This is a piece of well intentioned naivete. What is needed is for the reader to bracket his own predispositions rather than using them as a measure to judge the validity or ‘worthiness’ of every new text. Unfortunately your predispositions are not merely a set of conscious attitudes or a list of propositional arguments; they are the atmosphere of your thought itself. There is no mediatory position between two sets of beliefs from which to evaluate which is ‘correct’; what occurs most of the time is that we will believe ourselves to be capable of such ‘objectivity’ and yet in truth we will only have introduced a third position between the two we are putatively evaluating, which itself passes without reflection. We do not step outside of one belief - rather we step into another belief.
The question then becomes; what facilitates this transition? Can it be otherwise than arbitrary? Even applying a standard of rationality (which also means non-rationality) to this decisional process is already a commitment in the dark.
But otherwise - sure, go for it… I recommend the King Fahd Saudi version of the English Koran.
There is more to the problem than my meagre attempt to articulate it, btw. But I believe your heart is in the right place.
I DO NOT recommend the Shaikh ibn-Taymiyyah tradition. I recommend the Yusef Ali translation. Saudi Arabia and the wahabism in Saudi Arabia is a big part of our problems. I have read the King Fahd version, it is in stark contrast to what most Muslims read and is poorly narrated.
Perhaps… I shall need to reflect on this some more. However, I continuously read the bible and don’t find myself moving from my agnostic leanings to Christian leanings…
You give me too much credit. My hope is that everyone reads every religion and is convinced god is merely a creation of man. But thanks for the kindness… I shall have to read multiple versions of the Qur’an (much like there are multiple versions I have read of the bible.
Well you’re the expert on this topic, I freely admit. Didn’t I hear you saying that the Koran had not been significantly revised (in contrast to the Bible)? My copy of the Koran has the original Arabic besides the translation - how liberal can the translation be? (I ask, naively perhaps). Unless of course they are tampering with the original text, in which case this becomes questionable;
(if in fact you had made this claim)
And if this is not the case, and the core text is the same, then surely anyone who speaks Arabic would feasibly be able to check the translations themselves? At least any glaring distortions or manipulations would be recognised?
You are fond of distinguishing between Islam and the particularisms of culture and religious expression. I will not offer an opinion on the validity of this; however I will ask whether the argument is compromised if each culture has not only its own interpretation and manifestation of the Koran, but its own Koran itself. This hints at the more insidious problem of interpretation; perhaps something whose complexity cannot be captured in such a brief post as this (which is why I steer clear of it). If you treat ‘Islam’ as an ideal then it becomes legitimate to ask of when and indeed if it has ever been done justice (i.e. ‘realised’) in any real context - and if not then with what warrant you feel qualified to talk about what Islam ‘really is’ at all. This means; where does the ‘correct’ and ‘original’ message come from, if it has never been historically realised? If I must offer an opinion here, I maintain that whilst there is some merit to distinguishing between a religion/belief and its adherence; to attempt to keep them wholly apart for the sake of argument is ultimately spurious.
Of course we may simply say that, in fact, it has been realised at one time or another, and so we need only re-familiarise ourselves with the understanding of Islam enjoyed in those times, in order to know and appreciate what the actual message of this religion is. Now what I do not understand is how you are able to claim that any modern translation of the Koran can be ‘more correct’ than any other, unless you have some reference point of ‘original meaning’ to point to and use as your measure for distinguishing between good and bad translations.
My apologies; it seems I have done what I promised I would try to avoid… What I seek, I suppose, is clarification of your position in this regard.
Simply looking at the words on the page does not constitute ‘reading’ nor ‘understanding’ nor ‘open-mindedness’. You are not a passive tabula rasa who could justifiably make an argument of the type ‘the revelation did not jump up off the page and seize me, therefore there is no revelation or revealed’. All of your previous feelings of revelation or insight when reading a text are due not to some immanent ‘truth bell’ which tolls every time you read something which is ‘correct’; it is merely the rather more mundane presence of your own ‘entry point’ into the text; it is intertextuality in motion; and there is ultimately nothing in it which is either necessarily indicative of truth or necessarily indicate of falsity.
I disagree with this, because while the interpretative ability is similiar you don’t need to read all of the bible, quran or book of mormon to get an idea of what the religion is about.
jewish:
temple sacrifices to atone for sin (blood atonement)
strict adherence to biblical law
christian:
christ is the blood atonement for sin
the new law is “written on their hearts and not on tablets”
Islam:
(care to fill in the blanks avicenna? what is the doctrine on sin and law?)
even though I do disagree I’ll check out the quran and read more of it, I’m not afraid of it transforming me into a muslim. I just don’t see a purpose in it, as I don’t think it’s going to change my mind on how well it’s written.
(which it’s certainly written better than the book of mormon which is a complete hack work.)
Right, not in its original Arabic. It is in the translations that various schools exploited the liberty of translating whether intentional or not. Noetician might have more to say about this.
Right…the arabic text is unaltered and all translations are for the most part the same, with no glaring distortions or manipulations. However, there are some parenthetical explanations and footnotes in the Saudi King Fahd version that have a Wahhabi bent. I agree with AD in that the King Fahd saudi version would not be the best bet. Yusef Ali’s translation is probably the most popular and is pretty well-translated.
I understand where you are coming from, and it’s a very good point. However, I think we need to distinguish between the realization of “real” Islam in the form of a government, and in a general form (as a way of life for Muslims as a whole). The fact that governments act wrongfully, sometimes under the guise of Islam, is no reflection of any destruction of actual or true Islam. Muslims, in their daily lives realize and practice actual Islam, as it has been practiced from its inception. Muslims generally understand Islam’s “correct†and “real†message (and it is generally the same message amongst all sects, with the exception of little fringe groups that were established long after Islam, such as Wahhabism). We are not distinguishing between Islam and its general adherence, as if it is some ideal that has not been realized. We are speaking about the Islam that is both practiced and taught worldwide, as opposed to “Islamic†customs that are promulgated by corrupt governments such as Saudi Arabia, or individuals such as bin Laden. Islam itself has not been lost. Rather, Islam is a set of rules, customs, practices and habits that make up an entire way of life (from the way Muslims behave, to the way they associate with others, to the way they do business, to the way they spend their money, to the way they to the way they eat, dress, or even walk and talk). I was raised as a Muslim, and I was raised with an understanding of religion by being taught the Qur’an, the traditions of the Prophet, etc. as well as the ethics specific to Islam. All of my Muslim friends possess this understanding. The practicing ones practice Islam much in the same way I do, and the non-practicing ones still understand Islam much in the same way I do. The same goes for Muslims all around the world, even if they live in a country that has an “Islamic†government. Hardly anyone believes the government is actually Islamic.
I completely disagree (surprise, surprise lol). I don’t think an entire religion can be summarized on the basis of its doctrine on sin and law. While you may not have to read the entire Bible, Qur’an, or Book of Mormon to see what a religion is “all about†(although I think it is very important), you certainly do have to do a lot of reading on the religion.
I don’t think categories for atonement and law quite do the trick. Muslims don’t have such a notion of atonement for sin; rather, they ask God for forgiveness with a sincere heart and believe that God is merciful and forgiving. Practicing Muslims take their actions quite seriously because they know that they are completely responsible for their sins, and in asking God for forgiveness, they are in a way vowing not to repeat the action. As for law, it is derived from the Qur’an as well as the traditions of Prophet Mohammad, which have been narrated in pretty good detail (however, not all of the recorded ones are authentic. Many were fabricated after his death, and scholars often sift through the narrations and the narrative chain to determine which ones are likely authentic and which ones are likely fabricated). But how much does this tell you about Islam? Far more important than atonement for sin is the most important pillar of Islam: its strict monotheism. One cannot know a religion by simply knowing where the law is derived from. Actual knowledge or understanding of the law, foundations, and core beliefs is necessary.
I don’t see the relevance of how the Qur’an is written to gaining an understanding of the Qur’an and Islam. Even if it were poorly written, you would still gain a better understanding of the religion by reading it. However, since I am on the topic…the Qur’anic prose is completely unmatched in the Arabic world. Anyone who understands Arabic and has read any of the Qur’an will tell you that, Muslim or non-Muslim. The Arabs during the time of Mohammad, known for their poetry and literature, were challenged to create a verse similar to those of the Qur’an and were unable to. When Islam was introduced, many people converted simply by hearing the Qur’an being read. Unfortunately, the English translations do not do it much justice. They cannot capture the poetic, graceful, and profound qualities of the Arabic text. Nonetheless, they are good translations, and they get the message across…and to me, they still convey the beauty of the book. For example, a verse I recently read that made me stop and think: “It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all swim along, each in its rounded course†21:33. Regardless of the language, the description of celestial bodies as “swimming†in their orbit is, to me at least, beautiful.
Peace out.
PS–I’m totally just editing this in so that I am not misunderstood. Sythekain: I am not trying to make you think the Qur’an is beautiful. Obviously you are entitled to your opinion and I have no problem with that. I was simply stating and explaining my own opinion.
i’m not going to ask you why because you have already said.
but why, in Catholicism is it okay for a woman to be canonised and made a saint, but not for her to be a minister?
is it because after she is dead, giving a woman ‘power’ will prove no threat to our patriarchal society?
wow. that is the most feminist thought i have ever had. i am rather surprised.
seriously though; it’s ok to have a woman saint, but not a woman priest? what’s all that about??
(and sorry if this has already been brought up. i didn’t have time to read te whole thread cos it’s 3 pages at the moment and i have to leave for work soon… make coffee, get dressed, psych myself up in the mirror…)
After reading some Thomas Paine last night it set straight the point I was trying to get across.
If I came to you with a book that I told you god gave me and that I spoke to angels, would you be inclined to believe me?
If I wrote a book about a great man, then my book was copied and expanded upon and resurrection added, should our first inclination be to believe me? (the original author, or the author who copied my work.)
We must apply these same rules to all religions, because he claimed divine intervention, in no way means he is excluded from logic. All modern religions are handed down hearsay. “psst, this moses guy says he saw god and that god gave him two tablets of rules.”
IMO, these people from these older times were far more gullible, if a similiar event happened today no one would believe him. Want proof? look at this guy in Vegas who calls himself “Prophet Yahweh”, who says he can call aliens down. (I think it was just a random blit, if he really called down a ufo why didn’t it come closer?)
sythe…you can’t be serious. the fact that there is a guy in vegas who claims to be “prophet yahweh” is no “proof” that anyone else was a false prophet. you can’t seriously be alleging that thousands of people accepted Mohammad as a prophet merely because they were more “gullible” back then. what kind of statement is that anyway? people are people, and many of those people were brilliant in literature, art, philosophy, science, math, etc. why would they be any less critical of religion? your argument makes no sense.
even the most brilliant people can be lead like sheep to follow a false prophet.
and you in a way answered my question, even with the video proof showing the UFO come, you still think that prophet Yahweh is a sham. Chances are if mohammed came in todays time and claimed he walked into a cave and these ufo’s inspired him (ufo’s are modern day angels and god’s) to write a book.
Do you think he’d get any followers? People generally are more discerning now, even if they follow an ancient faith.
BUT, you throw god, allah or an angel into that cave and chances are suddenly you’d think about believing it right?
I don’t understand why this topic can even be argued. With in the methodology that PoR operates he is right. This is not a question of if women should be ministers but merely a statement that if they are a strict follower of the Bible then they cannot be.
Arguing different methodologies is stupid because within each methodology you are both right.
My dismissal of “prophet yahweh†in spite of a mere video did nothing to further your point, because I do not dismiss him for the reasons you provide. There are much more important factors involved than the fact that it is 2005, and that I am apparently more “discerning†than I would have been, had I been born a millennium or two ago. It is a total generalization to say that people were less “discerning†back then, and I will bet you have no proof to back such a statement up. It’s not like people went off & believed every “prophet†that came along. Rather, people evaluated them in light of various factors. Who is the person claiming to have received the message? What is his history/reputation? What is the message? Etc…
In line with your method of argumentation, how about I reverse it and tell you that if “prophet yahweh†appeared two thousand years ago, he would have as few believers then as he does today, because his message is empty. So what if he can summon UFO’s? That means nothing. And where do you go off saying that a UFO is a modern day angel/god? Nonetheless, I’ll go along with that. Let’s go ahead & say that he alleged to have summoned angels 2000 years ago. So what? What did they tell him? Who is he? What is his history? What is the general message he is conveying to the people? If he made the exact same claim 2000 years ago that he makes today (with angels instead), I would bet that he would have just as few followers then as he does now, if any at all. Your argument still makes no sense to me, because you are comparing apples & oranges. No…you are comparing apples & meatloaf.
Look at the “heaven’s gate” cult. They believed that the comet was a UFO that would suck them aboard then destroy the earth. They ammassed a sizeable amount of followers and had they not drank their kool-aid they probably would’ve ammassed more followers.
or how about this, let’s reverse Joseph Smith with Mohammed. Mohammed started Islam in New York and doesn’t have nearly as many followers as Islam because it’s older.
Joseph Smith is looked upon even by PC secularists as a “great prophet”. Had you been born in that area (like you were for Islam) you would be a practicing mormon and believe that Joe Smith was the greatest prophet. (or equal prophet depending on the sect of mormonism.)
we’re people more discerning back then? generally I think that it’s the same as it is now. Most people lack common sense and when they search for spiritual answers they turn to controlling religions for those answers. Answers that are a hollow shell of what they should be.
My point was that if you want a relationship with god, you can have a relationship with god, you don’t need to rely on hearsay of christ, mohammed, moses, or smith.
I also think more ufo religions will develop as they develop their plan for an afterlife. That’s because people are just as gullible now as they were then.
ok…here’s what im trying to get across to you. you can’t just replace one prophet for another, and make comparisons in that way. you can’t replace mohammad with p. yahweh, you can’t replace mohammad with joseph smith, etc. they are completely different people with completely different messages. the fact that both mohammad and smith were cconsidered “great prophets” does not make them exchangeable. there is absolutely no comparison. there are personalities and messages behind those prophets, not just the name “prophet” backing them up.
wow…what a huge generalization. you’re saying that if mohammad came about in joseph smiths place, i would believe him…and thus, i would have believed in joseph smith had i been around ny at that time? that’s so ridiculous i’m having trouble even fathoming that you could think that the core of my entire belief system is so simple. how can you have any idea what i would or would not believe in? to me, there is no comparison between joseph smith & mohammad. and i mean no disrespect to joseph smith. i’m just saying that they were totally different people, with different personalities, different reputations, different messages, different books…just completely different. i’m still totally in shock. are you for reals or did i misunderstand you? i’m seriously hoping that the latter is true.
you cannot dismiss all religions as having “hollow” answers until you have truly and critically researched all religions. perhaps you have become disheartened with some religions you have studied. that does not speak for all religions. it’s cool if you choose not to follow a religion, but you shouldn’t pass generalizations for all religions when you do not have the requisite knowledge & understanding.
likewise, you cannot make generalizations about all prophetic messages unless you have honestly and thoroughly studied all prophetic messages. yes, you can have a direct relationship with God, whether or not you have a religion. it’s fine if you choose not to believe in them. but don’t insult them based on what you do not know.
EVERY text is interpreted based upon the ideas and backgrounds of its readers/writers. You read a text based upon WHO you are. Here is a simple, popular example from grammar class. (Correctly punctuate this sentence):
This post is meant for PoR on his last statement on page 1.
So… lets just say I say, “I am God, and I am the way to God and only through me can you achieve total salvation for I am Lasko and it is in me the only Mediator to God shall you be redeemed”
Does this mean you shall worship me? Or is your argument for this that Jesus said his comment first centuries ago? And if this is the case then I ask you this… What about the religions before Christianity for there were serveral before Christianity came along. My point is that just because someone says they are the “way” to light does not mean they are the way to god.
Well, I guess we see where you come from and who you are by that response. (The class Jokester). P.S. You’re failing grammar.
But the point was that you can read that line various ways, depending on your point of view.
“Woman, without her man, is nothing.”
“Woman, without her, man is nothing.”
The meaning radically changes based on where you place the second comma. Like any text, the Bible too has been subject to the interpreters who have constructed “Their” meanings from and around the text. Thus, while the Bible is a vastly heteroglossic and multivocal work, traditional readers of the text (who have mostly been men) interpret the text in ways that endorse and justify their points of view. Another example is the Quran, which is a radically egalitarian text, but the interpreters and commentaries have created readings that reinforce male dominance. I like how the Laura (Riding) Jackson explains how this past (full of only male interpretation of the holy texts) needs revision. She explained that, as they are, the current interpretations of holy texts fail to fully explain humanity: “While the men who told these stories were of ‘honest purpose,’ they were also ‘more man-minded than human-minded.’†Quoted in James Oldham, “The Telling: Laura (Riding) Jackson’s Project for a Whole Human Discourse.â€
I recommend the King Fahd Saudi version of the English Koran.