From (Jeremiah McAuliffe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Answering Islam  --  a Muslim response
Date: Wed Sep 18 08:58:33 EDT 1996
Message-Id: <51orlp$>,

I have received forwarded e-mail from Saleeb, aghast that I did not
directly respond to his use of Yusuf Ali and his use of a quote from
Faruqi. It appears that Saleeb is going to use this as way of
accusing me of what I accused him of doing: not addressing the
primary issues, and thus he will not attempt to defend his book.

Which he can't do because it is indefensible. I call God Himself as
my witness.

So, here....

Why did I not defend Ali's talk of the idea of the father-son
metaphor as a sexualized anthropomorphism? 

1) It wasn't cited as a source in the book. Defend your book. That is
the point. Don't you get it? If the book doesn't stand *as written*

2) You stated that you included this argument that Christians are
engaged in a sexualized anthropomorphism  "because most Muslims you
have talked to say it." You only NOW decide to make Ali a source, and
an issue. That's not playing fair. Defend the book.

3) What most Muslims may or may not know about Christian theology has
nothing to do with what the Qur'an teaches and Islam is all about.

4) I explained it. It is a view held by those uneducated in any
Christian theology. I do not defend it. Simply because Ali has a
popular translation of the Qur'an with a commentary does not mean it
is 100% kosher (not to mix our cultural metaphors or anything). It
certainly is not on that point. So, I shall not defend him on it. He
didn't know what he was talking about.

You could then say: "Ali? Uneducated?" In that regard, yes. If I
think you believe "A" but you really believe "B" then my argument
against "A" just doesn't make much sense, does it? So, the fact that
the Christian use of a father-son metaphor is NOT a sexualized
anthropomorphism-- then clearly-- to argue against the use of the
metaphor on the basis that it is a sexualized anthropomorphism is
absurd and misdirected. And that isn't what Islam teaches, or rather,
it is *one example* of why Islam teaches what it does on the
restricted use of metaphors when we talk about God.

The Qur'an does restrict our use of certain metaphors, analogies and
symbols in our talk about God. It restricts use of parent-child
metaphors, and trinitarian descriptions. This is the issue.

People's attempts to explain the "why" of this restriction may
vary.... certainly, to avoid a sexualized anthropomorphism is one
reason-- regardless of whether that is actual Christian theology or

There. Happy?

Now, why did I blow off the Faruqi quote?

1) Its not in the book. Defend the book.

2) Its out of a context. Give me the full context, and then I'll
bring it up. The quote is taken out of a dialogue:  "Christian
Mission and Islamic Da'wah: Proceedings  of the Chambesy Dialogue
Consultation" and appears to be in response to a discussion over a
particular issue. Given the track record in your book of
misrepresentation and selective editing you would have to provide a
full context for the quote for me to discuss it. 

Also, if the Faruqi quote was to bolster your error that we say "God
is absolute Will" then it was still misplaced......


Jeremiah McAuliffe/
Visit Dr. Jihad's! Page 'O Heavy Issues
WOW! Major Upgrade Comin' Soon!

Overview on the debate between Jeremiah and Abdul
Answering Islam home page