MoonlightSonata said:
I'm sure that had the Quran been written in moonlight's intellectual tradition (enlightenment rationalism), in scientific bits and codes he, along with billions of people would not have understood a word of it today, since scientific discovery (and hence its reasoning) is in constant flux. The point is, it was recited simplisitically for a purpose. Perhaps in a few centuries there will be other scientific discoveries which completely dismantle current traditions of rationalism, and even then, you would still be able to read it.
Besides, the english translation of the arabic verse can have different connotations in each language. This is a postmodernist theory: meaning is not universal hence it will be received differently in context.
That's why no matter what we post here, it will always be read according to the context. It is rather encouraged that people read the arabic, but since that is not possible, we try to do our best.
I'm sure also, he would have rolled his eyes even if it said the opposite "let the man be congratulated for his victory over the female".
But i'm more than proud of the original, at the power given to females.
Justice is justice, even if it isn't an eye for an eye. Can you imagine if it had said "take the man to the court of law, read him his rights of silence, a lawyer, anything they say or do will be used against him, and in the court he shall be qeustioned according to the western ideologies and principles which will be developed later in the 17th century by theorists such as Kant, Bentham, Rosseau, which itself will be later called to question by the theories of Foucault who will say that power is given to a minority and not with the people and then that itself will be questioned later by 21st century " etc ??
Point is, anything created by humans is not universal, such as law, hence why westerners think others are so "barbaric", when these "barbarian" s' philosphical developments have been denied to them for centuries.