In Islam, is the Qur'an open to interpretation?

[Rival]

Depends on which Hadiths you want to believe.

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith

I meant a body of people.

 

[Kirran]

Majority understanding never changed
the majority was there since day 1
Ahl al Sunna wa Algamaa the indeed
With no doubt Sunnis are the majority all over the history

Hmm, interesting. That doesn't fit what I've seen looking at the history. For example, at one point Mu'tazilites were dominant. Then Asharis. Now neither are. Politics is a big part of this.

 

[idav]

I meant a body of people.

Whatever prophets chosen is the authority and they say how to interpret holy texts. Normally they would try and test against what Muhammad says but not entirely sure cause the hadiths come out with different interpretations.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Almost nearly every single piece of literature is open for interpretation at with various points, especially the older it gets and further removed from it's culture of origin it gets. It also doesn't help when said book (or, in some cases, authors) include inconsistencies and contradictions.

 

[LuisDantas]

With comment like " i advocate the end of islam" doesnt make u really different than wilders.

But i could be wrong

Wilders? Who is that?

Would it be somehow better if I hid my hopes?

 

[Deidre]

Thankfully, no one interprets this literally: Matthew 5:30

Yea, that could be a problem. lol

 

[Deidre]

Almost nearly every single piece of literature is open for interpretation at with various points, especially the older it gets and further removed from it's culture of origin it gets. It also doesn't help when said book (or, in some cases, authors) include inconsistencies and contradictions.

This is by far, the best insight into all of this that I've read. You're right, culturally speaking, texts change, because the context changes. Great post!

 

[Deidre]

Its simple indeed.

In Quran the Oneness of Allah is clearly mentioned.
The painful destination of rejectors of faith is also mentioned in clear words.

That Allah and His Messengers will prevail on the judgement day is also mentioned.

Minor stuffs part of the religious duties is mentioned in Hadith.

So I will be going to hell according to Islam because I'm a Christian? (I imagine I fall into the 'rejector of faith' category) But I don't reject the belief in one God. I just reject Islam's teachings on Jesus and other things.

 

[Deidre]

Speaking as an anti-theist and advocate for the end of Islam as a doctrine with religious intent, I currently feel that an accurate answer would be twofold.

On the one hand, I am so often told of the importance of the Qur'an and of how disastrous it is to even take the Ahadith too seriously that it certainly seems difficult to deny that the Qur'an must indeed be viewed (according to Islam) by a perspective that is, if not rigid and literal, at least remarkably careful to choose among often very disparate readings.

On the other hand, that is only possible because the text is not particularly clear to begin with, and therefore it must follow that a good Muslim needs in fact to interpret the Qur'an even if he would rather not. The only alternative would be to let someone else do the interpretation and borrow from there, but I am also told that Muslims don't really approve of that.

A more pragmatic yet perhaps more significant consideration is that most Muslims, like most other people, tend to avoid potentially difficult discussions of proper doctrine unless given either some form of reassurance that those difficult matters will not be raised or else a clear reason to run that risk.

TLDR: No, they are not permitted to freely interpret the Qur'an, mainly because much of the point of having it is to establish clear, rarely questioned paramenters for social behavior.

Yet, at the same time, most if not all Muslims can't help but ultimately accept the need to choose some interpretation among several. They usually won't like to admit that need, but they will feel it nonetheless.

Hi Luis, with regards to the bolded, what do you mean by ''with religious intent?'' Do you mean that you wouldn't mind Islam if its purpose was a cultural intent, or something else other than a religious intent? Since Islam is a religion, just wondering what you mean?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hi Luis, with regards to the bolded, what do you mean by ''with religious intent?'' Do you mean that you wouldn't mind Islam if its purpose was a cultural intent, or something else other than a religious intent? Since Islam is a religion, just wondering what you mean?

Not to speak for him, but as someone who agrees, it's the end of anyone practicing it as a religion. The Bible and Quran both are filled with horrible cruelty, terrible violence, and things that even children know are wrong. "God" is not found in a book, and with the problems we are having today with people adhering books of Bronze Age ethics and cultural norms, we'd be better off without. Especially in a day when we are in so desperate need of something to unite us in peace and harmony rather than divide us with hatred and rage.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hi Luis, with regards to the bolded, what do you mean by ''with religious intent?''

Hi, Deidre.

Islam does not seem to be a religion. Not by my understanding of the term, anyway. That is a conclusion I reached a couple of months ago when I realized how heavy an emphasis on monotheism for monotheism's sake it has, and how little else it has.

I also wanted to avoid confusion between Islam the doctrine and Islam the noum. Islaam aparently has a meaning of its own apart from the doctrine, something akin to utopia or perfection in English.

Do you mean that you wouldn't mind Islam if its purpose was a cultural intent, or something else other than a religious intent? Since Islam is a religion, just wondering what you mean?

As it turns out, I stand convinced that Islaam would greatly benefit from what to my perspective would be learning that it is not a religion after all (and why). There is considerable value to be rescued in the doctrine if it can only allow itself to shed its expectations of being the expression of a Creator God's will.

I realize that odds are not good. Islaam is at least as likely to eventually fizzle out under the weight and asphixiation of its own self-imposed expectations and restrictions. But it is at least conceivable that it could manage to survive in a valid, somewhat recognizable form once it overgrows its reliance on monotheism and tribal ethics.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Wilders? Who is that?

Would it be somehow better if I hid my hopes?

No actually its better to be open in ur hatred for islam, just like Trump and wilders.

What i hate are hypocrites pretending to like muslims while they hate islam from
Inside

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

So I will be going to hell according to Islam because I'm a Christian? (I imagine I fall into the 'rejector of faith' category) But I don't reject the belief in one God. I just reject Islam's teachings on Jesus and other things.

We believe the one who rejects Muhammad also rejected all prophets and messengers sent by Allah.
Because the message of all prophets and all messengers is one message: Worship Allah Only.


And the people of Noah, -
when they rejected the messengers,
we drowned them,
and we made them as a sign for mankind; ... Sura 25:37

Rejection means they rejected the message of Oneness of God sent with Noah, so that automatically means they also rejected the message of all prophets/messengers.

Let say i believe in Muhammad but reject Moses and Jesus because of racist views towards jews or because i dont like them or because i dont want to believe in them.
Am i still muslim?
I will be regarded as disbeliever in the sight of Allah.

 

[Augustus]

Hmm, interesting. That doesn't fit what I've seen looking at the history. For example, at one point Mu'tazilites were dominant. Then Asharis. Now neither are. Politics is a big part of this.

I agree, at least if you look at it from a historical rather than theological perspective.

The consensus that has evolved on many issues emerged over several centuries. From things like whether the Quran was created or was eternal, whether reason or tradition was best to interpret the Quran, the role of the Caliph, the way to interpret many passages of the Quran, even the content of the Quran (as acknowledged by Islamic tradition). The sirah gets much more detailed the later it was written also.

Even something that is now uniformly considered blasphemy like the verse of the cranes (Satanic Verses) was accepted as being real by many Muslims for centuries, including Tabari and Salfi hero ibn Taymiyyah (who viewed it positively as something which confirmed Muhammad's absolute honesty). Maybe they were all wrong, but it's what they believed and wrote about.

A distinct Sunni identity likely didn't exist until around the 9th C. The word Muslim doesn't even seem to to have been in common usage before late 7th C and early 'Muslim' inscriptions don't mention Muhammad, strangely one even contains a cross at the start. Then all of a sudden every Muslim inscription mentions Muhammad strongly suggesting a change in attitude/identity of some kind took place as the emerging community wanted to draw clear boundaries between their identity and the Jews and Christians (who had also been involved in the conquests).

 

[LuisDantas]

No actually its better to be open in ur hatred for islam, just like Trump and wilders.

What i hate are hypocrites pretending to like muslims while they hate islam from
Inside

I don't hate Islaam. I just refuse to lend it a role and significance that do not suit it - particularly given what the price would be.

Oh, you mean Geert Wilders? I don't particularly hope to be better than him. However, I am hardly a nationalist at all, nor right-wing.

Being compared with Trump does irritate me, but I realize you feel bitter with criticism of Islaam and I will let it slide.

 

[Tumah]

Its simple indeed.

In Quran the Oneness of Allah is clearly mentioned.
The painful destination of rejectors of faith is also mentioned in clear words.

That Allah and His Messengers will prevail on the judgement day is also mentioned.

Minor stuffs part of the religious duties is mentioned in Hadith.

Check back on page 1 for a couple of posts describing some knowledge that you need to have in order to be able to "correctly understand" the Qur'an.

Again, if it was simple to understand, why are there scholars? Everyone could just read it himself and get the right answer.

 

[Limo]

Hmm, interesting. That doesn't fit what I've seen looking at the history. For example, at one point Mu'tazilites were dominant. Then Asharis. Now neither are. Politics is a big part of this.

Mu'tazilities were never dominant at any time of history. at a certain time they were promoted and supported by caliph but didn't succeed to make it main belief. Same with Ashara.
All over-the history Ahl Alsunah were the majority and main belief

 

[Kirran]

Mu'tazilities were never dominant at any time of history. at a certain time they were promoted and supported by caliph but didn't succeed to make it main belief. Same with Ashara.
All over-the history Ahl Alsunah were the majority and main belief

Well, perhaps sources vary! That's what I've read and what makes sense to me. You, of course, have a vested interest in believing the modern orthodoxy has stood for all time.

 

[Kirran]

I agree, at least if you look at it from a historical rather than theological perspective.

The consensus that has evolved on many issues emerged over several centuries. From things like whether the Quran was created or was eternal, whether reason or tradition was best to interpret the Quran, the role of the Caliph, the way to interpret many passages of the Quran, even the content of the Quran (as acknowledged by Islamic tradition). The sirah gets much more detailed the later it was written also.

Even something that is now uniformly considered blasphemy like the verse of the cranes (Satanic Verses) was accepted as being real by many Muslims for centuries, including Tabari and Salfi hero ibn Taymiyyah (who viewed it positively as something which confirmed Muhammad's absolute honesty). Maybe they were all wrong, but it's what they believed and wrote about.

A distinct Sunni identity likely didn't exist until around the 9th C. The word Muslim doesn't even seem to to have been in common usage before late 7th C and early 'Muslim' inscriptions don't mention Muhammad, strangely one even contains a cross at the start. Then all of a sudden every Muslim inscription mentions Muhammad strongly suggesting a change in attitude/identity of some kind took place as the emerging community wanted to draw clear boundaries between their identity and the Jews and Christians (who had also been involved in the conquests).

This is in line with what I understood, but more in-depth.

I have heard that during the period immediately following the compilation of the Qur'an now broadly taken as infallible, there were a lot of people saying things like 'Oh there was that verse that Aisha wrote on a dead animal skin that got eaten by something and lost' and that Abu Bakr could remember a few verses that nobody put in the Qur'an, and quite a few scholars saying varying numbers of verses were missing. What do you know about all that?

 

[Augustus]

This is in line with what I understood, but more in-depth.

I have heard that during the period immediately following the compilation of the Qur'an now broadly taken as infallible, there were a lot of people saying things like 'Oh there was that verse that Aisha wrote on a dead animal skin that got eaten by something and lost' and that Abu Bakr could remember a few verses that nobody put in the Qur'an, and quite a few scholars saying varying numbers of verses were missing. What do you know about all that?

The goat ate the verse about stoning for adultery according to a hadith. Unsurprisingly, this hadith is considered weak by orthodox scholars. The story sounds a bit far fetched to me, sort of the kind of thing that would be invented to support a particular theological perspective versus a rival one (as many hadith seem to resemble). However the fact that it exists at all seems to hint at a diversity of views regarding the Quran.

There are also some stories in the Islamic tradition that seem to suggest other verses (and even chapters) existed. Obviously these will also be considered unreliable as one of the criteria for reliability is that it doesn't contradict orthodoxy. It's a bit of a dead end though as it's hard to find evidence for non-existent things. It is possible that later Muslims made these stories up out of self-interest, or it could represent a genuine tradition, no real way of knowing.

The Abu Bakr thing is described here (from Death of a Prophet - S Shoemaker):

According to this tradition from Ibn Isḥāq’s Sīra, transmitted by both al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Hishām,
when ʿUmar heard the news of Muhammad’s passing, he forcefully denied
that Muhammad had died, swearing, “By God he is not dead: he has gone to
his Lord as Moses b. ʿImrān went and was hidden from his people for forty
days, returning to them after it was said that he had died. By God, the apostle
will return as Moses returned and will cut off the hands and feet of men
who allege that the apostle is dead.”255 As Ibn Isḥāq relates, when Abū Bakr
learned of this commotion, he came to the mosque, and after venerating
Muhammad’s remains he sought to restrain ʿUmar, who nonetheless persisted
in his ranting. Abū Bakr then addressed the crowd directly, hoping to
defuse the disturbance that ʿUmar was creating, first by insisting on the reality
of Muhammad’s death, followed then by recitation of Qurʾān 3:144,
which relates Muhammad’s death. The throng apparently was quieted, although
Ibn Isḥāq additionally and tellingly notes that “it was as though the
people did not know that this verse had come down until Abū Bakr recited it
that day. The people took it from him and it was (constantly) in their
mouths.”256 This tradition is more than a little peculiar, as Silvestre de Sacy
observes, and Ibn Isḥāq’s report that no one had ever heard the verse before
certainly suggests rather strongly that the verse was a late addition to the
Qurʾānic text, whose inclusion required this elaborate literary device to justify
its introduction.257 In light of Abū Bakr’s personal closeness to Muhammad,
his sterling reputation, and his status within the early community, he
would of course present a logical vehicle for such a textual addition, and
placing the verse in his mouth would certainly be an effective means of
quickly establishing its authenticity.

All of these stories are from the Islamic tradition, not things that were made up by anti-Muslim polemicists. Even if they are all untrue (as most Muslims will argue), it still shows that there was a diversity of perspectives among early Muslim communities and that later scholars were willing to discuss things and entertain possibilities that would today be considered 'off limits'.