Are you folks in favor of modernizing the Quran?
-
what modernized, must be "westernized" i think. Some people want to make islam look "good" to westerners by playing with words and i don't like that.
Like moderate islam. What is that? The only thing i see is The deen of God. Not some moderate thing.
It's a return to God that we need, and that is only possible with the quran.
-
Peace
Im in favor of literal interpretation of Al Quran and presenting the book as it is and let the readers decide. As a non-Arabic speaker I find it extremely irritating when Quran translators put their own personal understanding instead of what is actually written in Al Quran thus concealing the truth intentionally or unintentionally.
I remember when researching Islam Rashad Khalifa pointed this out in regards to Yusuf Alis translation. Forgot the ayatun, but in the end, Khalifas, Pickethall, and Alis were different in the matter. I have a Khalifa Quran and his interpretation obviously has his own personal understanding. For example, in some places where it says "(O Muhammad)" it says "(O Khalifa)". I just look over it though but still, I wish that these translators just did the literal meaning. So far, I think this quran is such
http//www.quraninenglish.com/cgi-local/pages.pl?/contents
Someone here just posted it, sorry but forgot who.
what modernized, must be "westernized" i think. Some people want to make islam look "good" to westerners by playing with words and i don't like that.
Like moderate islam. What is that? The only thing i see is The deen of God. Not some moderate thing.
It's a return to God that we need, and that is only possible with the quran.
Like Dr Zakir Naik says, all Muslims should be Fundamentalists. The West would obviously make a stance against that.
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDoCAYrKQ80
-
Not at all. If the Quran genuinely commands to chop off the hand, we should not chop off the bank account to please the Western world, we should chop off the hand.
We do not need to modernize it, we need to revisit its pre-ahadith meaning.
-
Not at all. If the Quran genuinely commands to chop off the hand, we should not chop off the bank account to please the Western world, we should chop off the hand.
I personally laughed when I read Khalifa's translation regarding the verse in which he put the punishment of theft by marking the hand of the criminal. What an attempt to conceal the truth. If Al Quran LITERALLY says chop the Goddamn hand off then the translators should write chop the Goddamn hand off.
-
Peace
Not at all. If the Quran genuinely commands to chop off the hand, we should not chop off the bank account to please the Western world, we should chop off the hand.
We do not need to modernize it, we need to revisit its pre-ahadith meaning.
I personally laughed when I read Khalifa's translation regarding the verse in which he put the punishment of theft by marking the hand of the criminal. What an attempt to conceal the truth. If Al Quran LITERALLY says chop the Goddamn hand off then the translators should write chop the Goddamn hand off.
A lot of things that he says doesnt even match his own translation. He says that intercession is not allowed at all, yet in parts of the Quran he even translates "intercession is not permitted, except in accordance with God".
The hand thing also doesnt make sense when Pontifers wife and the other women cut their hands in front of Joseph due to his beauty. He states that that shows that cutting the hands is the tradition. The two situations have nothing to do in common.
Ive tried searching on here about the hands. The Quran says "cut the hand" or "cut off the hand"? I know that the shariah that Islamic Countries follow isnt Quranic, such as adultery stoning, but not quite sure about hands. Khalifa says that cutting of the hands is symbolic, however I dont understand how that deters the criminal to not do it again. Like how he also says that the 100 lashes for adultery is symbolic, not physical. Again that makes no sense in regards to punishment to prevent the act again.
Wa Salam
-
Assalamu alaykum,
How the heck could you possibly lash someone 100X symbolically?!? D D D
Heres a piece from submission.org written by Dr. Fatimah Majidi, Nader Abbas Maudodi and Chris Abdul-Rahman
(11)Women are stoned to death for Adultery This is totally false as there is NO death penalty for adultery in Islam (Submission). The penalty of adultery is equal for both men and women, and involves symbolic lashing. Social pressure, i.e., public witnessing of the penalty, is the basic punishment see 241-2
http//www.submission.org/women/mis.html
Also a commentary on another article, not sure if Khalifa wrote this himself.
*242 Social pressure, i.e., public witnessing of the penalty, is the basic punishment (see also 53. The lashes shall be symbolic, not severe.
http//www.submission.org/sex/misconduct.html
Peace
-
Peace amuslim,
Ive tried searching on here about the hands. The Quran says "cut the hand" or "cut off the hand"? I know that the shariah that Islamic Countries follow isnt Quranic, such as adultery stoning, but not quite sure about hands. Khalifa says that cutting of the hands is symbolic, however I dont understand how that deters the criminal to not do it again.
I?m in favor of reading Qur?an which does not contradict thus if cross referenced usually will clarify as with the different uses of ?their hands? and take/apply best meaning?
Waalssariqu waalssariqatu faiqtaAAoo aydiyahuma jazaan bima kasaba nakalan mina Allahi waAllahu AAazeezun hakeemun
538 As to the THIEF, Male or female, cut off his or her hands a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime and Allah is Exalted in power.
Wahuwa allathee kaffa aydiyahum AAankum waaydiyakum AAanhum bibatni makkata min baAAdi an athfarakum AAalayhim wakana Allahu bima taAAmaloona baseeran
4824 And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of Makka, after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.In above verse as in 511 what was held back/restrained is ?their hands? or means to carry out. Likewise, for known thieves; i.e. repeat offenders; cut off their hands or means to do so.
Prison is certainly an option along with other methods.
Question is for professional thieves in 7th century Arabia was the ?literal? severing a way to cut off ?their means" to perpetrate crime? Probably yes.
-
I agree with nun de plume. Also, depends on the connotations of the word modernisation; how it comes across to us.
When I hear that word, it makes me think that the Quran has been wrong and all they are doing is making new interpretations to fit todays mold. If it was good then it should be good now and just because it cant be explained today, doesnt mean it is wrong and it doesnt mean that we wont understand it 100 years from now. Its like embryology in the Quran. If people made it modern to the times 100s of years ago, it wouldnt have made any sense by todays standards.
There are many different aspects to it, personally I'm willing to look at any and all interpretations to see if they fit and/or make sense, regardless of what they might be labelled as.
Regarding modernisation, on the forum in the past, I've heard many fling that word around to discredit basic tenets in the quran...saying well, some people just want it to be palatable to their "modern" tastes or to appease " modern western values" etc. While motivations will always be shrouded (even though we might figure them out somewhat, they are not very valid to use as evidence), it's best to check out what the interpretation actually is and how it fits and refute, discuss, accept etc.
This can be taken on many different levels attesting to it's universal application regardless of time periods. In particular, in different time periods some verses could be taken differently, but as was mentioned, we take/apply the best meaning in any given time period. Changes/development in thought and application imo can span time and can be personal as well as collective depending on circumstances. I don't think the quran is static.
-
Peace all,
Peace amuslim,
I?m in favor of reading Qur?an which does not contradict thus if cross referenced usually will clarify as with the different uses of ?their hands? and take/apply best meaning?
..
.
....
.
.
.Question is for professional thieves in 7th century Arabia was the ?literal? severing a way to cut off ?their means" to perpetrate crime? Probably yes.
Thanks for the translation. I started out reading Rashad Khalifas translation of this, so thats all I really know besides what the Sunnis and Wahabbis do with the hand. Since Rashad is a big anti-hadith person, I wasnt sure what it said in Arabic.
I agree with crossreference, which many of the knowledgeable people do here
If we implemented this and other Quranic based Shariah laws, the world would probably be a better place. The only question is whether its for Muslims only or the whole world, such as the lashing of fornicators. Im personally for a world wide form of this shariah law. Less disease transmissions, and if someone does have aids, it will only be shared between the couple or that person if he/she is single.
I agree with nun de plume. Also, depends on the connotations of the word modernisation; how it comes across to us.
There are many different aspects to it, personally I'm willing to look at any and all interpretations to see if they fit and/or make sense, regardless of what they might be labelled as.
Regarding modernisation, on the forum in the past, I've heard many fling that word around to discredit basic tenets in the quran...saying well, some people just want it to be palatable to their "modern" tastes or to appease " modern western values" etc. While motivations will always be shrouded (even though we might figure them out somewhat, they are not very valid to use as evidence), it's best to check out what the interpretation actually is and how it fits and refute, discuss, accept etc.
This can be taken on many different levels attesting to it's universal application regardless of time periods. In particular, in different time periods some verses could be taken differently, but as was mentioned, we take/apply the best meaning in any given time period. Changes/development in thought and application imo can span time and can be personal as well as collective depending on circumstances. I don't think the quran is static.
I could perhaps understand this statement IF the quran wasnt the final message to humanity. But seeing that God knows the future, I dont see why He would expect us to take different interpretations each 100 years to fit the times. The times are also influenced by others that arent Muslims, again with the Western values. For example, TV 50 years ago wouldnt even be showing stuff that we consider PG-13 these days. So would the Quran be different from then compared to now? May God guide us all on the right path and not follow our own opinions.
Peace
-
I could perhaps understand this statement IF the quran wasnt the final message to humanity.
Universal application/understanding of the quran is in any time period according to what we know/perceive. Knowledge isn't static and neither is the quran and it's message. The message IS always there and can also be understood and refined as well with understanding/patience/knowledge etc.
But seeing that God knows the future, I dont see why He would expect us to take different interpretations each 100 years to fit the times.
It's about perception. This can happen in any time period regardless of "modern western values" or any other "values".
The times are also influenced by others that arent Muslims, again with the Western values. For example, TV 50 years ago wouldnt even be showing stuff that we consider PG-13 these days.
And there were times that were not influenced by others that aren't Muslims?
Every time period has been affected by violence, sexual situations, dubious values etc etc. Eastern culture is no exception. It might come out in slightly different forms but it's all basically the same thing which isn't surprising because we are all human with the same weaknesses and flaws.
So would the Quran be different from then compared to now? May God guide us all on the right path and not follow our own opinions.
perception once again. It's dependent on the reader and his frame of mind/reference/knowledge etc. How can we tie that down to a particular time/culture? We can't, which makes it universally applicable. Peace.
-
Arabic has a specific word for amputate and it is not cut "qaT3". The Arabic word "q T 3" literally means "to inturrupt, discontinue". Cut their hand means stop it or prevent it from what it is doing. This could be by treatment if the thief is psychologically impaired; find them a job or financial help if they are needy; imprison them if they are just criminals; keep them away from things that can be stolen if they are weak...
As for the punishment of "zena", the verb "yash-had" does not mean to see or "witness". It means "testify, endorse", i.e to authenticate. "yushaahid" is the verb for "to see". The decision of punishment should be endorsed by a group of believers and not to be left to one judge. The punishment is lashing.
-
Arabic has a specific word for amputate and it is not cut "qaT3". The Arabic word "q T 3" literally means "to inturrupt, discontinue". Cut their hand means stop it or prevent it from what it is doing. This could be by treatment if the thief is psychologically impaired; find them a job or financial help if they are needy; imprison them if they are just criminals; keep them away from things that can be stolen if they are weak...
As for the punishment of "zena", the verb "yash-had" does not mean to see or "witness". It means "testify, endorse", i.e to authenticate. "yushaahid" is the verb for "to see". The decision of punishment should be endorsed by a group of believers and not to be left to one judge. The punishment is lashing.
-
Arabic has a specific word for amputate and it is not cut "qaT3". The Arabic word "q T 3" literally means "to inturrupt, discontinue". Cut their hand means stop it or prevent it from what it is doing. This could be by treatment if the thief is psychologically impaired; find them a job or financial help if they are needy; imprison them if they are just criminals; keep them away from things that can be stolen if they are weak...
Yes, that is the true spirit of the Quran, with an emphasis on prevention, welfare and social justice rahter than a punishment that is clearly disproportionate for the crime.
Peace
Sister Francesca -
Arabic has a specific word for amputate and it is not cut "qaT3". The Arabic word "q T 3" literally means "to inturrupt, discontinue". Cut their hand means stop it or prevent it from what it is doing. This could be by treatment if the thief is psychologically impaired; find them a job or financial help if they are needy; imprison them if they are just criminals; keep them away from things that can be stolen if they are weak...
As for the punishment of "zena", the verb "yash-had" does not mean to see or "witness". It means "testify, endorse", i.e to authenticate. "yushaahid" is the verb for "to see". The decision of punishment should be endorsed by a group of believers and not to be left to one judge. The punishment is lashing.
If you were replying to my post, that was only a hypothetical situation.
What about lashing?
-
This is really a great thread! Its great that alot of you are not in favor of modernizing the Quran if it means twisting the words. That would be exactly as the Jews have done and if we did that knowingly I do not doubt that there will be repercussions on the day of judgment.
Peace
Al