Actually, that’s not true. Judaism says there’s an afterlife where the good are rewarded and the evil punished.
You’re right. I was thinking of reform Jews. Link
Sura XXVII tells - among other themes – stories about the life of former prophets. The verses you listed go about the adventures of Lot and the city of Sodom and how he talked to the inhabitants, urging them to change their life.
It is a retelling (a bit different) of the story in the Bible about what happened with Lot and the city Sodom and what happened with the wife of Lot.
Of course this story in AQ can be - and is - used as reference to homosexuals, yet in my view it does not handle explicitly about people who are born as such and could refer to bisexuality as much as it could be taken as referring to clear-cut homosexuality.
I find myself to be in complete agreement with you, that for someone who is born homosexual there is no more question of having a choice to be attracted to persons of the same gender, then there is a choice for me being born a heterosexual man to be attracted to women only.
I am not convinced about that perceived and claimed dooming of homosexuality, and that counts for me for any religion that has developed such a tradition.
I find it quite amazing to manage to declare that God is the Creator of all, hence also of homosexuality, and in the same breath declare that God forbids the people He created as being homosexual to have a same-gender partner.
As for Islam, there is the existence of indications that in the time of Muhammed and for a long period during Islamic history there was at the very least still a survival of the ancient acceptance of “boy love”.
You can even even detect references in AQ on this issue if you want.
In my opinion that is impossible, for the simple reason that if you must manipulate a text to have it serve your goal, you alter its original intentions.
If you still talk about AQ here then the answer must be: No, Islam does not “encourage violent jihad” (and the concept “jihad” has several meanings in Islam).
Some will argue that armed Jihad is at all times sanctioned and twist and turn also verses of AQ (and exegeses) until they have their “proof”. I have seen some very blatant examples lately, but these manipulations existed from the very beginning.
To see Islam as a religion promoting peace is not difficult for those who believe that AQ reflects the precise word and message of God that was transmitted to Muhammed.
At which must be added: Let us not forget that this theological streaming defeated and still defeats those to whom Al Qur’an and its status was debatable - instead of “eternal and of all times” as in: not debatable for one little shred.
Needless to say that I am not inclined to feel admiration or to follow those who hide behind closed doors.
Not at all. It does not advocate violence in no case. It allows defence -and for such purpose the use of violence if needed - in very well described situations.
I’m not sure how to take this… As in: I don’t see any infidels at my gates … Sometimes they do manage to pass them - horrible infidels of all sorts and types - but that is on my invitation 
I’m not going to debate the Palestinian issue, but referring to Jews or even Zionists as “infidels” proves on its own that you are not well informed on Islam and its teachings.
You must read previous and following verses to be able to see the context. Large parts of sura VIII tells about the battle of Badr : The Qurayshites (Meccans) recruted mercenaries. The location of the battle and the battle. There is hesitation of the Muslims to attack the army of the polytheists. The demon fights at the side of the polytheists and there comes help from of God for the Muslims.
This sura has a story about the failed attempt of the Jews to assassinate Moses. Yet verse 33 does not refer anymore to the sanctions taken against them.
33 refers to an incident that happened in Medina, provoked by members of 4 different tribes who had treasoned the Prophet, murdered a Medinian shepard and stole a group of camels.
This is again sura VIII in his record about the battle of Badr.
38: If they stop practicing idolatry and persecuting the Prophet. An indirect appeal to come to the religion of the One God and to come to terms of peace, addressed to ‘Abu Sufyan. (The affirmation “that what is past shall be forgiven” caused theological controversiality about its interpretation.)
39. I don’t agree with that translation. I would translate as:
Fight them until there is no more temptation and the whole of the religion belongs to God. (But) if they stop, (that they know) God sees perfectly right through what they do.
The word “fitna” has a complex meaning and can point to several situations (and levels) of disorder, seduction, temptation, discord and others.
Râzi gives it the meaning of persecution, disorder, passion (considering the hostility towards the first Muslims in by the Meccans).
This has nothing to do with any other situation than what is described and certainly nothing with “Israel” today.
In my opinion you should not write your own exegeses of Al Qur’an. What you do approaches in fact the tactics of those who brainwash recrutes for their cause.
[quote]
There are, in total, nearly 100 verses in the Koran which follow these same lines. I trust that what I’ve quoted thus far is sufficient, however.
[/quote)
Hmmmm… No.
No. Yet as with everything written, one can take lines out and “interpret” them at will.
There is no need at all to ignore anything in AQ. As for myself: I am known for my stubborn discussing certain passages but that is not because I want to ignore them. I find them discussable in the context of my research about the history of AQ as text.
I don’t agree for (I hope by now obvious) reasons and which have even nothing to do with me being Muslim.
I have to leave it for now…. I shall answer your remarks on my first reply later.
Salaam. A
Alde,
I will quote verses from the Koran and look forward to exchange opinions/views/meaning whatever.
2 : 47
O Children of Israel! Remember My favour which I bestowed on you when I elevated you above the rest of My creatures -
Why did God bestow special favours to Israel only. Who were the ancestors of those who were NOT from Israel? Was Adam not the start of all mankind? And if he was then why is God’s favours directed only at Israel?
[quote=wisernow[/]
Why did God bestow special favours to Israel only. Who were the ancestors of those who were NOT from Israel? Was Adam not the start of all mankind? And if he was then why is God’s favours directed only at Israel?
“when I elevated you above the rest of my creatures” is not such a lucky choice for translation.
I would translate this as " and that I choosed you above the other inhabitants of the world"
You shall find in AQ often reference to the time before Islam where the Jewish people was the ones among which prophets were chosen to receive God’s Message. By this indeed bestowing them with a special favour = to be chosen to furfill the role of bringing His Message to mankind.
This has no connection to with the story of the creation of the first humans (who are not named by name in AQ) or with ancestry of other groups of people.
It is also not meant to say that “only Israel” received God’s favours, but that God at that time in human history decided to choose his prophets among the people of Israel.
On a side note: I don’t think you shall find Jews who know their religion to claim that they are “chosen people” in the sense that they are “above” other people because of this.
Salaam. A
Ok, even if your translation is acceptable, the question still remains. Why the “special favour” to a particular community? Is God knowingly forsaking the rest of humanity whe He says this?
No it is not them who he has chosen to “fullfill the role…”. For that he has chosen only a few of them(the prophets).
I am not discussing what the Jews think or what they claim. My posts are only related to what is written in the Koran and its implications.
Let me go on to the next quote:
2 : 55
And when ye said: O Moses! We will not believe in thee till we see Allah plainly; and even while ye gazed the lightning seized you.
Is this an image of God the merciful? Moreover, what the hell is so wrong if the ‘ordinary’ people also wanted to see Allah for themselves? Quite an ordinary and fully justified demand…certainly nothing as bad as to warrant getting struck down by lightening! Was the purpose to instil fear, and so bad that they would never dare ask again??
Where do you read God is knowingly forsaken the rest of humanity while there is said that God decided to send Prophets to humanity?
We can discuss if yes or no every human should be a prophet …. If you can give me a good reason for this and how you see that in practice, you are welcome to do so.
You could also say that God has no need of prophets to be known and then you are completely right. (This is also something one can detect easily when reading Al Qur’an).
One can argue then that sending prophets is a sign of God’s interest in humanity, hence a sign of God’s mercy. (I think you have some kind of misunderstanding about “being a prophet” and what it means for the individual.)
An explanation about the context of the verses you brought up so far can do no harm…
Sura II verses 40-140 address those who received formerly God’s Message evocating the Biblical stories (Mozes and his people) about this. This contains also a call to the Jews to remember that time and what happened then.
About II, 55. (as I said earlier in of this thread: I’m not going to comment the translation unless I disagree completely with it) :
Indicates that God came to manifest Himself when the people doubted His existence. The people asked to have a proof of God and got a reply (and there should be added: “while you were looking” at the end of the verse.)
You bring up quotes but you should also read the verses surrounding them because otherwise you give comments without getting the whole story or the context.
Like in this case, where the following verse explains:
“And then, after your death, We let you rise again. Maybe you shall be grateful”.
I doubt that they “never asked again” or that this was the intention.
People question God every day. In my opinion, if you do not question, you cannot come to belief.
Salaam. A
I did not say that. Rather I am only inferring this from your explanation. To achieve “whatever” purpose, God has chosen the Israelis above the rest. Question is “Why has God chosen the Israelis or this special favour.” You yourself used the word “special” -
-and the use of the word “special” implies a bias, a favour.
We are digressing. I am not discussing anyting other than the verses of the Koran and their meaning which I when I try to understand make it difficult, rather impossible, for me to accept it as divine. Incidentally, please realize that I am not singling out the Koran for my skeptcism. It applies equally to the other scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.
I did not deny that. My only point, as I stated earlier, was the “special” favour that God bestowed on the Israelis, which is not a godlike act.
I repeat my question here. God struck the people down with lightening because they wanted more proof, maybe wanted to see God for themselves. What is so wrong in people asking to see more proof that they need to be punished in such a merciless way? What is so criminal about it? If I tell you that I have seen a UFO, and ask you to believe me, will you believe me? No, you won’t! I will show you pictures, I will show you lots of “evidence” as Denigen has compiled in his books. But still you ask to see more proof. Should you be struck down by lightening for that attitude? Why should that make me angry? And so angry as to want to kill you if I had the power to do it! What will you think of me if I exhibited such a personality? That is the question.
Please feel free to enlighten me by either quoting those “surrounding” verses or pointing to them and their relevance. I shall be indebted.
I still do not see how this “following verse” attempts to answer my question of the benevelont God striking down people because they want more proof. If anything, you might say that it shows that God pardons. Making them alive again does not in any way take away or reduce the earlier characteristic of punishing someone for no crime.
Digressing again. I am not discussing what we should or shouldn’t do. I would like to contain our discussion only to the verses of the Koran and why I do not find them divine and your arguments against that.
I shall continue with the next quote tomorrow. Thanks.
I did not mean to say that the Jews are “special”, and to explain that I gave you my idea of how Jews themselves would react on someone making such a claim.
If you say that it is not “Godlike” to make some people prophets and some other not (people all come from one or an other group) then there should have been no prophets at all.
As to why at that time they came from among the Israelites.
Maybe because God considered this group as having the best potential for suitable candidates at that time? I don’t think selecting the best possible candidates for a job is showing “bias” towards those that are not selected.
It only shows to be capable to make a good judgement about people’s qualifications for the job.
So you would not see the Creator of all - = humanity included - as capable to make the best choices among the people available, and among the groups of people who can produce the qualified candidates for prophecy?
I should argue that making people responsible for bringing God’s message to other humans is not showing bias in favour of the prophets. One could even
argue that it holds a bias in favour of those who are chosen to receive the Message by the prophets = without having to put themselves in a position where they face opposition, persecution and an overall difficult life.
Who said it was because God was “angry”? That is a human emotion.
It has nothing to do with “pardon” but with the manifestation of God the people asked for and received. This manifestation was not a “punishment” but an answer to their question.
Of course it could have come under an other form. Say: like a dry plain that all of a sudden became a wood.
Yet such a thing could easily be dismissed as a fata morgana or a trick of a magician, or brought in relation with people smoking certain substances, or being drunk or whatever.
Considering the worth most people put on “life” and staying alive, I think dropping dead and then become alive again is much more convincing of the existence of the Creator of life(= God) then anything else.
Possibly you shall encounter a few surprizes in the approach you expect of me
Salaam. A
Alde – We are discussing strictly what is written in the scriptures. We are NOT discussing what the Jews think or feel.
The scriptures say that the Israelites were the “chosen” people. Since the verse I quoted Sura (2:47) deals with the period of Moses, I am taking the liberty of quoting from the Old Testament itself –
I hope I do not need to further explain the above. And this is just one quote. If one reads the Old Testament, it becomes abundantly clear that Yahweh is the God of the Israelites and is helping establish them over everyone else.
And that is precisely what I am trying to get at! And thus the question about the divinity of the scriptures. I shall continue to quote even more verses where God will be seen coming across as possesing entirely human characteristics – He has a very strong desire to be worshipped and feared. He continuously threatens and warns of severe punishments if he is not worshipped. He is jealous. He is angry and indignant. He is vindictive, demanding, petulant and tyrannical. While it is contniously mentioned that He is benevolent, merciful and loving, his actions, words and general demeanour do not support that view.
Let us proceed further with more quotes from the Koran:
(Context - The Children of Israel were commanded to set aside Saturday for worship and abstain from all mundane preoccupations, including angling for fish. This came to be known as the Sabbath day, and its sanctity was acknowledged by most of them. But there was a group of dissidents among them who broke the promise by spending the Saturday in trapping the fish in puddles of water alongside the river, if not in angling. So they were cursed by Allah and transmuted into apes).
Again we see undeserving punishment. Does trapping fish on a day when you are not supposed to be doing it, so bad a crime that they deserve getting turned into apes!!?
[QUOTE=Sura2:67 to 2 : 73]
Only the last verse quoted to save space:
We said : ‘Smite the victim with some of it! Thus does Allah bring the dead back to life and demonstrates His portents to you so that you comprehend!’
(Context - The incident referred to in the above verses is that, when a wealthy Jew was murdered by his nephew for his wealth and the corpse left outside the gates of a neighbouring township, its residents brought the body to Moses and asked him to help them identify the culprit. Since he could not himself do it without Divine inspiration, he prayed to Allah and sought guidance. Allah responded by asking him to command the men to sacrifice a cow before they could be helped to find their quarry. Finally they were ordered to smite the dead man with a piece of the cow’s flesh, at which the dead man came back to life and divulged the identity of the culprit.)
First is the question of asking for the sacrifice of a cow! How can killing a cow possibly help identify a culprit? Second Allah is Allah and since Allah is omniscient, the identity of the culprit cannot be unknown to him. Why not just go on and give the name to Moses! Why this hoopla and gig of killing the cow and bringing to life that man who was dead? And that too by “smiting”! Why does he need to ‘smite’ the dead body with cow’s flesh to bring it back to life?? Specially when you recall that it is the same God who created everything from nothing just by saying ‘Be’ and it was?
More in my next post.
I must point out to you that while there are sometimes similarities between AQ and what is in the Bible, Islam does not teach or follow what is written in the Bible.
The Bible is considered as holding the Message of God to mankind, but a message that over time was corrupted by mankind. Hence God renewed the message by reveiling it again to Muhammed.
II; 65
This refers to a situation that occured among the Jews of Maydan under the reign of king David. (and “despised and hated” is a much too strong wording. More correct is : “be chased apes”).
There are different explanations. The one I prefer is that the picture that is painted here is not about a real situation. They were not litteraly transformed into apes. It is an allegorical description to say that their hearts were transformed in the hearts of apes = meant to refer to the inability of a person to worship God when he commits a sin. (Not holding on to the sabbath was for Jews a sin against the commands of God).
II 67-73 (to add at your description: The body of the murdered man was left at the gates of the other town in order to make the citizens the suspects of the murder to obtain that they payed him bloodmoney.)
There are different interpretations of the nature of the animal that is described by Mozes.
The mystics suggests that the cow does not refer to a living animal but is an allegory and refers to the golden statue the Jews worshipped (mentioned earlier in this sura).
An other one suggests that the Jews asked about so many details to test Mozes if he could describe a cow they has seen before while he did not.
If you take the first explanation then the whole whole story is an allegory, meaning that the Golden Calf was destroyed which gave humans Life (= their belief in God = eternal life in the here after).
I would take it like that (the more since the story of the dead man is not menitoned in the Bible, for as far as I can recall).
I prefer the allegory, yet could also suggest that Mozes previously had seen the cow belonging to the murderer and that this is why he described the animal in such a detail.
If you take other explanations handling about a living cow: To slaughter such an animal just because Mozes said it was a request of God could have been a test (a cow was certainly not cheap) in how strong people followed what God asked for in comparison to their adherence to worthly posessions.
“smiting” ? I think you have a translation that loves to paint dramatical scenes
Believing that God has human characteristics is not in line with Islam (read sura 112).
Salaam. A
I did not say that. My intention was to buttress support for what I said and that you were denying. In support of my contention I give two sources and both mention that Israelites were the “chosen people”. You give invalidated explanations. We will therefore abandon the point at this stage.
These below are three translations from three different people, widely regarded as reliable and sourced from the Islamic Server of the University of Southern California.
002.065
YUSUFALI: And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: “Be ye apes, despised and rejected.”
PICKTHAL: And ye know of those of you who broke the Sabbath, how We said unto them: Be ye apes, despised and hated!
SHAKIR: And certainly you have known those among you who exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, so We said to them: Be (as) apes, despised and hated.
If three respected and accepted translators say “despised and hated”, please tell me why I should believe you over them?
First, I fail to understand why God would send his words in allegory? Why make statements with “hidden” meanings? Why try to make things more difficult for man to understand His message? Also it is not that all of Allah’s verses are “allegorical” or that He is given to speak in allegorical terms in a consistent manner. Most often, the messages are quite straight and factual. And if someone can be straight and factual in one instance, there is no reason for him to be allegorical in others. This “defense” by calling sacred texts allegorical is hypocritical in nature, since the purpose is not to apply critical analysis but attempt to cast the text and its meaning into a pre-determined mould in such a away as to suit what has already been conceived and decided by the apologist. I am afraid, discussions cannot make much intellectual progress if the excuse of “allegory” is used to mutate and modify the meaning of the text to suit one’s views and opinions.
Once again “allegory”? In any case, I do not understand what is gained by saying that it refers to the golden statue that the Jews worshipped when Moses was away to get the commandments. And it was a statue of a calf, not a cow. So how does it help to explain my question of Allah asking for the sacrifice of a cow and then bringing a man back to life when he is “struck” with the cow’s flesh?
Huh? Ok what are the rules here Alde? Are we allowed to draw, concoct and cook whatever the heck we want from thin air?
I don’t take that “allegory”. Especially because the verses are pretty clear in their meaning. I am sorry but you force me to give you actual quotes to establish my point. Ok…(taking deep breath)…so here we are…
The people are asking Moses what type of cow they should get to slaughter. Where is the “allegory” in this?
Test for what and why? The last Sura(2:73) makes it clear that the purpose of sacrificing the cow was to “strike the dead body” and “thus Allah brings dead to life”. What are we arguing about here? It is plain and simple as can be. If it was to test, then once the sacrificing was done in Sura 2:73, the words would have been different and conveyed the meaning of “testing faith” and not
“thus Allah brings dead to life”!
I have already indicated the source of my translations and I am sure they are just fine. Of the three translations for Sura 2:73 Yusufali says “Strike”, Pickthal says “Smite” and Shakir says “Strike”. And “strike” and “smite” mean the same.
Sura 112 does not say that Allah does not have the qualities I mentioned in my earlier post. Quoting that Sura therefore does not help. It is only what you believe and say. It is my intention to show you that is not so. Trust me, we will come across several verses that will adequately justify my views.
Why does Allah need to ‘smite’ (or “strike” if you prefer) the dead body with cow’s flesh to bring it back to life??
I did not say that. My intention was to buttress support for what I said and that you were denying. In support of my contention I give two sources and both mention that Israelites were the “chosen people”. You give invalidated explanations. We will therefore abandon the point at this stage.
These below are three translations from three different people, widely regarded as reliable and sourced from the Islamic Server of the University of Southern California.
002.065
YUSUFALI: And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: “Be ye apes, despised and rejected.”
PICKTHAL: And ye know of those of you who broke the Sabbath, how We said unto them: Be ye apes, despised and hated!
SHAKIR: And certainly you have known those among you who exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, so We said to them: Be (as) apes, despised and hated.
If three respected and accepted translators say “despised and hated”, please tell me why I should believe you over them?
First, I fail to understand why God would send his words in allegory? Why make statements with “hidden” meanings? Why try to make things more difficult for man to understand His message? Also it is not that all of Allah’s verses are “allegorical” or that He is given to speak in allegorical terms in a consistent manner. Most often, the messages are quite straight and factual. And if someone can be straight and factual in one instance, there is no reason for him to be allegorical in others. This “defense” by calling sacred texts allegorical is hypocritical in nature, since the purpose is not to apply critical analysis but attempt to cast the text and its meaning into a pre-determined mould in such a away as to suit what has already been conceived and decided by the apologist. I am afraid, discussions cannot make much intellectual progress if the excuse of “allegory” is used to mutate and modify the meaning of the text to suit one’s views and opinions.
Once again “allegory”? In any case, I do not understand what is gained by saying that it refers to the golden statue that the Jews worshipped when Moses was away to get the commandments. And it was a statue of a calf, not a cow. So how does it help to explain my question of Allah asking for the sacrifice of a cow and then bringing a man back to life when he is “struck” with the cow’s flesh?
Huh? Ok what are the rules here Alde? Are we allowed to draw, concoct and cook whatever the heck we want from thin air?
I don’t take that “allegory”. Especially because the verses are pretty clear in their meaning. I am sorry but you force me to give you actual quotes to establish my point. Ok…(taking deep breath)…so here we are…
The people are asking Moses what type of cow they should get to slaughter. Where is the “allegory” in this?
Test for what and why? The last Sura(2:73) makes it clear that the purpose of sacrificing the cow was to “strike the dead body” and “thus Allah brings dead to life”. What are we arguing about here? It is plain and simple as can be. If it was to test, then once the sacrificing was done in Sura 2:73, the words would have been different and conveyed the meaning of “testing faith” and not
“thus Allah brings dead to life”!
I have already indicated the source of my translations and I am sure they are just fine. Of the three translations for Sura 2:73 Yusufali says “Strike”, Pickthal says “Smite” and Shakir says “Strike”. And “strike” and “smite” mean the same.
Sura 112 does not say that Allah does not have the qualities I mentioned in my earlier post. Quoting that Sura therefore does not help. It is only what you believe and say. It is my intention to show you that is not so. Trust me, we will come across several verses that will adequately justify my views. My question remained unanswered:
Why does Allah need to ‘smite’ (or “strike” if you prefer) the dead body with cow’s flesh to bring it back to life??
:smack: Sorry for the double posting!
May I ask you to read carefully what I posted earlier in this thread, post #17:
I do not wish to waste my time in writing exegeses - and by this relying on and using my knowledge of the greatest scholars of Islam of all times - if you are only out on dismissing and doubting every single information I give you. On top of it I have to write my comments in a language I did not even study.
Sorry, but I don’t play games with my studyfield. This is no game.
If you do not agree with this and if you do not trust my knowledge, then we stop this discussion now.
No problem. No hard feelings.
Just your choice to make.
And by the way: if Pickthal or others you have there give other tafsier then the ones I choose (because they are on the same line as my interpretation or because from the different sources available I give preference to these above others)… Surely they mention their sources, no?
You shall encounter the same scholars as the ones I studied, and study, and use and balance against each other. Not every commentator agrees with every other on every subject. We speak here of centuries of scholarship.
I already gave you different interpretations and made the clear distinction between them. Which is already more then you can find in the usual comments to Qur’an translations.
I’m writing here the most useful summaries of tafsier for free.
I most be daft. Really.
Well, I think I am. I stop here now.
Salaam. A
The Koran is a narrative. As I have been given to understand, it is the word of Allah that was spoken to Muhammed who in turn recited it aloud to his companions and others. Since it is from Allah and intended for general consumption, it is expected to be and should be simple and easily comprehensible. There is no reason why Allah would intentionally make His message convoluted and difficult to understand. What possibly would He gain, or what possible purpose would He wish to achieve by making His message perplexing with “hidden” meanings that would need “special knowledge" to decipher and understand? Wouldn’t that be absolutely contrary to His purpose of redeeming his subjects? Given that premise, because anything else would not make sense, I do not understand what is there in the Koran that needs education in order to understand it? Why should there be need for any special “instructions” to understand the word of Allah? EXCEPT when perhaps as an apologist it becomes difficult to reconcile the evident absurdities and incongruities in the text, with one’s blind faith. You see, the approach you take to try and understand the text depends on where you come from. Since you are a Muslim, and believe in Islam, you will tend to make the text and its meaning, fit the requirement of your faith. Since you are already predisposed with the firm mindset that there can be nothing possibly wrong with the sacred text of the Koran, you(and the so called scholars of Islam) will use various methods, adjustments, techniques, what-have-you to explain away and justify the parts of the text that make it appear questionable, irrational or raise suspicion about its divinity. It is the presence of faith and its grip on you, that gives rise to the need for exegeses, explanations and interpretations. Since you already believe and have the *firm conviction * because of your faith, that the text is divine, you find it impossible to question the same. For you, the divinity is a given - an unquestionable and fundamental presupposition. Now that the divinity is something that is already a foregone conclusion, the only option you have left is to find ways and methods to extract meanings of the text, in whatever way possible and no matter what manipulation is required, such that it appears both divine AND sensible. I do not blame you for it. It is a basic need for you to satisfy both, your mind that seeks rationality, and faith that seeks divinity. That’s the way the religion memeplex works and that’s what makes the religion meme so successful. On the other hand, I approach the same text with a mind that is totally free of any preconceived ideas. Since I do not have the “faith” I see the text as what it is, and not as what it “should be” by virtue of its sanctity! Since my mind is not burdened with “beliefs”, it works in a simplistic manner looking for elementary and logical solutions and meanings. I would rather deny the divinity of the text because of its obvious and amply evident deficiencies, than to try and look for explanations and allegories in them to make them acceptable. I approach the text with a critics scalpel ready to incise and expose, while you in your faith wish to explain away the anomalies in hidden meanings.
I did not have any intentions of discussing Islamic history. That is an entirely different subject and in this I agree that it needs learning and education.
If it is “information” we are talking about then it should have the quality of being factual. Unfortunately I do not believe “exegeses” qualify as being factual. They are inferences and interpretations and they can be widely varied and divergent depending on the author. They are views and opinions of individuals and as such, one is free to accept or reject them.
What did I do that gave you that impression? I did not agree with you – is that playing a game? I give you translations accepted the world over and if they do not agree with yours – is that playing games? I disagree in looking for invisible “allegories” only to justify one’s faith – is that playing games? I refuse to accept as rational that which is so obviously irrational – is that playing games?
I invited you to discuss and debate the inconsistencies and other problems with the Koranic text. Instead, you intend to teach Islam to me. No, I am sorry, but unlike you I am not looking for ways to remove doubts or strengthen my faith in Islam. My objective was to point out the evident fallacies in the text and try to understand what makes an educated and reasoning mind to accept them without reservations.
Certainly! Why should there be any hard feelings?
Pickthal and the others do not give “tafseer”. He has done nothing more than provide a simple translation of the Koranic verses and it is believed that he has done a pretty good job of it. Being translations, the question of “sources” thus does not apply.
Well, at least it is not me that is walking out this time.
Thanks.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean exactly with “narrative”.
Al Qur’an is a historical document. It is a book which contents –and the interpretation thereof - has largely influenced and still influences the course of history and hence the lives of millions and millions of people.
This is the general belief among Muslims.
It is not the general belief among every scholar who ever studied this issue and published on it.
To get a beginning of understanding you could read an other thread on AQ in which I gave a short introduction about the history of AQ as text. (You can find the link in that other thread where you found the link to this thread equally).
I take the rest of your absurd comment as a direct insult to my intellect. My religion has nothing to do at all with the way I approach this issue or any other issue that is part of my study field. It had even very little to do with choosing this field of study in the first place. That was merely a coincidence.
Allow me to point out to you that you approach it while completely in the ban of your preconceived ideas.
You only see the text as you claim one should understand it.
“sanctity” has nothing to do with understanding or not understanding a text and its meaning. Having studied the issue – and in this case including the language and the centuries of scholarship about it - is what it takes. You do not need to be religious for that.
Yes you work indeed extremely simplistic in the sense that you have said to yourself: I am right and anyone else is wrong”.
May I suggest a change of member name into “I Know It All – No Need to get Wisernow”.
- See above.
- If a text has an allegorical meaning, then you can not say it is not allegorical if you do not want to make yourself look like an idiot = someone who has no idea yet claims to Know It All.
Excuse me for laughing.
You take a text and approach it without even being able to push your preconceived prejudices into the background for one single second. (You would make one hopeless case as a history student).
Once again an insult to my intellect? Congratulations. You once again expose your own preconceived ideas and how you only listen to and follow your prejudices.
It is not an entirely different subject at all. This once again shows that you have no idea at all what we are talking about.
You claim that Islamic history would even be there if there was no text as AQ. Which only is the basics and the starting point of everything else…
Oh well, maybe I should reject it and then claim that Islam and its history happened without any cause. I think proving that would make me the most famous historian the world has ever seen.
I think you should read Wansbrough for cultivating some ideas moving in that direction.
So you claim that your “exegeses” are “factual” while all the of scholars who ever approached this issue have no value.
Congratulations. It must be a great feeling to think of yourself that you are a Visionary Mind.
There is a lot of consensus among the scholars. Of course, for knowing this you first have to recognize that these scholars and their works exist and then you have to come to the extraordinary idea that their work has value. And then you have to read them….
You can reject everything if you want, yet then it is supposed that you deliver proof that you can speak against everything ever written and overrule it all = that you deliver proof to Know It All. I’m afraid that you do not build a very convincing case.
Of course it is.
You open a discussion based solely on your prejudices and preconceived ideas. This not only about the subject but also - strongly – about me and how I approach something that is part of my academic education.
As such you do not only insult me and my intellect. You insult my whole education, hence those who were responsible for it.
It is clear that the only thing you have in mind is to make this a thread witnessing your adherence to atheism. If you want to do that then why don’t you open a thread on that issue.
You have even no idea about it that translations of AQ are not accepted but only considered to be permitted and tolerated. And not even since such a very long time.
You even have no idea that one can not translate Quranic Arabic (and classical Arabic in general and even MSA) into an other language without facing the difficulties that come with the need to make choices and hence give preferences to this or that above an other possibility.
Your “accepted the world over” is nothing else then the mentioning some translations used by people who take a translation of the text in a language they understand. Which in your case happens to be English and which is limited to the people who use these particular English translations.
There are other translations and in other languages that are read “the world over” . You should do some research on the locations where Muslims are the majority and see if Arabic is not the first language there, then which one is. This could reduce a bit your self-chosen glorification of a few English translations.
If there is an allegory in a text then there is an allegory. Which is not “invisible” if you can read but is there very clearly.
That has nothing to do with “faith” or “justifying faith”. That has to do with understanding a text and its meaning.
If you have no idea of how allegories are used to give the underlying message in a text then I think you need to read some poetry to get your education on this started.
You clearly also have no idea about it that AQ is completely written poetry. Which forms an additional difficulty for getting it translated in no matter which language.
You talk about “inconsistencies” coming from your prejudiced preconceived ideas. When you receive then the explanation of how to take and understand the text, you resort to insulting.
If want to “teach Islam” on a website like this then I shall open a thread titled “ALDEBARAN TEACHES ISLAM” (in red).
Yet you can be assured that I have no intention whatsoever to ever do that. Not now and not in the future ever.
Tell me when you have finished with insulting.
I talk here about my field of study (one of them) an no more or less then that.
If you manage to escape from your preconceived prejudices and bring yourself to finally understand this, you have learned something today.
You can’t get enough of these insulting lines, can you?
I have no words left for this.
Please change your member name in the one I suggested so that people be warned before opening a discussion with you.
I heard some people say that Pickthal had a good translation, just like others seem to have made a good translation.
That does not mean he or others have produced THE translation. They merely are translations among many other translations that all try to approach the meaning of the text as close as the author think it approaches the meaning of the text.
And their source is Al Qur’an. Or one should hope it is. I would not recommend you to read a translation printed in Saudi Arabia.
I think there is nothing else to say on this.
You only want to witness about Your Very Own Amazing Explanation of Al Qur’an, thinking this helps you to proof that “there is no God”.
Nothing wrong with that in itself. This forum is open for every sort of witnessing.
As I said: you can open your own thread for this.
Salaam. A
If I ever doubted the islam to be a truly religion of peace, I’m converted now.
A peaceful and kind poster like Aldebaran and his lucid and learned explanations - and his awesome humility - made me change my mind.
Please direct me to the way of Allah.
I don’t see Aldeberan doing anything in this thread worthy of insult.
No, he hasn’t been humble on his knowledge and understanding of the Quran. But, I don’t see where he’s been boastful about it. He simply said ‘These are my qualifications. I know more on the subject than you do.’ To somebody whose only study of the subject seems to be a few websites.
Gobear, Polycarp,[b/]andDiogenes** often tell a poster the same thing in threads on the New Testament.
I often point out that you can’t understand a religious text just by reading a few translations. Study of both the original language and the culture of the time are important.
A look at threads on the Dr Laura letter will show ZevSteinhardt and CMKeller claiming similar knowledge of the Talmud.
I also direct you to the start of this thread. Wisernow didn’t say ‘I have a question about Islam, please explain this to me.’ he said ‘All religions are brainwashing groups based on lies. Islam is also based on killing nonbelievers.’
No no. We can’t have Aldebaran insulted again can we? He only complained about insults to him a half dozen times. It’s refreshing to read:
and then complain about insults. Priceless.