What's wrong with "cherry picking?"

[Seeker of the Ancients]

Is there anything inherently wrong with cherry picking? No. In fact, all religions do it, despite claims to the contrary. They have to. We live in a different time, a different age from that of the people who lived when these texts first came into existence. There are a plethora of practices in these texts that no one follows anymore because they simply aren't relevant to the current day. And there are other beliefs that also don't have any relevance (and likely never did beyond the bias of the writers), but are still touted by many to be otherwise. Subjugation of women and discrimination against homosexuals are two examples of this. Thus it is important for religions to always be questioning and reinterpreting their texts and religious dogma; searching for the core message of their religion and what's best for it's adherents and the world.

So my advice to you? Cherry pick away. Delve into every aspect of the faith you follow and determine for yourself what should be followed. Put the claims of your holy text against logic and rational thinking. Use empathy to place yourself in the shoes of those who might be affected by such beliefs. Is the belief in question a major component of the faith? Does it have any cultural or moral significance in our current day? Could the popular biases of the time be the reason these beliefs are in the text? Etc.

Frankly, the world could use more people like you: those willing to challenge the questionable tenants of their faith while still holding fast to what's truly important, rather than blindly following something simply because they're told to.

 

[gsa]

Cherry picking is not recommended in Qur'an.
But there are muslims who dont busy themselves with all these issues, they focuss on the prayer and being good.

To go back about beating. Most scholars interpret that as harmless thicking/slap when situation is heated and the wife becomes agressive.
There is hadith where prophet pbuh says something like: How can someone beat his wife on the back and face, then sleep with her in bed?
Also we look at how wifes were treated by prophet pbuh. He never attacked violently. He never beat them.
He was the best of all men regarding treatment of wifes.

Would it be permissible for a wife to do the same to her husband? And when is slapping women justified? What is meant by "aggressive" here? Physical violence or something short of that?

 

[lovemuffin]

My question is: On what basis do you believe that God doesn't command genocide?

I'm sure that answers to questions of the form "on what basis do you believe that God..." can get pretty complex, but:

It appears to contradict the larger body of theology even within the same set of scriptures and tradition. Particularly insofar as one of the primary attributes of God in the Hebrew tradition is that He is Just. We might fall down the rabbit hole of how it is determined whether or not the genocide of the Midianites, or the enslavement of the young women, could be morally justified, but I would bypass most of it by just arguing that the near universal agreement that those things are immoral and unjust should suffice. I don't find Divine Command theories of morality persuasive here.

Since the justice of God is so central to Hebrew and also Christian theology (the δικαιοσυνη θεου is obviously central to Paul, for example), it would seem more reasonable to reject the historicity of the command to genocide than to effectively reject the belief that God is just.

I could also appeal to experiences of the Divine, both my own and others, modern and ancient, that posit a view of God's nature that would be equally contradicted by the idea of God commanding genocide. In fact some of those experiences probably figure into the ideal of the Hebrew God as just.

All of these arguments might be irrelevant if it were the case that I had some direct theophany, of which I could be psychologically persuaded to be certain of the veracity of, in which God claimed to have commanded the genocide of the Midianites. But going back to some of the original discussion, given the actual history of how the scriptures came to exist, it seems far more reasonable to believe that passages like Numbers 31 reflect more of the human culture in which they were written than the immutable will of God, in terms of coherency with the greater theological view and tradition, one's personal experience of the Divine, an understanding of human nature and culture, history, and more or less every other consideration that I can think of.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Would it be permissible for a wife to do the same to her husband? And when is slapping women justified? What is meant by "aggressive" here? Physical violence or something short of that?

Why not.
I would recommend my wife to hit me if i explode in rage. To get my senses back.

So the interpretation of the verse is when there is domestic violence, the wife explodes yells attacks, the man correct her by thicking/harmless slap.
But people interpret that verse wrong.



Copy from link:


One Explanation (tafsir) given of this surahc (chapter 4:34) according to some scholars is:

"Men are the support of women as God gives some more means than others, and because they spend of their wealth (to provide for them). So women who are virtuous are obedient to God and guard the hidden as God has guarded it. As for women who are averse in behavior, talk to them suasively, leave them alone in bed and tap them (like a doctor would tap a patient - lightly), if they open out to you, do not seek an excuse for blaming them. Surely God is sublime and great."

Meaning of the Words

For the three words fa'izu, wahjaru, and wadribu in the original, translated here 'talk to them suasively,' 'leave them alone (in bed - fi'l-madage'),' and tap lightly (percuss them), respectively,

Fa'izu (to use persuasive speech or admonishment)

Fa'izu, implies the first step should be to make clear to them using straight talk, the position they are in and what is required to comply with the teaching of Islam. This approach may be repeated until it is established she has understood and is willing to comply and come back into line with the proper expected of a Muslim woman.

Hajara - Wahjaru (do not touch or molest them)

Hajara, he says, means to separate body from body, and points out that the expression wahjaru hunna metaphorically means to refrain from touching or molesting them. Zamakhshari is more explicit in his Kshshaf when he says, 'do not get inside their blankets.'

Daraba (tap lightly as 'percuss', not to beat)

Daraba lightly tap them (women).' This view is strengthened by the Prophet's authentic hadith found in a number of authorities, including Bukhari and Muslim:

"Could any of you beat your wife as he would a slave, and then lie with her in the evening?"

There are other traditions in Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i, Ibn Majah, Ahmad bin Hanbal and others, to the effect that he forbade the beating of any woman, saying:

"Never beat God's handmaidens."

Source:Islams Women - "Then Beat Them"? (Your Wives)

Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri: "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)"

The word used in the verse is IDRIBUHUNNA which also could mean: Leave them. This is possible the correct meaning because after heated situation, u leave the wife on bed then u leave the room.
It is either Tap like a doctor or leave the whole room. The word Idribuhunna has different meanings.

 

[Baladas]

I view religious texts primarily as philosophical interpretations of the same fundamental Reality. It is my belief that the Absolute is revealed within every religious tradition. I tend to compare religious traditions and seek what they have in common.

 

[Windwalker]

Why not.
I would recommend my wife to hit me if i explode in rage. To get my senses back.

I wouldn't. Hitting another is what Chimpanesses do to dominate another. It has nothing to do with getting your attention. Violence begets violence.

So the interpretation of the verse is when there is domestic violence, the wife explodes yells attacks, the man correct her by thicking/harmless slap.

Correcting her by slapping? You mean spanking her like a little child to discipline her? How nice. How holy. How religious.

No thank you.

But people interpret that verse wrong.

I think your interpretation isn't all that good either. But you do realize that those who say beating wives to "keep them in line", would say you're wrong in how you interpret it to mean to correct her bad behavior (not too much difference from my perspective)? They are right in their minds, and justify their actions. You are right in your mind and justify your actions. No difference.

This is the problem when you look to external "code" books to tell you how to behave and believe. It's always utterly subjective and self-serving, justifying biases. They are equally convinced they are right in how they read it as you are in how you do. You cannot answer that rationally, except to say your interpretation is just as subjective and relative to you as theirs is to them.

The solution is to remove these external "authorities", and have a reasonable discussion of minds and see which person make more sense. But that's more work, and easier to just say "God says it's the way I believe".

 

[Deidre]

Cherry picking is not recommended in Qur'an.
But there are muslims who dont busy themselves with all these issues, they focuss on the prayer and being good.

To go back about beating. Most scholars interpret that as harmless thicking/slap when situation is heated and the wife becomes agressive.
There is hadith where prophet pbuh says something like: How can someone beat his wife on the back and face, then sleep with her in bed?
Also we look at how wifes were treated by prophet pbuh. He never attacked violently. He never beat them.
He was the best of all men regarding treatment of wifes.

‘’Wives,’’ as in plural lol ^_^ But, it’s a different culture, which isn’t for me to judge. I don’t agree with polygamy, but to disagree with the idea of it, doesn’t affect one’s core faith. I also have read a lot about Muhammad, and the more I read, the more understanding I have.


The disparity between men and women in religion, isn’t an Islam-only philosophy, and sadly…all of the Abrahamic faiths sort of have various nuances on that theme.


To me, it’s not integral to the core teachings of Islam, to accept that men MUST treat their wives this way. But…I can see how someone could interpret it to be acceptance of hitting one’s wife. (which isn’t cool in my book)

 

[The Sum of Awe]

There is nothing wrong with it. To ask if you can believe in some parts of the Quran and not others is to ask if you can like both Metal and Rap music. If you believe that's how it is, of course you can believe it. Nobody will stop you.

The major thing is, though.... If you do not agree with some things in the Quran, the Quran loses its value. Why would God's word have fallacies? If that's the main way to approach Islam, why believe in one part and not another?

 

[Windwalker]

BTW, the reality is regarding "Cherry picking" that no one uses that term correctly! It is not about saying I like this verse and will follow it, and not that verse and will reject it. Cherry picking is intellectual dishonesty! It's a logic fallacy that blinds itself to the "bad" data, not looks and it and consciously says they don't like it. That's called being discriminating, not cherry picking. Cherry picking says that dog poop is not dog poop, but a nice juicy orange. Or that it needs to be understood as bright and happy, and isn't poop. That's real cherry picking. That's what cherry picking means. It's a logic fallacy.

Fundamentalists and "True Believers!" are typically guilty of cherry picking, burying their head in the sand ignoring and rationalizing verses, not this rational eclectic cafeteria-style religious experimentation. I would never, ever call myself a cherry picker. I'm too intellectually honest to be one.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

‘’Wives,’’ as in plural lol ^_^ But, it’s a different culture, which isn’t for me to judge. I don’t agree with polygamy, but to disagree with the idea of it, doesn’t affect one’s core faith. I also have read a lot about Muhammad, and the more I read, the more understanding I have.


The disparity between men and women in religion, isn’t an Islam-only philosophy, and sadly…all of the Abrahamic faiths sort of have various nuances on that theme.


To me, it’s not integral to the core teachings of Islam, to accept that men MUST treat their wives this way. But…I can see how someone could interpret it to be acceptance of hitting one’s wife. (which isn’t cool in my book)

The fact that beating wife is not even commanded in the quran is evident from prophet's words.
Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri: "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)"
Prophet PBUH would never contradict the Quran. So people misinterpret the word used in Quran wrong. It doesnt mean beating.

The word Idribuhunna used in the Quran means more than beating. It could mean to leave the house after situation gets out of control and could lead to violence.

 

[Deidre]

BTW, the reality is regarding "Cherry picking" that no one uses that term correctly! It is not about saying I like this verse and will follow it, and not that verse and will reject it. Cherry picking is intellectual dishonesty! It's a logic fallacy that blinds itself to the "bad" data, not looks and it and consciously says they don't like it. That's called being discriminating, not cherry picking. Cherry picking says that dog poop is not dog poop, but a nice juicy orange. Or that it needs to be understood as bright and happy, and isn't poop. That's real cherry picking. That's what cherry picking means. It's a logic fallacy.

Fundamentalists and "True Believers!" are typically guilty of cherry picking, burying their head in the sand ignoring and rationalizing verses, not this rational eclectic cafeteria-style religious experimentation. I would never, ever call myself a cherry picker. I'm too intellectually honest to be one.

lol I've been using the terminology wrong, then. ^_^

Yes, not making excuses for verses I dislike, or candy coating them...rather, I'm discriminating after processing them through my own lens of right and wrong.

Thank you for the clarity.

 

[Koldo]

I'm sure that answers to questions of the form "on what basis do you believe that God..." can get pretty complex, but:

It appears to contradict the larger body of theology even within the same set of scriptures and tradition. Particularly insofar as one of the primary attributes of God in the Hebrew tradition is that He is Just. We might fall down the rabbit hole of how it is determined whether or not the genocide of the Midianites, or the enslavement of the young women, could be morally justified, but I would bypass most of it by just arguing that the near universal agreement that those things are immoral and unjust should suffice. I don't find Divine Command theories of morality persuasive here.

Since the justice of God is so central to Hebrew and also Christian theology (the δικαιοσυνη θεου is obviously central to Paul, for example), it would seem more reasonable to reject the historicity of the command to genocide than to effectively reject the belief that God is just.

Let me clarify one point: You are aware that it is possible to reconcile that massacre with the concept of god being just, right?
Whether you accept such an explanation, and you certainly don't, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

So then my question becomes: Since it is possible to reconcile, why reject some of the scripture?

I could also appeal to experiences of the Divine, both my own and others, modern and ancient, that posit a view of God's nature that would be equally contradicted by the idea of God commanding genocide. In fact some of those experiences probably figure into the ideal of the Hebrew God as just.

I am clueless as to how any experience with the divine could possibly lead a person to believe one way or the other.

All of these arguments might be irrelevant if it were the case that I had some direct theophany, of which I could be psychologically persuaded to be certain of the veracity of, in which God claimed to have commanded the genocide of the Midianites. But going back to some of the original discussion, given the actual history of how the scriptures came to exist, it seems far more reasonable to believe that passages like Numbers 31 reflect more of the human culture in which they were written than the immutable will of God, in terms of coherency with the greater theological view and tradition, one's personal experience of the Divine, an understanding of human nature and culture, history, and more or less every other consideration that I can think of.

Not a wise route to take, if I may say so, since the entire religion could be reasonably explained by being nothing more than a reflection of the human culture at the time. Even experiences with God tend to change accordingly depending on the cultural exposure of an individual. So it is entirely plausible for an individual to have had an experience with God that involved a command to massacre. And since we are talking about a text that is regarded by tradition as being a religious scripture, to reject this as scripture is to reject tradition.

 

[Deidre]

The fact that beating wife is not even commanded in the quran is evident from prophet's words.
Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri: "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)"
Prophet PBUH would never contradict the Quran. So people misinterpret the word used in Quran wrong. It doesnt mean beating.

The word Idribuhunna used in the Quran means more than beating. It could mean to leave the house after situation gets out of control and could lead to violence.

It's funny you mention that verse above, because I've been reading a lot lately and it occurred to me that my secular life may never match up to these texts. For example, I don't need a man to take care of me, financially. I like dating, etc...but I don't look to a man to provide for me, or pay my bills, etc. I have my own job, etc. So, when I view these verses, I have to remember that how I live my life is just so different that what is 'recommended' in Scripture, and that could be just because it was a different time frame, when these texts were written. (But in different regions of the world, many women don't have a voice at all, so...)

If I just view it at face value, I think the above verse can be taken as generosity towards women (wives)...which is a kind attribute. But, with my modern-day, independent thinking...the verse can give off the impression that women 'need' men for survival. Just thought to point that out, when we read these texts, it can be hard to digest some of them, because they simply aren't how we live our lives, today.

 

[Kirran]

On cherry picking: if you feel comfortable with following certain things from a religion or a philosophy and not others, then great. If not, fine, either follow it all or none of it. I don't believe there's any one answer on whether cherry picking is OK.

On wife beating: I once saw it explained like this. In the Quran, it says you should pray. It does not say how to pray. So the early Muslims asked Muhammad, and he told them how to pray. Then, in the Quran, there was an instruction to beat one's wife. But not how to do so. So they asked Muhammad, and he laid down three conditions - 1) You cannot cause them pain in beating. 2) You cannot strike their face. 3) You cannot leave a mark. This is basically not beating, and Muhammad is, in a roundabout way, saying you SHOULD'T beat your wife.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

It's funny you mention that verse above, because I've been reading a lot lately and it occurred to me that my secular life may never match up to these texts. For example, I don't need a man to take care of me, financially. I like dating, etc...but I don't look to a man to provide for me, or pay my bills, etc. I have my own job, etc. So, when I view these verses, I have to remember that how I live my life is just so different that what is 'recommended' in Scripture, and that could be just because it was a different time frame, when these texts were written. (But in different regions of the world, many women don't have a voice at all, so...)

If I just view it at face value, I think the above verse can be taken as generosity towards women (wives)...which is a kind attribute. But, with my modern-day, independent thinking...the verse can give off the impression that women 'need' men for survival. Just thought to point that out, when we read these texts, it can be hard to digest some of them, because they simply aren't how we live our lives, today.

I interpret the hadith as treating woman good. The first wife of prophet pbuh was independent woman, strong business woman too. Khadija bint khuwaylat may Allah be pleased with her.
She is model for all muslim women today who are there having their own business.
It saddens me when ignorant muslim males use the quran as reason to beat their wives, when Allah swt said follow prophet pbuh he is your best example. Prophet pbuh said dont beat your wives, treat them good. He was best husband and best man regarding women.
So the quran verse and word is misinterpret by ignorent males that dont know Quran and Sunnah.
I dont believe Allah swt says go boxing on ur wife. I believe more its about a tap or leaving the house to cool down the situation.

 

[Kirran]

I interpret the hadith as treating woman good. The first wife of prophet pbuh was independent woman, strong business woman too. Khadija bint khuwaylat may Allah be pleased with her.
She is model for all muslim women today who are there having their own business.

Even Aisha was strong and independent, not afraid to speak out on an equal level ot her husband etc.

After Muhammad said that God had given him a special dispensation to marry more women, Aisha retorted "It seems the Lord hastens to satisfy your desire!"

 

[lovemuffin]

Let me clarify one point: You are aware that it is possible to reconcile that massacre with the concept of god being just, right?
Whether you accept such an explanation, and you certainly don't, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

So then my question becomes: Since it is possible to reconcile, why reject some of the scripture?

The question doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The space of logical possibility is enormous, so outside of empirical questions, just about anything could be reconciled. The question seems to presuppose that preserving the unvarnished whole of scripture is so important that the merest possibility of doing so is enough to favor doing so, but I don't agree with that, and I don't see any reason to accept that. Morally speaking, the arguments required in order to reconcile the two beliefs in this case, and the way of thinking those arguments entail, are also repugnant and at odds with other parts of the scripture. But even if I didn't feel that way, the argument that, if reconciliation is possible, then reconciliation is the correct conclusion seems like a non-sequitur.

I am clueless as to how any experience with the divine could possibly lead a person to believe one way or the other.

One may experience the Divine as loving. Almost as a matter of course in being human, I think we understand that genocide is unloving. Even leaving aside any particular morality.

Not a wise route to take, if I may say so, since the entire religion could be reasonably explained by being nothing more than a reflection of the human culture at the time.

Of course, many people believe that this is the case. Again it seems as though the merest possibility of someone making a reasonable argument against belief is taken to lead to the firm conclusion that we must avoid admitting things that allow for that argument. I think that's overly defensive. I'm not sure why it would be wise to avoid it. But the way you phrase things suggest to me that you are more concerned about preserving a particular structure of beliefs and their interconnecting solidarity than I am. I don't think you have established that it's actually necessary or wise to do so.

Even experiences with God tend to change accordingly depending on the cultural exposure of an individual. So it is entirely plausible for an individual to have had an experience with God that involved a command to massacre.

This goes back to the principle about the modality of the receiver. I have no doubt that some have experiences which they receive and interpret in this way. I think it's an observable fact. This seems like another thing where you would find it unwise to allow for the truth of propositions that can be used to attack the credibility of religious belief in general, but I think it's wise to accept and deal with the world as we find it. The content of religious experience is not objective truth, and experience doesn't exist apart from the memory, interpretation and cultural reception that conditions it, no less for me than for the one who interprets an experience of God's holiness as justifying the death of the (presumed) unjust. That doesn't stop me from having a view about which interpretation is better, more fruitful, more humane, etc, and that view can be more deeply considered than "not liking" something, as per the original question.

And since we are talking about a text that is regarded by tradition as being a religious scripture, to reject this as scripture is to reject tradition.

This is apparently not the case, since it's very common for religious traditions to offer spiritualized interpretations of various scriptural texts. One example: There is an eastern orthodox tradition that interprets the passage in Psalm 137 ("Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock") in an entirely interior and spiritualized way, having to do with the passions.

And to clarify, in a similar vein, we're not talking about rejecting scripture, but rejecting a particular understanding of scripture, in this case a purely historical reading. That's why I said that we're really talking about interpretation

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Even Aisha was strong and independent, not afraid to speak out on an equal level ot her husband etc.

After Muhammad said that God had given him a special dispensation to marry more women, Aisha retorted "It seems the Lord hastens to satisfy your desire!"

Thanks, u know more about islam than me
Good to hear that.


Yes Aisha radiyallah anhu was fine example. She taught both males and women about islam. She was teacher respected by men and women. May Allah be pleased with her.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm sure that answers to questions of the form "on what basis do you believe that God..." can get pretty complex, but:

It appears to contradict the larger body of theology even within the same set of scriptures and tradition. Particularly insofar as one of the primary attributes of God in the Hebrew tradition is that He is Just. We might fall down the rabbit hole of how it is determined whether or not the genocide of the Midianites, or the enslavement of the young women, could be morally justified, but I would bypass most of it by just arguing that the near universal agreement that those things are immoral and unjust should suffice. I don't find Divine Command theories of morality persuasive here.

Since the justice of God is so central to Hebrew and also Christian theology (the δικαιοσυνη θεου is obviously central to Paul, for example), it would seem more reasonable to reject the historicity of the command to genocide than to effectively reject the belief that God is just.

I could also appeal to experiences of the Divine, both my own and others, modern and ancient, that posit a view of God's nature that would be equally contradicted by the idea of God commanding genocide. In fact some of those experiences probably figure into the ideal of the Hebrew God as just.

All of these arguments might be irrelevant if it were the case that I had some direct theophany, of which I could be psychologically persuaded to be certain of the veracity of, in which God claimed to have commanded the genocide of the Midianites. But going back to some of the original discussion, given the actual history of how the scriptures came to exist, it seems far more reasonable to believe that passages like Numbers 31 reflect more of the human culture in which they were written than the immutable will of God, in terms of coherency with the greater theological view and tradition, one's personal experience of the Divine, an understanding of human nature and culture, history, and more or less every other consideration that I can think of.

Why would you assume that a culture that wrote about genocide in positive terms would consider genocide to be unjust?

 

[lovemuffin]

The argument is not that they believed genocide to be unjust, but that I do. The argument is that their belief in the justice of genocide explains the text, rather than genocide being commanded by God.