MD
qualiaphile
This guy should debate @paarsurrey, it would be epic popcorn material
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
This rhetoric interpretation does not jive with the history of Quran at all.
So, Quran was meant to be consistent in writing and in its meaning, and without any confusion.
So, what you are suggesting to interpret Quran based on Greek rhetoric style, that would create all kinds of interpretations based on the scholars’ view point.
If you look at teh medieval tafsir there was plenty of confusion. Tabari often offers 5-10 different interpretations of particular verses.
As you pointed out correctly for some verses of Quran there were plenty tafsirs from many scholars. These tafsirs happens when there is confusion in understanding of a verse, then in that case Islamic scholars try to clarify the confusion by giving their interpretations. For their interpretations the scholars usually use other verses of Quran trying to justify their interpretations. But it seems that you fail to understand, that in any of these tafsirs the scholars are NOT allowed to contradict any verses of Quran, on contrary they try to harmonize the confused verse with the other verses of Quran. ACTUALLY NOBODY IS ALLOWED TO CONTRADICT ANY VERSES OF QURAN. EVEN MOHAMMAD WAS NOT ALLOWED TO CONTRADICT VERSES OF QURAN.
So, when you suggested : “As such, to view everything in it to be treated in a perfect lt literal sense is not how it was intended in its original” THIS STATEMENT IN ISLAM IS ABSOLUTELY A WRONG STATEMENT. EVERY VERSE IN QURAN WAS INTENTED TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR, but in practice some verses ended up in confusion, and tafsirs were meant to clarify those confusion.
[17:36] You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.
You are hardly the first person to identify the problem of trying to reconcile different verses of the Quran with each other. Abrogation, exegesis via the Sirah and Hadith, contextual readings etc, have been going on for about 1300 years. [/QUOTE]
I think I figured out the root causes of our disagreements. In your analyses you forgot about the Islamic Sword. And that differentiates my analyses of verses of Quran from those tafsirs that you have been reading from those bright Islamic scholars.
Those Islamic scholars were not trying to be objective at all, their tasks, their motives, their intentions, and their objectives were to develop arguments (tafsirs) to resolve the short-comings and the discrepancies in verses of Quran, in a phony way they ALL have tried to hush up the flaws of Quran, and disorient and confused the issues. And in their final conclusions to glorify Quran.
And your 'challenge' is based on the interpretations of these very same scholars. You are dicussing the Quran with regard to the theology that developed around it over centuries, rather than one that may have existed in the early/mid 7th C.
For Moslems there is only ONE Quran. The verses that I am quoting from are from Quran directly, this Quran was finalized few years after death of Mohammad. I think I was CRYSTAL clear about this point.
I think you have forgotten about your own challenge, this was you who mentioned about tafsirs. I said those tafsirs are useless, since they are ONE-SIDED, and their goals and focused were to glorify Quran and Islam, based on some phony arguments. I do not care about those tafsirs, I am dealing with verses of Quran directly.