From firstname.lastname@example.org (Jeremiah McAuliffe) Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam Subject: Re: Answering Islam -- a Muslim response Date: Wed Sep 18 08:58:33 EDT 1996 Message-Id: <email@example.com>, I have received forwarded e-mail from Saleeb, aghast that I did not directly respond to his use of Yusuf Ali and his use of a quote from Faruqi. It appears that Saleeb is going to use this as way of accusing me of what I accused him of doing: not addressing the primary issues, and thus he will not attempt to defend his book. Which he can't do because it is indefensible. I call God Himself as my witness. So, here.... Why did I not defend Ali's talk of the idea of the father-son metaphor as a sexualized anthropomorphism? 1) It wasn't cited as a source in the book. Defend your book. That is the point. Don't you get it? If the book doesn't stand *as written* IT DOES NOT STAND. Period. 2) You stated that you included this argument that Christians are engaged in a sexualized anthropomorphism "because most Muslims you have talked to say it." You only NOW decide to make Ali a source, and an issue. That's not playing fair. Defend the book. 3) What most Muslims may or may not know about Christian theology has nothing to do with what the Qur'an teaches and Islam is all about. 4) I explained it. It is a view held by those uneducated in any Christian theology. I do not defend it. Simply because Ali has a popular translation of the Qur'an with a commentary does not mean it is 100% kosher (not to mix our cultural metaphors or anything). It certainly is not on that point. So, I shall not defend him on it. He didn't know what he was talking about. You could then say: "Ali? Uneducated?" In that regard, yes. If I think you believe "A" but you really believe "B" then my argument against "A" just doesn't make much sense, does it? So, the fact that the Christian use of a father-son metaphor is NOT a sexualized anthropomorphism-- then clearly-- to argue against the use of the metaphor on the basis that it is a sexualized anthropomorphism is absurd and misdirected. And that isn't what Islam teaches, or rather, it is *one example* of why Islam teaches what it does on the restricted use of metaphors when we talk about God. The Qur'an does restrict our use of certain metaphors, analogies and symbols in our talk about God. It restricts use of parent-child metaphors, and trinitarian descriptions. This is the issue. People's attempts to explain the "why" of this restriction may vary.... certainly, to avoid a sexualized anthropomorphism is one reason-- regardless of whether that is actual Christian theology or not. There. Happy? Now, why did I blow off the Faruqi quote? 1) Its not in the book. Defend the book. 2) Its out of a context. Give me the full context, and then I'll bring it up. The quote is taken out of a dialogue: "Christian Mission and Islamic Da'wah: Proceedings of the Chambesy Dialogue Consultation" and appears to be in response to a discussion over a particular issue. Given the track record in your book of misrepresentation and selective editing you would have to provide a full context for the quote for me to discuss it. Also, if the Faruqi quote was to bolster your error that we say "God is absolute Will" then it was still misplaced...... There. Jeremiah McAuliffefirstname.lastname@example.org *************************************** Visit Dr. Jihad's! Page 'O Heavy Issues http://www.city-net.com/~alimhaq/miaha.html *************************************** WOW! Major Upgrade Comin' Soon!
Overview on the debate between Jeremiah and Abdul
Answering Islam home page