should rescind your banning, but I don't expect you to, because you never admit to being wrong about anything of substance.
He represents your equivocation perfectly. As I said in response to test in an earlier comment to this post:
"Also part of the problem for him is the constant equivocation to make his treif views appear kosher. His words on Rashi's alleged corporealism is a case in point. It's absurd on its face, especially given Natan's justifications for making the claim."
You say what you say, then when someone characterizes what you say accurately, you deny saying it, because it was a paraphrase, not a word-for-word quote. Because equivocation.
I don't think he even realises. The yeshivah world of chavrusohs sparring verbally (which is the way he approaches his entire mission here - it's not the same way as your opponents such as RDK and others debate you) does not easily translate to the written word. The general leiztonus tone doesn't help either.
I have pointed this out before.
Happy, this is slightly random, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on this convo:
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/commander-slifkin-reflects/comment/39923959
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/muslim-slifkin
Given the remarkable collection of commenters here, I thought it would worth posting this...
Here's one example, I can't be bothered to do more.
You: Therefore, there is already a DECENT LIKELIHOOD that he was one of them.
It's adding words like 'decent likelihood' that are misrepresentations. And that is the sort of thing you do over and over again. Words mean things, you know. You also remove context, quote out of context, remove earlier or later sentences that qualify the one you are quoting etc etc.
PS full disclaimer: I am not expressing any opinion here on the validity of the underlying argument.
Uh,
" Thus, it is certainly conceivable that Rashi was part of this group. In fact, according to the testimony of Ramban and R. Shmuel ben Mordechai of Marseilles regarding the prevalence of this view in France, the onus of proof would perhaps be upon one claiming that Rashi was not a corporealist."
This sounds more than a decent likelihood.
Maybe you can't be bothered to do more than one, but at least one?
No. 'Certainly conceivable' is not the same as 'decent likelihood'.
"Decent likelihood" means more likely than not. "Certainly conceivable" means it is within a range of acceptable possibilities, and not totally outrageous. Very different meanings.
You don't have the background to appreciate the nuance in different written terminology when it comes to professional/academic written works. Which explains why you simply cannot appreciate how you misrepresent.
Decent likelihood certainly doesn't mean more likely than not. Decent likelihood means a reasonable likelihood, as in, say, 30% as opposed to .5%.
"the onus of proof would perhaps be upon one claiming that Rashi was not a corporealist."- this is even more than a decent likelihood.
You don't have the background to appreciate the nuance in different written terminology. Which explains why you simply cannot appreciate what "decent" means.
I'm not quibbling over percentages, but however you spin it, decent likelihood is not the same as certainly conceivable. The former is a stronger possibility than the latter, which is misrepresentation. Deatails matter.
"the onus of proof would perhaps be upon one claiming that Rashi was not a corporealist."- this is even more than a decent likelihood.
Here you go again, you missed out the nuance of the word 'perhaps'. Perhaps yes, perhaps no. That is a sentence that adds nothing to the picture, due to the use of the word 'perhaps' and is mere ponitification. Sloppy writing, I agree, an academic should not pontificate with the word 'perhaps' but it does not add anything to the meaning of 'certainly conceivable' in the earlier sentence and does not turn it into 'decent likelihood'. It introduces a technical discussion on 'burden of proof', not a clarification on Rashi's position. A very different thing.
I'm ending this conversation now, as it will not get anywhere. Good bye.
No you got it the the wrong way. The latter is actually stronger than the former. Writing about how something is certainly conceivable and the burden of proof is actually perhaps on the other side makes it sound more than a decent likelihood.
"I'm not quibbling over percentages..." but you are still quibbling, pointlessly. Every response by sycophant to perfectly understandable statements is in the style.
You (the generic you) are the ones making this a "he said-she said" situation by the constant pedantic quibbling. And it is pedantic, in the extreme.
test, Natan's problem is he thinks he is a more capable writer than he is in actuality. He has the vocabulary, but he lacks an ability to express his thoughts clearly. It's kind of shocking how poor his writing is. He is long-winded and would rather post than take time to edit his thoughts. More than once, he has felt compelled to post repeatedly on the same topic because of this, claiming to be misunderstood, and for the sake of clarification adding many more words to his body of work on a subject that clarify nothing.
Also part of the problem for him is the constant equivocation to make his treif views appear kosher. His words on Rashi's alleged corporealism is a case in point. It's absurd on its face, especially given Natan's justifications for making the claim.
Happy's characterization of Natan's Tosafos/Aristotle comparison is a totally logical and very precise distillation of Natan's absurd syllogism. No need to quote his long-winded words exactly. In this case, or any other, really.