Violence in Islam and Christianity: A Comparison

Originally posted by es_bih We are not reading modern ideas into it, it is about translating the Quran properly. You must divorce your two questions first to be properly answered.

Originally posted by eaglecap that is your belief and I respect that.

Well eagle, I thank you for your respect and will cease my attack in this thread as a sign of good faith.

Originally posted by Soren Not every muslims consider that the qur'an is without 'error'. Some believes in the abrogation-idea; ie. that some parts has been exchanged for better parts (for some this includes verses which alledgely did not enter the final qur'an because they were replaced by a better verse etc.)

That is not an error, plus it is a fringe belief that is mostly quoted by non-muslims who don't understand what they are talking about.

Some believers today sees the qur'an as a metaphorical guidance inspired by a god; others try to reinterpretate (and retranslate the book) and thereby find 'miracles' and thereby a direct revelation; others 'new age'-muslims(/monotheists) might just see the book as a persons philosophical reflection of divinity. And of course there's other genres.

The first two categories are not believers, and should not be considered to be. They violate the most basic islamic principles. To say that "the Quran is a metaphor" is a highly ignorant statement. It contains metaphors, stories, commands, and various other ways of telling the same message. But if anyone says that surat al Ikhlas for example is a metaphor then they clear have no idea what we are talking about.
Arguing over the eggness of the world, is however, arguing over metaphors (and similies) that God has used to descibe the earth. Reading a flat earth theory into it means taking something literally when it is clearly not meant to be, which means this really is completely invalid. Reading an egg is looking for underlieing consistancies - which is a far more valid approach.

But for the secular academic it's not good enough. Every religious book becomes a literature in history, a scripture which has a relationship with the environment it grew out of, a scripture which owes to the oral and scriptural traditions of the times before the 'revelation'.

There are hordes of literature around explaining and investigating the circumstances of revelation. You are not doing anything new. However you are taking a fundamentally flawed approach to it. While a secular analysis (that is ignoring religious influence) is the popular fad at the moment, and is very useful in many fields, using secular methods to analyses a religious book is completely bogus. It is like reading a thesis on physics while deliberately ignoring physics.

Originally posted by Soren The egg-shaped translation is not backed by the great part of arabists.

I'm sorry who did you just reference? An arabist. Is that like a specialist Orientalist? Why don't you just roll dice your far more likely to arrive at a correct conclusion. Ignorant westerners who specialise in assuring themselves about their own superiority are not an accurate or reliable source. You just destroyed your argument my friend.

1. Understanding the qur'an (or any other ancient literature) in the historical context of which it emerged 2. Understanding the qur'an (or any other ancient literature) from a perspective where one tries to read modern ideas into it.   But of course this (1) it not a religious approach. And that's a place where people differs; and where you and I differ. But many muslims accepts the 1 approach and at the same time has no need for 'miracles' just like a large part of the christians feel about the bible.

Again you have completely failed to get the point! 1 is a religous approach. The Quran is not a historical text it is a book of wisdom, this wisdom is not bound by time. Why don't you read the Quran and try to see what you can learn from it and not try to impose your pre concevied ideas upon it? 2 should really be:
2. Understanding the qur'an (or any other ancient literature) from a perspective where one tries to understand the Quran.

You of religious reasons apparently cannot accept that what is stated in the qur'an is a natural consequence of the historical environment it was produced.

God is in control of history too.


Edited by Omar al Hashim - 05-Nov-2008 at 23:49

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Originally posted by Soren Not every muslims consider that the qur'an is without 'error'. Some believes in the abrogation-idea; ie. that some parts has been exchanged for better parts (for some this includes verses which alledgely did not enter the final qur'an because they were replaced by a better verse etc.) That is not an error, plus it is a fringe belief that is mostly quoted by non-muslims who don't understand what they are talking about.

This is better than the original thread anyway Es.

Lol. Well no it was mostly a classical debate, but you can still find it today regardless of non-muslims. It's true that many modern muslims do not adhere to this theology. As it has come to be many modern muslims has the idea of the perfect qur'an. Many classic muslims did not have this idea. They talked about emendations, abrogations, foreign languages and etc.

True. It was a medieval idea entertained by some of the academia. I believe Imam Malik was once thrown in gaol for refusing to entertain the idea. It wasn't ever a mainstream belief, and I don't believe what a handful of people thought is really relevent.

Well I have decided to let people themselves to decide wether they consider them muslims or not (though ahmadis do not qualify for obvious reasons). In the same vain I let christians decide wether they are christians or not, regardless of they are following what another christian says is truly Christianity or not...

Don't quote a few deviations of belief as representative of the faith is my point.

Hmm so you get to decide when it's metaphorical and not. The other guys a such losers :)

Nothing to decide mate. These are all similies - you must be able to see this yourself.

"And Allah has made the earth for you as a carpet (spread out)."
[Al-Qur’an 71:19]
"That ye may go about therein, in spacious roads."
[Al-Qur’an 71:20]
"He Who has made for you the earth like a carpet spread out; has enabled you to go about therein by roads (and channels)...."
[Al-Qur’an 20:53]
"And We have spread out the (spacious) earth: how excellently We do spread out!"
[Al-Qur’an 51:48]
"Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse"
"And the mountains as pegs?"
[Al-Qur’an 78:6-7]

Well it depends on wether one thinks there's anything religious about it. There is so many religious books. I suscpect that you would not deal with the book of Mormon or the literature of the Baha'is or Scientology etc with a religous discource (unless you consider it to be sources from the devil :) ). It's clearly legible to approach 'holy' books from a secular perspective. But of course a secular could also look at it from a religious perspective to understand believers ideas about the book. But this does not negate that the historian also can look at the book as a historical text within the historical context of which it derived.

It depends what you a trying to learn. Your intention is most important. Are you trying to learn about the religion or history? If you are trying to learn about history then the Quran is not the best book to read - it is not a history book. You will learn far more from Hadith. Of course, you can learn something about history from the Quran but this is not the purpose of it.

Arabists. People who are experts in the arab language (and some of them are particularly specialists in classical arabic). Orientalists is not a bad word. I know that Edward Said has made it into a bad word. It's a academic profession. We could agree to call the profession a different name, but it's still an academic profession. There are in that vain a number of muslim orientalists at the different universities of Europe and USA.   You have just proved to be locked in a reproduction of a dichtomy of "them" and "us"; cause no westerner nonmuslim  (or nonwesterner working with islam; as it is John Esposito must be a lying brat... No he is'nt!) could be a "fair" academic... .. . :) Again it must be from what perspective you are looking at it.

I'm sorry, but Orientalists should have been relegated to history books in the 1960s. They have as a profession been in the buisness of spreading misinformation about every culture they can. I'm not just talking about ones that study Islam, they have done it to every culture.
Unless you can prove that a particular orientalist is an intellegent person who understands his subject matter (which must be shown for each case), all Orientalist should be treated as apriori wrong.

The record of their work means that no other conclusion can be justified.

Am I being unfair when I do not consider the qur'an or the bible, or the veda (etc.) to be of divine source?

You must ask yourself what is your intention in reading these works. Are you trying to justify your preconceived ideas (prove a hypothesis), or are you trying to learn from these works?
In many ways, yes you are being unfair.

You basicly say the quite opposite here: "1 is a religous approach." vs. "The Quran is not a historical text it is a book of wisdom, this wisdom is not bound by time."

Wisdom can be analysed in a history context, in many ways should be, but it is also applicable to modern life.
I hope you don't read Sun Tzu and think it only applies to Spring & Autumn China.

You could answer my question again, when you have calmed down.

You phrased the question in a manner than provides only one answer. I don't see any reason why I should answer a question that you have used to set us up.

I did not refer to a person infusing modern language into an ancient text. I referred to a better translation in the English language, which was neither formed yet at time of the Prophet, nor had a revelation in it. Thus a proper translation brings you closer to the meaning of the words, and to your study. I have seen some bad English translations that could lead you to a radically different conclusion versus reading a good translation or the original Arabic text. 

Let us just revert to a 16th ct. translation to suit you fancy then.

As a believer I think his translation as is actually in line with Islamic belief thus right and thus the better translation. Unless of course you like filling a translation with a lot of bs you can criticize about. 

Omar - I find that people in both Christianity and Islam can often have misconceptions about each others beliefs. The Trinity is one example. and I am sure you can think of many on your side. I never like attacking anothers faith and wish we could have respect for each other. It is the few intolerant ones in all religions and political beliefs I cannot stand. Have you seen the Hindu attack on Christians in India, quite violent. This would make a good thread.