The qur'an

[Autodidact]

Oh and PS, don't forget to ask Muslims that are targeted for death, right here in America, not for speaking but for BEING!

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[Autodidact]

When Muslims had complied to the new rules. And kept at complying them for a long time, which they didn't.

So basically never? Great plan, Allah. [Dr. Phil mode] How did that work out for you? {/Dr. Phil mode}

So the punishment for sinning is permission to keep on sinning forever?

Kinda sucks for the poor slaves in Sudan today, doesn't it?

They should have. But not all of them did. Just like some Muslims today still drink alcohol.

How could they? Allah never got around to outlawing it. Kind of a low priority for him I guess.
I have a feeling that had he bothered to do so, a few million infidels would have lived out their lives as free persons. But heck, they're only infidels. Not a high priority for Allah I guess.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

1) The point about inheritance, is a perfect example on why one must read the entire Quran, very carefully too and put a lot of things in mind (such as the point you've put in mind about when it was written) in order to reach the best conclusion. Men are required to share their money with their wives and children, even if the woman have enough money on her own. That doesn't mean that a woman can't share, only that she doesn't have to. If she decided to share that would be very nice and praise worthy of her, since she didn't have to. So the inheritance is simply divided this way for the obvious reason that a man's money is not only for him, or not only his money, while a woman's money is entirely hers. Its a window or another possible source of income to meet his more requirements in this area.

I do appreciate your explanation, Badran, thank you. Based on your explanation, it seems to me that the unequal distribution of wealth to children, is supposed to solve a problem which was unnecessarily created by the Qur'an in the first place, when it requires men to share money with wives who have enough money. Wouldn't it make sense for families to share money based on need alone? Wouldn't it make sense for parents to leave wealth to their children based on need instead of gender, and if the need is equal, to leave the males and females equal portions? It's strange to say that an unequal requirement is necessary, in order to solve the inequalities created by a different requirement, which itself is unequal and arbitrary. I suppose the idea is that these different unequal requirements "cancel each other out" and result in fairness.

2) About slavery. This was a tradition or custom that was deeply rooted in that society and other societies too, an accepted thing of what was considered a good society world wide. So, eradicating it and fighting it, had to be something of a procedure done on more than one step (this was done with other things too). First, by establishing rules or constrictions to make life easier and better for those slaves, and to change how they're viewed and considered. Eventually, the aim is indeed to eradicate this. And Muslims did in the end play a role in this process, by freeing their own slaves and buying slaves from others and then freeing them, thousands of slaves were freed this way. Now, the fact that it didn't stop in general and was unfortunately practiced by Muslims centuries afterward, doesn't mean that its okay. Note that it has survived up until very recent times in other societies as well.

I do see your point. But, does the Qur'an actually say slavery must be eradicated, or is that your interpretation? I think your comments are very reasonable if we are talking about a book which was constrained by a particular time and place in history. Many cultures, philosophies etc. established rules and restrictions on slavery. All I'm saying is that at no point do I feel the urge to call these ideas timeless, perfect wisdom.

3) Lastly, while how you view the words itself, or what you think of how well or not well written the Quran might be is entirely a matter of opinion, i think if other things were in your perspective, you might at least view it on a different level. Things like understanding exactly why is this said, to whom and when, referring to what, and the entire context. Knowing the person its addressed to (I mean the cases where it is something personal addressed to Muhammad). Reading it in its original language also would've definitely made a difference. For example some of the verses posted by madanbhakta especially the one where Allah is telling Muhammad (pbuh) that he doesn't hate him, nor that has he forsaken him etc... would have a total different level of effect if one knows what is going on. For someone it might be pretty basic or simple, non-inspirational and so on. For me, while i was merely reading it casually while checking the post out, it was reading about an intimate moment that is beyond being expressed in words. But once again, i do understand that even after all that, you might still not like the book, or find it not that special, which would be okay. I'm just saying this to clarify the difference of knowing and not knowing important things while reading it.

[/quote]Again I do see your point. I agree eloquence is entirely subjective, but certain writings -- like the works of Shakespeare -- are almost universally recognized as outstanding. And I find Dostoevsky wonderful even though it is translated from Russian, which I do not speak. I have opened to passages in human-authored books which I found eloquent and profound. It just seems strange to me that a perfect book of divine origin would not "jump off the page" and command my intellectual and moral admiration, the way many excellent human books do (even books I disagree with).

Edit: But I want to emphasize again that you make valid points, and you are certainly correct that knowing the context helps to understand these verses from the Qur'an. While these considerations do not ultimately raise these verses of the Qur'an to the level of ultimate wisdom, in my view, they DO elevate these verses far above the level of mere "barbarisms".

 

[SLAMH]

I would first try to establish whether you know what ToE is, and if not, to explain it to you. After that I would demonstrate with evidence that you are mistaken.

Your guess is incorrect.

I wouldn't.

Your statement is incorrect.
.

I'd rather watch what you do than listen to what you claim to do.

Correct. It is very hard to translate correctly. This is one of its many flaws, especially for a book, that is supposed to provide divine guidance to everybody.

It is not the case that is really hard to translate Qur'an correctly, but it is when someone is not aware of the Islamic studies and not even an expert on it, comes with all the ignorance and confidence to interpret the Qura'n.

And by the way, this thread is a good example of this!!!.

 

[A-ManESL]

I'd rather watch what you do than listen to what you claim to do.



It is not the case that is really hard to translate Qur'an correctly, but it is when someone is not aware of the Islamic studies and not even an expert on it, comes with all the ignorance and confidence to interpret the Qura'n.

And by the way, this thread is a good example of this!!!.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing indeed.

 

[YmirGF]

"...an obscure, incoherent, bizarre medieval text, a curious amalgam of Talmudic Judaism, apocryphal Christianity, and pagan superstitions that is full of barbarisms."

Ibn Warraq

Thoughts?

Having read a number of Ibn Warraq's books, I will assert that he certainly draws from knowledgeable sources. It is a given that average Muslims will not agree with his assertions. That said, I was somewhat disappointed with "What the Qur'an really says". I found it extremely tedious reading. I swear that the norm was spending four or five pages on the meaning of a single word. Though interesting at first it does get thin pretty fast. Admittedly it is a fascinating dissection of the peculiarities of the Arabic language, both ancient and modern, but not likely to hold the interest of many.

That said, there are parts of the Qur'an that do fit each descriptor in the quote given to a T, however, it would be silly to assume that that quote refers to the entirety of the Qur'an and all of its passages. If you really want to sense the incoherence of the Qur'an, read it in the order that the ayats were "handed down". That will surely get your head spinning. It soon becomes obvious why they came up with the comment, "Only god knows..."

 

[Badran]

So basically never? Great plan, Allah.

Nope, like i said whenever Muslims had complied to it, which they didn't. The rules had been given to us, for this and other things, and it is entirely on us whether or not we're going to follow them.

How could they? Allah never got around to outlawing it. Kind of a low priority for him I guess.
I have a feeling that had he bothered to do so, a few million infidels would have lived out their lives as free persons. But heck, they're only infidels. Not a high priority for Allah I guess.

I guess you missed the point about it not being the best route to take.

 

[Badran]

I always thought that the Qur'an never explicitly said 'no' to alcohol, but suggested that although there is some good in alcohol, the cons outweigh the pros.

Yes indeed he said so in a verse, and in another one he said we should avoid it (among other things) as thats whats best for us.

 

[Badran]

I do appreciate your explanation, Badran, thank you. Based on your explanation, it seems to me that the unequal distribution of wealth to children, is supposed to solve a problem which was unnecessarily created by the Qur'an in the first place, when it requires men to share money with wives who have enough money. Wouldn't it make sense for families to share money based on need alone? Wouldn't it make sense for parents to leave wealth to their children based on need instead of gender, and if the need is equal, to leave the males and females equal portions? It's strange to say that an unequal requirement is necessary, in order to solve the inequalities created by a different requirement, which itself is unequal and arbitrary. I suppose the idea is that these different unequal requirements "cancel each other out" and result in fairness.

Unequal requirements in some cases is not a strange thing to start with, or a bad thing. The fact that women and men are equal in the eyes of god, doesn't mean that he doesn't recognize that each of them is unique in some areas. For example women get pregnant, while men can't. Also, its not requiring a man to share his money with a wealthy women. The rule is that in general, a man is required to share his money. In some cases, the woman might be rich on her own, and in that case she can and in most cases indeed does help him.

If parents find that their daughter is poor while their son is rich, they can give her all the money they want while they're alive. In other words these are general rules, not rules that must apply no matter what in every single case.

I do see your point. But, does the Qur'an actually say slavery must be eradicated, or is that your interpretation? I think your comments are very reasonable if we are talking about a book which was constrained by a particular time and place in history. Many cultures, philosophies etc. established rules and restrictions on slavery. All I'm saying is that at no point do I feel the urge to call these ideas timeless, perfect wisdom.

I understand of course, i'm only trying to explain some of the problems you see, not so you can say then that this is indeed perfect wisdom.

It doesn't say its plan of course, however when you look at the wide picture, all the constraints, and what Muslims began to do, considering it virtuous to free slaves and buying them from others in order to free them etc... with considering the new rules and elevation of how the slaves are viewed, its not at all far fetched to conclude this.

Again I do see your point. I agree eloquence is entirely subjective, but certain writings -- like the works of Shakespeare -- are almost universally recognized as outstanding. And I find Dostoevsky wonderful even though it is translated from Russian, which I do not speak. I have opened to passages in human-authored books which I found eloquent and profound. It just seems strange to me that a perfect book of divine origin would not "jump off the page" and command my intellectual and moral admiration, the way many excellent human books do (even books I disagree with).

I see your point. Things i should mention though, is that the Quran is very hard to translate, which is not a disadvantage, quite the contrary. So the translations take a lot away from it. Shakespeare or other works of literature is simpler to read, all you have to do is pick up one of his plays and start reading. While in the Quran's case, considering what i told you about knowing etc.. How many people have really done those things?

The other point is that while Shakespeare might be in general considered by all or most critics, and many people to be outstanding, still some people read his books and consider it laughable. All they see is weird stories with people talking funny, and women dressing up like men etc...

Edit: But I want to emphasize again that you make valid points, and you are certainly correct that knowing the context helps to understand these verses from the Qur'an. While these considerations do not ultimately raise these verses of the Qur'an to the level of ultimate wisdom, in my view, they DO elevate these verses far above the level of mere "barbarisms".

Thanks Mr Spinkles. By the way i'm really not trying or hoping that you'd see the Quran as perfect wisdom, i'm merely trying to answer some of the points you've made, since at least as far as i noticed you were the first one to make an assessment based on valid arguments. For example its already out of the way that you don't find its wording that special at all, and that you think this book might have been very good for the time it was in, but that you don't find it a great reference to be followed today.

 

[TJ73]

What on earth are you talking about?

You don't realize Muslims have been harassed and attacked in the US and other countries because they are Muslim? Job discrimination, physical attacks, Mosques hit with bullets and explosives. Kinda like the way Blacks were attacked just for BEING.

I have no doubt that you are a fine person. I bet you are good to people, even people you don't know and because I have read a lot of what you have to say, outside of this topic, I know you are intelligent and thoughtful. Your screen name says a lot. Self education is a wonderful thing. But I can't help but be disturbed by what appears to be your blame and anger toward Islam and Muslims. I have been really hurt in my life for just BEING: I'm half black, I"m half Jewish I was a fat kid, I have wild hair. For these silly reasons I have been called horrible names,had my very life threatened, was chased by a stick wielding gang,. been denied work, denied relationships. This is all the same to me. I became a Muslim because I love God and I found my subjective truth in Islam. I would never hurt anyone. I make a daily effort to not just avoid hurting but to show love for people. And I feel a kindred spirit in the Mosques I attend. I have read all about the bad Mosques, but I have never sen one yet, Inshallah, I never will. I don't think I am the exception to the rule in this country. And I can't condemn or defend the actions of other Muslim's in other countries. I don't know every detail or their experience, but knowing people, the majority must be pretty decent even if they are not represented by decent people. Are we always represented by good people? Should we be condemned for the actions of the bad in our society?

 

[Sahar]

Based on your explanation, it seems to me that the unequal distribution of wealth to children, is supposed to solve a problem which was unnecessarily created by the Qur'an in the first place, when it requires men to share money with wives who have enough money. Wouldn't it make sense for families to share money based on need alone? Wouldn't it make sense for parents to leave wealth to their children based on need instead of gender, and if the need is equal, to leave the males and females equal portions? It's strange to say that an unequal requirement is necessary, in order to solve the inequalities created by a different requirement, which itself is unequal and arbitrary. I suppose the idea is that these different unequal requirements "cancel each other out" and result in fairness.

To leave inheritance wealth based on each one's financial responsibility, this is fairness itself. When a person must spend well on say four persons, is it like someone who has no obligation to spend on any other person?
Is the idea that the woman doesn't have a financial responsibility unfair? Unfair for whom? Her or him? Strange!! When the Qur'an want to comfort women, it's unfair for them? No, thanks. The Islamic system is the fair system that I have seen that takes into consideration the biological and psychological characteristics of each party.

 

[Autodidact]

I'd rather watch what you do than listen to what you claim to do.

Then why did you ask me. o.k., go to any thread in this forum re: evolution and see what I do. Then come back and apologize for slandering me. Thank you.

It is not the case that is really hard to translate Qur'an correctly, but it is when someone is not aware of the Islamic studies and not even an expert on it, comes with all the ignorance and confidence to interpret the Qura'n.

So the translations of the qur'an we have were not done by experts?

 

[Autodidact]

Nope, like i said whenever Muslims had complied to it, which they didn't. The rules had been given to us, for this and other things, and it is entirely on us whether or not we're going to follow them.

So Allah was which, not all-powerful, or not all-knowing, or not all-merciful. Because apparently, if His goal was to outlaw slavery at some point, He hasn't gotten around to it yet, at least not for Muslims. For those of us who live in the civilized, secular world, of course it is illegal.

I guess you missed the point about it not being the best route to take.

Where does it say that in the great, the noble, the perfect qur'an?

I mean, I know that slavery is bad, and you know it's bad, but somehow Muhammad, who owned many slaves, did not know it's bad.

 

[Autodidact]

It doesn't say its plan of course,

Of course? Why of course? So basically this is just Badran talking, not the qur'an at all. You're just guessing at what you think Allah's plan was? But if we read His message to us in the qur'an, it's nowhere in there.

however when you look at the wide picture, all the constraints, and what Muslims began to do, considering it virtuous to free slaves and buying them from others in order to free them etc... with considering the new rules and elevation of how the slaves are viewed, its not at all far fetched to conclude this.

I don't know. Call me crazy. I would think if Allah wanted to outlaw slavery, He would have said, "You may not own slaves."

Things i should mention though, is that the Quran is very hard to translate,

So you disagree with SLAMH, who says It is not the case that is really hard to translate Qur'an correctly? Which is it? It it hard to translate correctly, or not? Inquiring infidels want to know.

which is not a disadvantage, quite the contrary. So the translations take a lot away from it. Shakespeare or other works of literature is simpler to read, all you have to do is pick up one of his plays and start reading. While in the Quran's case, considering what i told you about knowing etc.. How many people have really done those things?

So God wants to tell us how to follow His commandments, and the best way to do that is make it really hard for people to know what the heck they are? If this makes sense to you, you may be Muslim.

 

[Autodidact]

You don't realize Muslims have been harassed and attacked in the US and other countries because they are Muslim? Job discrimination, physical attacks, Mosques hit with bullets and explosives. Kinda like the way Blacks were attacked just for BEING.

Yes, there is certainly bigotry against Muslims in the U.S. today.

I have no doubt that you are a fine person. I bet you are good to people, even people you don't know and because I have read a lot of what you have to say, outside of this topic, I know you are intelligent and thoughtful. Your screen name says a lot. Self education is a wonderful thing. But I can't help but be disturbed by what appears to be your blame and anger toward Islam and Muslims. I have been really hurt in my life for just BEING: I'm half black, I"m half Jewish I was a fat kid, I have wild hair. For these silly reasons I have been called horrible names,had my very life threatened, was chased by a stick wielding gang,. been denied work, denied relationships. This is all the same to me. I became a Muslim because I love God and I found my subjective truth in Islam. I would never hurt anyone. I make a daily effort to not just avoid hurting but to show love for people. And I feel a kindred spirit in the Mosques I attend. I have read all about the bad Mosques, but I have never sen one yet, Inshallah, I never will. I don't think I am the exception to the rule in this country. And I can't condemn or defend the actions of other Muslim's in other countries. I don't know every detail or their experience, but knowing people, the majority must be pretty decent even if they are not represented by decent people. Are we always represented by good people? Should we be condemned for the actions of the bad in our society?

Hey, I'm a Jewish Atheist Lesbian mother of three, I can relate!

I'm not attacking Muslims as a group. I am, however, attacking the religion of Islam, which I think is a very, very bad thing, that harms millions of people, most of them Muslim.

 

[Caladan]

"...an obscure, incoherent, bizarre medieval text, a curious amalgam of Talmudic Judaism, apocryphal Christianity, and pagan superstitions that is full of barbarisms."

Ibn Warraq

Thoughts?

Perhaps, but have you ever considered what you can learn from reading this text, and what else is hiding beneath the 7th century tribal baggage?

 

[YmirGF]

Yes, there is certainly bigotry against Muslims in the U.S. today.

Though there is far more bigotry against Jews, Gays and African Americans.

 

[Revoltingest]

Though there is far more bigotry against Jews, Gays and African Americans.

I don't think that flies. It's hard to quantify subjection to bigotry, but Muslims & those who look
'Muslim' do get harsh treatment in the media, in airports & at borders. Jews, Gays & black folk
also seem to wield much more political power than Muslims.

Atheists are God's chosen people. Despite our low status, we suffer little abuse or discrimination.
Even our being unelectable is a blessing....who in their right mind would want to hold public office?

 

[Autodidact]

Perhaps, but have you ever considered what you can learn from reading this text, and what else is hiding beneath the 7th century tribal baggage?

Yes, it is so interesting. That's why I'm delving into it now. It provides a fascinating insight into the tribal mind. I see Islam as a living relic of the pre-modern mindset. Judaism is fascinating, but the Tanakh was canonized so long ago, it's hard to relate or figure out what really happened there. Islam is the last instance of an Abrahamic religion arising in a tribal context, so to me it's like a portal back in time.

OTOH, what is really damaging to the world, especially to Muslims, is the view that this primitive, rudimentary text is a guide to life and governance. That is why Muslim countries are for the most part the poorest, most violent, oppressed and miserable in the world.

 

[Autodidact]

Though there is far more bigotry against Jews, Gays and African Americans.

I don't know. We poor Jews have always been victims of prejudice, but it's certainly better here than in much of the world, especially the Muslim world. Same for gay people. I think someone did a poll and the most despised group turned out to be atheists! In any case, despite prejudice, we are all entitled to equal protection of the law, which is why, despite our idiocy and ignorance, the U.S. is a great nation.