What's wrong with "cherry picking?"

[Kirran]

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

I doubt that's true I think it's hard to say one can know as much of a tradition from the outside as from the inside. Although I have considered conversion to Islam before.

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.

As with all people, she was held in the gentle hands of God. One of the main feminist figures in Islam.

Although the Shi'ites are generally less fond of her.

 

[Windwalker]

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.

I would disagree. If cannot cause them pain meant "no hitting" is a clever turn of phrase (which I highly doubt), then there should be no need to qualify the face is off limit. The fact that was added, says hitting is ok and no causing pain, probably means serious injury or something like this. Then to single out "leave no mark", that is of course the classic practice of systematic abusers on their victims.

So all of these together, no serious injury, no bruising of the face, and no visible marks on the body, sounds like good instructions for a classic systematic abuser to follow. Ask a social worker sometime.

I think to say it doesn't mean what it sure sounds like it is saying is itself cherry picking, rationalizing it away. Why not just say that was the custom of the time of a male-dominant society, and say you just find it repulsive by today's standards. That would not be cherry picking then.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

I doubt that's true I think it's hard to say one can know as much of a tradition from the outside as from the inside. Although I have considered conversion to Islam before.



As with all people, she was held in the gentle hands of God. One of the main feminist figures in Islam.

Although the Shi'ites are generally less fond of her.

Agree with you.
I hope you found your path now .
Aslong you are at peace with your decision.

 

[Sees]

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.

It's hard sometimes to reconcile differences in culture that personally effect us and every religion has culture blended in, giving these bumpy roads.

Views on gender characteristics/qualities are a pretty major one.

Two women equaling one man in testimony, more women than men in hell, etc. because of claimed differences in intelligence and religiosity (per Qur'an and Hadith) are often the "investigation into Islam" killer for Western women. The differences can be too much and too harsh to swallow.

 

[Vinayaka]

One problem with cherry picking is when people do it to serve their own instinctive pleasures. Oh that involves discipline ... Nah, not for me .... I don't seem to get anything out of that .... not for me ... now this ... wow, sounds great, you mean I can still do that and call myself a ______. Great!

 

[Deidre]

Thank you for this post...
I'd wish he had said 'don't hit your wives at all.'

But, being what it is...I should share that I come from a Christian background, grew up in a Christian home and the doctrine of the NT was what I spent most of my time adhering to, as a Christian. Having said that, Jesus as the central figure was a pacifist to a degree, and so there is a stark contrast between Muhammad and Jesus. For a former Christian interested in Islam as I am, it can be such a drastic shift of perspective to compare the two. But, I read something recently that was very insightful discussing how we shouldn't expect all prophets to be 'one particular way,' and that Muhammad was defending Islam, not a wager of war against people who didn't accept Islam.

I'm just trying to take it all in, day by day for now.

@Servant_of_the_One - thank you for your posts today in this thread. You did a good thing -- you helped me see some things more clearly.

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.

 

[sun rise]

Yeah...their treatment of 4:34 is both hilarious and very sad at the same time. Their interpretations wouldn't even be heard outside of the West and the Internet. It's "honeypotting" people who don't know any better.

Read how Jewish theologians deal with Leviticus sometimes - it's much the same thing.

If you take one translation of that verse: Yusuf Ali: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. This can be parsed into men maintain and support women because they are the bread earner. In this era it's no longer true so the "because..." is now invalid therefore the initial clause of that sentence is not true any longer either. (and so forth).

 

[Deidre]

Read how Jewish theologians deal with Leviticus sometimes - it's much the same thing.

If you take one translation of that verse: Yusuf Ali: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. This can be parsed into men maintain and support women because they are the bread earner. In this era it's no longer true so the "because..." is now invalid therefore the initial clause of that sentence is not true any longer either. (and so forth).

And sometimes...a passage just sucks. lol When we have to drag in 'scholars' to interpret things (very easy to read verses) for us...hmmm...I become a bit skeptical.

If I say to you, ''I hate you,'' you will believe I hate you. And you should. Because that is what my statement IS saying. But, if we bring in some 'interpreters' they may say to you...''well, she doesn't really hate YOU...she just hates what you represent.'' Or...''well, she doesn't really hate YOU, she hates what you said.''

No, my statement was for real. ''I hate you,'' is what I said and what I meant. But, such is religious interpretation, and in many cases...we don't like what religious texts have to say, but I'd rather say ''I don't subscribe to that thinking,'' than...''oh ...that text really doesn't mean THAT.''

2+2=4. And sometimes, the religious texts are that straight forward. No interpreter or 'scholar' needed. And then it becomes a matter of if we wish to accept them or not.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Koldo]

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.

What reason is there to prefer rejection over reconciliation?
That's the main point, on this part of the text, that I am trying to get at. It appears to me that your only reason is actually your dislike for the implications that this reconciliation would entail.

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.

But even if you experience the divine as being loving it doesn't mean that it is necessarily loving towards everyone, nor that it is loving every 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.

You can't ever accept an argument that could be used to dismiss all of the scriptures to deal with just one of them. That's like using a nuclear weapon to kill a rat.

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 yet, it remains true to say that your reason for rejecting can be accurately described as "not liking". Your parameters of choice are a matter of taste, so to say.

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

No, we are not talking strictly about interpretation. At least not in the large scope of things. The context of the topic is a person who wants to outright reject a part of the text because according to her interpretation it doesn't match her expectations from God. My criticism is towards outright rejecting scripture just because you don't like what you read and towards changing/choosing interpretation according to your liking.

If you accept the scripture and sincerely hold your interpretation to be correct, regardless of whether you like what it entails, regardless of whether it is a literal or a metaphorical interpretation, I have no problem with that.

 

[Koldo]

And sometimes...a passage just sucks. lol When we have to drag in 'scholars' to interpret things (very easy to read verses) for us...hmmm...I become a bit skeptical.

If I say to you, ''I hate you,'' you will believe I hate you. And you should. Because that is what my statement IS saying. But, if we bring in some 'interpreters' they may say to you...''well, she doesn't really hate YOU...she just hates what you represent.'' Or...''well, she doesn't really hate YOU, she hates what you said.''

No, my statement was for real. ''I hate you,'' is what I said and what I meant. But, such is religious interpretation, and in many cases...we don't like what religious texts have to say, but I'd rather say ''I don't subscribe to that thinking,'' than...''oh ...that text really doesn't mean THAT.''

2+2=4. And sometimes, the religious texts are that straight forward. No interpreter or 'scholar' needed. And then it becomes a matter of if we wish to accept them or not.

Just my 2 cents.

Another thing that I find to be rather problematic is when people approach scripture ( from any religion ) with the idea there is absolutely no chance that they might be reading just a lot of rubbish. To give an example: Genesis. Nowadays, a lot of christians will interpret a sizeable part of genesis as not being a literal account of events. Now, why is that? Is it because they have been convinced by another explanation that compels them to believe that the author meant something that was not meant to be taken literally? According to my observations the answer is: No. From what I have seen, the literal interpretation is discarded simply because it is incompatible with our current scientific knowledge. In essence, the reader then assumes that the writter couldn't possibly be writting rubbish ( which would be result of a literal reading of Genesis ), and therefore it is pretty much never interpreted as such by believers.

 

[lovemuffin]

You can't ever accept an argument that could be used to dismiss all of the scriptures to deal with just one of them. That's like using a nuclear weapon to kill a rat.

I'm not accepting that argument solely to win a limited debate. I agree that would be problematic. I actually think the argument is valid quite generally. Obviously I don't think that the entirety of religious experience and tradition is only a matter of culture and human understanding, but I think the fact that it's a singularly important factor is clear. The geographical distribution of religions by itself pretty strongly demonstrates it. That's why I said in my first post in this thread that some appreciation for these issues should lead to epistemic humility about truth claims in religion.

it remains true to say that your reason for rejecting can be accurately described as "not liking". Your parameters of choice are a matter of taste, so to say.

You asked earlier in this post what reasons I had for rejecting over reconciling, but I think it's clear I've provided reasons, you're just dismissing them out of hand because they are "a matter of taste". I would say first of all that some sense of aesthetics certainly plays a part, and I wouldn't deny that. On the other hand, you seem to be making "a matter of taste" such a broad category that, if you exclude everything you seem to be excluding, I'm left with the same question as LuisDantes: what better criteria do you have? If a moral judgement, a consideration of the coherency of an overall theology, and a culturally relativistic understanding of religious belief supported by a fair amount of empirical evidence isn't enough, what else is there? You suggested scholarship, but I don't think you've clarified how scholarship can settle the question.

If you accept the scripture and sincerely hold your interpretation to be correct, regardless of whether you like what it entails, regardless of whether it is a literal or a metaphorical interpretation, I have no problem with that.

It's probably clear that everyone would say that this is what they are doing, so I'm not sure I'm the best judge

I would add that, at least with the Bible, there are plenty of apparent contradictions, inconsistencies, and enigmas. I'm not sure it's even possible to feel certain that an interpretation is objectively correct. I think Christians realistically live with some amount of ambiguity on many theological topics, because the Bible is not at all a systematic treatise of those questions

 

[mainliner]

.



I will never believe that God is punishing women for what happened in Genesis and I don't believe that men should be striking women who "don't obey" as can be found in the Qur'an. It's not taken out of context, it states that as plain as day.




?

then you believe correct
these beliefs are ridiculous.....period!!

 

[Deidre]

Another thing that I find to be rather problematic is when people approach scripture ( from any religion ) with the idea there is absolutely no chance that they might be reading just a lot of rubbish. To give an example: Genesis. Nowadays, a lot of christians will interpret a sizeable part of genesis as not being a literal account of events. Now, why is that? Is it because they have been convinced by another explanation that compels them to believe that the author meant something that was not meant to be taken literally? According to my observations the answer is: No. From what I have seen, the literal interpretation is discarded simply because it is incompatible with our current scientific knowledge. In essence, the reader then assumes that the writter couldn't possibly be writting rubbish ( which would be result of a literal reading of Genesis ), and therefore it is pretty much never interpreted as such by believers.

lol...this is so true!

 

[Smart_Guy]

I believe it is okay to cherry pick, in relation to the context of this thread. But to achieve what God promised in full, I believe we have to control this cherry picking a little, to the limit it could allow us to go around what we don't like, without going head on against it and break/fight it. Remember also that different people have their own preferences in cherry picking, so we cannot demonize/attack what we don't like.

I believe it is okay as long as it does not hurt the doctrine/faith.

 

[Koldo]

I'm not accepting that argument solely to win a limited debate. I agree that would be problematic. I actually think the argument is valid quite generally. Obviously I don't think that the entirety of religious experience and tradition is only a matter of culture and human understanding, but I think the fact that it's a singularly important factor is clear. The geographical distribution of religions by itself pretty strongly demonstrates it. That's why I said in my first post in this thread that some appreciation for these issues should lead to epistemic humility about truth claims in religion.

It is a matter of consistency. If a given reasoning is proper to dismiss something of a certain kind, then it should always be used to dismiss that kind of thing when it presents itself. Logical reasoning shouldn't be twisted according to convenience.

You asked earlier in this post what reasons I had for rejecting over reconciling, but I think it's clear I've provided reasons, you're just dismissing them out of hand because they are "a matter of taste". I would say first of all that some sense of aesthetics certainly plays a part, and I wouldn't deny that. On the other hand, you seem to be making "a matter of taste" such a broad category that, if you exclude everything you seem to be excluding, I'm left with the same question as LuisDantes: what better criteria do you have? If a moral judgement, a consideration of the coherency of an overall theology, and a culturally relativistic understanding of religious belief supported by a fair amount of empirical evidence isn't enough, what else is there? You suggested scholarship, but I don't think you've clarified how scholarship can settle the question.

Let me explain why I am dismissing them. You are looking at a conclusion, disliking it and then rejecting the method to reach it. This is, in essence, the reason as to why young earth creatonists dismiss the theory of evolution, just to cite one example. The right way to do it is to look at the method used to reach the conclusion and then evaluate whether it is a proper method. If you find it proper, then accept the conclusion regardless of whether you like it.

Case in point, there was a passage mentioned in the OP about men beating their wives. From scholar sources, you can get to know about the context of certain passages that otherwise you wouldn't. So, if you believe that given the proper context, the proper interpretation doesn't mean that men should be able to beat their wives, then so be it.

It's probably clear that everyone would say that this is what they are doing, so I'm not sure I'm the best judge

A good way to judge it is to check whether the individuals feels conflicted about their interpretation. A clash between feelings and reason is generally a signal that at least some of it is not being interpretated according to ''liking''.

I would add that, at least with the Bible, there are plenty of apparent contradictions, inconsistencies, and enigmas. I'm not sure it's even possible to feel certain that an interpretation is objectively correct. I think Christians realistically live with some amount of ambiguity on many theological topics, because the Bible is not at all a systematic treatise of those questions

I don't think one has to feel certain that an interpretation is objectively correct. At least not when talking about the entirety of religion.

 

[Aupmanyav]

On wife beating: ..

".. and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; .."
"And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with it, .."
Allah's words. That should remove all doubts.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In this era it's no longer true so the "because..." is now invalid therefore the initial clause of that sentence is not true any longer either. (and so forth).

Allah promised to send the Mahdi. People say he has already come (and gone). New situations may make Allah revise his instructions as it happened in Mohammad's time. "All change and power is to Allah, compared to whom nothing is greater" ('Lal hawla wala kuwatah illah billah hu wal aliel azim')

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

So you're doing what you said you shouldn't: rejecting the claim that God is just.

When someone claims "God is just", it's implied that they mean "just by my understanding of justice", not "just by your understanding of justice." It's obvious that the Biblical writers who spoke in praise of genocide considered the acts they were describing to be positive, regardless of whether they're literal historical events.

When we're talking about the God of the Bible, particularly the God of the Old Testament, we're talking about a God who considers genocide to be the right act when done in its proper time and place. If you want to talk about a God who considers genocide to always be immoral, you're talking about a different God.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

We can and IMO we must. We also must reinterpret and take responsibility for our own understandings of religious teachings. That is what religion proper is, far as I am concerned.
Mostly due to over-reliance on scripture, it seems to me. Scripture is unable to learn from social circunstances or from changes in the actual choices and possibilities of people. Those have indeed changed, and very significantly at that, since the times when the Bible and the Quran were written.
.

A lot of good points in your post, However the crux if the matter is made very clear in your statement
Scripture is unable to learn.

This can be extended to... nothing we receive from the past can learn... it is stuck in time... it can no longer respond to change or revealed truths or correct errors or respond to argument.

Every generation needs to re-evaluate both scripture and tradition in the context of Now, and with the benefit of the most up to date knowledge and study.

We do not threaten God by Study or interpretation, Faith is not weakened by knowledge.

 

[Sunstone]

One problem with cherry picking is when people do it to serve their own instinctive pleasures. Oh that involves discipline ... Nah, not for me .... I don't seem to get anything out of that .... not for me ... now this ... wow, sounds great, you mean I can still do that and call myself a ______. Great!

You seem to think cherry picking entails no more than choosing on the basis of what makes someone feel good or bad.