Turn on thread page Beta

Islamic asylum seekers in Germany threaten to kill Christians watch

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okey)
    I don't think there is any content of the Qur'an that exceeds the levels of brutality shown in the Bible,
    Crucifixion is specifically mentioned in the Quran as a punishment
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Crucifixion is specifically mentioned in the Quran as a punishment
    I've already posted on this thread the most brutal verses of the bible.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okey)
    My position is that countries that employ strict Sharia are doing so in accordance with their interpretation of the Qur'an. If they choose to interpret it so literally and without context, then they are the ones to blame rather than the Quranic text itself.
    You seem to be unaware that the Koran itself states (a) that it is the word of God, (b) that it is perfect and complete, (c) that it must not be supplemented or have anything taken away, (d) must not be interpreted.

    According to the Koran itself, then, there is no scope for interpretations or the taking account of what you call context - diluting it with merciful and sensible modern interpretations.

    Any state that chooses to use sharia law, therefore is by definition, stuck with barbaric mediaeval law - unless its rules manage to somehow overturn that with a modern interpretation, which the clerics generally disapprove (obviously) of because of what the Koran says.

    Islam is, therefore, a political superstition that is stuck permanently in the eighth century, and no country basing its laws on the Koran can advance. By sheer coincidence no country that has substantially adopted Islamic laws has advanced.

    The conservative Wahabis that influence the Saudi royal family, and ISIS, are the best example of what true Sharia law is all about. Any other approach involves much weaseling around what God has told Moslems in the Koran.

    Obviously, no modern state bases its laws on the Bible, and secular westerners (even the Christians) have realised long ago, though education, that the Bible is a load of barbaric old tosh.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You seem to be unaware that the Koran itself states (a) that it is the word of God, (b) that it is perfect and complete, (c) that it must not be supplemented or have anything taken away, (d) must not be interpreted.

    According to the Koran itself, then, there is no scope for interpretations or the taking account of what you call context - diluting it with merciful and sensible modern interpretations.

    Any state that chooses to use sharia law, therefore is by definition, stuck with barbaric mediaeval law - unless its rules manage to somehow overturn that with a modern interpretation, which the clerics generally disapprove (obviously) of because of what the Koran says.

    Islam is, therefore, a political superstition that is stuck permanently in the eighth century, and no country basing its laws on the Koran can advance. By sheer coincidence no country that has substantially adopted Islamic laws has advanced.

    The conservative Wahabis that influence the Saudi royal family, and ISIS, are the best example of what true Sharia law is all about. Any other approach involves much weaseling around what God has told Moslems in the Koran.

    Obviously, no modern state bases its laws on the Bible, and secular westerners (even the Christians) have realised long ago, though education, that the Bible is a load of barbaric old tosh.
    Where does it say that in the Qur'an, because practically every modern scholar disagrees with that.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okey)
    This is what most right wing garbage doesn't take into account- the period of time the Qur'an was written for. These verses have to be contextualised, do you realise the state of the Middle East before the Qur'an was revealed? Believe it or not, these verses were improvements for the time.
    But Islam, by its own standards, does not allow for historical and cutural relativism.
    Islamic law/sharia is essentally based on what Allah has made halal and haram, and man cannot make halal what Allah has made haram.

    "Context". It is a word that is so rarely used in its proper context amongst apologists. It usually seems to mean "I can find a contradictory verse, therefore your verse is refuted", or "That passage does not mean what it appears to mean".

    The correct way to contextualise the Quran is in context of being a socio-politico-religious guide that is universal, timeless and immutable. Because that is what it is claimed to be. Most sceptics and rational people know that the Quran and Sunnah are absolutely historically and culturally relative but the issue is that 1.6 billion Muslims (or at least the ones who actively think about their belief, and remain Muslims) do not. It is pointless to address the application and implementation of The Quran and Sunnah in Islamic countries in any other context than that of absolute belief in the tenets of Islam.

    We are all well aware of the unpleasent nature of much of the contents of the OT, but you'd be hard pressed to find a country that uses the OT as the basis for its constitution, or more than a handfull of Christians who consider the OT to be the timeless and perfect guide for all humanity - as relevant and applicable today as it was over 2000 years ago.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    But Islam, by its own standards, does not allow for historical and cutural relativism.
    Islamic law/sharia is essentally based on what Allah has made halal and haram, and man cannot make halal what Allah has made haram.

    "Context". It is a word that is so rarely used in its proper context amongst apologists. It usually seems to mean "I can find a contradictory verse, therefore your verse is refuted", or "That passage does not mean what it appears to mean".

    The correct way to contextualise the Quran is in context of being a socio-politico-religious guide that is universal, timeless and immutable. Because that is what it is claimed to be. Most sceptics and rational people know that the Quran and Sunnah are absolutely historically and culturally relative but the issue is that 1.6 billion Muslims (or at least the ones who actively think about their belief, and remain Muslims) do not. It is pointless to address the application and implementation of The Quran and Sunnah in Islamic countries in any other context than that of absolute belief in the tenets of Islam.

    We are all well aware of the unpleasent nature of much of the contents of the OT, but you'd be hard pressed to find a country that uses the OT as the basis for its constitution, or more than a handfull of Christians who consider the OT to be the timeless and perfect guide for all humanity - as relevant and applicable today as it was over 2000 years ago.
    I don't know where all of these points about the Qur'an saying that it it is to be interpreted literally have come from. Where exactly does it say that? All modern islamic scholars disagree and say that it isn't to be taken literally. Logically, I would think that if a text is sent down with the view of appealing to people of that time, it would be written for people of that time. So therefore people reading it today should consider that it was indeed written in a more backward time, and it can be interpreted with that considered. I think that is what produces moderate muslims- rationality. I don't think it's sensible to generalise 1.6 billion people as not thinking about their faith and to then call yourself "rational".
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okey)
    I don't know where all of these points about the Qur'an saying that it it is to be interpreted literally have come from. Where exactly does it say that? All modern islamic scholars disagree and say that it isn't to be taken literally. Logically, I would think that if a text is sent down with the view of appealing to people of that time, it would be written for people of that time. So therefore people reading it today should consider that it was indeed written in a more backward time
    Of course you might think that. But you are not an ill-educated superstitious person.

    Logically, if the Koran (the whole basis of Islam) says it must be interpreted literally then it must be interpreted literally with no interpretation. if this is not the case then you are following a different superstition, which you might like to call Islam Light - but it isn't Islam.

    So, does the Koran say that or not? Note the following quotes (there are others, as the Koran is nothing if not repetitive):

    These are God's revelations that We recite to you truthfully. In which hadith other than God and His revelations do they believe? 45:6

    Such was the sunna of God for those who have passed on before. You will find that there is no substitute for the sunna of God. 33:62

    The sunna (practice) of God, note; not the sunna of Mohammed or the Caliph, or an imam, or Okey.

    And We brought down to you the scripture, truthfully, confirming what is present of the scripture, and superseding it. So rule among them in accordance with what God has brought down, and do not follow their wishes away from the truth that came to you. 5:48

    In other words, obey only the word of God, as transmitted in the Koran, and forget all the tosh you may have heard before.

    The only duty of the messenger is to deliver the message. 5:99

    This tells Moslems that Mohammed is only a means of transmission, and even his interpretations are invalid.

    A revelation from the Lord of the worlds. Had he attributed anything falsely to Us. We would have grabbed him by the right, and We would have severed his Aorta, none of you would be able to prevent it. 69:43

    If Mohammed had passed on anything he shouldn't have in the Koran things would have looked bad for him.

    The word of your Lord is complete in truth and justice 6:115

    These are the signs of the clear book 12:1

    In other words, the Koran needs no interpretation and is complete, but, just in case you don't get the message:

    This is a book whose verses have been perfected 11:1

    Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed? 6:114

    Live by no other laws than those in the Koran.

    So, the Koran is perfect, complete, not to be interpreted and God's will. There is nothing clearer and more constraining for a superstitious person, nor less conducive to modern interpretation and reformation (as many advocate, rather naively).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Of course you might think that. But you are not an ill-educated superstitious person.

    Logically, if the Koran (the whole basis of Islam) says it must be interpreted literally then it must be interpreted literally with no interpretation. if this is not the case then you are following a different superstition, which you might like to call Islam Light - but it isn't Islam.

    So, does the Koran say that or not? Note the following quotes (there are others, as the Koran is nothing if not repetitive):

    These are God's revelations that We recite to you truthfully. In which hadith other than God and His revelations do they believe? 45:6

    Such was the sunna of God for those who have passed on before. You will find that there is no substitute for the sunna of God. 33:62

    The sunna (practice) of God, note; not the sunna of Mohammed or the Caliph, or an imam, or Okey.

    And We brought down to you the scripture, truthfully, confirming what is present of the scripture, and superseding it. So rule among them in accordance with what God has brought down, and do not follow their wishes away from the truth that came to you. 5:48

    In other words, obey only the word of God, as transmitted in the Koran, and forget all the tosh you may have heard before.

    The only duty of the messenger is to deliver the message. 5:99

    This tells Moslems that Mohammed is only a means of transmission, and even his interpretations are invalid.

    A revelation from the Lord of the worlds. Had he attributed anything falsely to Us. We would have grabbed him by the right, and We would have severed his Aorta, none of you would be able to prevent it. 69:43

    If Mohammed had passed on anything he shouldn't have in the Koran things would have looked bad for him.

    The word of your Lord is complete in truth and justice 6:115

    These are the signs of the clear book 12:1

    In other words, the Koran needs no interpretation and is complete, but, just in case you don't get the message:

    This is a book whose verses have been perfected 11:1

    Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed? 6:114

    Live by no other laws than those in the Koran.

    So, the Koran is perfect, complete, not to be interpreted and God's will. There is nothing clearer and more constraining for a superstitious person, nor less conducive to modern interpretation and reformation (as many advocate, rather naively).
    very odd how you sound the most like a terrorist than anyone else on this thread. Both you and them seem to think there is no substitute to violence and pillaging in the quran
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okey)
    I understand that Sharia is the legal code of Saudi Arabia, but you have to understand that Saudi Arabia and Dubai cannot logically be representative of the wider Muslim world.
    The fact that many Muslim majority countries do not implement a fully sharia-compliant legal system does not affect the nature of the fundamental ideology. Many of those countries have in place a system that has been tempered by decades or centuries of secular democracy, colonialism, and modernist influences.

    KSA, Iran, Yemen, ISIS, etc, may not be representative of all Muslims - but they are certainly representative of the Islam as revealed by Allah and promoted by Muhammad.

    We know a few countries with problems (Saudi, Dubai, Pakistan etc.) and we know many without (Malaysia, Bangladesh, Turkey etc.) How do you argue that Islam is causative of any problems that exist? I don't see any pattern let alone causation. You simply have no argument.
    Have you not noticed that in the examples you cite, the degree to which the Quran and Sunnah are used as the basis of the legal system seem to have a major bearing on the "problems" that certain groups face.

    For instance, take the case of Mohammad al Nimr in Saudi Arabia. He has been sentenced to crucifixion and death as a punishment for anti-government activities. Due to the inextricable connection between state and Islam in KSA, his crime conforms to the Quranic offence of "fasad" (spreading corruption/mischief). Sura 5:33 states "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified"
    (The Arabic word used in that verse is "fasad", which is defined as "an Islamic concept which means spreading mischief in a Muslim land, moral corruption against God, and any form of expression or activity by non-Muslims or apostates of Islam that creates disorder in the Muslim community").

    Of course, you could play the historical relativism card, but Ibn Kathir's tafsir describes the application of that verse to be "general in meaning and includes the idolators and all others who commit the types of crimes the Ayah mentioned"

    Now, seriously, without that verse in the Quran (there are others that could apply, as well as sahih hadith), do you think that the Saudi authorities would be executing and crucifying him? Do you claim that it is mere coincidence?

    And as for the straw man fallacy, you have to ask whether this is relevant when looking at the evidence. There is simply no pattern there. If you were to have credible evidence that in a large proportion of Islamic countries there are similar issues compared to a large proportion of non-Islamic countries without- then you'd have an argument. Fortunately, that is not the case.
    But if you compare systems that implement a literal interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah, there is a clear pattern.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okey)
    very odd how you sound the most like a terrorist than anyone else on this thread. Both you and them seem to think there is no substitute to violence and pillaging in the quran
    So you ask for evidence of what the quran says and when given it you accuse the poster of sounding like a terrorist
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okey)
    very odd how you sound the most like a terrorist than anyone else on this thread. Both you and them seem to think there is no substitute to violence and pillaging in the quran
    I'm just explaining the logic of Islam. I can't help it if there are people in this world who are superstitious enough to follow it. I also can't help it (but welcome) if others don't really understand its full implications but do not follow it properly and choose to do so in a more reasonable way. However, you claimed that strict Sharia interpretations are just that - interpretations - and that Islam itself is not to be blamed, and also that modern interpretations are reasonable.

    The truth is that Islam is not to be interpreted (according to its own Koran - the ultimate authority) and therefore Islam itself is at fault. The sooner it (along with all other religions) disappears, the better, in my view.

    It is obvious to anyone of the meanest intelligence that the whole edifice was invented by a conniving warlord who identified that superstitious desert dwellers could be manipulated by a judicious bit of scriptural invention, and that the world should have been educated out of it by now. However, all those Moslems are clear evidence that people will believe anything if it is sold in the right way.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    The fact that many Muslim majority countries do not implement a fully sharia-compliant legal system does not affect the nature of the fundamental ideology. Many of those countries have in place a system that has been tempered by decades or centuries of secular democracy, colonialism, and modernist influences.

    KSA, Iran, Yemen, ISIS, etc, may not be representative of all Muslims - but they are certainly representative of the Islam as revealed by Allah and promoted by Muhammad.

    Have you not noticed that in the examples you cite, the degree to which the Quran and Sunnah are used as the basis of the legal system seem to have a major bearing on the "problems" that certain groups face.

    For instance, take the case of Mohammad al Nimr in Saudi Arabia. He has been sentenced to crucifixion and death as a punishment for anti-government activities. Due to the inextricable connection between state and Islam in KSA, his crime conforms to the Quranic offence of "fasad" (spreading corruption/mischief). Sura 5:33 states "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified"
    (The Arabic word used in that verse is "fasad", which is defined as "an Islamic concept which means spreading mischief in a Muslim land, moral corruption against God, and any form of expression or activity by non-Muslims or apostates of Islam that creates disorder in the Muslim community".

    Of course, you could play the historical relativism card, but Ibn Kathir's tafsir describes the application of that verse to be "general in meaning and includes the idolators and all others who commit the types of crimes the Ayah mentioned"

    Now, seriously, without that verse in the Quran (there are others that could apply, as well as sahih hadith), do you think that the Saudi authorities would be executing and crucifying him? Do you claim that it is mere coincidence?

    But if you compare systems that implement a literal interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah, there is a clear pattern.
    Comparing systems that implement a literal interpretation of the Quran can tell us that there is clearly a problem in interpreting the Quran literally. Nothing else.

    Comparing systems that implement a variety of interpretations of the Quran tell us that there is no pattern of behaviour other than that there are few problems with those who interpret with context, and that there are many problems with those who interpret literally and without context. This being said, there isn't any point in attacking the religion as such (as so many can interpret it without problem), but there is logical cause to tackle extremist ideas within Muslim communities. Something I personally have been working to achieve as part of the Quilliam group- yet something nobody on this thread is willing to consider. Rather, they see it more fit to condemn the entire religion and followers of it. Very rational.

    Additionally, Ibn Kathir's interpretation is his own. If he believes it to mean that crucifixion is justified then that is his own belief, and he as an individual is to be held accountable for it. He doesn't speak for 1.6 billion Muslims, so the "historic relativism" card as you put it can be played without any opposition from yourself to say the least.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I'm just explaining the logic of Islam. I can't help it if there are people in this world who are superstitious enough to follow it. I also can't help it (but welcome) if others don't really understand its full implications but do not follow it properly and choose to do so in a more reasonable way. However, you claimed that strict Sharia interpretations are just that - interpretations - and that Islam itself is not to be blamed, and also that modern interpretations are reasonable.

    The truth is that Islam is not to be interpreted (according to its own Koran - the ultimate authority) and therefore Islam itself is at fault. The sooner it (along with all other religions) disappears, the better, in my view.

    It is obvious to anyone of the meanest intelligence that the whole edifice was invented by a conniving warlord who identified that superstitious desert dwellers could be manipulated by a judicious bit of scriptural invention, and that the world should have been educated out of it by now. However, all those Moslems are clear evidence that people will believe anything if it is sold in the right way.
    I do find it very questionable to argue that all religions should disappear. I think that it is very evident that religion can function in society as it always has done, of course there is no action that is without consequence. I don't think either religion or atheism are exceptions to that. These problems will not just vanish along with religion if your suggestion were to take effect. Nobody is forcing you to be religious, pointing out flaws is encouraged, but I don't think any critique should be made without even a hint to a solution. What is it that you propose? This is a core difference between successful and unsuccessful figureheads, the proposition of a solution. I have argued that eliminating extremist values within Islam is something that I think the community is already striving to achieve, particularly the Quilliam foundation which I am a part of (I urge you to look it up if you aren't familiar). Again, what solution do you propose?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okey)
    Again, what solution do you propose?
    Religions will eventually die as a by-product of mass education. It is a pity that some believers try to stifle or to subvert the process (whether that is creationist interference in science lessons or just organisations like Boko Haram and the Taliban stopping girls from being educated at all), but that is to be expected.

    (Original post by okey)
    Comparing systems that implement a literal interpretation of the Quran can tell us that there is clearly a problem in interpreting the Quran literally.
    Of course there is. But that is Islam. Did you read and understand nothing of what I posted before describing me as a terrorist? Or can I take it you have your fingers in your ears and are humming loudly to yourself?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Religions will eventually die as a by-product of mass education. It is a pity that some believers try to stifle or to subvert the process (whether that is creationist interference in science lessons or just organisations like Boko Haram and the Taliban stopping girls from being educated at all), but that is to be expected.



    Of course there is. But that is Islam. Did you read and understand nothing of what I posted before describing me as a terrorist? Or can I take it you have your fingers in your ears and are humming loudly to yourself?
    your suggestion is ridiculous. You want to actually diminish people's freedom of speech in education so your ideas are the only ones there so people have to believe them. You call that mass education? You sound more like a terrorist than I thought.

    I think it's time for me to mute this thread. was nice speaking to you...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okey)
    your suggestion is ridiculous. You want to actually diminish people's freedom of speech in education so your ideas are the only ones there so people have to believe them. You call that mass education? You sound more like a terrorist than I thought.

    I think it's time for me to mute this thread. was nice speaking to you...
    Are you advocating the teaching of creationism as science? And complaining that I criticise such action? On what basis do you do that? Are you a creationist?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okey)
    My position is that countries that employ strict Sharia are doing so in accordance with their interpretation of the Qur'an. If they choose to interpret it so literally and without context, then they are the ones to blame rather than the Quranic text itself.
    The important thing to bear in mind is that their "interpretation" of the Quran and Sunnah is the one that requires the least (if any) revisionism. Remember that the Quran itself claims to be the actual, perfect and immutable word of god, clear in meaning and detail. In this context, if the Quran says "X", the most reasonable interpretation is "X", not "Not X".

    A classic example is sura 4:34 that clearly and unequivocally states that a husband may beat (or "strike") his wife as a last resort if he fears disobedience from her. The context of this revelation is that men are made as the "maintainers of women" and created "a degree above them".
    Read it for yourself. The context is clear. The statement is unequivocal. Many Islamic scholars, especially in the Middle East, claim that it means just what it says. However, many Muslims I encounter in discussion in the UK will construct elaborate apologetics in an attempt to demonstrate that Islam does not condone domestic violence, and while this is commendable it does not allow for either the actual wording of the verse, nor its context. They are essentially claiming that the Quran is either wrong, or unclear and open to misinterpretation - both of which are at odds with the fundamental claims of the Quran itself.

    I don't think there is any content of the Qur'an that exceeds the levels of brutality shown in the Bible,
    While this might be true of the OT, it is not the case with the NT, and I assume that you are familiar with the majority consensus amongst Christians that the conciliatory message of Jesus abrogated the brutality of the OT.

    yet there is no/ very little example of Christian countries implementing such inhumane laws. This means that it is not the Qur'an itself, but its interpretation of it.
    That is because of the fundamental difference between Islamic and Christian dogma. I would be most surprised if you could find more than a few UK Christians who claim that the OT is the perfect, universal, immutable and timeless guide for all humanity, as applicable today as it was 2000 years ago.
    Conversely, I would be surprised if you could find more than a few UK Muslims who claim that the Quran IS NOT the perfect, universal, immutable and timeless guide for all humanity, as applicable today as it was 1400 years ago.

    I don't believe that you can say that these laws can be linked to Islam as such anymore than you could argue that Christianity is to blame for the Chapel Hill shooting for instance.
    This is clealy nonsense.
    The CH shooting was the case of one atheist, ex-judicially murdering three people because of personal reasons.
    When a woman is stoned or flogged for zina, that offence and the punishments for it are only found within the Quran and Sunnah and are therefore part of any legal system based thereon.

    It is people's interpretation of these texts that gives them their justification for their actions. A sociopath will have a violent interpretation of any religion, whilst the millions of moderate Muslims around the world have their own rational interpretations involving contextualisation which cannot be tied to any deaths.
    So, what you are saying is that if a magistrate bans me from driving for being 3 times over the limit, it is not because of the law, but that magistrate's interpretation of the law! Are you seriously claiming that another magistrate may interpret the law to mean that my offence does not require a ban?

    Likewise, when the Quran states "The woman and the man guilty of fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah", what "interpretation" do you abrogates this punishment?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okey)
    I don't know where all of these points about the Qur'an saying that it it is to be interpreted literally have come from.
    Er... from the Quran, Sura 3:7. The muhkamat verses are clear and not open to interpretation. These deal weath laws, rules, obligations, prescription and proscription. The mutashabihat verses are intentionally unclear, but only Allah knows their true meaning, and they cannot contradict any muhkamat verses.

    Also, there are several verses that clearly state that the Quran is complete, clear and detailed. 6:114, 16:89, 41:3.

    All modern islamic scholars disagree and say that it isn't to be taken literally.
    Simply not true. As most Muslims abrogate their interpretation to a "scholar", we would expect any survey of Muslims to reflect the teachings of their respective scholars.
    This article sets the current situation out quite clearly.
    http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2012/0...ran-literally/

    Logically, I would think that if a text is sent down with the view of appealing to people of that time, it would be written for people of that time. So therefore people reading it today should consider that it was indeed written in a more backward time, and it can be interpreted with that considered. I think that is what produces moderate muslims- rationality. I don't think it's sensible to generalise 1.6 billion people as not thinking about their faith and to then call yourself "rational".
    You seem to be introducing a separate issue here - ie. "Modern, western Muslims attitudes towards scripture". That is not what this discussion is about. It is about whether the Quran and Sunnah contain passages that condone, encourage or command certain behaviours. Don't get me wrong, I think that it is A Good Thing that some Muslims, notably those in secular democracies, are attempting to distance themselves from the more unacceptable elements of Islamic doctrine. However, that does not affect the content of revealed scripture and prophetic utterance.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    So you ask for evidence of what the quran says and when given it you accuse the poster of sounding like a terrorist
    If it looks like a duck...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okey)
    Comparing systems that implement a literal interpretation of the Quran can tell us that there is clearly a problem in interpreting the Quran literally. Nothing else.

    Comparing systems that implement a variety of interpretations of the Quran tell us that there is no pattern of behaviour other than that there are few problems with those who interpret with context, and that there are many problems with those who interpret literally and without context. This being said, there isn't any point in attacking the religion as such (as so many can interpret it without problem), but there is logical cause to tackle extremist ideas within Muslim communities. Something I personally have been working to achieve as part of the Quilliam group- yet something nobody on this thread is willing to consider. Rather, they see it more fit to condemn the entire religion and followers of it. Very rational.

    Additionally, Ibn Kathir's interpretation is his own. If he believes it to mean that crucifixion is justified then that is his own belief, and he as an individual is to be held accountable for it. He doesn't speak for 1.6 billion Muslims, so the "historic relativism" card as you put it can be played without any opposition from yourself to say the least.
    The fundamental issue here is the attitude of the majority worldwide, under the influence of classical tafsir, historical and contemporary scholars and a non-revisionist interpretation. Until there is a general groundswell - around the world - that the Quran (and sunnah, to a lesser extent) is not some monolithic, immutable and perfect revelation, the problem of "extremeist interpretation" will continue.

    For example, many Muslims I talk to reject slavery, wife beating, gender inequality, ets, yet at the same time, they still maintain that the Quran in true and perfect in every word. The logical disconnect is clear.

    I am also a supporter of Quilliam and think Maajid Nawaz is a shining light of tolerance and rationalism amongst Muslims. However, you should see the vitriol that is poured upon him every time his name is mentioned on here. "Coconut" is a common epithet used for him on ISOC. And they are presumably western Muslims in higher education!
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.