FrontPageMagSymposium: A New Koran?
-
I think that this series is most fitting for this thread
047.020
YUSUFALI Those who believe say, "Why is not a sura sent down (for us)?" But when a sura of basic or categorical meaning is revealed, and fighting is mentioned therein, thou wilt see those in whose hearts is a disease looking at thee with a look of one in swoon at the approach of death. But more fitting for them-
PICKTHAL And those who believe say If only a surah were revealed! But when a decisive surah is revealed and war is mentioned therein, thou seest those in whose hearts is a disease looking at thee with the look of men fainting unto death. Therefor woe unto them!
SHAKIR And those who believe say Why has not a chapter been revealed? But when a decisive chapter is revealed, and fighting is mentioned therein you see those in whose hearts is a disease look to you with the look of one fainting because of death. Woe to them then!047.021
YUSUFALI Were it to obey and say what is just, and when a matter is resolved on, it were best for them if they were true to Allah.
PICKTHAL Obedience and a civil word. Then, when the matter is determined, if they are loyal to Allah it will be well for them.
SHAKIR Obedience and a gentle word (was proper); but when the affair becomes settled, then if they remain true to Allah it would certainly be better for them.047.022
YUSUFALI Then, is it to be expected of you, if ye were put in authority, that ye will do mischief in the land, and break your ties of kith and kin?
PICKTHAL Would ye then, if ye were given the command, work corruption in the land and sever your ties of kinship?
SHAKIR But if you held command, you were sure to make mischief in the land and cut off the ties of kinship!047.023
YUSUFALI Such are the men whom Allah has cursed for He has made them deaf and blinded their sight.
PICKTHAL Such are they whom Allah curseth so that He deafeneth them and maketh blind their eyes.
SHAKIR Those it is whom Allah has cursed so He has made them deaf and blinded their eyes.047.024
YUSUFALI Do they not then earnestly seek to understand the Qur'an, or are their hearts locked up by them?
PICKTHAL Will they then not meditate on the Qur'an, or are there locks on the hearts?
SHAKIR Do they not then reflect on the Quran? Nay, on the hearts there are locks.Straight and to the point.
-
Exactly! He fails to realize the battle was already taking place. He also seems to read the verses without looking at the rest of the Koran. Which is why we always say the Koran explains itself, not the verses explain themselves. Without the rest of the Koran you would not be able to understand. The standards for who to fight and why has already been established, and who to amke peace with is already established. Also who to befriend and consider as brethren. They are not the same.
Hi Bigmo, I do see the contradictions, and I do see the overwhelming emphasis of the Quran upon peace, justice and harmony. The problem I have is that insisting that somehow the verses that seem to be advocating terrible brutality are actually completely just and normal when put into context is purely academic. Last time I checked, "The most academic" was not a Quranic name for God.
And it shouldn't be. I have complete faith in God. I have a fair amount of confidence in Muhammad as his messenger, but no messenger is perfect. I have very little confidence in his 7th Century wives, mistresses and companions, who played a major role in compiling the Quran.
The way you want to treat the Quran, as the infallible word of God, is up to you. I don't personally think having unrealistic expectations is helpful. The way I approach religion is to interpret holy books in the light of my own experiences, my own studies, the advice given to me by people I trust, and my own conscience. These are all sources, and as I see it, they are all fallible, but nonetheless legitimate and valuable.
-
It's descriminating on the basis of religion and advocating sectarian violence.
You still never clarified the above, after I referenced the article. Did you read it?
Is it or is it not a FACT that the "believers" had a peace treaty with "non-believers", thus what they believed was irrelevant as to whether to attack them or not.... they were attacked because something changed. All we need to do is look at the context to see what changed, and it soon becomes obvious those who attacked them could be attacked, i.e. self defence. If you want to call that "purely academic" that's up to you.
It is not a matter of how you or I wish to interpret AQ, or see it, at least not for me. It is all about what is most accurate and your statement above was way off, hence providing a counter argument to weigh up and consider.
-
You still never clarified the above, after I referenced the article. Did you read it?
Is it or is it not a FACT that the "believers" had a peace treaty with "non-believers", thus what they believed was irrelevant as to whether to attack them or not.... they were attacked because something changed.
No, not a fact. It is impossible for "The Believers" to be at war or at peace with "The Pagans/Non-Believers" as neither of these two are states. You cannot have a peace treaty unless you are a hierarchically defined territorial organisation, i.e. a state. This is why so many religious leaders have criticised Bush for talking about a "war on terror" -you cannot have a 'war' without a specific enemy. The tribes that Muhammad and his companions were fighting were indeed pagans, but this does not mean that he was fighting all the pagans in the world! He was only at war with some Arabian tribes.
Therefore to say "Kill the pagans/unbelievers wherever you find them" is completely wrong. It is being unspecific, it is generalising on the basis of religion. It fails to specify which pagan tribes, or which individuals from a specific tribe (i.e. combatants/non-combatants). A statement like that from a Serb general in the Bosnian or Kosovo wars - "When the treaty runs out, kill the Muslims wherever you find them" - would land them in a war crimes tribunal in the Hague. It is completely unfitting in the Quran.
-
It is impossible for "The Believers" to be at war or at peace with "The Pagans/Non-Believers" as neither of these two are states.
Are you implying both sides must be states to be in a "war"? Evidence from AQ (or somewhere) please?
Also, what is the Arabic word for "war" here?In any case, from what AQ says, even in this chapter, it strongly suggests the believers were in a position of authority for the community/land.
Therefore to say "Kill the pagans/unbelievers wherever you find them" is completely wrong. It is being unspecific
Yes, unspecific if you completely ignore the context. Interesting methodology.
It fails to specify which pagan tribes, or which individuals from a specific tribe
Oh, thanks for clarifying, so you would like it to say something like...
"slay the Bonkers tribe, the Jimmychoo tribe, little Dave down the road, big Sam on 4th street, one eyed Sajid in the yellow tent...."
Did it occur to you that maybe not everyone in a tribe may have broken the treaty so naming a specific tribe would be illogical? Here is a game I like to play when I think my thinking is better than AQ's thinking/wording/guidance, work out how it should have been done, then test it, scrutinise it, pick holes in it etc to see if it holds... why not post what you consider to be the better way of doing it so we can all see?
-
I think the whole chapter is out of place, it adds no value, why does God need to send a message to tell 'the believers' to revoke a treaty? But if I were to give an example of something that wouldn't be violent and sectarian -
"Regardless of whether the 'forbidden months' are past, do not attack anyone who has not attacked you. If the organisational hierarchy of another tribe initiates violent attacks against you, regardless of their religion, you should respond with lethal force to eliminate the threat with the minimum level of violence practicable. Apprehend those responsible and put them on trial for their crimes. This is not a war, it is an operation to end a humanitarian crisis"
Of course, I'm not trying to make up a passage for the Quran. Just showing that those who made up 95 did a pretty bad job of it.
-
I think the whole chapter is out of place, it adds no value, why does God need to send a message to tell 'the believers' to revoke a treaty? But if I were to give an example of something that wouldn't be violent and sectarian -
"Regardless of whether the 'forbidden months' are past, do not attack anyone who has not attacked you. If the organisational hierarchy of another tribe initiates violent attacks against you, regardless of their religion, you should respond with lethal force to eliminate the threat with the minimum level of violence practicable. Apprehend those responsible and put them on trial for their crimes. This is not a war, it is an operation to end a humanitarian crisis"
Of course, I'm not trying to make up a passage for the Quran. Just showing that those who made up 95 did a pretty bad job of it.
I don't think you know much about the Koran. Quite frankly I don't understand your analysis. What do you mean don't fight them unless they fight you? You mean this
2.190. Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors.
2.191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
2.192. But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
2.193. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression
What is this nonsense you are talking about you should not just fight them after the months are gone? What does these months have to do with fighting in the koran? And who are those guys who came up with verse 9-5? Are they the same guys who came up with verses 2.190-2.193?
You're confused. nope
-
To say it adds no value would be to presume one knows exactly what it adds and every angle. Are you saying you know this?
Re why mention revoking a treaty. AQ is for all times, thus the examples it cites are usually to set precedents for future generations/situations.
"Regardless of whether the 'forbidden months' are past, do not attack anyone who has not attacked you. If the organisational hierarchy of another tribe initiates violent attacks against you, regardless of their religion, you should respond with lethal force to eliminate the threat with the minimum level of violence practicable. Apprehend those responsible and put them on trial for their crimes. This is not a war, it is an operation to end a humanitarian crisis"
- Do not attack anyone who has not attacked you is enshrined in AQ as it is, see here for example.
- What if there is no organisational hierarchy of another tribe making the decisions to commit attacks, i.e. what if it is individuals? What if they are not violent attacks, what if they are just actively undermining / causing property/crops damage etc?
- Contradiction first you say use lethal force then immediately follow with apprehend those responsible which is it?
- What if those attacking initially change their minds and repent, what is the protocol? do they have a punishment? What is the punishments?
- What if I ignore the context like you do and just quote "you should respond with lethal force to eliminate the threat" to the people?
- What if a scholar says the literal minimum level of violence practicable is a light slap on the wrists, is that ok? What if another says it is killing everyone involved, is that ok?
-
I don't think you know much about the Koran. Quite frankly I don't understand your analysis. What do you mean don't fight them unless they fight you? You mean this
2.190. Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors.
2.191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
2.192. But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
2.193. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression
What is this nonsense you are talking about you should not just fight them after the months are gone? What does these months have to do with fighting in the koran? And who are those guys who came up with verse 9-5? Are they the same guys who came up with verses 2.190-2.193?
You're confused. nope
Yes, I do know about those verses, thats the whole point! 95 does not fit in. You're claiming that verses that a verse that says "kill the polythiests" must be taken in the context of verse that say the opposite. Thats not context! That's contradiction!
- Contradiction first you say use lethal force then immediately follow with apprehend those responsible which is it?
To quote myself, minimum level of violence practicable, that means apprehend if you can. It is in contrast to
"Kill the pagans/unbelievers wherever you find them" . What do you think "wherever you find them" means? Do you think it means "only when they fight you"? Of course not. It means the opposite. It is advocating unprovoked aggression.
-
Mahmud,
Should I consider keeping a tally of the questions of mine you do not answer?
It is advocating unprovoked aggression
I agree, IF you completely ignore the context. Are you implying even with the context read and understood, it still advocates the above?
-
We need to avoid circular reasoning. If you take for granted that the whole Quran is the absolute word of God, then where there are contradictions, you force an answer that doesn't properly fit in. So if you say as an absolute must, 95 must be taken in the context of all the other bits of the Quran that say don't kill civilians, don't be aggressive, don't force your beliefs on others, then what you are doing is abrogating the most obvious meaning. You are saying that "kill the pagans wherever you find them" does not mean what it says. You are not really contextualising the passage, but arbeitrarily overruling it. What you're doing is saying
"Because the Quran is the absolute word of God, 95 must have a just, proportionate, peaceful meaning
"and;
"Because 95 has a just, proportionate and peaceful meaning, the Quran must be the absolute word of God"
But what if you do not start with the assumption that the Quran is the absolute word of God. If you ask the question;
"Does 95 fit in with the rest of the Quran, or does it contradict them?"
Then the answer you get it that it contradicts them. If you take as the context of 95 only Chapter 9, and not the rest of the Quran, then the honest answer is that it advocates excessive violence. If you do not have the starting presumption that there are no errors or inconsistancies in the Quran, then you see this as an error, an inconsistancy, it does not fit in.
-
We need to avoid circular reasoning. If you take for granted that the whole Quran is the absolute word of God, then where there are contradictions, you force an answer that doesn't properly fit in. So if you say as an absolute must, 95 must be taken in the context of all the other bits of the Quran that say don't kill civilians, don't be aggressive, don't force your beliefs on others, then what you are doing is abrogating the most obvious meaning. You are saying that "kill the pagans wherever you find them" does not mean what it says. You are not really contextualising the passage, but arbeitrarily overruling it. What you're doing is saying
"Because the Quran is the absolute word of God, 95 must have a just, proportionate, peaceful meaning
"and;
"Because 95 has a just, proportionate and peaceful meaning, the Quran must be the absolute word of God"
But what if you do not start with the assumption that the Quran is the absolute word of God. If you ask the question;
"Does 95 fit in with the rest of the Quran, or does it contradict them?"
Then the answer you get it that it contradicts them. If you take as the context of 95 only Chapter 9, and not the rest of the Quran, then the honest answer is that it advocates excessive violence. If you do not have the starting presumption that there are no errors or inconsistancies in the Quran, then you see this as an error, an inconsistancy, it does not fit in.
Wakas is pretty correct in his understanding, refer to 1591. We are born knowing the quran as a whole book, it only gets fragmented in our minds. It's rather hard to change history.
-
That might be different for each of us. I think most Muslims get to know the Quran bit by bit over a long period of time - through learning prayers, one by one, and through Quran classes. When the Prophet recited the Quran, he did so bit by bit, chapter by chapter, over many years. Not all at once. Can I ask what you mean by 'born knowing the Quran as a whole book?' - do you mean that spiritually, or were you a very fast learner as a new born baby?
-
That might be different for each of us. I think most Muslims get to know the Quran bit by bit over a long period of time - through learning prayers, one by one, and through Quran classes. When the Prophet recited the Quran, he did so bit by bit, chapter by chapter, over many years. Not all at once. Can I ask what you mean by 'born knowing the Quran as a whole book?' - do you mean that spiritually, or were you a very fast learner as a new born baby?
Um, I mean that we were born with a book called "the quran" existing in book form compiled like a book, which also happens to look like a book, and suprise - READ like a book!
Why are you insisting on ripping pages out of it?
It's no different to say, a mathematics book where you cannot read chapter 10 without using the information you learnt back in chapter 2.
-
I've given an example of what I would consider a non-sectarian statement about war. Now it's your turn - what wold it take for you to accept a contradiction! Because I get the impression that very little you could read would make you accept there was a contradiction.
If someone inserted a passage saying "drink the blood of the virgins" you'd say "but it needs to be read in context" and "In this context 'drink' should clearly be translated as 'seal' and 'blood' should be translated as 'wound' and virgins should be translated as 'wounded people'!" You can say that, but it doesn't mean it's true, and the rest of the world will think you're crazy. D
-
The above point you make is invalid, as in this example, it is not about translation of words, it is about actually reading what came before and after. To prove this, please enlighten us as to what words I or anyone else said were mistranslated?
You seem to be doing everything to avoid the point read what comes before and after to understand a passage.
If you are so confident of your methodology why not go to someone you consider relatively unbiased and intelligent and say "I want to understand a passage in a book, but I dont take the sentences before or after into account, good idea or bad idea?".
-
I still don't know what Mahmud is trying to get at. He seems to be bothered about "whatever you find them", meaning since some pagans attack you go around and see any pagan walking around and kill them until you make peace with these pagans who started fighting with you then you can leave any other pagan you meet and not have to kill him. Is that how you understand the verse? Plus the Koran did not say fight those who don't make peace with you, thats a Sunni undretsanding which relies on verse 9-29 as the verse that abrogates over a hundred verses. The Koranic undertsanding is fight those who fight against you because of your faith or causing you and others oppression.
People do not have to make any peace with you unless there is prior hiostility with you against them, as the case it was with the pagans of Mecca and its surroundings. There were many pagans in Arabia who were not involved in these conflicts.
He needs to read some commentaries from Sunni sources and he will realize that the real verse they used to justify offensive Jihad is not even verse 9-5 but verse 9-29 which they believe is the final command and abrogates previous verses. If Mahmud was right, the Sunni jurist would not haverelied on abrogation to justify conquest and Jihad. They would have just relied on the verses he cited, but in reality these verses do not mean what he says. He takes bits and pieces of a verse and sometimes not even completing the verse or reading the verses before or after it.
Evem Robert Spencer acknowledges verse 9-29 as the abrogation verse and knows its the only way he can claim the Koran justifies violence.
Sunnis believe "peace" means you send the pagans or Christians or whoever a letter saying enter islam and we will leave you, if not you will eneter a war until you pay jizya. This is not what the Koran is saying. The Koran says until they CEASE, meaning until they stop. Stop what? Stop being pagans? No, stop fighting you. The job of the messenger is but to preach and warn, not to enforce or coerce. God does not recognize someone's faith that is not built upon his free will. The word Dawa, means invite. Sunni do not believe in that word, since they don't give you a choice and an invitation means you have the right to refuse that invitation.
-
No, not a fact. It is impossible for "The Believers" to be at war or at peace with "The Pagans/Non-Believers" as neither of these two are states. You cannot have a peace treaty unless you are a hierarchically defined territorial organisation, i.e. a state. This is why so many religious leaders have criticised Bush for talking about a "war on terror" -you cannot have a 'war' without a specific enemy. The tribes that Muhammad and his companions were fighting were indeed pagans, but this does not mean that he was fighting all the pagans in the world! He was only at war with some Arabian tribes.
Therefore to say "Kill the pagans/unbelievers wherever you find them" is completely wrong. It is being unspecific, it is generalising on the basis of religion. It fails to specify which pagan tribes, or which individuals from a specific tribe (i.e. combatants/non-combatants). A statement like that from a Serb general in the Bosnian or Kosovo wars - "When the treaty runs out, kill the Muslims wherever you find them" - would land them in a war crimes tribunal in the Hague. It is completely unfitting in the Quran.
I believe that Mahmud has understood the jurisprudence of the Quran very well. The Quran, in fact distinguishes pagans who had a peace treaty with muslims from the pagans who did not have the treaty. Furthermore, the Quran instructs Muhammad and his supporters not to help a group of muslims who had attacked pagans who had peace treaty with the muslim community under the leadership of Muhammad.
Peace,
Edip -
I believe that Mahmud has understood the jurisprudence of the Quran very well. The Quran, in fact distinguishes pagans who had a peace treaty with muslims from the pagans who did not have the treaty. Furthermore, the Quran instructs Muhammad and his supporters not to help a group of muslims who had attacked pagans who had peace treaty with the muslim community under the leadership of Muhammad.
Peace,
EdipCan you please quote the verse or anyone know which verse its referring to?
PEACE
