From: jk...@math.gatech.edu (Jochen Katz)
Subject: Re: Dashti's "highly recommended" Book
Date: 1999/07/02
Message-ID: <7lk5la$4fr$1@waltz.rahul.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 496677556
Approved: sri-ad...@hrweb.org
Sender: ar...@rahul.net
References: <7leuol$len$1@waltz.rahul.net>
Organization: School of Mathematics, Ga. Tech.
Moderator: SRI Moderator <sri-ad...@hrweb.org>
NNTP-Posting-User: ariel
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam

In article <7leuol$le...@waltz.rahul.net>, 
Saqib Virk <sv...@hotmail.com> writes:

> > Ali Dashti's book is highly recommended.
> 
> SV
> By whom? Crazed anti-Islamists? 

No, several people. I heard it first recommended by Ravi 
Zacharias. And I recommend it too. It is a very good book
on many counts. That doesn't imply everything in it is 
good. No uninspired human writing is perfect.

> The book is written by
> someone with knowledge but little grasp of Islam or common
> sense. 

Says who? Crazed Islamists?

> Parts of the book a semi-intelligent Muslim child would
> be able to see through.

This is probably correct, just because you say so. However, you 
might take into account, that he was not a nobody.  I currently 
can't find his book in my many boxes, but if I remember right he 
was even a university prof for some time. Maybe not. In any case, 
he was highly educated. I don't think you have reached his level 
of scholarship yet. Ali Dashti was for many years one of the 
most respected newspaper editors in Iran and for some time even 
a minister in the government, if I remember correctly, somewhere
in the area of culture and education.

Surely, ever semi-intelligent child would see through 
arguments of such a light-weight...

> I might also ask, what happened to your ideal of not referring
> to people whose arguments would apply to your faith as well?

Where did I say so?

The book has lots of valuable source material quoted and
referenced. Nowhere ever did I say that when I refer to a 
book that I agree with every line it it. 

Earlier I spoke about USING conclusions built upon presuppositions
that are contradictory to your own convictions. I never said that 
we can't refer to books as valuable resources for source material 
just because they also state some things that are not in agreement 
with what I believe. 

> "Throughout the Old Testament, the God who is presented to us
>  is an imperious being, quick to anger, unwilling to relent,
>  and avid for praise and worship...Throughout the Old
>  Testament, God is similarly portrayed as a capricious,
>  exacting and relentless tyrant."
> [pg. 141,142]

Obviously, his expertise on the Old Testament is somewhat
lacking. :-)  That doesn't mean his knowledge of the Qur'an
and Islamic history is similarly shallow. I never recommended
his book for learning about the Bible.

> "The events of the time prove that Mohammad was human like
>  the rest of mankind and did not receive help from any
>  superhuman or supernatural power."

I think Dashti is probably wrong on that, because Satan is 
superhuman and supernatural. There is little conclusive 
evidence for supernatural help of Muhammad. Most everything
I find very naturally explainable, but I do believe there 
was demonic influence on Muhammad nevertheless. [Even Muhammad
was worried about that at some time.] But I would not expect 
Dashti to recognize this.

However, given that you yourself are one of those Muslims
who try to interpret away the supernatural, I thought you 
should be right at home with Dashti? Dashti does not say 
he is a non-Muslim. He would probably have called himself
an "enlightenment Muslim", the equivalent of the "christian
liberal scholars" which many Muslims (including the Ahmadiyya)
love to parade as the highest authorities on the Bible. What
is your problem when I point to somewhat liberal Muslims and
their research?

Note: I have not built any argument on their conclusions
which are based on presuppositions that contradict my 
faith. THAT would be inconsistent. But nowhere have I 
done so. There is a difference between a bookrecommendation
and basing my arguments on his conclusions. What then is your 
complaint here:

> Do you think he would not have used the same sort of reasoning
> he used throughout his book to make similar claims about any
> other religion, in particular Jochen's own? It there not a
> great deal of hypocricy in his recommendation of Ali Dashti's
> book while at the exact same time he was delivering sermons to
> Muslims telling them not to refer to atheists since their
> reasoning might be used against Islam as well as Christianity?

It is hypocrisy and slanderous on your part. I never said Muslims 
can't refer to atheists (and Dashti is not an atheist). I have 
explained that a dozen times before, and in response to you, 
but you repeat it anyway. I also explained it in discussions 
with Saifullah. Just go and look on dejanews. 

Jochen Katz