Even if they were subconciously trying to do that, it wouldn't work because as I said, there is a strict established procedure with regards to quranic interpretation......and their work will not be accepted if it does not stick to that procudure.......plus, when a scholar interprets something, other scholars check it to make sure they've interpreted it properly.withoutaface said:
Western Muslims' Racist Rape Spree (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter CSI: CRIMES ™
- Start date
- Status
withoutaface
Premium Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 15,098
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
Who established the interpretation proceedure in the first place?
Why did God not make the Qua'ran so explicit that it would be plain to even the simplest of men? This would seem the logical thing to do if he wanted his word to be followed to the letter.
Why did God not make the Qua'ran so explicit that it would be plain to even the simplest of men? This would seem the logical thing to do if he wanted his word to be followed to the letter.
get_born
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2004
- Messages
- 735
lol - (the judge that fell asleep during a rape case.)I really felt bad for the girl - but anyhow, the judge was sacked or something after that. This is also the case with many others in power. When there isa sign of corruption and so on, other parts of society look into it and deal with it. I would hate to think that all judges interpret the law the wrong way all the time. The same goes for some of the Islamic leaders in the community, especially those who can't speak english properly. It is very easy to misunderstand and misinterpret. But most of the community can pick out these type of people, and when they do a better person come out and speaks up.Not-That-Bright said:
God did, through the prophet (s)withoutaface said:
I'm not exactly sure, I can only guess.....but I think there would be a variety of reasons including the intended timelessness and universality of the quran. Anyway, even if he had made it that plain, I'm pretty sure there would still be misinterpretations.withoutaface said:
SashatheMan
StudyforEver
i also rtead that killing disbelievers is good. so god contradicts himself.
thats absurd. What your saying osama really is a christian, and before he declared war on american he sais " wow lets make the muslims look bad, ill say i am muslim and relate my terrorsit acts to them"..... thats stupid to say, obviously he is muslim.
maybe your not really a muslim?
not alot of things are able convice a person to take their own life and harm innocent people in the act, some really good brainwashing is required. When the teachings of islam obviously trigger them to kill, it does not become a minor thing, but a major problem. i said islam was a trigger for these type of people, i never said it was a gently trigger, alot of crap has to be fed to these people before they decide to kill. but in the end islam is responsible for theri actions.
it does.
it tells people that disbelievers have to be persecuted , and killed to protect islam. now if you think thats not a major conrtibuter then, you obviously try to blank out all the verses in the quran that state such things about disbelivers
SashatheMan
StudyforEver
god should have made an "idiots guide to islam" . so everything is properly explained and people couldnt interpret it 100 differnt ways.sly fly said:
insert-username
Wandering the Lacuna
One for Christianity wouldn't go astray either.SashatheMan said:
I_F
No, He doesn't contradict himself.....when these verses are interpreted in the way that they're meant to be, you find that there are no contradictions.SashatheMan said:
It isn't absurd. It's a possibility. I didn't say Osama is really a Christian, I suggested that he, and other terrorists who claim to be muslim may not be Muslim. Making Muslims look bad was just a reason that popped into my head, there are lots of reasons they could be doing it. Maybe it's easier to get away with what they're doing by claiming they're Muslim, maybe they're athiests who are slowly trying to rid the world of religion one by one, maybe the head terrorist lost a best and now he has to kill a million people, I don't know.SashatheMan said:
All I'm saying is, think outside the square.Maybe I'm notSashatheMan said:
Ok you're right, in that sense, a trigger can be a major contributor.SashatheMan said:
No, Islam isn't responsible for their actions, they are because they were stupid enough to interpret the quran themselves. Like I've said before, the quran isn't supposed to be interpreted by ordinary people, it's way too complex and a thorough understanding of Islamic history and the Arabic language are required.SashatheMan said:
It doesn'tSashatheMan said:
No it doesn't tell people that disbelievers have to be killed. I don't know how many times I have to say it but it is INTERPRETED WRONGLY. It's not about blanking them out. You know, in the quran there are only 7 verses in the first chapter (so like not even a page) and one scholar published the interpretation of these 7 verses (and when scholars publish interpretations, they have to explain every single step in the interpretations, it's ramifications, it's meaning etc). You know how long it took him to interpret only 7 verses? 7 books/volumes (or maybe 10? I can't really remember) and each book was like 500pages thick. That's how much depth quranic interpretation requires, ordinary people like us can't do it. I mean it wasn't exactly necessary for him to write 3500pages but you get the drift of what I'm saying. That's why when we say that verses have been interpreted wrongly, it's not just a minor thing, so much depth and knowledge is required for interpreting verses.
Last edited:
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
What the hell is the purpose of the book if what you really follow is a specific interpretation? you should just write down the exact interpretation and be done with the book.
Sashatheman, let me give you a small taste of the way quranic verses are interpreted. This is in regards to 5:51 which somebody posted earlier:
In chapter 5, verse 51 of the Quran it says, according to the most common English translations,
O, you who believe [in the message of Muhammad], do not take Jews and Christians as awliya’. They are awliya’ to one another, and the one among you who turns to them is of them.
Truly, God does not guide wrongdoing folk.
The word awliya’ (sing. “wali”), which we left above in the original Arabic, has been commonly translated into English as “friends.” Given this translation, the verse appears to be a very clear statement opposing “normative” or “kindly relations” between Muslims and Jews and Christians, however, when we look at the traditional Quranic commentaries of Medieval times, which discuss the events surrounding the revelation of this verse, the modern translation becomes suspect.
Put within its proper historical context, the word awliya’ here does not mean “friends” at all. While it is true that one of the meanings of awliya’ is “friends,” it also has additional meanings such as “guardians,” “protectors” and even “legal guardians.” Interestingly enough, we find that when we consult the traditional commentaries on the Quran we are told that this verse was revealed at a particularly delicate moment in the life of the early Muslim community, and here it is necessary to explain, to a certain extent, what was the existential situation of the Muslims at this time in Arabia so as to situate verse 5:51 within its proper circumstances.
Before 5:51 was revealed, the Prophet of Islam and the Muslims had only recently migrated as a community from Makkah to Medina, some 400 km to the north. They had done so, according to Islamic histories, due to the persecution to which they were subjected at the hands of their fellow tribesmen and relatives in Makkah. Most Makkans worshipped various idols as “gods” and feared the rise of interest in the message of Muhammad within the city, even though Muhammad was himself a son of Makkah. The
Makkans feared the growing presence of the Muslims because the Muslims claimed that there was only one true God, who had no physical image, and who required of men: virtue, generosity and fair and kind treatment of the weaker members of society. This simple message, in fact, threatened to overturn the social order of Makkah, based as it was upon the worship of multiple gods and the privilege of the strong and the wealthy. It also threatened to disrupt the economic benefits of this privilege, the annual pilgrimage season when people from all over the Arabian peninsula would come to worship the many idols/gods at the Ka`bah—a cubical structure which the Quran claims was originally built by Abraham and his son, Ishmael, as a temple to the one God, before the decadence of religion in Arabia.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[2]<!--[endif]-->
The message of Islam threatened to replace the social and economic system of Makkan polytheism, with the worship of the one God, Who—as in the stories of the Old Testament—would not allow that others be worshipped alongside Him. In this difficult environment the Prophet of Islam preached peacefully his message of monotheism and virtue, but he and his small band of followers were eventually driven from the city by torture, threats of assassination and various other forms of humiliation and abuse. The Muslims then migrated to the city of Medina where the Prophet had been invited to come and live in safety with his followers and where the main Arab tribes of the city had willingly accepted his message.
According to the commentary tradition in Islam, it was not long after this migration to Medina that verse 5:51 was revealed. Specifically, we are told that this verse came down around the time of the battle of Badr (2 A.H. / 623 A.D.) or perhaps after the battle of Uhud (3 A.H. / 625 A.D.). In these early days, even though the Muslim community constituted no more than perhaps a few hundred people and had already left the city of Makkah, yet the Makkans continued to confront them militarily, and these two early battles, as well as others, were crucial events in the history of the early Islamic community.
Militarily, the Makkans were a far more powerful force than the Muslims, and in addition, the Makkans had allies throughout Arabia. Given the small numbers of the Muslims, the Prophet and his fledgling community faced the real possibility of utter annihilation should they lose any of these early conflicts. Within this highly charged environment some members of the Muslim community wanted to make individual alliances with other non-Muslim tribes in the region. Within the city of Medina there were Jewish tribes who constituted a powerful presence in the town and who were on good terms with the Makkans, and to the north of the city there were also numerous Christian Arab tribes. Some Muslims saw the possibility of taking alliances with one or more of these groups as a way of guaranteeing their own survival should the Makkan armies ultimately triumph. This was the stark reality of Arabia at that time, that it was only through the protection of one’s tribe or one’s alliances with other tribes or clans that one’s own individual security was insured.
From the perspective of Islam, however, the Prophet realized that a young community, faced with great peril, could not allow such “dissension” in the ranks of the faithful as would be created by various individuals taking bonds of loyalty with other groups not committed to the Islamic message. Indeed, from the Islamic point of view such actions, had they been allowed, would have been a kind of communal suicide that would have seriously undermined Muslim unity, broken the morale of the community and perhaps caused the many individuals taking such alliances to lack fortitude in the face of the clear and present danger of the Makkan armies and their allies.
Keeping all these historical issues in mind, it becomes obvious that the translation of awliya’ as “friends” is wrong and that it should be rendered as “protectors” or “guardians” in the strict military sense of these terms. The verse should be read as, “Do not take Christians and Jews as your protectors. They are protectors to one another....” This is the message of the verse, and the appropriateness of this understanding is supported not only by the historical context for its revelation but also by the fact that nowhere does the Quran oppose simple kindness between peoples, as is clear from other Quranic verses such as,
God does not forbid that you should deal kindly and justly with those who do not fight you for the sake of [your] religion or drive you out of your homes. Truly, God loves those
who are just. [60:8]
and
The good deed and the evil deed are not equal. Repel [the evil deed] with one that is better. Then truly the one, between you and he is enmity, shall become as a bosom friend. [41:34]
In chapter 5, verse 51 of the Quran it says, according to the most common English translations,
O, you who believe [in the message of Muhammad], do not take Jews and Christians as awliya’. They are awliya’ to one another, and the one among you who turns to them is of them.
Truly, God does not guide wrongdoing folk.
The word awliya’ (sing. “wali”), which we left above in the original Arabic, has been commonly translated into English as “friends.” Given this translation, the verse appears to be a very clear statement opposing “normative” or “kindly relations” between Muslims and Jews and Christians, however, when we look at the traditional Quranic commentaries of Medieval times, which discuss the events surrounding the revelation of this verse, the modern translation becomes suspect.
Put within its proper historical context, the word awliya’ here does not mean “friends” at all. While it is true that one of the meanings of awliya’ is “friends,” it also has additional meanings such as “guardians,” “protectors” and even “legal guardians.” Interestingly enough, we find that when we consult the traditional commentaries on the Quran we are told that this verse was revealed at a particularly delicate moment in the life of the early Muslim community, and here it is necessary to explain, to a certain extent, what was the existential situation of the Muslims at this time in Arabia so as to situate verse 5:51 within its proper circumstances.
Before 5:51 was revealed, the Prophet of Islam and the Muslims had only recently migrated as a community from Makkah to Medina, some 400 km to the north. They had done so, according to Islamic histories, due to the persecution to which they were subjected at the hands of their fellow tribesmen and relatives in Makkah. Most Makkans worshipped various idols as “gods” and feared the rise of interest in the message of Muhammad within the city, even though Muhammad was himself a son of Makkah. The
Makkans feared the growing presence of the Muslims because the Muslims claimed that there was only one true God, who had no physical image, and who required of men: virtue, generosity and fair and kind treatment of the weaker members of society. This simple message, in fact, threatened to overturn the social order of Makkah, based as it was upon the worship of multiple gods and the privilege of the strong and the wealthy. It also threatened to disrupt the economic benefits of this privilege, the annual pilgrimage season when people from all over the Arabian peninsula would come to worship the many idols/gods at the Ka`bah—a cubical structure which the Quran claims was originally built by Abraham and his son, Ishmael, as a temple to the one God, before the decadence of religion in Arabia.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[2]<!--[endif]-->
The message of Islam threatened to replace the social and economic system of Makkan polytheism, with the worship of the one God, Who—as in the stories of the Old Testament—would not allow that others be worshipped alongside Him. In this difficult environment the Prophet of Islam preached peacefully his message of monotheism and virtue, but he and his small band of followers were eventually driven from the city by torture, threats of assassination and various other forms of humiliation and abuse. The Muslims then migrated to the city of Medina where the Prophet had been invited to come and live in safety with his followers and where the main Arab tribes of the city had willingly accepted his message.
According to the commentary tradition in Islam, it was not long after this migration to Medina that verse 5:51 was revealed. Specifically, we are told that this verse came down around the time of the battle of Badr (2 A.H. / 623 A.D.) or perhaps after the battle of Uhud (3 A.H. / 625 A.D.). In these early days, even though the Muslim community constituted no more than perhaps a few hundred people and had already left the city of Makkah, yet the Makkans continued to confront them militarily, and these two early battles, as well as others, were crucial events in the history of the early Islamic community.
Militarily, the Makkans were a far more powerful force than the Muslims, and in addition, the Makkans had allies throughout Arabia. Given the small numbers of the Muslims, the Prophet and his fledgling community faced the real possibility of utter annihilation should they lose any of these early conflicts. Within this highly charged environment some members of the Muslim community wanted to make individual alliances with other non-Muslim tribes in the region. Within the city of Medina there were Jewish tribes who constituted a powerful presence in the town and who were on good terms with the Makkans, and to the north of the city there were also numerous Christian Arab tribes. Some Muslims saw the possibility of taking alliances with one or more of these groups as a way of guaranteeing their own survival should the Makkan armies ultimately triumph. This was the stark reality of Arabia at that time, that it was only through the protection of one’s tribe or one’s alliances with other tribes or clans that one’s own individual security was insured.
From the perspective of Islam, however, the Prophet realized that a young community, faced with great peril, could not allow such “dissension” in the ranks of the faithful as would be created by various individuals taking bonds of loyalty with other groups not committed to the Islamic message. Indeed, from the Islamic point of view such actions, had they been allowed, would have been a kind of communal suicide that would have seriously undermined Muslim unity, broken the morale of the community and perhaps caused the many individuals taking such alliances to lack fortitude in the face of the clear and present danger of the Makkan armies and their allies.
Keeping all these historical issues in mind, it becomes obvious that the translation of awliya’ as “friends” is wrong and that it should be rendered as “protectors” or “guardians” in the strict military sense of these terms. The verse should be read as, “Do not take Christians and Jews as your protectors. They are protectors to one another....” This is the message of the verse, and the appropriateness of this understanding is supported not only by the historical context for its revelation but also by the fact that nowhere does the Quran oppose simple kindness between peoples, as is clear from other Quranic verses such as,
God does not forbid that you should deal kindly and justly with those who do not fight you for the sake of [your] religion or drive you out of your homes. Truly, God loves those
who are just. [60:8]
and
The good deed and the evil deed are not equal. Repel [the evil deed] with one that is better. Then truly the one, between you and he is enmity, shall become as a bosom friend. [41:34]
Well, most copies of the quran have a summarised version of the interpretation of the verse next to it. So you would need a copy of the actual verse in order to understand it's interpretation wouldn't you.Not-That-Bright said:
Plus, it's considered a good deed to read the actual quran, and like when a relative or someone dies, the quran is read. Then there are other reasons why people may have them. I have a quran in my room partly because it makes me feel safer.
Captain Gh3y
Rhinorhondothackasaurus
So how do you know the entire Koran wasn't solely for people in the
In other threads I recall Muslims posting that they believe the Koran is the word of God, and, perfect (so people can't write anything like it).
They also said that if you were to cchange even a few words of its original Arabic version, [someone who read Arabic] would be able to tell because it wouldn't be perfect anymore.
If this (a large part of what the Muslims in that thread based their faith upon) is true, then:
If the text is perfect, why is it so easily misinterpreted, even in its original Arabic form by Arabic readers?
If God made it perfect, and with a certain meaning in mind (if he even has a.. mind?) why have so many people seen different meanings in the same text?
They also stressed how incredible the Koran was on account of the fact that Muhammed was illiterate and uneducated. Surely Muhammed could not have known the rules for interpreting the Koran (they're rather complicated and scholarly, right?)...
So is it really just a "Survival Guide for Sixth Century Arabs" or a divine book that is perfect in every way? And if it is both, does that mean God condones/encourages the killing of infidels?
?
In other threads I recall Muslims posting that they believe the Koran is the word of God, and, perfect (so people can't write anything like it).
They also said that if you were to cchange even a few words of its original Arabic version, [someone who read Arabic] would be able to tell because it wouldn't be perfect anymore.
If this (a large part of what the Muslims in that thread based their faith upon) is true, then:
If the text is perfect, why is it so easily misinterpreted, even in its original Arabic form by Arabic readers?
If God made it perfect, and with a certain meaning in mind (if he even has a.. mind?) why have so many people seen different meanings in the same text?
They also stressed how incredible the Koran was on account of the fact that Muhammed was illiterate and uneducated. Surely Muhammed could not have known the rules for interpreting the Koran (they're rather complicated and scholarly, right?)...
So is it really just a "Survival Guide for Sixth Century Arabs" or a divine book that is perfect in every way? And if it is both, does that mean God condones/encourages the killing of infidels?
veterandoggy
A Restless Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2005
- Messages
- 1,242
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2005
we arent god, and so arent exactly going to know the whole meaning of everything in the quran. the verses which are just letters put together, which form no word in arabic are examples of this.Captain Gh3y said:
we stress how it cant have been from muhammad because of his illiteracy, not "its incredible because muhammad didnt know how to read and write"
you will have to give me the verse, because i dont rememerb it, and i can try to give you its reason for revelation, or the even that happened when it was sent down, which might clear things up.
sparkl3z
Active Member
when did the koran first appear? when there was wars around everywhere, that's why it's "old fashioned" and that's why who people that follow it today are "old fashioned", just like christianity, and many other religions, respects to all, but i say what i think, and heres what i think, no it does not provoke rape, but it does have strict rules upon women, it was written so many years ago, and maybe those writings were best when applied to the time, to "protect" women, but now, in this world with this technology, where ALL people can achieve things by talking, at least getting their message out, i can't see how anybody still believes in any of those things.
physician
Some things never change.
because humans arent perfect, these Arabic readers are human, theyre not perfect!Captain Gh3y said:
A Muslim only has the right to fight/defend when attacked, this is a set rule and never have i heard or been taught otherwise. If uve been driven out of ur land, if the enemy attacks u in ur country, u have the right to defend and attack the enemy in retalliation, without harming innocent people. There are a number of rules and regulations that have been set by Mohammad (peace be upon him) in regards to the rules of combat. The rules and regulations imposed in Islam during the time of war in regards to prisoners, who u have the right to kill..etc.etc. are the most humane, and the most just!
In Islam, if there is room for a peace treaty, and one that is genuinly offered, one that ur sure the enemy is not simply offering with the intent to deceive u, then it is encouraged that u accept.
Killing infidels? Even during war time, A Muslim can not harm an innocent, nor kill women, children, the elderly, or an unarmed person, not even cut down a tree without necessity!
U cannot simply kill someone because they dont follow a particular faith, nor does Islam allow this, nor is there any justification for killing non-believers (simply for being non-believers) in the Quran!!!
Different verses were revealed in different times and in different places, the whole quran was not revealed at the same time. We can assume that most verses are timeless/universal until scholars interpret them using the established procedure, and if in the procedure, it is revealed that the time in which the verse was revealed was a time of political turmoil or whatever, or some other factor such as the language used suggests that it is not, then that is taken into consideration when they publish the final interpretation.Captain Gh3y said:
Ok Muslims believe that the quran is the word of God and is perfect. It is easily misinterpreted because alot of people just read the quran and interpret it the way they see fit, while, as I said before, we're not supposed to do that. A huge variety of factors need to be taken into consideration when interpreting verses, in order to attain the true meaning of the verse. So this is how it's supposed to work: God has a certain intended meaning to every verse, then it is supposed to be interpreted in the way that God directs us to interpret verses, thereby resulting in only one perfect interpretation/meaning. However, the reason people see different meanings in the same text is because people don't use that established procedure, so ofcourse, that's going to result in lots of different meanings.Captain Gh3y said:
It is a misunderstanding on the part of many Muslims that the prophet (p) was illiterate and uneducated. He was not.Captain Gh3y said:
It is a divine book that is perfect, and contains some parts that belong only to a specific group of people or at a specific point in time. God doesn't encourage the killing of infidels. If you read the biography of the prophet (p) you find that he treated 'infidels' with kindness. Just to narrate one occurence, there was a Christian man who came to the prophets (p) mosque and asked him if he could pray to his God in the mosque. The prophet allocated a space for him in the mosque and he told him that he could pray in that space.
Captain Gh3y
Rhinorhondothackasaurus
Ok, thanks for the answers. Were the rules for interpretation established back then?
They are not 'old fashioned'. God is perfect, therefore the text that God sends is perfect.....and perfection encompasses universality and timelessness. Ofcourse, not ALL verses are intended to be universal and timeless, but those that aren't are known not to be after they were interpreted using the established procedure. I don't really think it has 'strict' rules on women only. I think Islam as a whole, is quite a 'strict' religion. All aspects of our lives are supposed to be governed by Islam, which is why many ppl term Islam as ''a way of life'' and not merely a religion. The verses regarding women wearing hijab for example, which is what I assume you're referring to, are in the category of the timeless verses.sparkl3z said:
I disagree with you in that ''ALL people can achieve things by talking, at least getting their message out''.
There are lots of reasons but the main reason is because the religion of Islam was introduced in Arabia (and that's because Arabia, at the time, was the worst place in the world morally - so God wanted to put an end to corruption and immorality). So since Islam was introduced in Arabia, the quran couldn't have been in Chinese could it, because the Arabs wouldn't have understood it. Another reason is because the Arabic language was the most suited for a religious text such as the quran, because of it's grammar etc.TerrbleSpellor said:
- Status