[Ayshizzle]

(Original post by .eXe)
It seems that only non-muslims have the wrong quotes. But if an ex muslim comes and cites quotes, he too has them wrong. Islam is truly skilled at preventing objective arguments about itself. If anyone speaks against it, they are automatically non muslim, apostate or misinformed.

Indeed, if you pull out a not-so-nice verse/saying from the Qur'an or Hadith you have the wrong translation, or it has been mistranslated.
However, all the nice things written in there are the correct translation and interpretation...


Seems a bit fishy to me!

[noisy06]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Surely this sort of language is better for books of art and creative uses. Why would this language be chosen for the book which is ultimately a reference book? Surely part of the reason for big disagreements within the ummah and ulema is because of the ambiguity of Arabic.

Yes, the Arabic is a source of disagreement, but it is a healthy type of disagreement, one that really doesn't all that make a big difference. It makes no difference to anyone's life how that particular hadith is interpreted if you think about it, if some scholars say women lack intelligence and others say they lack emotional restraint, it doesn't change the fact that the testimony of 1 man equals the testimony of 2 women in financial contracts. So yes, Arabic is a source of disagreement, but not to the level that it really matter greatly.

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by noisy06)
Yes, the Arabic is a source of disagreement, but it is a healthy type of disagreement, one that really doesn't all that make a big difference. It makes no difference to anyone's life how that particular hadith is interpreted if you think about it, if some scholars say women lack intelligence and others say they lack emotional restraint, it doesn't change the fact that the testimony of 1 man equals the testimony of 2 women in financial contracts. So yes, Arabic is a source of disagreement, but not to the level that it really matter greatly.

Well, I don't think the things disagreed about are that insubstantial. Take for example the issue as to whether a man is allowed to beat his disobedient wife. There are reams of discussion (often descending into the farcical) as to whether this is the right of a man to ignore his wife, hit her without leaving a mark, beat her lightly, beat her properly, or tap her with a toothbrush. Obviously for disobedient wives everywhere, what the actually verse was meant to mean is very important, because there is a big difference between getting a proper beating and getting tapped with a toothbrush.

So no, the issue of language is actually quite important and does have real, important and tangible results.

[noisy06]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Well, I don't think the things disagreed about are that insubstantial. Take for example the issue as to whether a man is allowed to beat his disobedient wife. There are reams of discussion (often descending into the farcical) as to whether this is the right of a man to ignore his wife, hit her without leaving a mark, beat her lightly, beat her properly, or tap her with a toothbrush. Obviously for disobedient wives everywhere, what the actually verse was meant to mean is very important, because there is a big difference between getting a proper beating and getting tapped with a toothbrush.

So no, the issue of language is actually quite important and does have real, important and tangible results.

Well, even I thought up better examples for the point your making, because the one you made is invalid. The verse on beating does not have a difference of opinion because of the Arabic, because the word used is "daraba", this means "hit" by all respectable academics and scholars.

In fact, I was reading an article on this very issue recently, where all the differences in translation was mentioned including "hit/tap/beat/beat lightly/hurt/strike/scourge/spank" and yes, you read it right, some people have historically translated it as "spank" (clearly the person had sexual fantasies there). But at the end of the day, it means "hit", the reason why we say it really means "hit lightly" is because of the hadeeth in which the Prophet himself stated that the hitting can not be with more than a miswaak (a small stick that the Arabs used to brush their teeth). It cannot leave marks,draw blood etc. These details all come from hadeeth, NOT the qur'an which simply states "hit". In fact, the Qur'an itself states it as a very last resort, and even then a man who takes it upon himself to use this permission has been described by the Prophet as the "least honourable" of all men. Just because something is allowed, doesn't necessarily mean it should be done. To perfect one's religion, it isn't befitting for a man to hit his wife, even if it is allowed.

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by noisy06)
Well, even I thought up better examples for the point your making, because the one you made is invalid. The verse on beating does not have a difference of opinion because of the Arabic, because the word used is "daraba", this means "hit" by all respectable academics and scholars.

Well, depends how a scholar becomes "respected" (i.e respected by whom), since there are now swathes of Muslims that deny this meaning to hit, and cite scholars ("respected" or not). There is obviously a bit difference between beat and tap, so am not quite sure how you can say that difference in meaning is not there.

(Original post by noisy06)
In fact, I was reading an article on this very issue recently, where all the differences in translation was mentioned including "hit/tap/beat/beat lightly/hurt/strike/scourge/spank" and yes, you read it right, some people have historically translated it as "spank" (clearly the person had sexual fantasies there). But at the end of the day, it means "hit"

According to your interpretation of the translation.

(Original post by noisy06)
the reason why we say it really means "hit lightly" is because of the hadeeth in which the Prophet himself stated that the hitting can not be with more than a miswaak (a small stick that the Arabs used to brush their teeth). It cannot leave marks,draw blood etc. These details all come from hadeeth, NOT the qur'an which simply states "hit".

That is a very interesting way of interpreting scripture, especially in the context of scriptural hierarchy, where Qur'an is of a higher order than Hadith. If the intention was to convey the meaning "beat lightly" (as is often translated in English translation, with [lightly] in parenthesis), then the Qur'an's author would have written so in the Qur'an. Using the Hadith to "add" meaning to the Qur'an, rather than "aide" meaning is very interesting

(Original post by noisy06)
In fact, the Qur'an itself states it as a very last resort, and even then a man who takes it upon himself to use this permission has been described by the Prophet as the "least honourable" of all men.

So the Qur'an gives instructions for men to follow, that if followed to the letter, would make the said man "least honourable". Not particularly good guidance there is it?

(Original post by noisy06)
Just because something is allowed, doesn't necessarily mean it should be done.

But this isn't so much an allowance, and actually more of an instruction.

(Original post by noisy06)
To perfect one's religion, it isn't befitting for a man to hit his wife, even if it is allowed.

See above.

[ExMuslim]

(Original post by FamzB)
The Qur'an itself does not prescribe any earthly punishment for apostasy. God gives everyone a choice, otherwise how would you know the true intention of someone? So what you decide is between you and God. Some scholars argue that in some countries, apostasy is punishable if the apostate works against the Muslim society or nation.

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my HTC Desire

Many, if not the majority, of the ulema agree that apostasy in of itself is a crime punishable by death.

[ExMuslim]

(Original post by noisy06)
Well, luckily for me I have an academic analysis written in English of the various translations of the Qur'an that have existed authored by a scholar from Saudi Arabia and the numerous errors are clearly shown, some more blatant than others since they go against our theology.

Ok, so when the quran and hadith command Muslims to kill in the name of Islam, it's all a mistranslation, right? They don't actually say that in Arabic.



These guys really must think we were born yesterday.

[noisy06]

(Original post by ExMuslim)
Ok, so when the quran and hadith command Muslims to kill in the name of Islam, it's all a mistranslation, right? They don't actually say that in Arabic.



These guys really must think we were born yesterday.

No, we don't think it's all a mistranslation. We are inherently bloodthirsty creatures and are out to kill in the name of Islam whenever we are capable of doing so, just like the Qur'an says in the Arabic. You better watch out.