Again, read the first few posts. If Wisernow wanted to debate the Quran, why resurrect this thread instead of starting a new one?
and
Note the assumptions about Aldeberan. We know Alderberan is a Muslim (or is it Moslem? I can never remember which is the preferred spelling). We know he has studied the Quran in the original language. And that’s about all we know of his religious beliefs and practices.
But Wisernow assumes that-
He holds the Quran to be inerrant
He refuses to question it
He follows all the commanded practices
[QUOTE=DocCathode]
I don’t see Aldeberan doing anything in this thread worthy of insult
[QUOTE]
Who has insulted Aldebaran? Not me at least.
[QUOTE=DocCathode]
To somebody whose only study of the subject seems to be a few websites.
[QUOTE]
Please correct that to "To somebody whose study has been limited to the reading of three independent translations of the Koran from begining to end- the whole 114 verses. Reading more than half the hadiths, reading the biography of Muhammed by Ibn Ishaq in recension by Ibn Hashim, the biography of Muhammed by Sir William Muir, the biography of Muhammed by Karen Armstrong, Why I am not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq, What is wrong with Islam by Irshad Manji and some. To undertstand the religion and its concepts, I think that is sufficient.
[QUOTE=DocCathode]
Study of both the original language and the culture of the time are important.
[QUOTE]
Why? Especially in the context of the Koran. It is stated to be the word of God and is the fundamental foundation of the religion of Islam. What would be different if I were to learn the original language? Why should I think that I would understand the text any different or any better than any of the other translators especially when the other translations are almost identical? Why do I need to re-invent the wheel? Why do I need to know the culture of the time to know about the beliefs and theme of a religion? What effect will the culture have in my understanding of the religion and how? Unless you can answer these questions, your statements have no value and are vague at best and a poor attempt to deflect criticism.
[QUOTE=DocCathode]
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.’
[QUOTE]
More irresponsible and false statements. I did notstart this thread. Neither did I make any statement as quoted. My initial statement was directed to Aldebaran and this is what I said -
[QUOTE=wisernow]
Alde,
I will quote verses from the Koran and look forward to exchange opinions/views/meaning whatever.
[QUOTE]
This was post#24 posted on 06-04-2004. The post previous to this, post #23 was posted on 05-08-2004.
[QUOTE=DocCathode]
Again, read the first few posts. If Wisernow wanted to debate the Quran, why resurrect this thread instead of starting a new one?
[QUOTE]
That was done at the suggestion of Aldebaran. In one of the other threads, I forget which on now, I read a post from Alde where while he was providing arguments about something(to do with Islam though) the other person dropped the thread. Aldebaran expressed frustration in that post and wondered why whenever he starts making a point the other person drops off suddenly. To that I told Alde that ok, let us discuss and I assure you I will not drop the thread. To that he suggested that my questions would be better served if I opened one of the previous threads and this was one of the choices he gave since he had posted on this thread for some time. So the resurrection and also because it concerns the Koran that in turn is related to this thread.
[QUOTE=DocCathode]
Note the assumptions about Aldeberan.
[QUOTE]
Please read the full discussions since post 24. I am forced to make those assumptions because of Aldes inclination to explain away irrationalities by evoking the concept of “allegory”. The assumptions only tend to explain why one would need to evoke the “allegory” factor. This I will clarify further.
That is true for all Muslims. And Alde is a Muslim. QED
It was our mutual understanding that I am the one who will give the questions and he agreed to provide the answers. So I do not see the logic of this statement.
:smack: Here it is again, and I hope to God I haven’t missed out a /
Who has insulted Aldebaran? Not me at least.
Please correct that to "To somebody whose study has been limited to the reading of three independent translations of the Koran from begining to end- the whole 114 verses. Reading more than half the hadiths, reading the biography of Muhammed by Ibn Ishaq in recension by Ibn Hashim, the biography of Muhammed by Sir William Muir, the biography of Muhammed by Karen Armstrong, Why I am not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq, What is wrong with Islam by Irshad Manji and some. To undertstand the religion and its concepts, I think that is sufficient.
Why? Especially in the context of the Koran. It is stated to be the word of God and is the fundamental foundation of the religion of Islam. What would be different if I were to learn the original language? Why should I think that I would understand the text any different or any better than any of the other translators especially when the other translations are almost identical? Why do I need to re-invent the wheel? Why do I need to know the culture of the time to know about the beliefs and theme of a religion? What effect will the culture have in my understanding of the religion and how? Unless you can answer these questions, your statements have no value and are vague at best and a poor attempt to deflect criticism.
More irresponsible and false statements. I did notstart this thread. Neither did I make any statement as quoted. My initial statement was directed to Aldebaran and this is what I said -
This was post#24 posted on 06-04-2004. The post previous to this, post #23 was posted on 05-08-2004.
That was done at the suggestion of Aldebaran. In one of the other threads, I forget which on now, I read a post from Alde where while he was providing arguments about something(to do with Islam though) the other person dropped the thread. Aldebaran expressed frustration in that post and wondered why whenever he starts making a point the other person drops off suddenly. To that I told Alde that ok, let us discuss and I assure you I will not drop the thread. To that he suggested that my questions would be better served if I opened one of the previous threads and this was one of the choices he gave since he had posted on this thread for some time. So the resurrection and also because it concerns the Koran that in turn is related to this thread.
Please read the full discussions since post 24. I am forced to make those assumptions because of Aldes inclination to explain away irrationalities by evoking the concept of “allegory”. The assumptions only tend to explain why one would need to evoke the “allegory” factor. This I will clarify further.
That is true for all Muslims. And Alde is a Muslim. QED
It was our mutual understanding that I am the one who will give the questions and he agreed to provide the answers. So I do not see the logic of this statement.
Alde-
At the outset, let me assure you that I had absolutely no intention of insulting you or your intellect. Even then if you have felt insulted, I have no problems extending my apologies, though I do not yet understand what I said that you felt insulted.
Getting on with your reply:
The word “narrative” applies to something that is “narrated” or spoken. The messages in the Koran were spoken by Muhammed and so that makes it a narrative.
Any document preserved in time qualifies to be a historical document. I hope you will agree that in this discussion, we are more concerned with the contents of the document than aspects of its historicity.
I fail to grasp the relevance of this statement to the context of our discussion. It is a book that is the foundation of a religion just as there are other books/sources for other religions.
I am already acquainted with whatever you have communicated on that thread. However, please excuse me, but I once again do not understand why you repeatedly insist that I learn the historical merit of the Koran when I am only concerned with the contents of the book.
It would be interesting to know what exactly you found so absurd and insulting. Let us see what I said one point at a time.
I made the point that I did not see why Allah would give His message in a fashion that needs “special knowledge” to comprehend it. Why does one have to be a scholar in order to understand the meaning of the Koran? You have not answered that. I hope there was nothing absurd or insulting so far.
My next question was about the presence of allegories in the text. Why would there be hidden spiritual meanings? Following the same logic of argument as in (1), why would Allah speak allegorically when it is in contradiction to His objective. Why should there be “hidden” meanings in the text? You haven’t answered that either.
I then went on to provide a most reasonable explanation to answer the question of why and how this whole “allegory” business got generated and becomes necessary. If one approaches any document with an unburdened and unbiased mind, pray tell me why he would feel the need for “constructing” rationality into something that is irrational in the obvious? The only answer that comes to my mind is – when he has a belief and conviction that the document cannot be irrational. And that is what is “faith”! Only because he is convinced that the document cannot be illogical or incoherent, would he put his mind to the arduous and difficult task of putting “meanings” and possible alternatives to explain the irrational. Else there is no reason. I do not understand what is insulting or absurd in my argument. You have vehemently denied my allegation that your approach is burdened with faith, but interestingly you have not clarified why your approach is what it is.
Please provide some support for that allegation. What ideas did I put forward that appeared as “pre conceived”? As far as I can see I did not put any ideas at all. My posts have all been only inquiring and investigative. Allow me the liberty of quickly and briefly tracing our posts. (W is me A is you)
W- “special favour” for Israel as “chosen ones” – why?
A - Not “chosen ones”.
W – Quotes Old Testament for support.
A – Does not agree with Old Testament.
W - “Striking people dead for asking proof” –why? Isn’t it merciless?
A – Killing and bringing alive is itself the proof.
W – God exhibits anger.
A - God cannot exhibit human emotions.
W – Will present more instances of God’s humanlike nature. Quotes verse where Jews are turned into apes. Punishment much severe than crime. Godlike?
A – Allegorical. Actual meaning – Hearts made like those of apes so that they cannot worship again. “Despised and hated” in same verse not correct. Should be “be chased apes”.
W – Gives three translations all of which say “despised and hated”. Quotes verse where cow is killed and man is “smited” with the flesh to bring him alive.
A – Allegorical again. Actual meaning – golden calf was destroyed. Does not think it should be “smite”.
W – Quotes all verses that give whole story of sacrifice of cow and bringing a dead man alive. Quotes three translations that all say “smite”. Questions the business of “allegory” and its need.
A – Gets distressed and angry.
W – Replies giving reason when someone would look for allegory.
A – Feels more insulted and distressed.
I hope I have covered the essential transactions. Feel free to add or modify if I haven’t. Please tell me where you see evidence of my “pre conceived” notions or ideas.
Agreed but with a small correction - …I only see the text as I claim I understand it. Other than that I want to know why others understand it differently.
Indeed I work in a simplistic manner unless I see a need not to keep things simple. In this case I don’t se that need.
I have not. Please let me understand what I said that generated that impression.
You are obviously angry and distressed enough to tease and make fun of usernames. But don’t worry, you don’t insult me. I overlook it as a childish reponse.
I am still waiting to be told WHY should there be need for allegory? Given a piece of text that is apparently incongruous, irrational and illogical, there are two choices.
Choose to discard the text as absurd and so not divine.
Choose to look for allegorical meanings.
Given the above 2 choices why would a unburdened, unbiased, normal mind of unburdened, unbiased normal intellect not choose No.1?
Feel free to laugh. It is good for health and mind.
What prejudices please? Please quote. I am dying to know. That would perhaps help.
I do not understand what being a history student and my credentials thereof has anything to do with the context of discussion. It would be helpful if you could elaborate.
I was only trying to provide an analysis on the question of “In a given text who looks for allegories and why?” If you do not agree, it would help if you could suggest an alternate answer.
Please do tell me why I have to know Islamic history, or any other history for that matter, to understand the word of God given the presumption that God’s word is eternal and does not change with time. Let me assure you however, that I have read the biography of Muhammed.
I have NOT claimed that. Perhaps because of your “allegorical” approach you tend to read things that I have not written. I agree with what you have said that AQ was the starting point of Islam. History of Islam can pertain primarily to the period only after that. My point is that to understand the start(the Koranic text), why do I need to know what happened after the start(history of Islam).
[QUOTE}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.[/QUOTE]
I do not understand what you are trying to say.
[QUOTE}So you claim that your “exegeses” are “factual” while all the scholars who ever approached this issue have no value.[/QUOTE]
I do not present “exegeses” at all. I find no difficulty in reading what is written and understanding what I read. I prefer not to complicate things without reason. I see no reason to believe that God would suddenly decide to start giving messages with deeply allegorical and hidden meanings and at most of other times be just plain, simple and factual.
You are angry again.
Really? Not agreeing with someone is “playing games”? By that definition aren’t you too indulging in that activity?
Please, please tell me what?
It is true I am an atheist. But then I would not be discussing the Koran. I would be discussing the existence of Allah itself. However, in the current discussion, I am allowing for the existence of Allh, but trying to argue that the Koran does not appear to be His word.
Whoa…! We are not talking of transliteration. Let us see what is meant by translation. I think it implies the representation of the meaning of a word, phrase(or whatever) in one language from another. More pertinently when we talk of phrases and sentences it implies nothing more than a highly fidelity representation of the “meaning” that is being conveyed. A word for word availability is not necessary for a translation to be reasonably accurate. Please bear in mind the words I am using – reasonably, faithfully, conveyed etc. If I know a language well enough, then I can understand what is being conveyed in a sentence or a phrase, and if I know another language just as well, I will be able to reproduce in that language what I have understood in my first language. The second language might not have the exact words for “true” conversion, but here I think we are splitting hairs if we insist on either “true” conversion or none at all. We are more concerned with the general meaning of the text, its essence that is being conveyed and these purposes are reasonably well served by the available translations.
Purpose please?
It would help if you could point out where I “glorified” the English translations because I do not think I did anything of the kind. One more example of an allegorical approach where you tend to read more than what is written.
Who decided whether there is an allegory and WHY??
If it were not “invisible” than it would not be an “allegorical” because allegorical = having hidden meaning, symbolic.
Please scroll up to the section where I have summarized our posts so far and let me know what valid explanations you have provided so far.
What do you find insulting in this? Please give an answer instead of becoming angry. Yes indeed, I ask again - how do intelligent, educated and reasoning minds accept what is written in the Koran as the word of God? What makes them look for allegories and excuses to explain the stark irrationalities and inconsistencies in a text? Indeed, why does an intelligent, educated and reasoning mind try to twist the meaning, under the pretext of allegory, of Sura 2:67 – 2:73 to say that it is about the “killing of the idol of the golden calf” and to “test the faith of people” when the verses are quite explicit about the sacrificing of a cow and then bringing a dead man to life by striking him with its flesh? Why indeed? If you can please answer instead of becoming angry.
I have read three independent translations simultaneously and though they have used different words and different styles they are mostly identical in the essence of the meaning. I am therefore inclined to trust the translations as reasonably correct.
No. Not that there is no god but that the Koran does not qualify to be the word of God.
Finally, I would like to add that even though I find it extremely difficult, if I were to agree to your concept of allegories because of its poetical nature, it does not dilute the requirement that even the allegories have to bear some semblance to what is being said and the relationship should be relatively easy to decipher. Allegory cannot be used as an excuse of associating whatever meaning that one wants only in order to justify the divinity of the text. The allegory should be evident and not invented or synthesized out of thin air.
That said, I would like to assure you that I neither had nor nurse any desire to insult you in any manner. If you so permit, I will continue to post the “troublesome” verses and try and make as much sense as feasible from your explanations, allegories included.
I retract the statement. When first writing the post I had confused you with one of the posters last month. sorry.
Because good translations, which reflect all the nuances and possible meanings of the original are extremely difficult to find. Study of the culture at that time aids greatly in recognising idioms and such. A statement that may have been clear to Muhammed’s audience may seem bizarre and ambiguous to us.
As I said, this was a mistake I meant to correct before posting. I apologize. I had confused you with one of the other posters.
So all Muslims, without exception believe in the inerrancy of the Quran? Out of millions upon millions of Muslims, I won’t find one who thinks the text may have been tampered with?
I think it is true to say that the overwhelming majority of muslims believe in the inerrancy of the quran. It’s kind of a central part of the whole islam gig. That’s not to say that there are no muslims in the whole world who disagree. But I don’t think there’s many and they don’t represent any sizeable group.
Inerrancy is a different thing to the idea of taking it all literally. Inerrancy means that the quran as we have it today is the word of God, but it may contain allegories and metaphors.
Taking it all literally means it doesn’t have any allegories.
Wisernow:
I think you may be getting too hung up on this allegory business. In order to disprove you all one would need to do is bring up one instance of an obvious allegory in the quran. If you can find one example of an indisputable allegory then that means that the quran uses allegories. Thus the door is open to finding other allegories.
You seem to be arguing that if there are allegories in the quran then that means it cannot be of divine origin. I’m not sure I follow this logic. Is God not allowed to use allegories? Surely God can say whatever he wants in whatever style he wants. I’m not sure that use of allegory automatically disqualifies the quran from being of divine origin.
In fact, I think the quran itself says somewhere that it uses allegories.
As regards jews, as far as I’m aware the “chosen people” thingy means that the jews have been “chosen” to obey certain commandments. They have to obey these commandments in order to get into heaven. Non-jews don’t have to obey the commandments, they get into heaven anyway. So the “chosen people” thingy is more of a burden than a blessing. I think there’s about 100 of these commandments.
Regarding islam, I think that there are bigger flaws than the ones you’ve been focusing on.
For example, sharia requires that there be four witnesses to a crime (such as rape). However, you don’t need four witnesses to prove a rape. You don’t need any witnesses if you have DNA evidence or forensic evidence. Witnesses are great if you have them but they aren’t required. And certainly there is no particular reason why four witnesses should be any better than three witnesses or two witneses or one witness. Or even no witnesses (with other evidence).
Four witneses are unnecessary, you can prove a rape perfectly well with less. It is also impractical because you will never get four witnesses to a rape. A rapist will not want to carry out his crime in front of witnesses because the witnesses may try to stop him or they may call the police or they may testify against him in court. You will never get four witnesses to a rape, it will never happen.
By raising the evidential bar so high, islam is effectively legalising rape. According to islam, God says rape is ok (or at least a very minor offence).
In fact, islam goes even further because it says that you need either four male witnesses or eight female witnesses. Eight female witnesses to a rape? I would be surprised if that has ever happened in the entire history of the world. And who says that females are less trustworthy than males? There is absolutely no evidence to support this contention. If anything, females are MORE trustworthy than males since it is overwhelmingly males who commit crimes. Men are the criminal class.
Not many countries use full on sharia but some do and even those that don’t will admit that that is what sharia says. This four witnesses to a rape rule is current law in Pakistan so we are not talking about some abstract theological principle here but about something that actually exists in the real world. And if you fail to prove the charge of rape then it is assumed that you must have been adulturous.
The penalty for adultery under sharia is stoning to death. There are plenty of raped women around the world (in Nigeria, in Pakistan) who have been sent to jail for the crime of adultery because they didn’t have the requisite four witnesses to prove the rape.
I think that these cases usually get overturned by higher courts (in the face of international outcry) but it’s still an example of sharia in action. The women usually get exiled or something after a spell in prison. But their only crime was to have been raped.
Thus:
Islam says that you need four witnesses to prove a rape.
Islam is wrong because you can prove a rape with less evidence than that and, by insisting on this, islam is effectively legalising the act of rape.
ergo islam cannot come from God (because it contains a mistake and God doesn’t make mistakes).
The fact that islam insists on the inerrency of the quran is in fact a weakness IMO, because it means that all you have to do is show that it contains at least one mistake. If it contains one mistake then that means that it must all be wrong.
I do not quite understand the point you are tryingto make. I would like to remind you that the followers of Islam consider the Koran as the absolute word of Allah(God), eternal and unchanging with time. Since it is “absolute” it is not open to conflicting interpretations, because if it is considered as open to multiple interpretations, then it loses the quality of being “absolute”. Texts that are “absolute” have no room for nuances or “possible meanings”.
I am sorry but I still do not see how studying a culture at a particular time can be responsible for different interpretations of the Word of God. We are not talking of cultural or social values that possibly create differences about how we look at the ethics and moral values of a society at a particular instant in time. We are dealing with the Word of God itself, something that is eternal, and cannot be affected by time or nuances.
I agree…Yes, but ONLY if it is the word of a human that is influenced by culture. Not if it is the word of “God Himself” that is eternal, true and equally applicable at, and for, all time. The “Word of God” has necessarily to be **equally understood [ at ALL times. If you are trying to say that the Word of God at “THAT” time was applicable only in “THOSE” times and conditions, then by simple logic you expose the text to “pick-and-choose”. You deem it open for parts of it to be accepted and parts of it to be rejected(because they are applicable only at “THAT” time). That’s what I want to know. Is that what Islam is - “pick-and-choose”? And if it is, then does a Muslim have the freedom of rejecting EVERYTHING and still remain a Muslim!?
That indeed, is what a true Muslim is supposed to believe. The Koran, as per Islamic belief, is in fact a “copy” of the original “Book” that is with Allah. There is no possibility of questioning anything in it, if one is a follower of Islam.
You will find not one but several who do question the authenticity and divinity of the Koran. But you will not find many who are willing to go public with their doubts or express their views openly. The Koran has never been open to analytical or linguistic criticism. A Muslim who questions the validity of the Koran does it at the risk of forfeiting his religion. The first requirement of being a Muslim is the unquestioning acceptance that there is no other God except Allah, and that Muhammed is his messenger. The Koran is a narrative spoken, conveyed from God, word for word by the angel Gabriel to Muhammed. If you question the authenticity or divinity of the “Word of God”, by consequence you question the authenticity of Muhammed and if you question Muhammed as the Messenger, you cease to be a Muslim. Those who have tried questioning it have suffered nasty consequences.
In any case, my point is that after having read the Koran, I, like many many others, did not find it reasonable and logical enough to qualify it as the word of Allah(God). That impression has nothing to do with the history of Islam or anything else. Compared to the Koran the other scriptures like the Bible are considered as “inspired” by God. There is a vast difference between a text that is “inspired” by God and one that is God’s word itself. The former is ultimately a product of human hands and is therefore susceptible to error and question. The Koran, however does not belong in the same category because of its source.
[QUOTE]
I think you may be getting too hung up on this allegory business./QUOTE] That is overstating my stand. Please read the last paragraph of my earlier post(#44) to Alde.
I am afraid but that is NOT what I said. What I primarily said was that the text of the Koran is inconsistent, incongruent, irrational and contradictory in several paces and a divine text, IMHO, cannot be deficient and exhibit such imperfections. When I quoted the first couple of instances, from the many that are still in the pipeline, my dear friend Alde, used the concept of “allegory” to rationalize the irrational and to that I objected.
Sure God can do whatever He wants. But here we have a situation that can perhaps be described thus:
– A text exists that is “claimed” to be the word of God Himself.
– There is no undisputable proof or evidence to substantiate that claim.
– This text has several obvious and noticeable irrationalities.
There are now two choices.
Reject the claim of divinity and discard the text, because
a. It contradicts the fundamental concept that God’s word cannot be absurd.
b. The divinity is only a “claim” and has not been proven.
Find “hidden” meanings and other ways to explain the irrationalities so that the text becomes acceptable as divine.
Using Occam’s Razor, of choosing the simpler explanation, the obvious choice is (1), unless there are compelling reasons to choose (2). IMO, the only compelling reason for someone to choose (2) over (1) would be the predisposition that the text IS divine.
I do not recall such a verse. I would appreciate a quote if there is one.
[
Here is the verse from the Koran once again.
002.047
YUSUFALI: Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all other (for My Message).
PICKTHAL: O Children of Israel! Remember My favour wherewith I favoured you and how I preferred you to (all) creatures.
SHAKIR: O children of Israel! call to mind My favor which I bestowed on you and that I made you excel the nations.
Please also refer my earlier post(#30) where I have quoted from “Old Testament Deuteronomy: Chapter 7 - A Chosen People “.
I do not see how you conclude from the above, that Jews have been chosen to obey commandments.
In this thread I intend to restrict myself to the text of the Koran. To that end, I have not been allowed the opportunity to move beyond Sura2. I have no intention to involve myself in a larger discussion of the religion of Islam itself.
It is He who has revealed to you this book. Some of it’s verses are precise in meaning - they are the foundation of the Book - and others ambiguous. Those whose hearts are infected with disbelief follow the ambiguous part, so as to create dissension by seeking to explain it. But no one knows it’s meaning except God. Those who are well-grounded in knowledge say: “We believe in it: it is all from the Lord. But only the wise take heed”
I dunno. This is what I’ve been told by Jewish people and a google search appears to confirm it. For example, this page says::
If you say so. Although if God requires four witnesses to a rape then God is raising the evidential bar so high that he is ensuring that no one will ever be found guilty. This is effectively the same as saying that rape is not a serious offence.
Which part of what I said is “incorrect, unsubstantiated and unfounded”?
The idea that sharia requires four witnesses to a crime (or eight female witnesses)? I thought you said you knew a little about islam. With respect, it seems you don’t know much.
No it is not.
I’m not aware of it if the whole sira of ibn Ishak is available in an English translation, but never mind. Hisham has commented and modified the original but it is a good introduction and up to this day the most recommended. So that was a good choice.
You claim to have read 3500 of the traditions. I doubt that claim of yours but that is not important. What is important is to be able to understand what is talked about in each of them and to be able to place it in context and to be able to know if yes or no a hadith is in contradiction with the commands of Al Qur’an and if yes or no it can be taken as reliable or not.
Did you know that even Muslims are strongly warned not read and interprete the hadith at will?
(You find an explanation about how the hadith are to be taken on one of the other threads.)
I’m not familiar with the books of Armstrong, a former Christian nun who did no specific study on Islam but seems to have written about it, like she has written about other religions.
W. Muir belonged to the type of Orientalists “old style” whom let cricicism and dismissing overshadow independent study (mark that I don’t say everything he published is without merit or value). We are -lucky for the discipline- long past that stage.
Then you have read some publications of people who turned away from the religion they describe.
Especially these last two are not good readings to “understand the religion and its concepts” because they start from a prejudiced viewpoint to begin with.
What you have read in total does not qualify you at all to make the claim that you “understand the religion and its concepts”.
You did some reading and that makes you a bit more informed about the issue “Islam” then people who did not read about it.
Take if from me that you have no clue about “the religion and its concepts” or you would not debate every single explanation I give you and dismiss it as “impossible”.
You refuse to understand that a translation is what I said it is and no more then that. You even have no idea what it takes to translate a dead language, yet you argue that you know it all.
You come up with a “summary” that twists completely what I actually wrote because you neglect completely that to begin with I gave you more then one explanation on the verses you came up with.
You continue to expose prejudices and false conclusions you make about me because you happen to know that my religion is Islam.
My study and publications on this issue and other issues have nothing to do with my religion and everything with my study on them. You however clearly refuse to accept even the possibility that someone who is Muslim ever even undertakes an academic study related to Islam or has ever done this.
Why is that? You clearly are convinced that only Westerners or other people with no background in Islam can study and publish on Islam. Where does this arrogance comes from?
It is very clear to me that you started this discussion with in your mind nothing else then the thought that you could floor “ a Muslim”.
You wanted to do that with posting some quotes while not prepared at all to accept any other explanation then your own.
You did this specifically with the preconceived idea that “a Muslim” would “defend” everything because “ he is Muslim”.
Your prejudices and your preconceived mind make every discussion impossible.
I have no time nor do I have the intention or the patience to refute every time again every single assumption you make about me, my take on the issue, my education in the issue, the explanations I give you about the issue and that are founded in my education on the issue and not in my adherence to a religion.
You insult my intellect by questioning my education and in connection with that my ability to even come to my own independent conclusions.
May I ask on which planet you live?
Salaam. A
“incorrect, unsubstantiated and unfounded” because – I do not think there is any verse in the Koran that deals with rape. The sharia is a set of laws fabricated and drawn from other documents like the Hadiths, besides the Koran. Only what appears in the Koran is the word of Allah and so attributing everything in the Sharia to Allah is incorrect.
Thus to say that God requires 4 witnesses is wrong. It is only the Islamic law that requires that.
It seems you think I am trying to defend Islam. No I am not. I am only concerned with facts, not whether they are right or wrong. AFAIK the Sharia does not explicitly deal with rape. As a result the crime is treated under the clauses of zina, illegitimate fornication which also includes adultery. The requirements in the latter are for the accuser to produce 4 male witnesses. The usual equation that determines the value of the female witness as equal to half a male witness(which you perhaps used to tally up the figure of 8 female witnesses) is not applicable in the case of zina.
I should have remembered this earlier. Doesn’t Islam itself teach that the Quran should not be translated, but must be read in the original language? If this is the case, then it’s irrelevant that the Quran may be unclear without much study. It isn’t intended to be.
wisernow Hoo boy, did I have you wrong! I again aplogize.
Re Chosen People
Being a Jew ;j , I can tell you what many teachers and rabbis told me. The Jews were chosen (a folktale says that G-d went around asking every nation on earth if they would accept His laws. The Jews were actually the last nation He asked, but the only one to say yes. Another version of the same tale has the Jews saying yes only after G-d lifts a mountain into the air and holds it over their heads.) to be the first to receive His laws and prophets, and to introduce the rest of the world to monotheism (It can be argued that Zoroastrianism was the first monotheistic faith. Some argue that with Ohura Mazda on the side of good, and Ahri Manu on the side of evil, Zoroastrianism was duotheism.). Being Chosen does not make us somehow better or above everybody else.
That was a rather short reply to my l…o…n…g post. You disappoint me .
(Scrolling up to see if this ever was an issue. Doesn’t find any.)Agreed.
I have no absolutely no problems with that and I have no intentions of challenging you.
Isn’t that a little unfair? Especially when she has been an apologist for Islam. But anyways.
Let me assure you they have given extremely valid reasons for doing that.
You appear to dismiss anyone who dares criticize or analyse Islam as having a “prejudiced” point of view. Although when I ask you to give the reasons or examples that give you that impression, you do not do it.
Although I am tempted to ask “Why not?”, I will restrain myself because the purpose of my discussion here is NOT to understand the religion and its concepts.
I wish to repeat again that in this discussion I am concerned ONLY with the text of the Koran. Since everything else – (repeating very slowly stressing each consonant) e…v…e…r…y…t…h…i…n…g e…l…s…e came AFTER the revelations, AFTER the Koran, were even derived from it, how can knowing about what came AFTER the revelations help me know or learn more about the revelations as compared to reading and understanding the revelations themselves. I don’t know if it is a very correct analogy, but I can’t help the temptation. It is like those movies that come in sequels. How will watching “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” give me any advantage in understanding “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone” as compared to watching the latter itself? :smack: The religion was born first, the history followed. Why should I need to know anything else other than the Koran itself to understand the word of God, unless the Koran itself says somewhere that it is incomplete unless you read a later revelation not included in Part 1? Am I coming across Alde?
Ok Alde, tell me, what would you do if I were to ask you to tell me(not explain to me) what a particular verse of a Sura says? I would like you to note, that at this time, my request is limited to knowing what the verse “says” not what it “means”. Ok? So what would you do? Come on let me guess, and you tell me if I am wrong:
You will read the verse
You will construct the meaning in your mind
You will understand the literal meaning without applying any extra intellectual analysis.
You will convert the “literal” meaning into words of the language that I understand.
You will construct those words into coherent sentences.
You will speak(or write down) those sentences to me.
Am I right or wrong? Now, if that is what you would do then you would have followed a process called “translation”. And in fact, in our discussion so far, that is also what you have been doing quite often, only that on some occasions, *your * translations have been different from the ones quoted by me. AFAIK we have not had any serious differences in the “translations” per se. I think our discussion seemed to run into rough weather when you came up with, IMO, unfounded and fictitious “allegories” to explain away irrationalities.
Do you remember why I gave you the “summary” Alde? Let me help you recollect. And for this I will quote from my own post the lines just preceding the “summary”. The reason I gave the “summary” was because I wanted to know:
and then followed a quick recap of our posts. The purpose was to ask you where you found me expressing “pre-conceived” notions or ideas. To that end, what difference would it have made even if I had included your other explanations. I am sure your other explanations that you say I “neglect” do not contain my pre-conceived ideas.
(Handing a tissue to Alde). I am sorry Alde, but I did nothing of the sort. For your benefit, I will once again repeat here what I have maintained earlier. And please(see my folded hands here Alde? See them?) please read it this time. Copying and pasting from post #48 to Jojo
Alde - could you please respond?
What did I say that made you think I so? :rolleyes:
Wrong unless substantiated with evidence (passing another tissue) :rolleyes:
You are over reacting. Please read my “Quote” above. :rolleyes:
I have been asking you all along to provide those quotes of mine that give you that impression.
Where did I insult your education. Alde – if disagreeing and questioning your views and statements or arguing with you means insulting you then how can we make any progress. Are you asking me to shut up, do nothing but listen to you and accept everything you say, every explanation you try to give without so much as a murmur of disagreement?
I thought I lived on Earth, now I am not too sure.
This will be the islamic law that is considered to be integral to islam by all muslims. You’re right that the quran is the word of God but some of the hadith (the strong hadith) are considered to be just as much a part of islam as the quran. There are very few quran-only muslims in the world.
As far as muslims are concerned the sharia DOES come from God, like everything else in islam.
There are some verses in the quran which are taken to refer to rape (amongst other things) such as:
ie men must retain their chastity which obviously means that they can’t go around raping people.
And also:
This can be taken as referring to the oppression aspect of rape.
This doesn’t really address the point I made. Lets put aside the issue of the ratio of female witnesses to male and consider the idea of needing four witnesses at all.
Far as I’m aware the “official” position of islam is that four witnesses are needed to prove a rape. I think that some interpretations of sharia say that the four witnesses are not required if there is other evidence (eg DNA) but even these interpretations say that if there is no other evidence then we need to wheel out the four witnesses.
This is current law in Pakistan. I say that it is obviously wrong because you will never get four witnesses to a rape in reality. Also requiring four witnesses is unnecessary because three witnesses are just as good or even two or even one. A lot depends on the quality of the witnesses.
Suppose the woman has four witnesses but they are all her brothers - this may make you wonder about the quality of the witnesses. Now suppose the woman has only three witnesses but they are all independent people who happened to be standing nearby. In this case, it may be that the three independent witnesses are better than the four family witnesses.
Yet sharia would rule the testimony of the three witnesses as invalid simply because there aren’t enough of them.
If a rapist wants to avoid prosecution then all he has to do is wear a condom and not commit the rape in front of four witnesses - this shouldn’t be too hard. So islam gives a free ride to rapists.
I know that you are not defending islam. What I am saying is that my criticism is better than the ones you have been making. It’s more to the point, more practical. But if you think I’m wrong then by all means, carry on. Knock yourself out.
You would be surprized that many people are open to argue about particular lines they find questionable. Not “questionable” as in: not belonging to the Message of God as they see Al Qur’an, but questionable in how they are interpreted/exploited to come to certain rules in Islam ( and from which many are in my view in clear contradiction with the commands).
There are a lot of flaws in how Islam is practiced and which developed over time.
As for your comment on witnesses and crimes and your suggestion that DNA proof should not be valid…
This largely depends on the country and the laws school it follows and even on the region within countries and the qadi handling the case. Further the influence of shari’a on jurisdiction depends on the (restrictive influence) of the country’s secular laws.
The first can certainly be said about certain nations or certain regional influences in a nation where rape is considered to be adultery no matter what and the victim actually gets the blame no matter how you turn it.
This has no foundation in Al Qur’an or even in Islamic teachings in general. So God has noting to do with these twists of what should be Divine Law.
Indeed. Yet this does not mean that the rest of the Islamic world –especially the scholars in the Islamic world – agree with this situation.
Not so. It depends under which system (=on where you are, see above) and flogging is the penalty described in AQ, not stoning (sura XXIV; 2)
There is a whole history about the so called “stoning ahadith” but the fact is that there are only a few of them and they occur as single, inconsistent records who even have conflicting reports in their story (as such they should not receive any form of authority ever).
There are even the well known traditions about the so called “stoning verses” that are said - by some - to have been omitted on purpose by Muhammed himself from Al Qur’an. These are in my view good for having endless debates about who had interest in transmitting such stories, yet not good for having discussions intended to take them serious.
Other then you might believe there is a lot of discussion about Islamic punishment for adultery (and other crimes) when the society itself no longer fits into the earlier Islamic standards (marriage was easy, religion and following its commands was a normal fact of life ) but is replaced with a society that came under the influence of outside, non-Islamic cultures (provoking unlawful sexuality) and where even getting married has become difficult because of economical situations. You can discuss endlessly about aspects of Islamic law and how and when and why or why not etc… It is not such clear-cut extremely a simple matter as you seem to look at it J
Your quote of III; 7 does not refer to allegory but to the difference between precise and ambiguity.
The mentioning of “precise” is explained as an encouragement to be precise in the interpretation of the verses who describe the rites, the prescriptions and laws of Islam.
Ambiguity refers to verses who by analogy or ambiguity give a place at uncertain or imprecise interpretations. This can refer to the different readings of AQ that are permitted (it is said seven reading were allowed by Muhammed) or the letters who appear at the beginning of certain suras or even to the abrogation by one verse by an other.
Then follows ”those who lean in their hearts towards seeking for the wrong, follow in their strive for temptation and in their seeking of explanation that part which has more then one meaning”.
“dissention” in your translation (if I understand this word well enough as meaning: seeking to cause disagreement) I would replace with “controversion”.
you think that flogging, and not stoning, is the correct punishment for adultery?
You mentioned that there is much discussion on the issue of the correct punishment for adultery but can I take it then that none of this discussion touches on the idea that there should be no governmental interference in personal relationships?
That is, that it is not the place of government to regulate people’s love lives?
Islam accepts that adultery needs to be punished, it’s just not quite decided on the correct punishment. Whether it should be flogging or stoning or imprisonment is a moot point, but something needs to be done on an official governmental level - is this your position?
That’s fine. But that does not dilute this:
Quote:
For you are a people holy to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on earth to be his people, his treasured possession.
I think we tend to stray away from the point that you were trying to make. In your earlier post you said:
Quote:
Although if God requires four witnesses to a rape then God is raising the evidential bar etc etc…
It is quite possible that Islamic law may require witnesses to rape. My purpose was to point out that it is NOT God that requires witnesses to rape. There is substantial difference in the two statements.
That is not correct. It is only the Koran that they consider from God. Since the sharia is to an extent is based on the Koran, one may accept that those parts of it that are connected to the Koran by extension, come from God. However it would be be wrong to say that the entire Sharia comes from God.
I am afraid I do not see anything in the verses that is any way refer to rape. They are general admonishments for preservation of chastity and prohibiting adultery and nothing more.
Once again I would like to clarify that my purpose of discussion with Aldebaran was to get some idea of the problems with the Koran and nothing more. I do not intend to be drawn into a larger discussion about what is wrong with Islam, or the Islamic laws. All religions have problems, some more, some less. On a comparative level perhaps Islam has more.
[quote=Jojo[/quote]
you think that flogging, and not stoning, is the correct punishment for adultery?
Sorry? What is the reason behind your projection of what I write here onto me personally?
I gave you what is described in AQ. If that is implemented depends on the factors I talked about earlier, and if I recall well also in other threads.
In most nations where Islam is the State religion there is an influence of the shari’a on the nation’s laws. To which extend depends largely on the nation and on the stipulations made on this particular issue in the nation’s constitution.
Do you live in a nation where what you call “people’s love life” is not regulated by law = where that is not an aspect of governing in general?
There are no laws regulating things like marriage, rape, adultery, incest, etc… where you live?
Sorry?
Where do you get the weird idea that in Islamic nations it is the role of governments to gather whenever a criminal investigation is made or to act as prosecutors and judges?
Sorry, but I have to ask you also… On which planet do you live?
Salaam. A
You do not believe that it can be the word of God.
That is no problem to me and your good right.
Where is the possibility for discussion?
You do not see how someone who is educated in the issue can have more insight in the issue then you do.
Since you have made up your mind about this and about not accepting any explanation of the text in question other then your “this can not come from God”: Where is the possibility for a discussion?
You clamp to the idea that “a Muslim” shall do “anything” to “defend the text as being divine”. For this reason you hold on to point 2 as reason for not accepting no matter which explanation I give you on the texts you come up with.
Since you have made up your mind about this as you have made your mind about the rest: Where is the possibility for a discussion?
You have no intention of discussing anything but your own perceptions of a text you have no other access to then via some translations. Which you also defend as “accepted worldwide” and being THE translation able to translate litteraly Quranic Arabic. While every normal thinking person knows no such thing is possible for any text. Let be when written in a dead language and in poetry at that. You do not even want to accept what I told you about this single issue.
All you want to do is quote some translated AQ verses and tell the world “this can not be coming from God” because… And then state your reasons, excluding on forehand every furhter information you receive on explaining what is acutally behind the words you just came to give your comment on.
Fine. No problem.
No discussion possible either.
You can post here the whole Qur’an translation you have, but with your mindset this can serve no other purpose then quoting your AQ translation and telling “this can not be coming from God”.
OK. The SDMB membership and those who come here for reading-only know that now. Thank you for sharing this. You are not alone in this.
That would perhaps help.
I agree with what you have said that AQ was the starting point of Islam. History of Islam can pertain primarily to the period only after that. My point is that to understand the start(the Koranic text), why do I need to know what happened after the start(history of Islam).
.