1. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    14 Apr '11 15:40
    Originally posted by Seitse
    The Clown's challenge is Jesus compared to Mohammad.

    Clown.
    Well the thread says THE BIBLE compared with the Koran so maybe you need to reconsider.
  2. Standard memberAThousandYoung
    Shoot the Squatters?
    tinyurl.com/43m7k8bw
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    26660
    14 Apr '11 15:44
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Well the thread says THE BIBLE compared with the Koran so maybe you need to reconsider.
    That's because I screwed up the Clown's Challenge. Seitse was the Clown until he took off his makeup and became Farrakhan.
  3. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    14 Apr '11 15:51
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    That's because I screwed up the Clown's Challenge. Seitse was the Clown until he took off his makeup and became Farrakhan.
    Oh I see. So we are to compare the Qu'ran not with the Bible but only with the Gospels then? Handy to narrow down one side's position that way. We can ignore the entire Old Testament (which is rather significant don't you think?) and most of the New Testament as well. Shame - even Revelations has to go.

    Maybe not even all the Gospels but only the bits where Jesus is directly quoted?

    Why not go the whole way and restrict ourselves to the Sermon on the Mount?

    Hard to argue with the parable of the lilies in the field of course but equally hard to build much of a practical programme on it.
  4. Standard memberAThousandYoung
    Shoot the Squatters?
    tinyurl.com/43m7k8bw
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    26660
    14 Apr '11 15:57
  5. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    14 Apr '11 16:03
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Thread 138830
    Noted. Point stands.

    As an atheist I am not remotely motivated with promoting Islam but I take major exception to people promoting Islamaphobia and I have no time for the unhistorical lies of some self styled Christians: that is my motivation here.
  6. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    18 Apr '11 15:332 edits
    Originally posted by finnegan
    And since we are contrasting the Bible with the Qu'ran, similar principles arguably apply - or explain why not - viz: using the very same wording -

    [i]Rather than constructing straw-man arguments against [the Qu'ran] based on facile citation of passages plucked out of context, [Christians and atheists] need to argue with the passages as they are interpr kind of a book the Qu'ran actually is we are not going to make much sense of it.
    [/i]Until we know what kind of a book the Qu'ran actually is we are not going to make much sense of it.

    How can such a simple point be so often missed (or ignored)?

    Just a few possible clues to consider, from a literary-critical point of view, as to “what kind of book” the Quran might be (in addition to the ones that you raise*)—

    (1) The Biblical corpus has variety of modes of discourse (literatures); the Quran has only one mode of discourse—poetry. Of course, there are different kinds of poetry in the Quran: e.g., moral/didactic, narrative, and lyric.
    But the main thing is that poetry cannot simply be read and interpreted the same way as prose. It would be ludicrous to read, for example, Yeats’ “Second Coming” in the same way as one would read a bicycle assembly manual. Poetry is defined by such things as metaphor and imagery and symbolism; and the Quran specifically allows for allegorical interpretation (which may be the main way that the Sufis—generally the non-dualists of Islam –do read the Quran).

    (2) Arabic is a “polysemous language; so are the other Semitic languages, such as Hebrew and Aramaic. They work from a consonantal root that contains a bundle of meanings; which one is emphasized depends on how that root is transformed (in Hebrew, for example, shalom and shalem—but the order of the root consonants need not be maintained).
    I have a reference to this somewhere by Reza Shah-Kazemi (I think in his book on Shankara, Ibn Arabi and Meister Eckhart); Kazemi quotes Ibn Arabi as saying that due to this linguistic peculiarity, any reading of a Quranic word that does not violate grammar must be considered as a valid possible reading—and if it is to be rejected, some other (e.g., contextual) grounds must be found.

    Further, just like other languages, Quranic Arabic has idioms—that is, words and phrases have idiomatic, as well as literal, usages. In any given passage, is the usage intended idiomatically, otherwise metaphorically, allegorically, symbolically, literally…?

    As Fatima Mernissi (scholar, feminist and Muslim) once argued in her book The Veil and the Male Elite, just because the male-dominated elite successfully engineered a turn toward more closed and severe readings, does not negate the fact that the early ummah had a more open view.

    (3) Context. Yes, context is important, but one has to ask how a given text is contextualized—beyond just asking which text(s) are intended to provide the context for which other text(s).

    (a) Textual structure. In the introduction to her translation (The Sublime Quran), Laleh Bakhtiar notes: “The text is organized more or less by length of chapter and is not in chronological order. For one who wants to begin to savor the Quran, it is best to read it randomly and not from beginning to end.” I would say that what one really needs to do is try to identify some cohesive “poetic set” in the text; some of the shorter surahs are themselves such “poetic sets”, but one needs to search them out in the longer surahs. Apparently, there are a number of cues for this in the Arabic, which Bakhtiar tries to indicate in her translation (but I am not at that level of familiarity where I can readily use them).

    (b) Implied extra-textual context. Sometimes the necessary context is not in the text itself, but is implied and must be known by the reader. For example, some passages may not be intended universally but apply only to a particular historical event (such as the battle of Badr). This fact of implied context may arise from the original oral form of the Quran (which means “recitation” * ) within a given community. Translations with extensive commentaries (such as Muhammad Asad’s and Muhammad Maulana Ali’s** ) often point these out, and discuss whether or not they are generally considered to have any more universal application.

    What this means, in part, is that one might just quote a single verse, or string of seemingly unconnected verses, with an implicit context—in ways that other literatures might not allow (this also pertains to my “dialectical hypothesis” below)—or in ways in which the context is not apparent to the casual listener.

    (c) Contextual dialectic. I think the Quran is generally dialectical in its presentation. If that is the case, then contextualization will also be dialectical. And the dialectics strike me as complex (not the simplistic thesis-antithesis-synthesis, but a moving dialectic). That is my hypothesis; but it does seem clear to me that contextualization is not straightforward. All I can say is that our Sunni friend Ahosyney broadly confirmed this view, but that does not mean that he would agree with any particular argument I might make.

    (4) All of the above applies, regardless of how one views the Quran (or the Biblical corpus, or the Tao Te Ching, or&hellip😉 as divine revelation—or not. That is, claims of divine revelation—or even, in some way, divine authorship—do not relieve the need for some hermeneutical guidelines to understanding, let alone recognition of the basic point that you make. Regardless of the source/authorship, Genesis is not the same literary mode as Job, which is different from that of Ecclesiastes, which is different from that of the Psalms—and which are all different from that of the Gospels (which are, in turn, different from one another). Literarily, the Quran (divinely revealed/authored or not) needs to be read according to its own—again, literary—complexity.

    ____________________________________________

    None of this is, of course, definitive. But it does point out textual complexities that may well be different for different literatures. People of one religion, who are quick to point out the exegetical complexities of their own scriptures cannot, at least not in good conscience, cavalierly disregard the same in other religions.

    The same for the behavior of the religious, as opposed to whatever the core spiritual teachings of the religion might be. The same for those who are quick to make the “no ‘true Christian™’ argument” while pretending that “a Muslim is a Muslim is a Muslim”—or vice versa.

    The Talmudic dictum always applies: “Go and study.”

    _________________________________________________

    * I would disagree somewhat with the notion of focusing only on “mainstream”. Mainstream Sunni or mainstream Shia, for example? What about the Sufis? Or does “mainstream” imply only Sunnis? Etc., etc. Who are the “mainstream” Christians, whose reading non-Christians ought to focus on? Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox? Is there, for example, even such a thing as “mainstream” Protestants? Are Calvinists more “mainstream” than Lutherans?

    You get the point. I think that it is better to study across a range. With that said, I personally do focus now more on Sufi interpretations of the Quran—simply because I’m a non-dualist generally; I read the Torah (or whatever) from the same perspective.

    ** The word for “book” is kitab, which, in the Quran does not necessarily refer to the Quran (sometimes, e.g., it is "the book" of nature). This raises the historical question: “When (and under what conditions) did the ‘recitation’ become a ‘book’?” Any Muslim or Islamic scholar can, of course, answer that—but they might not agree!

    *** They of course comment from their own doctrinal viewpoints, which need to be recognized.
  7. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    22 Apr '11 13:23
    Originally posted by vistesd
    [/i][b]Until we know what kind of a book the Qu'ran actually is we are not going to make much sense of it.

    How can such a simple point be so often missed (or ignored)?
    .......

    The Talmudic dictum always applies: “Go and study.”

    _________________________________________________

    * I would disagree somewhat with the notion of focusing only ...[text shortened]... am” Protestants? Are Calvinists more “mainstream” than Lutherans?

    You get the point...... [/b]
    Thank you for this post. I have read it through several times and enjoyed it. Your emphasis on the Arab love for poetry is spot on. They seem to have turned the most prosaic incidents into poetic form and I could almost wish I understood Arabic. One problem this caused in the Qu'ran is that Muhammad's followers were never sure what to include or exclude, since almost anything he produced, however seemingly incidental, might on reflection have deeper significance. There is absolutely no good argument to say they were mistaken in their approach. It produces an impression of Muhammad as being what he insisted he was, an ordinary mortal, sometimes either intentially or unintentionally extremely humorous and all too human. I refuse to believe that the Qu'ran can be properly read with a poker face.

    As regards mainstream religion I did write earlier: "Of course, pinning down the mainstream tradition is itself a problem since so many self styled Christians opt for a highly individual interpretation of what they would like Christianity to be."

    I intend by this to point out that some posters have a tendency to accept only a very narrow interpretation of their religion (or that of their opponents of course) and to write out of history those alternatives with which they do not want to be associated.

    In these forums (Debates as well as Spirituality) it is important to me to acknowledge that religious affiliation does not relate only to the sublime contemplation of the infinite, but also identifies ethnic and political groups and movements. So for example it makes complete sense to debate the history of Christianity, Islam and their territorial and political conflicts without getting distracted into asking if the Franks were really good Christians when they attacked their pagan neighbours (probably not) , or if the Popes who incited the Crusades (including crusades against the German and Slav pagans) were actually worldly princes far removed from the teachings of Jesus (probably so). Yet it is sometimes historically relevant and important - for example in the evolution of Muslim Andalusia (Spain). The issues interact and play on each other because religious thinking has serious impacts in the political world.

    I am especially unhappy that Islamaphobia is taking on a cloak of respectability when it masks racism and a potentially fascist strand of nationalism, rather than the slightest interest in religious belief or indeed civil rights. This is evident in many threads (notably from Seith). In Bradford (UK) it is obvious that most muslims are from Pakistan, in Germany they are Turkish migrants and so forth. These are clouded issues and taken full advantage of by the extreme Right.

    Conversely, in the US I see evangelical Christianity being misused as a cloak for political agendas, again on the Right. Their take on Christianity, notably a literalist reading of the Bible and the promotion of Creation (pseudo) Science, is not historically representative of Christian thinking (although it does have a historical lineage of course, not least in the Inquisition,) and their agenda is to my mind potentially fascist.

    To my mind the best answer to obscurantism is to bring light to bear on the topic in its full complexity. On this occasion you have vastly improved on my efforts (I do not imply you are in agreement with anything just said).
  8. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    90892
    22 Apr '11 13:33
    Originally posted by vistesd

    The Talmudic dictum always applies: “Go and study.”
    Ameen.
  9. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    24 Apr '11 08:11
    Howard Hagashi speaks about pre-marked, predestination, and choosing.

    YouTube
  10. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    24 Apr '11 21:23
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Thank you for this post. I have read it through several times and enjoyed it. Your emphasis on the Arab love for poetry is spot on. They seem to have turned the most prosaic incidents into poetic form and I could almost wish I understood Arabic. One problem this caused in the Qu'ran is that Muhammad's followers were never sure what to include or exclude, s ...[text shortened]... stly improved on my efforts (I do not imply you are in agreement with anything just said).
    Actually, I’m pretty much in agreement with everything you just said. (I’m sure we could find something to dispute about if we tried, though. 😉 )

    You are absolutely spot on about humor I think—and I confess that I have failed to apply that whole idea to my readings of the Qur’an. 😳

    There has got to be something amiss with a religious/spiritual view that does not admit of humor—as a core part of it! The Sufis—such as Hafiz and Rumi, and sometimes Fakhruddin ‘Iraqi—seem to clearly get that. [Again, I’m a non-dualist, so that’s where I tend to go…]

    Thanks for the generous comments. Be well.
  11. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    24 Apr '11 21:23
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    Ameen.
    Hope you and yours are wonderfully well, old friend.
  12. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    90892
    24 Apr '11 22:36
    Originally posted by vistesd
    Hope you and yours are wonderfully well, old friend.
    Hey, thanks, we are well; same to you.

    Just watched Fearless with Jet Li -- some lovely wushu scenes. Title says it all.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree