"It's ok, officer. I'm an "opposition researcher".
Some thoughts on the on-going Sarah Palin phenomenon:
I might be willing to give Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt on that infamous "lipstick on a pig" remark he made the other day. Yet, if you look at the reaction of his supporters behind him, they sure seemed to take it as a reference to Palin as they laughed out loud, rose and cheered.
Meanwhile, it has been revealed that Team Obama has sent an army of 30 lawyers, investigators and "opposition researchers" to Alaska to dig up anything and everything on Palin. (I wonder if those are the same lawyers Team Gore sent to Florida in 2000 to challenge the absentee ballots of troops serving overseas in places like Bosnia deuring the recount.) But I digress. Look at what they are coming up with in Alaska.
Palin, as mayor, reportedly pressured the Wasilla librarian to ban certain books from the local library. It has never been disclosed what those books were. No wonder. In reality, it seems that Palin asked the librarian in general terms how she (the librarian) would feel about the idea of certain books being banned as "offensive". The librarian reportedly responded that she would oppose any such measure as a violation of freedom of speech. At this point, Palin accepted the viewpoint of her librarian and dropped the idea.
Palin also is under investigation for supposedly dismissing the director of Public Safety in Alaska for not firing her former brother-in-law, State Trooper Mike Wooten, who was involved in a nasty divorce from the Governor's sister. What most news articles are not mentioning is that Wooten, among other transgressions, reportedly tasered his 10-year-old step-son. As a former law enforcement officer, that sure sounds like a firing offense to me. And has not the former director come out and publicly stated that Palin never personally pressured him to fire Wooten? Minor detail.
In addition, Palin has been accused of wanting to have Creationism taught in public schools in Alaska. Well, not exactly. She has only advocated that pupils be allowed to debate both sides of the argument in class.
Then there is the item (picked up on by the Washington Post) that Palin claimed per diem from the State of Alaska while overnighting in her Wasilla home. Again, not exactly. What she did was submit a voucher for time spent outside of her Juneau (the State Capitol) office, something entirely authorized. For per diem, she claimed $60 for meals. In the lodging section, she claimed zero with the explanation that she was staying in her personal residence.
I won't even go into the trash about her family, with which we are all familiar. What is that going to show us-that the Palins are a typical modern-day American family coping with the problems of our crazy society?
What seems clear to me is that Sarah Palin is striking a chord with average Americans as a fresh new face from the frontier West-vastly different from the old Eastern establishment. This leads me to my final point, which is directed to the McCain campaign: The press is now jumping on a new issue. This is, that since convention night, Palin has continued to give the same speech, and that, furthermore, press access to her has been limited as she travels with McCain. To that I say; let Sarah be Sarah. Give her new speeches and let her interact with the press. If she makes misstatements or her words are twisted by the press, so be it. You chose this woman for many reasons, and the public is embracing her, just as her constituents in Alaska embrace her. The last thing you want to do now is let the media present her as a packaged phony, which they will surely do if allowed to. If you trust Palin with the VP slot, trust her to be herself.
Don't worry about the press, Hollywood and the Democratic "opposition researchers". The American people are seeing this for what it is.
In addition, Palin has been accused of wanting to have Creationism taught in public schools in Alaska. Well, not exactly. She has only advocated that pupils be allowed to debate both sides of the argument in class.
ReplyDeleteFantastic. Let's have the kids debate whether the Earth is flat or a sphere. After all, The Bible says that it rests upon four pillars, and we want the kids to learn all sides. In addition, we should also teach them the debate that Helios carries the sun across the sky in his chariot as opposed to the Earth spinning on its axis.
Trust me, if you have science teachers actually going over the debate, it's going to do more damage to religion than any "secular progressive" could ever do.
Lance,
ReplyDeleteAre you speaking specifically of science classes? Are you basically advocating that if any kid raises his hand in class and says, "I believe that God created the Earth and Man", the teacher should cut him off and tell him he is crazy-or maybe make him go stand in the corner with a dunce cap on?
It seems you have absolutely no tolerance for any form of religion even being discussed in school.
Heh. That's funny considering that I'm doing a whole unit on Jesus and the Bible right now.
ReplyDeleteI'm saying that creationism has absolutely no place in the science classroom. If a kid says that, then the teacher should respond with, "You are free to believe whatever you wish" and then proceed to teach science.
I actually do discuss the "debate" in my English class. It belongs there or in a comparitive religions class. (Social studies as well, perhaps.)
What absolutely should not be taught is the notion that there's some sort of genuine scientific debate over evolution versus creationism - because there isn't any. To tell the kids that there is would be to lie to them.
But just out of curiosity, what do you think that a science teacher should say if a student claims to believe that The Earth is flat and rests on four pillars? After all, that's what The Bible teaches.
ReplyDeleteAs for me, I think that the "You are free to believe what you wish" and then move on to the science would be the appropriate response.
"Are you basically advocating that if any kid raises his hand in class and says, 'I believe that God created the Earth and Man', the teacher should cut him off and tell him he is crazy-or maybe make him go stand in the corner with a dunce cap on?"
ReplyDeleteStraw man as usual, Gary. I doubt Lance thinks that should be the case. No one is arguing this. BUT, classrooms are not open forums where the students can just begin teaching whatever their own ideas are to the rest of the class. All the teacher needs to do is politely tell the kid that he/she is entitled to their own personal views, but that in the class the teacher will be teaching science.
As for Obama's "lipstick on a pig" remark, have you read it in context? If so it seems pretty obvious he wasn't alluding to Palin at all:
"Drawing a link between the Republican senator for Arizona and President George W Bush, he suggested change would be impossible for Mr McCain to achieve.
'You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig. You can wrap up an old fish in a piece of paper and call it change. It's still going to stink after eight years. We've had enough.'"
Gary, sorry about that, I am a Christian, and I don't believe that religion should be taught in school. We live in such a diverse society, just what type of religion should be taught? You know yourself that you can't even get two Christians to agree on their faith, why confuse children with personal opinions and believes of teachers, because this is just what it comes down to. The Bible says nothing about abortion or stem cell research. Where do you go from there? And, if you really listen to Jesus, you'd stay out of politics all together.
ReplyDeleteLance, Ingrid and Bryan,
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don't really disagree with you on religion in the classroom. If it's a science class, I think Lance's answer is entirely appropriate.
I also don't think that Palin is on the extreme for merely advocating that students could discuss the issue-depending on the type of class it is.
Certain teachers have disparaged religion when it comes up-in all kinds of classes.
As for the lipstick comment-it is time for both sides to move to the issues.
Now stop gangin' up on me. It ain't fair.
I didn't realize that both Bryan and my mom would chime in on this.
ReplyDeleteHonestly though, Gary, I try to be as diplomatic as possible when I touch on this whole issue. I really don't know a way to talk about it without pointing out the blatant lies and distortions that the creationist side employs.
And please realize, by creationists, I'm talking about the types who want to teach kids that dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark. (And I kid you not - they're out there - they even have a huge "science" museum in Kentucky that would make your head spin.)
I teach religious stories the same way that I do anything else, and I'm always careful to tell the kids that I understand that for some of them, they're more than just stories. I also tell them about my own biases, so that way they can take that into consideration when they hear what I have to say. I doubt that I use the phrase "that's just my opinion" more often than I do when I teach the religious stories.
The thing is, and this was my point before, if there's too much religious stuff being taught in class - including this faux debate on creationism versus evolution, ultimately, religion will be the loser. For kids who are undecided, it will make religion in general seem silly. I think that it's in the best interests of the religious to keep things like that out of the classroom.
Lance,
ReplyDeleteAll I can say is that in my ESL classes, these issues never come up because I keep my opinions out of the classroom, unlike so many of my liberal colleagues.
It's a fine line not to disparage one's religion, and it kinda depends on what topic you teach. My students are everything from Muslims to Buddhists to catholics-you name it. If religion comes up, it's always in a respectful manner as part of discussing differences in culture.
I think that a teacher has to be very careful about contradicting anything the family is trying to teach their kids at home. Your approach is correct.
Schacht asserts that hadiths, particularly from Muhammad, did not form, together with the Qur'an, the original bases of Islamic law and jurisprudence as is traditionally assumed. Rather, hadiths were an innovation begun after some of the legal foundation had already been built. "The ancient schools of law shared the old concept of sunna or ‘living tradition’ as the ideal practice of the community, expressed in the accepted doctrine of the school." And this ideal practice was embodied in various forms, but certainly not exclusively in the hadiths from the Prophet. Schacht argues that it was not until al-Shafi`i that ‘sunna’ was exclusively identified with the contents of hadiths from the Prophet to which he gave, not for the first time, but for the first time consistently, overriding authority. Al-Shafi`i argued that even a single, isolated hadith going back to Muhammad, assuming its isnad is not suspect, takes precedence over the opinions and arguments of any and all Companions, Successors, and later authorities. Schacht notes that:
ReplyDeleteTwo generations before Shafi`i reference to traditions from Companions and Successors was the rule, to traditions from the Prophet himself the exception, and it was left to Shafi`i to make the exception the principle. We shall have to conclude that, generally and broadly speaking, traditions from Companions and Successors are earlier than those from the Prophet.
Based on these conclusions, Schacht offers the following schema of the growth of legal hadiths. The ancient schools of law had a ‘living tradition’ (sunna) which was largely based on individual reasoning (ra'y). Later this sunna came to be associated with and attributed to the earlier generations of the Successors and Companions. Later still, hadiths with isnads extending back to Muhammad came into circulation by traditionists towards the middle of the second century. Finally, the efforts of al-Shafi`i and other traditionists secured for these hadiths from the Prophet supreme authority.
Goldziher maintains that, while reliance on the sunna to regulate the empire was favoured, there was still in these early years of Islam insufficient material going back to Muhammad himself. Scholars sought to fill the gaps left by the Qur'an and the sunna with material from other sources. Some borrowed from Roman law. Others attempted to fill these lacunae with their own opinions (ra'y). This latter option came under a concerted attack by those who believed that all legal and ethical questions (not addressed by the Qur'an) must be referred back to the Prophet himself, that is, must be rooted in hadiths.These supporters of hadiths (ahl al-hadith) were extremely successful in establishing hadiths as a primary source of law and in discrediting ra'y. But in many ways it was a Pyrrhic victory. The various legal madhhabs were loath to sacrifice their doctrines and so they found it more expedient to fabricate hadiths or adapt existing hadiths in their support. Even the advocates of ra'y were eventually persuaded or cajoled into accepting the authority of hadiths and so they too "found" hadiths which substantiated their doctrines that had hitherto been based upon the opinions of their schools’ founders and teachers. The insistence of the advocates of hadiths that the only opinions of any value were those which could appeal to the authority of the Prophet resulted in the situation that "where no traditional matter was to be had, men speedily began to fabricate it. The greater the demand, the busier was invention with the manufacture of apocryphal traditions in support of the respective theses."
In summary, Goldziher sees in hadiths "a battlefield of the political and dynastic conflicts of the first few centuries of Islam; it is a mirror of the aspirations of various parties, each of which wants to make the Prophet himself their witness and authority." Likewise,
Every stream and counter-stream of thought in Islam has found its expression in the form of a hadith, and there is no difference in this respect between the various contrasting opinions in whatever field. What we learnt about political parties holds true too for differences regarding religious law, dogmatic points of difference etc. Every ra'y or hawa, every sunna and bid`a has sought and found expression in the form of hadith.
And even though Muslim traditionalists developed elaborate means to scrutinize the mass of traditions that were then extant in the Muslim lands, they were "able to exclude only part of the most obvious falsifications from the hadith material." Goldziher, for all his scepticism, accepted that the practice of preserving hadiths was authentic and that some hadiths were likely to be authentic. However, having said that, Goldziher is adamant in maintaining that:
In the absence of authentic evidence it would indeed be rash to attempt to express the most tentative opinions as to which parts of the hadith are the oldest material, or even as to which of them date back to the generation immediately following the Prophet’s death. Closer acquaintance with the vast stock of hadiths induces sceptical caution rather than optimistic trust regarding the material brought together in the carefully compiled collections.
From Daniel Brown Muslim Scholar from America
The relevance of the past: classical conceptions of Prophetic authority
The word sunna predates the rise of Islam and is well attested in pre-Islamic sources. The word sunna was likely to be applied to Muhammad even during his lifetime (p8).
The Quran never mentions sunna-al-nabi (sunna of the Prophet). The application of the term sunna is likely to be post-Quranic, especially when applied exclusively to Muhammad.
Early muslims did not give precedence of Muhammad's sunna over other sunnas, such as the sunna of the early caliphs or early companions. The sunna term was not exclusive to Muhammad. There were no rigid distinctions about sources of religious law, i.e. it wasn't concrete that Muhammad's sunna could be used as a source of law.
Shafi was born in 204 AH (193 years after Prophet Muhammad's death). He was the first to argue the Prophet's sunna as a source of law, identified to authentic prophetic hadith, and give it an equal footing to The Quran. Different attitudes to sunna existed during Shafi, al-kalam (a particular group or school of thought) rejected hadith altogether in favour of The Quran alone. Shafi's view was also oppossed early by schools of jurisprudence in Hijaz, Iraq and Syria, who applied the term sunna to Muhammad, his companions and the early caliphs as well.
After Shafi, it is rare to find the term sunna applied to other than Muhammad. Al-kalam argued the sunna of Muhammad should never be allowed to rule on The Quran and described the science of hadith (as in the methods used to collect hadith) as arbitrary. Evidence of this was the hadith was filled with contradictory, blasphemous and absurd traditions. [top]
Challenges to the view of the organic relationship between The Quran and sunna are not completely unprecedented in the history of Islamic thought. Some of the opponents of Shafi argued that The Quran explains everything (e.g. 16:89) and needs no supplement, this was because one of Shafi's central arguments was the need to clarify The Quran. This opposing viewpoint was snuffed out after the triumph of the traditionist view. However and it was not until the 19th and 20th centuries that the argument was seriously revived. One of the reasons Daniel Brown gives for the defeat of the opponents of Shafi was that they could not deny the authority of the Prophet. If for example, you found a hadith that was truly authentic then there is no way you can deny it because as it states in The Quran the Prophet was a very good example. Also, Shafi emphasised that to obey the Prophet was to obey God. Under this pressure, the opponents of Shafi were defeated. Rarely does the author address how specific arguments were defeated unfortunately, which was the most disappointing aspect of this book.
The question arose: how is it possible to determine which hadith were authentic and which were not?
In the 19th and 20th centuries, increased criticism and scrutiny by Western scholars of Islam showed Muslims that the hadith could not stand up to the criticism, whilst The Quran could. It made Muslims look back on the hadith and reflect more and examine their basis and origin in Islam.
The authenticity of hadith
The great compilations of the hadith took place in the 3rd century AH (i.e. beginning about 189 years after Prophet Muhammad's death, with the 6 books being complete about 280 years after his death), p83. In the eyes of most Muslim scholars sahih (reliable/authentic) hadith could with a high degree of confidence be considered to represent the actual words and deeds of the Prophet. On the other hand, few scholars would have argued the system was full proof. Any information in the hadiths was no absolute truth, it had to be classified as conjecture. The opponents of the hadith at the start were a minority. It was not seriously questioned.
Goldziher was unquestionably the most important 19th century critic of hadith. He became the first scholar to subject the hadith to a systematic historical and critical method. His study was published in 1896. Joseph Schacht "origins of Muhammadan jurisprudence" in 1950 was published. Like Goldziher, he concluded that few, if any traditions originated with the Prophet.
Even the Prophet recognised that there were people among his companions or those living during his lifetime were spreading lies about him. This is testified to in a hadith in Bukhari (p85). There is documented evidence that the companions disagreed with each other and criticsed each other, for example Aisha and Ibn Abbas were reported to have criticised Abu Hurayra. A number of companions demanded evidence for the truth of reports passed onto them. Umar alledgedly questioned a report from Fatima bint Qays. Umar is also reported to have confined three companions to Medina to keep them from spreading traditions. Abu Huyrara was only with the Prophet for 3 years, yet he is alledged to have been the most prolific in transmitting hadith. Biographical literature provides ample material for criticism for Abu Huyrara's character, Umar called Abu Huyrara a liar for example. Aisha criticised Anas for transmitting traditions as he was only a child during the life of the Prophet. And Hassan called both Umar and Zubair liars.
The process of hadith transmission was primarily oral, at least through the first century. Even after written collections of hadith were compiled, oral transmission remained the ideal (p88). Abu Rayya argues that the late date when traditions began to be registered in written form more than 100 years after the Prophet's death became a major obstacle to the fidelity of hadith (p89). Emerged in final form only in the 3rd and 4th centuries
Those who argue that Muhammad's companions began to record hadith in writing during his lifetime must explain the Prophetic prohibition on writing of hadith. Contradictions within the hadith exist regarding this subject. (p91)
Under orders from Caliph Hisham, Shihab al-Zuhri was first assigned to collect hadith. This tradition has commonly been taken to mean that al-Zuhri, under duress, became the first traditionist to violate the Prophet's prohibition on recording hadith in writing. Al-Zuhri is reported to have said: "We disapproved of recording knowledge until these rulers forced us to do so. After that reason we saw no reason to forbid the Muslims to do so." In other words, before al-Zuhri writing was the rare exception; after him writing of traditions became commonplace. This argument is bolstered by numerous accounts that early generations of pious Muslims, including not only al-Zuhri and traditionists like him but also the first four Caliphs, strongly disapproved of writing hadith.
The evidence strongly suggests that early generations of Muslims did record traditions in writing, however having reports about written records is rather different than having the records themselves. Thus, the apparent aversion of pious Muslims to the recording of hadith should be interpreted as reluctance to record an official, public collection of hadith. (p92)
Scholars agree that forgery of hadith took place on a massive scale. The science of hadith developed gradually as a response to this problem. The early written compilations called suhuf were little more than random transcriptions or personal collections. Muslim sources identify the first systematic collection in recording of the hadith with the Ummad Caliph Umar and with the scholars Abu Bakr. No such collection has survived. The earliest systematic collection is the muttawata of Mailk bin Anas, 179 AH (168 years after Prophet Muhammad's death), p94. Isnad (checking of transmissions) was not applied until after the early 2nd century AH according to Schacht. The book studies in early hadith literature stated it was earlier than this. For middle ground see Juynboll: "Muslim tradition". Major works of hadith (p161 footnote 70).
According to some, forgers of hadith became active even during the lifetime of the Prophet. In the Caliphate of Umar, the problem became so serious that he prohibited transmission of hadith altogether. The degree of the problem that resulted can be seen from the testimony of the muhahadithin (those who collect hadith) themselves. Bukhari selected 9000 traditions out of 700 000 (p96). When Bukhari reports that he selected from over 700 000 traditions, he is counting every different transmission chain, even when the substance of the tradition are the same (p99). The point is that hadith criticism did not begin during the 3rd century but was practiced continually from the time of the companions onwards (p99).
In all fairness though, the nature of your class doesn't really create a lot of situations where you'd give your opinion.
ReplyDeleteFor me, it's a bit tougher. For instance, while going over the story of Adam and Eve, a student asked how people were able to reproduce through incest and survive. My response was that I felt that the story was never meant to be taken literally, and it has a greater point to it than a scientific explanation of why things are the way they are. I then followed it up with, "That's just the way that I see it though, and I won't test you on that."
Also, when they ask me to explain things like The Trinity (as many of them are shocked to find out that that word isn't even in the Bible) it's difficult for me to not go into how I really feel that it came about. I try to explain it as best I can without editorializing, but then I tell them that they'd get a much better answer from a pastor or priest.
That's why I tell them from the get-go that I'm not religious. I explain that when talking about this stuff, it's hard for me to not editorialize here and there. At least this way, they can be aware of where I'm coming from so they can make up their own minds.
In all honesty, I wouldn't want them to just believe what I say and go around repeating it. If they become drones for me, then they could easily become drones for somebody else.
But regarding not contradicting what the parents are teaching them - what if the parents are teaching them a potentially dangerous belief? (Like not seeing doctors or using insulin when you have diabetes.) Overall, I agree with your point, but it's a complex idea, and I'm not sure exactly where the line should be either.
Mohammad,
ReplyDeleteI am still going over your response because involves scholarly debate on religion, and I am certainly no scholar when it comes to Islam. The tone seems to suggest that there is debate about the authenticity of hadiths and I assume the one I wrote about. (Somehow, your comments seem to be attached to an unrelated posting of mine.)
Whatever the origin of particular hadith in question, I would go back to my point that the MSU at USC seems to have a strong identification with the hadith they put up on their website about calls to kill Jews. That is a matter of grave concern.
Gary, I think that Mohammed is just doing a copy/paste job on you.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, a quick Google search reveals just that. All he did was copy and paste a large chunk of The Development of Exegesis in Early Islam by Herbert Berg.
And I doubt that was Herbert Berg who made that post.
Oh, and while I hate to be a nit-picker (actually, I love it) I just read that the thing about the 30 lawyers has been debunked.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain-palin_distorts_our_finding.html
Lance,
ReplyDeleteOn the cut and paste, I'm sure you are correct. Whatever it was, the point to me is that the MSU at USC put this up on their web site.
There is no room for that kind of thinking in America (ideally).
As for the 30 lawyers in Alaska, isn't that standard operating procedure?