Its important to note that we do not take a "literal-only" approach to the Quran either - some verses are metaphors - like those speaking of the "Hand", "face", and "Shin" of Allah - other verses are to be taken literly - and other verses are to be taken literally but abrogated - each verse must be put in proper context.
As a Catholic and discussing many issues with my brother Christians, I have found that the idea of authority is foundational to determining the meaning of "difficult" Scriptures. Unfortunately, there is no such authority within Islam to make such determinations (for example, on whether certain verses are to be taken literally). It is my thoughts that most take verses literally and there is little room for moving into the spiritual realm within the Muslim world when it comes to exegesis. I defer to you on this, you are certainly more knowledgeable on this subject than I. But this is my feeling, that there many verses are more subject to the literal sense - which makes some of the more terrifying mandates difficult for the West to wonder "Did this REALLY come from God - if God has already revealed HImself as a Loving God - and now we are to kill unbelievers?"
The modern Taymiyyan creed held almost universally by OBL and his followers is to take verses pertaining to an attribute of Allah as literal - So they say that the Quran says Allah has a hand - so they take that as that Allah has a literal hand. Since the Quran says nothing in creation resembles Allah, they rectify this by saying, "Allah has a physical hand, and if that hand is 20' x 8' and has 6 fingers - it doesnt resmble anything in creation" - which is absurd. The Ashari, Maturidi, and Athari Aqaid all say "Allah has a hand, and Allah knows best the meaning of the Hand".
I would agree, this is absurd and contradictory to the idea that God is transcendant. Again, such interpretations solidify my thoughts above. Even the Jews before the first century realized that the "Hand of God" was not a literal hand. I was under the impression that Islam was even MORE understanding of the transcendant nature of God and that it would be largely accepted that God indeed has no physicality or hands. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the idea that God became man in Jesus Christ...
You say the eradication of the Mutazili stopped free thinking and open mindedness in Islam - and this pertains to verses like Quran 2:191 -1913 where it says:
"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."
In what context would a Mutazili take this verse? Because the traditional explaination of this verse is that it is to be taken literaly, but with abrogation - meaning its literal, but does not apply to all Muslims for all time, rather to those Muslims at that time - who prior to the revealation of this verse, were commanded NOT to fight at all. (Ironicly those verses and hadeeth which ordered the Muslims not to fight, and to just take the abuses of the Quraish are never cited by our detractors - because those commandments were obviously abrogated - but they refuse to recognoze the abrogation of the war verses).
The history of Islam does not support the idea of "being commanded not to fight". Perhaps at the individual level, that may be true, but Mujahid (is it OK for me to call you that without offense?), doesn't the history of HOW Islam spread seem to refute that idea at the higher level? It seems counter to history.
Even amongst the Jihadi/whabi/salafi literalists - these verses are not the ones cited in their excuses to commit terror - because all Muslims are in agreement that they are abrogated verses.
I would like you to explain that concept a bit more - abrogated verses. I had never heard of such a thing within Islam. WHO EXACTLY has determined that the Koran, "the words of God HImself", has words within that have been abrogated by men (knowing there is no divinely-appointed Magesterium, as in Catholicism?)
The idea that the Quran is uncreated (meaning the words, not the book, ink or paper) is a fundemental to belief - and was before the mutazili emerged - The Quran orders us to follow the oppinions of the companions and the first three generations of Muslims over the oppinions of later generations - the compannions were in agreement on this particular point that the Quran is uncreated - so if a group emerges 70 years later who differs from the companions on this fundemental point - the opinion of the companions takes president - this opinon was also held by the generation after the companions (Tabi') like Imam Tahawi , Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Jaffar and also held by the next generation after them (Tabi' Tabi'een) like Imam Shafi' Imam Malik, Imam Hasan Basri (the teacher of wasila, who founded the mutazila school) - Hasan Basri whose opinion holds more weight than Wasila rebuked Wasila for his teachings. This is why the Mutazili method was rejected then and is rejected now.
Understood. Catholics especially understand the value of Tradition and Apostolic teachings. Which is why I noted that this was a big problem for the Mutazili...
In addition, The reason the Ashari school is deemed heretical by the Wahabi taymiyans is because the Ashari school is said to be influenced by greek western ideologies - so the Ashari school of all the schools should be more appealing to you then the Mutazilis - the Ashari school also came about a whole 200 years after the Mutazili school - so they never came into contact and never butted heads like you say - and are often accused of being to Mutazili like.
Interesting, I thought the Ashari school defended the "orthodox" view, which refuted Greek philosophy, while the Mutazilis attempted to synthesize Greek philosophy into Islam (free will, etc.) My sources say they did "butt heads" and that the Ashari school did win out over the Mutazilis.
The Mutazilis denied the Qadr - or decree of Allah - saying that all of mans actions are independent of the Power of Allah - this is against Islamic basics as well as we believe Allah is in complete control
Predestination can be defined in different manners. Christians still argue over the meaning of "predestination". I think the interaction between God and man falls somewhere in between the two extremes (as per God's Will). Again, I don't think the Mutazilis went as far as you say "ALL man's actions are independent".
The west and christianity is still struggling with this concept (take a look at the 39 page long discussion of predestination on this forum) - we are the ones who have put to rest this idea and synthesized a harmonious understanding of what it means to have free will, without saying that our free will is independent of the will of Allah - Christians cant figure this one out for themselves, so I cant expect christians to agree with the Islamic understanding of this - some agree some do not - and others just dont understand. Modern Islam comes from classical Islam - so no the Mutazilis would still be hard pressed to find acceptance into our religion with those beliefs today.
The problem is that the Bible does not support Islam's view on the meaning of free will. This is something of a mystery, the interaction between God and man, and to claim one knows how it all works is bluster. But I do agree that the Mutazilis would be hard pressed to agree with modern Islam.
That is precisely the same approach Muslims take with the Quran - very well put - I completely agree.
I am wondering why Muslims do not utilize the ability to apply spiritual/metaphorical exegesis to certain strange verses found within the Koran. You would think that warfare should be relegated to the spiritual realm FIRST - submission to God applying to oneself, rather than subjugation of the nations...
Following the law of the land is specifically mandated in Islam - even if that land is a non -Muslim one - the problem arises when Muslims become a Majority in that land and demand that the laws reflect their believes
And that is the problem, since the Law of the Land (at least in the US) does not support Sharia, even IF the "majority became Muslim". This is only possible if we eliminate the Constitution. The first Amendment, for starters, does not support a state religion - which is antithetical to Islam and its underlying values. Rome learned of this long ago, and thankfully, has gotten out of politics. Perhaps in time, Islam will do likewise, but the current line of thought is against spiritualizing jihad.
a very American/Western idea - Its understandable for the west to fear a Muslim population surge - The question is, if and when that populace gains a majority, will the ruling Americans stay true to their American and democratic values where the majority rules?
That is the common strategy used today vs. the West - use its own lingo and value system against it. Do you honestly think that "Islam" CARES about democratic values??? Only as long as they can get a foothold into the local culture... Once in, democratic values go away as Sharia is instituted.
I do appreciate your candor in these discussions. I thank you for your point of view.
Regards
