Always Read The Fine Print

I was thinking long and hard about what I would like to discuss for this post. After a while, I decided 'lets risk a fatwa' by talking about interpreting religious text - Specifically, interpreting the Muslim Holy Book, The Quran.

The Quran is an enigma for many people and if your Muslim you need to be able to read it. Most who aren't facing Mecca to pray have no idea what Islam's holiest book is about; while many of those who do claim Islam as their religion almost never question anything in their scriptures.

I've also heard the expression that to question the Quran is to blaspheme against Islam - sometimes even punishable by death (tough finding hobbies in the dessert I'd imagine). Is that a fact? Could one of the largest religious communities in the world really prevent its followers from taking a closer look at the foundations of their faith?

After looking into the issue, I found the following passage directly form the Muslim holy book - the original Arabic passage is followed by three translations which simplify the concept of interpreting the Quran (read any or all the translations if you like; they are all very similar):

The Qur'an: chapter 3 (Surah Al-Imran), verse 7:

Arabic (http://www.openburhan.net/):

هُوَ الَّذِي أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُّحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاءَ الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاءَ تَأْوِيلِهِ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلاَّ اللّهُ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ رَبِّنَا وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلاَّ أُوْلُواْ الْأَلْبَابب

Huwa allathee anzala AAalayka alkitaba minhu ayatun muhkamatun hunna om-mualkitabi waokharu mutashabihatun faammaallatheena fee quloobihim zayghun fayattabiAAoona ma-tashabaha minhu ibtighaa alfitnati wa ibtighaa ta-weelihi wa ma yaAAlamu ta-weelahu ilallaahu war-rasikhoona fee al-AAilmi yaqooloona amanna bihi kullun min AAindi rabbina wama yaththakkaru illa oloo al-albabi

Translations - provided for a fair comparison (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html):

• YUSUF ALI: He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.

• PICKTHAL: He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed.

• SHAKIR: He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. but none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding.

This passages is pretty cut-and-dry, and it should be obvious to anyone who bothers to read with their eyes open. Religious scriptures contain both, literal truth and allegorical examples. Also, this verse states the Quran IS open to interpretation; and that the various meanings of religious passages should be discussed and debated in order to be understood more clearly.

It goes on that misguided figures may interpret various parts scriptures without understanding what to focus on in the passage. And of course there's always someone who "interprets" religious books in order to influence people **cough, Bin Laden, Billy Graham, any run of the mill cult leader, etc. cough**.

This passage from the third chapter of the Muslim holy book encourages people to study the meaning behind words, and to differentiate between allegory and literal meanings. This also goes to show that reasoning and rationality is the highest faculty of insight and intellect.

Count Out Colin

Colin Powell sings YMCA during 2004 ASEAN summit in Indonesia - http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002481.php

I got into an argument with a friend who is of the opinion that Colin Powell is the best choice for Secretary of Defense in Barak Obama's cabinet - I, vehemently disagree.

Granted, Powell is a highly accomplished military man, and he has come through incredible experiences which have earned him the honour and respect of many - including myself. However, after serving as Secretary of State during George Bush Junior's first administration, and having served father, George Bush Senior, when he was President as well; it seems to me that Powell's tenure has been more than spent. What confirmed it for me was when Powell grudgingly saddled up to ride along with the Republican cabinet, instead of defending his natural instincts, concerning the plausibility of the reasons for attacking Iraq in 2003.

Ironically, Powell was reputed for hesitating to go into Iraq too hastily at the time of the first Iraqi invasion, Desert Storm, in the early 90's. At the time, Powell was promoted to a four-star General by George Bush Senior; and served as his Commander in Chief. His attitude towards conflict earned Powell the nickname 'The Reluctant Warrior' and this attitude is reflected in 'The Powell Doctrine' which was adopted during Desert Storm (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/teachers/lessonplans/iraq/powelldoctrine.html).

In February of 2001, Powell mentioned previous sanctions against Iraq from the first Persian Gulf War had prevented the country from developing the kind of firepower Americans would consider a threat. Somehow, Powell's discretion gave way to the resolve of Bush Junior's administration; but not without a few conditions. Powell insisted that the case be taken in front of the UN and he eagerly sought after the support of the international community to justify America's war.

On February 5, 2003, Powell appeared before the United Nations Security Council and stated "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more" (http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm.

As we know today, these claims were exaggerated (at the very least); and it isn't inconceivable that Powell had a better idea of how accurate his allegations while he was making them.

In any case, Powell most likely wanted to make the best out of a bad situation. Charged with the responsibility to advocate the invasion of Iraq, I was quite a bit surprised when Powell swallowed the pill and began putting forward dubious claims about WMD's, biological weapons, and Iraqi-Al Qaeda connections. This was not the Powell I was familiar with.

Powell left the Bush Junior's administration in January of 2004; before Junior entered the Oval Office for his second term. It is believed that relations between Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Powell were less than amiable at the time. In a September 8, 2005 interview with Barbra Walters; "When asked if he feels it has tarnished his (Powell's) reputation, he said, 'Of course it will. It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now.'" (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Politics/story?id=1105979&page=1)

All that said, I still admire the accomplishments made by Powell and the dedication he has for his country. The man has been involved in over 25 crises in his military career, and he would not have excelled through the ranks if he wasn't an effective soldier. No one gets it right 100% of the time. Colin Powell is a disciplined military man and most likely holds the value of rank in very high esteem - dissension would not be a part of his game. Yet, it's still unsettling to think that he had to play the unfortunate role he did when trying to convince the world of an imminent Iraqi threat. As such, it would be prudent for Obama's administration to appoint a Secretary of Defense that has almost as much experience, influence and respect as Powell; but would be determined not to compromise the integrity of their office or the lives of people unnecessarily.

Hell, the man is 71 years old. After the career that Powell had in his lifetime, he deserves to retire into something that keeps his blood pressure down. What would most of us want to do when we reach his age - navigate a nation on the verge of economic catastrophe through TWO wars amidst growing animosity; or let someone new, who shows a bit of promise, to step up to the plate?

Them Kind Isn't Like Us Kind

My (very) basic understanding is that most cultures develop based on the needs of society according to the resources available in the environment they happen to be in. As such, trying to impose values from one culture (such as religion or a political system) into a different part of the world where the needs of society aren't the same becomes a very difficult task to accomplish. Colonialism would be a good example of this.

The problem occurs when there is a failure to communicate. One of the most obvious examples of this is when one culture encounters another culture and assumes it is inferior. Particularly when sedentary cultures were came into contact with nomadic hunter-gatherer type cultures. It was assumed that because these societies lack the conveniences "civilized" cultures became accustomed to, they were somehow inferior.

Ironically, if many of these civilized sedentary societies were deprived of their conveniences, survival for them would be far more difficult than it might be for the "inferior" hunter-gatherer cultures - it's the primary reason North Americans celebrate Thanksgiving.

Religion is similar. When abstract beliefs become internalized as faith; having those beliefs challenged means risking personal value systems to vulnerability. The concept of vulnerability wreaks havoc on many people's emotional and psychological stability; especially when the unity of a society may also be at risk. Sometimes, this fear of vulnerability leads a culture to the point where even atrocious acts of barbarity justify ones actions if it means maintaining ones internalized system of beliefs.

This does not mean that cultures and religions can't find common ground. In fact, the basic primary needs of all people are largely the same. We all require food, shelter, clothing, confidence, and emotional security. However, in order to see eye-to-eye with other cultures and other religions, one must be humble enough to learn and accept a different way of life to be equal and just as valid as the truths they internalize for themselves.