If you're new here, you may want to get regular updates via如果你是新這裡，你可能想通過定期更新 RSS feed RSS提要 . 。 Thank you for visiting!感謝您訪問！

Jeremiah McAuliffe 耶利米麥考利夫

Since this book has come up as a topic, and I have read it, I thought, insha'all?h, I'd write my impressions.由於這本書來作為一個話題，我看過的話，我想，insha'all？小時，我寫我的印象。 I ordered the book sight unseen because I like reading s?r?h and I liked the title.我命令書視線看不見的，因為我喜歡讀書 s嗎？ṛ？h和我喜歡的標題。 Its kind of dramatic.其種戲劇性。

Dashti appears to have been born Muslim but according to the translator's introduction, it appears he rejected Islam for “patriotism” and established a newspaper called “Red Dawn”.達什蒂安似乎已經出生的穆斯林，但據譯者介紹，似乎他拒絕了伊斯蘭教的“愛國主義”，成立了報紙稱為“紅色黎明”。 This was in the 1920s.這是在20世紀 20年代。 Immediately, it seems safe to assume Dashti was a socialist, most likely entranced by the Russian revolution in 1917.隨即，似乎是安全的假設達什蒂安是社會主義，最有可能著迷於俄國革命在1917年。 So he might have been an outright atheist.因此，他可能是一個徹底的無神論者。 He must have been active in Soviet Socialist issues because he was invited to Russia to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the revolution.他必須一直積極蘇維埃社會主義的問題，因為他被邀請到俄羅斯慶祝革命10週年。

Given this, I recall reading that there is a body of literature giving Marxist-Socialist interpretations of鑑於此，我記得有一個閱讀的文學給予身體馬克思對社會主義的理解 Muhammad穆罕默德 's (P) life. '（規劃）的生活。 Dashti's book appears to be one of these interpretations.達什蒂安的書似乎是其中一個解釋。 Indeed, he compares Lenin to Muhammad early in the book (p. 8).事實上，他比較列寧到穆罕默德早在本書（第8頁）。 Interestingly, he also compares Muhammad to other social conquerors and warriors such as Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Cyrus, Chengiz Khan and Timor.有趣的是，他還比較穆罕默德其他社會征服者和武士，如亞歷山大，凱撒，拿破崙，希特勒，賽勒斯，Chengiz汗和東帝汶。 Now, he says that Muhammad was greater than they, but only because Muhammad (P) “made his way into現在，他說，穆罕默德大於他們，但只是因為穆罕默德（規劃）“使他的方式進入 history歷史 ” without the benefit of a strong armed force and strong public opinion. “沒有一個強大的利益武力和強大的民意。 I found it odd that one would not compare Muhammad (P) to other religious leaders such as Buddha, or我覺得奇怪，人會不會比較穆罕默德（P）對其他宗教領導人，如佛，或 Jesus耶穌 , or Moses, or even Lao Tzu. ，或摩西，甚至老子。 This must give us pause to question the author's perspective on events (especially now that we know Marxist-Leninism was a bit of a failure).這必須讓我們停下來的問題提交的角度對事件（特別是現在，我們知道馬克思列寧主義是位失敗）。

He starts in a way that piqued my interest as he objected to the Muslim tendency “to turn this man into an imaginary superhuman being, a sort of God in human clothes, and have generally ignored the ample evidence of his humanity.” I could relate to this!他開始的方式，引起了我的興趣，因為他反對穆斯林傾向“把這個男人正在成為一個虛構的超人，一種神人的衣服，一般都忽略了足夠的證據表明他的人性。”我可以與這個！

He immediately launches into the issues surrounding the had?th literature and other Muslim accounts of Muhammad (P)??the possibility that some things found in the literature are self-evidently pious stories, not biographical-historical stories (such issues are often heatedly discussed by today's Muslims).他立即把問題展開了圍繞？屆文學和其他穆斯林佔穆罕默德（規劃）？？的可能性，有些事情是發現在文學不言而喻虔誠的故事，而不是傳記，歷史故事（這類問題往往是激烈今天討論的穆斯林）。 Dashti mercilessly ridicules, for instance, the had?th telling of Muhammad's birth and Night Journey, citing Muslim religious bias as being responsible for creating what are in essence myths, fantasies and fairy-stories.達什蒂安無情地嘲笑，例如，該怎麼過的？次告訴穆罕默德的誕辰和夜之旅，稱穆斯林的宗教偏見，負責創建在本質上是什麼神話，幻想和童話故事。 He gives an appearance of fairness by indicating that conversely, Western Christian writers present a negative picture of Muhammad(P) due to their own religious biases.他給出了一個外觀公平，即表明相反，西方的基督教作家呈現負圖片穆罕默德（規劃）因自己的宗教偏見。 So, Dashti says that neither group was “capable of objective study of the facts” due to religious bias.因此，達什蒂安說，無論是組“能夠客觀地研究事實，”由於宗教偏見。 For instance, a view of Muhammad (P) as “a liar, impostor, adventurer, power-seeker, and lecher” is not supportable and due to Western Christian bias.例如，一個視圖穆罕默德（規劃）為“騙子，騙子，冒險家，電源導引頭，並登徒子”不支持的，並由於西方基督教的偏見。

After some pre-emptive praise of Muhammad (P) he begins his story.經過一番先發製人讚揚穆罕默德（規劃），他開始他的故事。

Right off, given his condemnation of both Muslim and Christian accounts of Muhammad as not being based upon “objective facts” he totally does the exact same thing:馬上，由於他譴責穆斯林和基督教佔穆罕默德認為不能依據“客觀事實”，他完全不完全一樣的東西：

“What most offended the Meccan chiefs was that this call…. “什麼最得罪了麥加首領是，這一呼籲 ...。 came from a man of lower status than themselves.” (emphasis mine)來自地位較低的人比自己。“（重點礦）

This cannot possibly be an objective fact.這不可能是一個客觀事實。 To encounter this so soon after his introduction gave me pause.遇到這樣的情況介紹後，他很快給我停下來。 How he read their minds so well I do not know.他怎麼看他們的頭腦這麼好，我不知道。 While this may have been part of the Meccan chiefs' rejection of Muhammad's message, to say it is what most offended is a huge stretch, it would seem, and not at all an objective fact.雖然這可能是部分麥加酋長穆罕默德拒絕的消息，說這是最得罪是一個巨大的延伸，它似乎，而不是在所有的客觀事實。 He does this mind-reading trick quite a bit.他沒有這個心態，相當多的閱讀技巧。

Another example of this is in his dismissal of the story of the Night Journey.另一個例子是在他被解僱的故事夜之旅。 Rather than actually exploring the stories he merely writes:而是比實際探索的故事，他只是寫道：

“it is obvious the Prophet did not say such things and that these childish fables are figments of the imaginations of simple-minded people who conceived of the divine order as a replica of the court of their own king or ruler.” “這是明顯的先知沒有說這些東西，這些幼稚的寓言是虛構的想像力的頭腦簡單的人誰設想的神聖秩序副本的法院自己的國王或統治者。”

I found this stunningly banal.我發現這個令人震驚的平庸。

First, it is not obvious, much less an objective fact, that Muhammad(P) did not describe the experience of the Night Journey as has been recorded in the had?th literature.首先，它並不明顯，更不用說一個客觀事實，即穆罕默德（規劃）沒有說明遇到夜間之旅作為已被記錄在了？屆文學。 And indeed, another interpretation might be: “It is obvious the Prophet(P) had an ineffable experience of The Transcendent??accounts of which are found in religious literature??and described that experience in a way the people could understand.” This is actually more reasonable than Dashti's statement, because we know there are people who have recounted ineffable experiences of The Transcendent.事實上，另一種解釋可能是：“這是明顯的，先知（規劃）有一個不可言喻的經驗的超越？？賬戶而被發現在宗教文學？？並介紹這一經驗在某種程度上，人們可以理解的。”這實際上是更合理的比達什蒂安的聲明，因為我們知道有些人誰也不可言喻的經驗講述了超越。 So, even though Dashti wants to reduce the stories down to psycho-social dynamics, he does not really even do such a good job with that, because he doesn't really seem to be aware of the breadth of psychological literature on such things as mystic experience, as well as other topics I'll not outline here.因此，即使達什蒂安要減少的故事到心理和社會動態，他甚至沒有真正做一個好工作這一說法，因為他並不真正似乎意識到廣度心理文學等事物神秘的經驗，以及其他議題在這裡我就不大綱。

Second, Dashti will use the had?th literature when it suits his purpose, for instance, in describing Muhammad(P) as shy, or as mending his own clothes he uses had?th.第二，達什蒂安將使用過的？次文學適合其目的的時候，例如，在描述穆罕默德（規劃）為害羞，或修補自己的衣服，他使用過的？次。 He uses it for his whole story, of course!他用它為他的整個故事，當然！ He does not explore why he would reject one had?th and not the other.他不探討他為什麼會拒絕一個有？號，而不是其他。 One might think he rejects anything that smacks of the non-ordinary, but he seems to accept the had?th regarding the account of the beginning of the revelation??which is certainly as non-ordinary as the Night Journey.有人可能會認為他拒絕任何之嫌的非普通，但他似乎接受了？日就佔了年初的啟示？？這當然是因為非正常的夜間之旅。 So why he ridicules one and not the other is not really clear.那麼，為什麼他嘲笑之一，而不是其他的沒有真正清楚。 Though it is clear he rejects the idea that anything supernatural is happening.雖然它是明確表示，他拒絕任何超自然的觀念正在發生。

He also uses the had?th to compare Muhammad (P) to famous conquerors as mentioned above.他還使用了？日至比較穆罕默德（P）對著名的征服者如上所述。 For instance, during negotiations with the Medinians before the hejra, Dashti quotes had?th.例如，在談判期間與 Medinians前hejra，達什蒂安引號怎麼過的？次。 Muhammad(P) is asked how committed he will be to the Medinian tribes over his own, “On the contrary.穆罕默德（P）是問他將如何致力於向Medinian在他自己的部落，“相反。 Blood, blood, destruction, destruction!血，血，銷毀，銷毀！ I shall be yours and you shall be mine.我將你和你會是我的。 I shall be at war with those at war with you and at peace with those at peace with you.” Dashti writes:我會在戰爭中與那些在戰爭與和平與你同那些在和平與你。“達什蒂安寫道：

“The repetition of the words 'blood' and 'destruction' brings to mind the statement of the famous French revolutionary Jean Paul Marat, 'I want blood'.” “在重複的字眼'血'和'毀滅'的發言使我想起了法國著名的革命讓保羅薩芬，'我想血'。”

Uh, even I can tell the had?th's exclaimed oath is not at all like Marat's desire.嗯，我什至可以告訴了？次的驚呼誓言是不是都喜歡薩芬的願望。

So, Dashti did not impress me as a very broadly-based writer or thinker, and he was not going to actually explore the issues.因此，達什蒂安不能打動我是一個非常廣泛的作家或思想家，他不打算在探索的問題。 As a Marxist-Leninist thinker he is not aware of the transcendent, and does not think it is of importance to human life.作為一個馬克思列寧主義的思想家，他不知道的超越，並且不認為這是對人類生活的重要性。 That is a huge oversight and deficit when looking at religious texts, behaviors and issues.這是一個巨大的監督和赤字時看宗教書籍，行為和問題。

His socialist leanings to not serve him well in this endeavor, for the book comes off as a form of mere??and transparent??anti-Muslim rhetoric.他的社會主義傾向以及不為他在這項工作中，為這本書脫落僅僅作為一種形式？？和透明？？反穆斯林言論。 So entranced with “the West” and Marxist thought, Dashti seems to have unreflectively swallowed and regurgitated anti-Muslim interpretations of Muhammad(P) which are familiar to many today, and are recognized as being anti-Muslim misinterpretations of Muslim history.所以迷與“西方”與馬克思主義思想，達什蒂安似乎unreflectively吞噬反芻反穆斯林的理解與穆罕默德（規劃），這些熟悉的許多今天，被確認為是反穆斯林的誤解穆斯林的歷史。

It would appear that in spite of Dashti's upbringing as a Muslim his understanding of theology was very elementary.這樣看來，儘管達什蒂安的培養教育作為一個穆斯林，他的理解是非常基本的神學。 For instance, he is very confused about All?h's role in guidance or misguidance of the human, which is tied to the issue of “destiny” or All?h's measuring out of good and evil, ie “If All?h so willed, all would believe.” So, says Dashti, is it God's fault people do not believe?比如，他很困惑呢？h的作用，指導或誤導的人，這是聯繫在一起的問題的“命運”或所有？h的測量出來的善和惡，即“如果所有？Ĥ如此意志，所有會相信。“所以說，達什蒂安，它是上帝的過錯人不相信嗎？ And so then how could punishment be just?於是又怎能懲罰是公正？

I'm not going to say this is not a subtle theological issue.我不會說這是不是一個微妙的神學問題。 All I'm saying is Dashti's amazed confusion over this aspect of tawheed points to his poor grasp of Muslim thought, in spite of his having been raised Muslim.所有我要說的是達什蒂安的驚訝混亂這方面的認主獨一分，他那可憐的把握穆斯林思想，儘管他已被提出的穆斯林。

Dashti completely fails to understand the very idea of “a text” and takes great exception to the Qur'?nic challenge to “produce a sur?h like it.”達什蒂安完全不理解這種想法的“文本”，並採取非常例外的古蘭經'？網卡挑戰“產生河畔？Ĥ喜歡它。”

First ?第一？ and this is amazing to me ?這是令人驚異的是我嗎？ he writes on pp.他寫的頁。 47-48: 47-48：

“Non-Moslem scholars have found numerous grounds for questioning the intelligibility and eloquence of the Qur'an, and Moslem scholars have concurred in so far as they have found that the Qor'an needs interpretation.” “非穆斯林學者發現無數的理由提出質疑清晰度和口才的古蘭經，並同意在穆斯林學者，因為他們迄今已經發現 Qor'an需求的理解。”

Uh, every text, and indeed every thing the human experiences, needs interpretation.嗯， 每一個文字，甚至每個人的經驗的東西，需要解釋。 Its what the human does?interpret meaning.它是什麼人做？解釋的意思。 With one sentence, Dashti throws himself to the winds of irrelevance.同一句話，達什蒂安拋出自己的不相干的風。 Indeed, it is in interpretation that one discovers the infinite intelligibility and sublime eloquence so strongly attested to by libraries of Muslim literature ?事實上，這是在解釋，即發現了一個無限的清晰度和崇高的口才如此強烈地證明了公共圖書館的穆斯林文學嗎？ literature that is just so easily ignored, it would seem, by Dashti, in favor of a fascination with the non-Muslim literature which he seems to simply swallow whole.文學，就是這麼容易被忽略，看來，由達什蒂安，贊成的迷戀與非穆斯林文學，他似乎只是整個吞下。

He cites??so familiar to us??the idea that at times the Qur'?nic text is not grammatical, unfamiliar words are used, and other “aberrations of language”.他舉例說？？這麼熟悉呢？？的想法，有時古蘭經'？網卡文本不是語法，使用不熟悉的單詞，和其他“像差的語言”。 Aside from the fact that he does not explore the actual Muslim literature on the Qur'?nic textual form, he completely ignores the evidence of the profound impact the language had on Muhammad's(P) contemporaries??reflected in the Qur'?n itself as accusations of spellbinding words??and as attested to by Arabic-knowing Muslims across time and cultures.且不說他不勘探實際穆斯林文學中的古蘭經'？網卡文本形式，他完全忽略了證據，影響深遠的語言對穆罕默德（P）的同時代人？？反映在古蘭經'？ñ本身作為指控的引人入勝的話？？和證明由阿拉伯語的穆斯林知道跨越時間和文化。 What Dashti – in a way indicative of a banal lack of imagination – does not recognize is that the Qur'?n is a new and unique form of language use.什麼達什蒂安 - 在某種程度上表明了一個平庸缺乏想像力 - 不承認的是，古蘭經'？n是一個新的和獨特的形式語言的使用。

Oddly, he does say this:奇怪的是，他沒有這樣說：

“… the Qor'an is indeed unique and wonderful. “...這個 Qor'an確實是獨特和美妙。 There was no precedent for it….”沒有先例它...。“

So, he says it, but does not really understand what he is saying!因此，他說，但並不真正了解他在說什麼！

Dashti's poor grasp of Muslim thought, and credulity in light of “Western” and Marxist (and perhaps Enlightenment) thought thus leads him towards a portrayal of Muhammad(P) not just as human, but as all too human.達什蒂安的窮人掌握的穆斯林思想，輕信輕“西方”與馬克思主義（或許啟示）認為從而使他走向描繪穆罕默德（P）的不只是人力，而是太人。 That is, as a person who acted out of questionable and less-than-noble motivations.也就是說，作為一個人誰是出於質疑，低於崇高的動機。 Exactly what anti-Muslim literature does.正是反穆斯林文學一樣。

For instance, he puts forth the idea??most of us have seen it before??that with the power that came from the establishment of the Medinian State Muhammad's(P) personality makes a drastic change.例如，他提出了這個想法？？我們大多數人都看到了嗎？？，隨著權力來自國家設立了Medinian穆罕默德（P）的人格，使一個很大的轉變。 Actually, he says that Muhammad's(P) “inner self”??that is, his real self??now makes an appearance.其實，他說，穆罕默德（P）的“內在自我”？？即是他真正的自我？？現在使露面。 Here is how Dashti puts it (p. 81):這裡所說的是如何達什蒂安（第81頁）：

“With his thoughts fixed on the hereafter, he implored his Meccan compatriots to revere the Lord of the Universe, and condemned violence, injustice, hedonism, and neglect of the poor. “隨著他的思想固定在此後，他懇求他的同胞麥加崇敬上帝的宇宙，並譴責暴力，不公正，享樂主義，而忽視了窮人。 Like Jesus, he was full of compassion.像耶穌，他充滿了同情。 After the move to Madina, however, he becomes a relentless warrior, intent on spreading his religion by the sword, and a scheming founder of state.後遷往麥地那，但是，他成為一個無情的戰士，熱衷於傳播他的宗教用劍，一個詭計多端的創始人狀態。 …A man who had lived for more than twenty years with one wife became inordinately fond of women.” ...一個人誰住在超過 20年，成為一個妻子喜歡不相稱的女人。“

Well, what can I say to that?嗯，我能說？ This is simply a repeat of standard anti-Muslim bigoted takes on Muslim history.這只是一個重複的標準反穆斯林偏執需要對穆斯林的歷史。 No attempt to place the events in a full context (as would be needed for a psycho-social analysis) no sense of broken treaties and genocidal aggression on the part of the Qur?ysh and their allies.沒有嘗試的事件發生在一個完整的情況下（如將需要一個社會心理分析）沒有意義的突破和種族滅絕侵略的條約的部分古蘭經？ysh和他們的盟友。 Just the old standby: “religion of the sword”.只要舊的待機：“宗教的劍”。 Sure, it's dressed up but there it is!當然，它的打扮，但有啊！

It is with some horrid fascination we might recall Dashti's dismissal of “the West's” religiously-biased picture of Muhammad at the beginning of his book, which I mentioned above.這與一些可怕的魅力，我們不妨回顧達什蒂安被解僱的“西方的”宗教偏見的圖片穆罕默德在開始他的書，我在上面提到。 He asserts pretty much the same thing!他斷言幾乎同樣的事情！

According to Dashti, Muhammad(P) now acts out of revenge for his bruised ego:據達什蒂安，穆罕默德（規劃）現在的行為進行報復，他撞傷的自我：

“During his last ten years, which he spent at Madina, he was not the same man as the Mohammad who for thirteen years had been preaching humane compassion at Mecca. “在他的最後十年，他曾在麥地那，他不是同一個人作為穆罕默德誰 13年一直在鼓吹人道同情麥加。 …[he] reappeared in the garb of the Prophet intent on subduing his own tribe and humbling the kinsmen who for thirteen years had mocked him.” ... [他]又出現在外衣的先知一心想征服他自己的部落和震撼人心的親屬誰該為 13年曾嘲笑他。“

God forgive me, but what Dashti is saying here is that because Muhammad(P) was mocked, made fun of, called names – now that he had power he was going to go humiliate them for hurting his feelings.上帝原諒我，但達什蒂安是說這裡是，由於穆罕默德（P）為嘲笑，取笑，叫的名字 - 現在，他有了權力，他將去羞辱他們的傷害他的感情。

Muhammad!穆罕默德！ The messenger from God!從上帝的使者！ Acting like the kid everyone made fun of in school, now a success, coming to the reunion for some cheap revenge jollies.署理喜歡取笑的孩子都在上學，現在是成功的，來團聚一些廉價的報復喬利斯。

You gotta be kidding.你肯定在開玩笑。

I mean, I'm pretty easy, but even I am completely offended by that.我的意思是，我很容易，但即使我完全得罪了。 God love Muhammad!穆罕默德上帝的愛！

I am going to assume most readers — Muslim and non-Muslim — know that this is not actually accepted by anyone other than anti-Muslim bigot types.我將假設大多數讀者 - 穆斯林和非穆斯林 - 都知道，這實際上是不可能接受任何人以外的反穆斯林偏執類型。 Muhammad was never aggressive or revengeful, nor did he have much of an ego.穆罕默德從來沒有侵略或報復，也沒有太多的自我。 He didn't change in Medina.他並沒有改變，麥地那。 Circumstances did.情況一樣。 Treaties were broken — not by the Muslims.條約被打破 - 不是穆斯林。 Genocidal mania was in the land — directed at the Muslims.種族滅絕的狂熱是在土地 - 針對穆斯林。 The Muslims fought back as anyone would.穆斯林的回擊任何人都一樣。

Bizarrely, Dashti seems to have no sense here that Qur'?nic ay?t always refer back to the historical situation.說也奇怪，達什蒂安似乎已經沒有任何意義在這裡古蘭經'？網卡唉？噸經常翻閱歷史情況。 So, statements of war are relevant only in light of the Muslims being under attack, while those related to peace are — surprise!因此，相關報表戰爭只有在光線的穆斯林正在受到攻擊，而那些有關和平是 - 意外的驚喜！ — relevant to times when Muslims are not under attack. - 相關的時候，穆斯林不受到攻擊。 He does not show awareness of this.他沒有表明認識這一點。

So, a long post, and no more need be written.因此，一個長職務，不再需要被寫入。

Dashti is himself a product (or should I say victim?) of his own times.達什蒂安是自己的產品（或者我應該說受害者？）他自己的時代。 His country was in upheaval.他的國家是在動亂。 The socialist fantasy enticed many.社會主義幻想誘惑很多。 Inordinate exaltation of the Enlightenment ideal of the primacy of reason seduced, and still seduces, many.過分提高啟蒙理想的首要原因的誘惑，仍然誘惑，很多。 Dashti's book exemplifies both this fantasy and this seduction, such that he could no longer even dimly apprehend The Transcendent Unity??All?h Most High, and so rejected The Truth.達什蒂安的書都充分體現了這個幻想，這誘惑，使得他再也無法超越，甚至隱約領悟統一？？所有？Ĥ最高級，所以拒絕了真相。 Trying to understand and bridge multiple world views, he failed to truly enter either.試圖理解和橋樑多的世界觀，他沒有真正進入的。 Kind of sad.一種悲哀。

I have to pray he declared shah?d?我祈禱他宣布沙阿？Ð？ before he died, and his sins of scholarship be forgiven.他去世之前，他的罪孽被原諒的獎學金。 But the book is lousy.但書是糟糕。 Sorry.抱歉。

12 July 1999 1999年7月12日

This article was originally posted in soc.religion.islam and is reprinted here with the permission of its author. 這篇文章最初張貼在soc.religion.islam和轉載這裡的許可，它的作者。