Different versions of the quran, or different versions of the translation and interpretion?

If its the latter, then yes there. But if i want an educated and correct view on science, ill most likely watch Bill Nye instead of Big Bang Theory.

Righteo then what does this verse mean then?

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

I take it this could be interpreted any number of ways.

hi zimbos i had a question a page or so back

I am sure i have answered this question a million times on these forums before. I gave an in depth commentary and translation, and was told that I didnt know what i was talking about and only saying things to make the shoe fit.

And yes, you probably could interpret to suit your needs, but Islam is clear on people abusing the religion to suit their needs. The prophet PBUH explained the meaning of the Quran. Hadith, Sunnah, The Four Imams are the trusted sources. People like Yusuf Ali are scholars of Quran taught in one of the four schools with the hadith and sunnah as part of the syllabus. They did not decipher the Quran for themselves, they were educated on the matter and then wrote the translation and commentary so we could understand the language.




Hey mate. I've seen them. Just busy at the moment at work. Will answer this evening if i dont forget.

Edited by zimbos_05: 23/10/2014 02:19:48 AM

That's cool. You are very patient with your antagonists (including me) so fair enough if you've covered this.

The point I was trying to establish is, notwithstanding the original translations, those that come along later are free to interpret any verse to suit themselves.

You can say "it means this" but someone else can say "no it means this".

I mean they're splitting hairs all the time in the bible about what a certain word, just one word, meant in a certain context with regards to ta certain event. A simple google search brings up plenty of similar examples in the Quran.

I am unsure how you can say how verses cannot be misinterpreted when clearly they are all the time. If you mean there's only one set of translations then OK.

*Edit - Just repeated the same point 3 posts ago, but tried to point out the argument was not fallacious on the basis on the concept of" interpretation" through people*


Edited by condemned666: 23/10/2014 11:18:51 AM

i cant speak for islam but christianity has a lot of baggage from when europe was a theocracy. There are a lot of residual effects.
i know people who were caught in churches that were very authoritarian and made a big song and dance about how they believed the bible is the inspired word of god (and by implication other churches were "liberal" on this). But they teach in a perscribed way using cross referencing and they are very authoritarian. The best cure for this is to read the bible with them like a novel, cover to cover and skip all the geneologies. Usually they start to get mad at their old church as they realize how unplain their interpretation was and how different God is from what they were told
they often end up loving God free from cult and curiously they often move to the left politically

so i cant speak for islam but in christianity the best way to interpret the bible is to read it cover to cover like a novel in an easy reading translation and then you get what its about
in fact the bible warns about people who want to debate the meaning of words

Cheers zimbos :)

Would you say that Abu Hamza al-Masri interprets the Quran in the same reasoned and balanced way that you do?

@benjamin
I think a plain reading of the quran so far has the following frame work for violence
You can be violent only in retaliation to persecution aggression or oppression
this seems to be similar to secular morality (on this issue)
I suspect a lot of terrorists would reason something like this
"the west has oppressed muslims. We have drones over our heads all the time terrorizing us. Palestine is an open air prison. The usa overthrew a democratically elected government in iran and put in a dictator. Europe were shocking with colonial rule. The west are causing global warming (I've heard this said from a terrorist) and they invade iraq every few years for the last hundred, probably over oil. They are oppressors we are allowed to be violent toward them"
In this case islam might actually be window dressing in the reasoning. Anger and bitterness might be the larger factor and Islam (paradoxically) might if anything reduce the amount of terrorism because some might be paying enough attention to realize that violence against civilians is not justified in their faith.

Is this in the ball park? I certainly have heard examples of this kind of reasoning in radical islam. It would also explain why isis want the west to fight them (so they can recruit more to their cause)

I don't deny that one person can say one thing and another person can say another thing. Which is why Islam has clearly defined which Imams, and hadiths to follow. I am not saying verses cant be misinterpreted. I have said their have been many times before that people have misinterpreted the meanings to suit their needs and it ultimately goes against the teaching of Islam.



I must clear this up, this is not MY interpretation of the Quran. I would not say so. It has been proven that Abu Hamzas views are clearly his own interpretation, and not based on any of the teaching of the prophet PBUH, hadith and sunnah. His teachings are clearly him taking the literal meanings in whichever way he wants and using them to suit his views.

My fiancé is Christian and I never went to church growing up. I attend church now maybe once a month. Some people she knows think it wrong that I'm not Christian but they are far less then the positive number. I find the church many things, but it is welcoming and friendly.

My only experience with "Muslims" is that I worked with them every day for about the last five years. Kazak, Uzbek and Kyrgyz. They work hard, but don't talk openly about Islam. They have on several occasions stated that Islam is rising.
I have never been in a mosque, but traveling through Asia and especially India I can't deny the negative presence that is in the air surrounding mosques in that region. It is differently different to the churches and temples.


I guess all these are open for interpretation.

“Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” — Bukhari 9.84.57 ‘baddala deenahu, faqtuhulu’



-Muslims are encouraged to be wholly occupied (Sura 2:273) with fighting for Allah’s cause.

– Allah will give “a far richer recompense to those who fight for him” (Sura 4:96).
– If a Muslim does not go to war, Allah will kill him (Sura 9:39). He is to be told, “the heat of war is fierce, but more fierce is the heat of Hell-fire” (Sura 9:81).

– A Muslim must “fight for the cause of Allah with the devotion due to him” (Sura 22:78)

– Muslims must make war on the infidels (unbelievers) who live around them (Sura 9:123).

– Muslims are to be “ruthless to unbelievers” (Sura 48:29).

– A Muslim should “enjoy the good things” he has gained by fighting (Sura 8:69).

– A Muslim can kill any person he wishes if it be a “just cause” (Sura 6:152).

– Allah loves those who “fight for his cause” (Sura 61:3).
Anyone who fights against Allah or renounces Islam in favor of another religion shall be “put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off alternative sides” (Sura 5:34).

– Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him. Sahih Al-Bukhari (9:57)

– Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. (Quran 9:5)

– Take him and fetter him and expose him to hell fire. (Quran 69:30-37)

– I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them. (Quran 8:12)

– They should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides. (Quran 5:33)

cheers zimbos. I must admit I am disturbed at the prospect of beating a wife even in extreme cases though the verse definitely seems to imply its use only in extreme cases

in any case I'll move onto the next sura sometime this week

by the way in Christianity adultery and fornication deserves the death penalty too but no one can administer that death penalty because everyone should have been killed for some crime the committed before they had a chance to administer the death penalty. This is why Jesus said "ok stone her but let he who is without sin cast the first stone". The crimes that Jesus typically brought up was that people failed to help the poor (large part of the torah) and deserved the death pen for that "I was hungry and you didn't feed me" e.t.c. In Christianity Jesus took the death penalty in our place so we can be forgiven.

Anyway I should hopefully get a chance to read the next surah in the next couple of days

come on I have no horse in the race and can see that thats a soft ball question
water is still chemically water when it enters steam or even plasma phases. Also the boiling point of water depends on the pressure so in some cases it could be 900c.
Finally this could be interpreted simply as a miracle

Are you asking me?

I cant really explain religion when you want to compare it to science. Has science got no flaws?

When the Quran was written Islam was at the forefront of science. Thought they'd have proof-read :p (i'm not having a dig just being a smart ass).

Rofl!

-PB

surely my answer was way better than that :D

And this is my point in a nutshell. There is a sane and reasoned interpretation (that which is taken by the majority is Muslims, yourself included), but there are also radical interpretations (these are the problematic ones). Your earlier comment was that the book is the direct word of God, therefore can not be misinterpreted... Clearly not the case, because people are people.

I'm not having a pop at the majority of Muslims - who are just as peace loving as the rest of the human race - just at the danger of putting faith in books written over a thousand years ago.

Benjamin,

Faith is a prerequisite for any and all of this. I've said it before, established Islamic consensus states that the Quran is the literal, unabridged word of God. No a la carte ambiguity about it.

So as we've already established, the Quran and, by logical deduction, God sanctions;

- wife beating
- slavery
- rape
- the killing of non-believers, and infidels

The central question isn't what Muslims do, but rather what Islam teaches. Case in point; ISIL has set up a slave market in Mosul. There is nothing un-islamic about this. One may very well quibble as to the islamic legitimacy of ISIL's actions, but slavery itself, is beyond reproach.

Thats the problem with all these cults. They were writen with good intention but with the ideals that were popular at the time. Things that were a normal everyday occurence like slavery were so acceptable that they have no problem being added into a book on living "good".

The argument here is about whether one group can interpret the absolute word of God one way, and others another. The reality is that different groups interpret it in different ways - some positive, some scary.

I dont think i said that the Quran cant be misinterpreted. I said that it can be, and generally those misinterpretations are by people who are not knowledgeable enough to do so.



Islam does not condone slavery in the way you seem to think. Slavery is the term used in reference to house workers. Much like still exist in todays day and age in plenty of places across the globe.

What's the difference between the 'house worker' in modern society, and the 'slave' of days gone by? I'd argue it's very slim. So long as a person is considered property, then it's slavery.

This attitude toward slavery is a common element between the Bible and the Quran, which is hardly surprising as both books were written in times when slave ownership was the norm.

Both books are control mechanism, and both no doubt set out with the intention of making the world a better place. If one reads through what the Quran says about slavery, it's clearly trying to make sure slaves are looked after properly and fairly... But time has moved on, it's good to see that the 'sane' and 'educated' spin that modern Islam is putting on the story is that these are not really 'slaves' in the traditional sense, but more like some kind of indentured service.

@benjamin
For over a thousand years the catholic church oppressed bibles in their own language and control was broken not created when people could read it for themselves
Also I don't see how the bible condones slavery
0. The very first time God reveals himself to a large group of people it is releasing the slaves
1. The word translated as slave in the torah is not translated as slave in some of the oldest translations. Also the same hebrew word is translated as servant throughout the rest of the bible. Slavery seems to be translated as slavery a long time after the fact for people to use it to justify their actions. There are historically about 12 examples of this.
2. You can fingure out whether its slavery or not by how the system is described
-every family has one rural property. You cannot have more than one so there is effectively no inequality and no poverty except in extreme cases
-there is no interest on debts so predatory lending cannot be used as a means to poverty
-people were required to give an average of 20% to the poor every year so the welfare state was massive twice as big as Australias
-if you knew a poor person you were required to give them food and shelter and let them live with you for free
-you could arrange your children to have an arranged marriage to get you out of poverty or temporarily sell your property (you were required by law to get it back on the fiftieth year)
-If you were asked by a poor person for an interest free loan you had to give one
-if after ALL this you couldn't pay off the interest free loan you could work it off for 6 years if you were an israelite or 49 if you were foreigner
-you get a day off every 7, three lots of eight days off every year and a year off every 7 (if a sabbath year overlaps with your service)
-if you don't work you can get beaten but if any injury happens to you at all you are set free with a compensation package. This might sound harsh but consider what would have had to happen to get to this point. Someone is living in a welfare state twice as generous as australia with a property and interest free loans and took one out despite not needing to (who could indefinitely live with his host till he gets his property back) then refuses to work! This is the only protection on the giver to make sure he isn't used
-after you finish your service you get a severance pay
3. In jeremiah where the israelites were keeping the servants permanently the king decided to put an end to it. He got God's blessing. Then the king changed his mind and this became the reason why God rejected this king. So in other words when actually slavery happened God clearly condemns it
4. In the new testament it is true that slaves are told to submit to their masters but we are told to love our enemies and even the oppressors (is the bible condoning the acts of your enemies?). Christianity is a profoundly non violent religion and even the evil are loved and welcomed to the table
5. having said that it says that slave traders will not enter the kingdom of heaven and it encourages slaves that if they have an opportunity to be free take it.

Some of the new testament might sound impractical but remember Martin luther king and Ghandi used the Bible's loving their enemy strategy to overcome oppression.
Also how on Earth would you use the Bible for control. Its conclusion is that God requires nothing of us because he forgives us our sins and we can have relationship with him. There is nothing we can do to make God love us more and nothing we can do to make God love us less. You would have to forbid people reading the bible in their own language to control people with it. Oh wait.....

Edited by grazorblade: 26/10/2014 07:01:23 AM

"Also how on Earth would you use the Bible for control?"

Not sure if serious.

Well did priniting bibles in peoples own language (you know the reformation) break control or not
you need to keep people from knowing what is in the bible to control them
this is true today too. Whenever i help someone get out of a pseudo chrstian cult i get them to readthe bible cover to cover (or even a few books in there can make a huge difference). Without exception pseudochristian cults have highly micromanaged way of reading the bible (read this random verse then this random verse then this book elling you what i means).

you simply cannot control people with the bible without restricting (subtly or overtly) their reading it. It is like using the communist manifeso to promote inequality

I'm sure that St. Paul was said to have told a runaway slave to go back to his master. -> overt endorsement of slavery.

Re. Islam and slavery, if your defense is to quibble as to the nature of slavery sanctioned in your religion, it really says all there is to say about your priorities. Not an altogether stirring endorsement of religion.

In Grazorblade's defence, I think ricey's claim that humans aren't animals takes the 442 cake.