I am having trouble with chapter 8 and 9....
-
Peace -
In my reading of Qur'an, I tend to take a more metaphorical or allegorical reading than a literal one - I am not saying one way is more or less correct, it's just my own nature to see things from that perspective.
Over the last couple of days I've been working through chapter 8 and 9 of the Qur'an, and while generally I do see the imagery of war as metaphorical for the inner battle, the language is often far too specific to have more than one meaning - and knowing the traditional interpretations of these passages, I wonder if the Qur'an is really recording something so specific, and how or why that is something that is in a book for all people at all times.
Perhaps I simply can't see the importance of these chapters because I am lucky, thank God, to have been born and raised in a society that has not been at war and remains mostly peaceful (we just take our wars elsewhere and ruin poor people's lives). I recognize that war has been, and is, a fact of existence for the entirety of human existence. So I am not so na?ve to think there is no reason to talk about war in the Qur'an......I just don't "get it".
I just can't wrap my head around it. How do you fine people read these chapters? Do you find them difficult?
(Side question The Monotheist Group translation uses "communion" for salat (I also like "duty" in Gerrans), and yet the passage referring to "do not commune over those that set up partnership" is confusing to me.....what is the communion? How are Muslims to commune? I want to say that the word not being clearly defined seems to imply group custom or practices of the Muslims, whatever those may be, but this one specific instance of salat seems weird to me.)
-
(Side question The Monotheist Group translation uses "communion" for salat (I also like "duty" in Gerrans), and yet the passage referring to "do not commune over those that set up partnership" is confusing to me.....what is the communion? How are Muslims to commune? I want to say that the word not being clearly defined seems to imply group custom or practices of the Muslims, whatever those may be, but this one specific instance of salat seems weird to me.)
Can you refer to specific verses? I believe it warns about not to cooperate with paganists (those who set up partnership with God) when they are up to something bloody, i.e. stay away from wars and wordly life. Especially verses 980 - 990.
984 And do not commune over any of them who have died, nor stand at their grave. They have rejected God and His messenger and died while they were wicked. 985 And do not be impressed by their wealth and their children; God only wishes to punish them with it in this world, and so their souls will be taken to death while they are rejecters
Who have died or stand at their grave is probably metaphorical, these are blind people who pursue wordly life ("do not be impressed by their wealth and their children".
So basically it makes sense not to commune with modern Muslims, or anyone else. Do not serve the Uncle Sam, do not serve the ISIS, do not serve the priests etc.
-
The sectarian interpretation of the chapters is implying on literal warfare.
-
(Side question The Monotheist Group translation uses "communion" for salat (I also like "duty" in Gerrans), and yet the passage referring to "do not commune over those that set up partnership" is confusing to me.....what is the communion? How are Muslims to commune? I want to say that the word not being clearly defined seems to imply group custom or practices of the Muslims, whatever those may be, but this one specific instance of salat seems weird to me.)
I don't have much time so I'll try to respond to what else you said later, but for this take a look at https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9608953.0
-
The sectarian interpretation of the chapters is implying on literal warfare.
Well, yes. The claim is that the chapters refer to a specific battle and specific historical events with specific people. (While plausible, I also don't understand how this qualifies for inclusion in an eternal and universal book, or why God wouldn't name names and the like. This is why I am doing my hardest to wrap my head around these two chapters as general instructions/commands/advice to all mankind rather than a historical document.)
-
Can you refer to specific verses? I believe it warns about not to cooperate with paganists (those who set up partnership with God) when they are up to something bloody, i.e. stay away from wars and wordly life. Especially verses 980 - 990.
984 And do not commune over any of them who have died, nor stand at their grave. They have rejected God and His messenger and died while they were wicked. 985 And do not be impressed by their wealth and their children; God only wishes to punish them with it in this world, and so their souls will be taken to death while they are rejecters
Who have died or stand at their grave is probably metaphorical, these are blind people who pursue wordly life ("do not be impressed by their wealth and their children".
So basically it makes sense not to commune with modern Muslims, or anyone else. Do not serve the Uncle Sam, do not serve the ISIS, do not serve the priests etc.
An excellent point, thank you. That is helpful.
-
I just can't wrap my head around it. How do you fine people read these chapters? Do you find them difficult?
If to be muslim means making peace then the fight is with those who want to oppress it. List all the crimes disbelievers did according to Quran which led to such wars. See if you can agree that they did nothing wrong. You may also ask an American soldier what rule he has to abide by in the battlefield. They actually have protocols similar to what is in the Quran. You can kill only in defense.
-
U.S. army kills in defense? Then the "best defense is a good offense" is I guess the best explanation of their tactics.
In the battle field yes! That's the protocol.
Can you trust army to be civilized? Nope. They are programmed to kill.
If one gets caught? Court marshaled or sentenced to jail.PS Battle style is no more the same. The terrorists use a tactic of splitting into small groups wearing normal clothes to camouflage themselves with the average people. It was made by some nazi who later worked for Mossad.
-
In the battle field yes! That's the protocol.
Can you trust army to be civilized? Nope. They are programmed to kill.
If one gets caught? Court marshaled or sentenced to jail.You said the army only kills in self-defense, and that is nowhere near truth. Invasion of Iraq, Hiroshima and Nagasaki and countless of other examples clearly shows that self-defense wasn't the case. And how you do judge which army attacks first in the chaotic battlefield? Because there is no self-defense.
-
You said the army only kills in self-defense, and that is nowhere near truth. Invasion of Iraq, Hiroshima and Nagasaki and countless of other examples clearly shows that self-defense wasn't the case. And how you do judge which army attacks first in the chaotic battlefield? Because there is no self-defense.
I am talking about battle field. But well, all the countries always seem to say "they are defending themselves". If everyone is okay with that kind of description I don't see why the defense verses in Quran can be taken as questionable.
-
I am talking about battle field. But well, all the countries always seem to say "they are defending themselves". If everyone is okay with that kind of description I don't see why the defense verses in Quran can be taken as questionable.
Because there is that tendency to impose on humans in theory, a kind of "goodness" that in reality nobody would put up with and would repell them altogether. You may give the other cheek, but how many cheeks does one have, and would one give her own cheek and also the cheek of her children, when it is her or his duty to defend those children and even sacrifice her or himself for them? That would not be goodness but cowardice ad irresponsibility.
What would be attained with that would not be peace but utter abject oppression and probably more death than otherwise. Power thirst has no limits.
Salaam
