Al Qur'an

[Fictionist]

It's already based on perosnal interpretation (albiet with some people following specific schools of interpretation) - there is no central vatican decreeing orthodoxy, but a multiplicity of competing views. That's why these repeated calls for an reformation of Islam, directly comparable to that of the christian church 500 years ago are based on a fundamental and unhelpful misunderstanding. Not to mention that idea that this reformation would automatically equal modernisation (on what model? In evangelical hard-line protestantism? Hindu-chauvanism?)

The history of Islam over the last 150 years is again, alreadyone of modernisation - of competing models of dealing with, controling or incorporporating modernisation in line with the interests of various groups. Read up on it - you might be suprised.

When you begin with "It's already based on personal interpretation" it is unclear to what you refer - the Qur'an, the ahadith, the tafsir, and then you mention "specific schools of interpretation".

You then appear to be drawing a structural comparison between the institutions of Christianity (citing the Vatican) and the fact that there does not appear to be comparative or similar functioning mechanisms of authority within Islam.

You go on to mention that there have been repeated calls for modernisation in respect of Islam, but you do not identify who is making such claims - within or without Islam - or the contextual framework against which any such calls might be made (and why).

Finally you state that the history of Islam in the last 150 years is one "of modernisation".

Taken as a whole I can't really identify the point that you might be making, hence my continuing confusion.

 

[Frankie Jack]

Fairy Nuff, she say: OK!



But that would be anarchy!



Personally, I feel that all religious texts should be consigned to the history bin.

At the very least, I feel that no-one should practice religion until they've read all of them... on the basis that there's no more efficient practice for producing atheists than the study of comparative religion. And that I can write faster than some people can read, if the need arises to postpone their practice

If by some bizarre freak of circumstances I were forced to choose one monotheism, I'd go for Islam on purely professional grounds: the Prophet (formula) was a damn fine editor - took that huge, rambling set of mostly-unreadable books and made them short and beautiful. [E2A for the hard-of-thinking or sectarian: this is a joke.]

People should, however, ideally read, er, the universe and draw conclusions about compassion, love, peace and co-operation for themselves.

Good post.

 

[butchersapron]

When you begin with "It's already based on personal interpretation" it is unclear to what you refer - the Qur'an, the ahadith, the tafsir, and then you mention "specific schools of interpretation".

You then appear to be drawing a structural comparison between the institutions of Christianity (citing the Vatican) and the fact that there does not appear to be comparative or similar functioning mechanisms of authority within Islam.

You go on to mention that there have been repeated calls for modernisation in respect of Islam, but you do not identify who is making such claims - within or without Islam - or the contextual framework against which any such calls might be made (and why).

Finally you state that the history of Islam in the last 150 years is one "of modernisation".

Taken as a whole I can't really identify the point that you might be making, hence my continuing confusion.

Yeah, what bit exactly are you struggling with?

It's means the 'Islam' in gmarthews post, his idea of Islam as an analogue of rmedivel christianity.

Yes, i was drawing "a structural comparison between the institutions of Christianity (citing the Vatican) and the fact that there does not appear to be comparative or similar functioning mechanisms of authority within Islam."

thanks for reminding me.

I didn't mention "calls for modernisation" at all as that was not my point. I said that the history of the last 150 yearsof Islam has been the attempt to control or manage the meeting with modernisation in order to fit with certain interests.

I don't care if you disagree with me, just get what i'm saying right you lazy fucker.

 

[butchersapron]

Congrats on your 2:2 btw

 

[adc069975]

Some might argue that the traditionally inclined tafsir are themselves an attempt to make sense of an often obscure text, offering an inherently biased (and often quite imaginative) framework of meaning.

Yes, that's what they were in the first place. But they made far more competing claims even in the first century or so, but certainly than in the centuries [1400 onwards]

 

[Fictionist]

Yeah, what bit exactly are you struggling with?

It's means the 'Islam' in gmarthews post, his idea of Islam as an analogue of rmedivel christianity.

Yes, i was drawing "a structural comparison between the institutions of Christianity (citing the Vatican) and the fact that there does not appear to be comparative or similar functioning mechanisms of authority within Islam."

thanks for reminding me.

I didn't mention "calls for modernisation" at all as that was not my point. I said that the history of the last 150 yearsof Islam has been the attempt to control or manage the meeting with modernisation in order to fit with certain interests.

I don't care if you disagree with me, just get what i'm saying right you lazy fucker.

I can't understand why you are being so obnoxious and so confident in the obvious value or coherence of what you wrote - but I'll let that rest for the moment. I would like to ask, however, why you chose the particular figure of 150 years?

 

[butchersapron]

It was a handy figure - it can go up or down depending on your agument. You can even ignore it. In favour of pointing elsewhere to distract from the lack of engagement with the main points.

 

[Fictionist]

It was a handy figure - it can go up or down depending on your agument. You can even ignore it. In favour of pointing elsewhere to distract from the lack of engagement with the main points.

So what is your point? Do you have a coherent argument to present regarding Islam or are you going to continue being rude for no apparent reason?

And who has a 2:2??

 

[butchersapron]

That Islam is already based on personal interpretation. That Islams recent history is one of being part of modernisation. And that modernisation doesn't always equal good - it's not a neutral term.

 

[Aldebaran]

Just saw this. Have to leave now I will explain tomorrow.

salaam.

 

[butchersapron]

No you won't.

 

[Fictionist]

Aldebaran and Butchersapron on a thread together.......this looks promising...if only for the entertainment.

 

[Aldebaran]

So there I was just leafing thru the Al Qur'an as you do on a Sun morning and I came across this quote:



This is from this source. So I have no idea if it is a 'true' translation from the original. But the thing about it is that it seems to support the idea of owning slaves.

Is this a belief which all Muslims share? And if not does this mean that they believe in a modern, personal interpretation of the Qur'an?

It would seem that a literal belief in the text as written by Allah and therefore unable to be improved by Man would force the believer into a position of justifying slavery, which in the modern world might go down as 'dodgy'.

It was reality of the time that slavery was part of society. Emancipation of slaves is one of the most recommended actions to take and you will find reference to it frequently in Al Qur'an.

This verse is in fact one of those: marriage as cause and method to free a slave.
What you did not quote (as usual, we get a partial quote, twisting the whole meaning) is that she must be a believer, she must agree on the marriage, her family must agree, she must be given dowry just like any other woman and if you are married to her and she goes in the wrong (it is described as “a dead of horror”) the punishment is only half of what it would be if you had married a woman who was not a slave previously to the marriage.
The marriage makes of her a free woman, you can't get married or be married to a slave.

More pertinently one might ask how and if this attitude is going to be modernised. Can Islam be modernised? Is this need for personal interpretation analogous to the protestant reformation where Luther pointed out similar dodgy stuff in the bible?

There is no "modernisation" needed to understand what this verse is about and slavery is abolished long ago.

With the advent of reading for the population as a whole it would seem logical that the faithful would want to read the text of their scriptures. How is Islam going to deal with improved literacy in Arabic countries. Or is there room for personal interpretation already? Are literacy levels important for a society or is it better to keep the population illiterate?

People hear Al Qur'an recited since the advent of Islam. Recitement always was ans still is the most recommended way to approach the text.
Muslims not only gather in mosques to pray, it is always a center of discussion and of inquiry with the Imam.
Islam is in fact a very "personal religion" in the sense that everyone makes up their mind about what they find in Al Qur'an, but every practicing Muslim would seek scholarly guidance in case of doubt if he he a correct interpreation of what concerns him at a given moment. Literacy has nothing to do with this and your "suggestion" that people would be kept illiterate to prevent them to read Al Qur'an is, to say it lightly, very weird. The more people read Al Qur'an themselves, the more people come in contact with the Word of God. Logical, no? Should be easy to understand. Notwithstanding the instruction that studying is better than praying.

salaam.

 

[spawnofsatan]

"There is no "modernisation" needed to understand what this verse is about and slavery is abolished long ago."

About 1960 in Saudi IIRC, so not that long ago at all.

 

[Fictionist]

It was reality of the time that slavery was part of society. Emancipation of slaves is one of the most recommended actions to take and you will find reference to it frequently in Al Qur'an.

This verse is in fact one of those: marriage as cause and method to free a slave.
What you did not quote (as usual, we get a partial quote, twisting the whole meaning) is that she must be a believer, she must agree on the marriage, her family must agree, she must be given dowry just like any other woman and if you are married to her and she goes in the wrong (it is described as “a dead of horror”) the punishment is only half of what it would be if you had married a woman who was not a slave previously to the marriage.
The marriage makes of her a free woman, you can't get married or be married to a slave.



There is no "modernisation" needed to understand what this verse is about and slavery is abolished long ago.



People hear Al Qur'an recited since the advent of Islam. Recitement always was ans still is the most recommended way to approach the text.
Muslims not only gather in mosques to pray, it is always a center of discussion and of inquiry with the Imam.
Islam is in fact a very "personal religion" in the sense that everyone makes up their mind about what they find in Al Qur'an, but every practicing Muslim would seek scholarly guidance in case of doubt if he he a correct interpreation of what concerns him at a given moment. Literacy has nothing to do with this and your "suggestion" that people would be kept illiterate to prevent them to read Al Qur'an is, to say it lightly, very weird. The more people read Al Qur'an themselves, the more people come in contact with the Word of God. Logical, no? Should be easy to understand. Notwithstanding the instruction that studying is better than praying.

salaam.

 

[jimadore]

The koran The book , the holy book of Islam was scribed by a christain monk, who was killed after he finish it and body throw down a dry well.

 

[laptop]

The koran The book , the holy book of Islam was scribed by a christain monk, who was killed after he finish it and body throw down a dry well.

And you're a lizerd

 

[FridgeMagnet]

What is this bullshit?

 

[jimadore]

Who was the prophet a very hansome man ,who married a very rich old widow, of medina and become a warlord or king ?converts were by the sword belive in allah or die. was he holy ? he brought the arab countries peace by the sword ,he was a great warrior.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

What is this bullshit?

again

 

[jimadore]

Not shit the TRUTH !!!!

 

[laptop]

How did this one slip under the radar?


Should we keep it and play with it for a little while?

 

[jimadore]

Will come back with more truth, about The koran and the war lord. SOON !!!!

 

[laptop]

Nah, let's not.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

this jimadore type has been sharing some 'interesting' facts on other threads i note.

 

[laptop]

"gardening criminal"

 

[scooter]

I believe that he's referring to the fact that about 30 of the suras have mysterious letters at the beginning. Nobody knows what these letters mean. There have been are many theories advanced over the years, one of these theories is that the koran was actually inscribed by Jewish rabbis (not christian monks) who were forced to do it.

The theory goes that Jewish rabbis were highly skilled at inscribing religious books unlike the early muslims who would have no experience of such things at the time. In Judaism, it's not a proper Torah unless it's been written by hand. This is true even today and there are still rabbis who are expert at doing it.

Thus far, the theory is plausible. However it goes on to say that one group of letters, which gets repeated a few times, could be the initials of "we do not believe" in ancient hebrew. Which is starting to stretch things a bit. I mean, don't you think the early muslims might have noticed that the rabbis were adding in extra letters other than what they were dictating.

Who was the prophet a very hansome man ,who married a very rich old widow, of medina and become a warlord or king ?converts were by the sword belive in allah or die. was he holy ? he brought the arab countries peace by the sword ,he was a great warrior.

She wasn't all that old, only 40. It's true that by the end of his life he was the de facto ruler of Arabia. But the expansionism happened after Mohammed's time.

 

[jimadore]

Hi hello again, more truth about the koran, some history first, Abur Bekr had the collection of first storys that is the koran The jews did not write it you are wrong. There have been many copys made but at later dates' Zaid lbn thabit a man from medina had the collection given him by one of the prophet widows Haphas, it took ten years to complete the basic book ,The main scribe was a Christian monk from nr abyssinia , killed and throw down a dry well, but many others parts were added much later by others!!! much more to follow.

 

[DotCommunist]

The koran The book , the holy book of Islam was scribed by a christain monk, who was killed after he finish it and body throw down a dry well.

I had suspected you of borderline lunacy already, but guess what? You're over the Rio my friend! Into the golden land of opportunity called Bonkers.

 

[embree]

Hi hello again, more truth about the koran, some history first, Abur Bekr had the collection of first storys that is the koran The jews did not write it you are wrong. There have been many copys made but at later dates' Zaid lbn thabit a man from medina had the collection given him by one of the prophet widows Haphas, it took ten years to complete the basic book ,The main scribe was a Christian monk from nr abyssinia , killed and throw down a dry well, but many others parts were added much later by others!!! much more to follow.

sir, I would like to subscribe to your newsletter

any source for this btw?