You're translation of the Quraan is misleading

agnosticzenguy

Hi everyone,

I'm a graduate of the Islaamic University of Al-Madinah (in Saudi) whom--believe it or not--left Islaam and ended up embracing agnosticism..and then agnostic buddhism. That's right, went from the salafi manhaj to kufr--I had to be honest with myself, I couldn't reconcile Islaam with common-sense.

But anyways, I'm not here to debate the deen nor try to lead you to kufr--no, believe what you want--however I'd like to point out that your translation of the Quraan is misleading as is your general interpretation of Islaam. Basically, what you've done is similiar to what the liberal xtian establishment has done Your attempting to re-construct Islaam so as to bring it in sync with modern pc liberal values.

Like it or not Yes, the Quraan commands the beating of women (not seperation) and we know from historical references (Islaamic and non-Islaamic alike) that, apparently, Muhammad did teach the believers how to apply what's in the Quran, things that continued as tradition passed down from one to the other --like how to perform salaat at the specified times, the covering of women and so forth. Muslims have been praying and women have been covering themselves more or less as Muhammad taught them up until today.

While I agree that there's much falsity and non-sense in the ahadith and can understand your desire to abandon them (this issue is exactly what kick-started my exit from Islaam) your interpretation of Islaam is a bit dishonest. It would be more honest of you to say "Yes, we aknowledge that Orthodox Muslims practice much of what Muhammad taught them but we'd rather do it our own way, according to (as the salafis would say) our own whims and desires"

Peace to everyone.

easternqibla

Peace be with you. You have a lovely story. May God bless you. Richard

Wakas

Hi,

I'm surprised you are a graduate of such a university, and here is why

You refer to "Islaam" with a capital "I" implying it is primarily a title, when in Classical Arabic such a thing was unheard of.
You claim Quran commands beating of women, if so, please answer this simple conundrum

If we imagine a real life scenario in which a husband thinks his wife is guilty of disloyalty/infidelity and therefore undergoes the steps in 434, as traditionally understood, then before the wife is "hit/beat" she simply needs to say "let's go to court and apply 246-9 to your accusation" to which the husband would be dumbfounded as he is allegedly allowed to "beat" her yet according to 246-9 his accusation would be rejected by the court! Thus giving us the ridiculous situation of a wife being legally vindicated of her husband's accusation yet is still allowed to be punished by her husband! There is no escaping this obvious contradiction in the traditional understanding.

You make a lot of unevidenced statements.
You claim "our" interpretation is influenced by "our own whims and desires" and imply the Traditional understandings are not when anyone who has bothered to do even a basic reading of Islamic history knows that there is variance on almost every issue, with different schools of thought, variance in Hadith/Sunnah, qiyaas etc etc.
The way to minimise the influence of whims/desires is to apply an evidence-based approach that is consistent. Traditional understandings do not have this, Quran has.

Welcome to the forum.

easternqibla

If I can rekindle something of a devotion to some of the Quran and hadith, then you might find this topic interesting

Symbolism of Solomon's Temple
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604977.msg320121#msg320121

Richard

agnosticzenguy

Hi,

I'm surprised you are a graduate of such a university, and here is why

You refer to "Islaam" with a capital "I" implying it is primarily a title, when in Classical Arabic such a thing was unheard of.
You claim Quran commands beating of women, if so, please answer this simple conundrum
You make a lot of unevidenced statements.
You claim "our" interpretation is influenced by "our own whims and desires" and imply the Traditional understandings are not when anyone who has bothered to do even a basic reading of Islamic history knows that there is variance on almost every issue, with different schools of thought, variance in Hadith/Sunnah, qiyaas etc etc.
The way to minimise the influence of whims/desires is to apply an evidence-based approach that is consistent. Traditional understandings do not have this, Quran has.

Welcome to the forum.

Graduated in 2002...began to have doubts in my 3rd year (after finishing up with arabic and entering faculty of shariah) but stayed because it was free...and hoped that my doubts would pass but they didn't.

Accusing of me of lying based upon my choice of spelling in english is a bad way to start but I understand your skepticism as people can be anyone that they want on the net (and, frankly, I don't care if you believe me or not--at the end of the day, what's it matter?)

And while there's "variance on every issue" we know that muslims have, for the most part, been offering salat as they do today since the time of Muhammad. It is what it is, I honestly don't care if you butcher the religion or not--that's up to you,--however the majority of what so-called "Quran only" muslims teach/do is mis-leading.

I've met several in real life and have read much about it on the net and so forth..and have seen them make halal everything from abandoning salat to immodest clothing to drinking liquor to fornication when we all know that this isn't how Muhammad organized his community.

And I think that hair-splitting evidence is un-neccessary in these matters for anyone with a basic understanding of Islaam and its history--those whom do so are usually ignorant of the facts and need to investigate further or are simply trying to justify their erroneous position ( they'd rather have their wine and do what they want regardless of the plain evidence to the contrary. But it's all good, I drink alcohol myself because I'm no longer a muslim!).

Either way, good luck to all
peace

agnosticzenguy

If I can rekindle something of a devotion to some of the Quran and hadith, then you might find this topic interesting

Symbolism of Solomon's Temple
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604977.msg320121#msg320121

Richard

Interesting post and I'm familiar with that hadith however I tend to view Abu Hurayrah as the biggest liar of them all, lol.

The guy narrated 5000+ ahadith, more than all of the others though he knew muhammad for only a very short time

peace

Azz

And I think that hair-splitting evidence is un-neccessary in these matters for anyone with a basic understanding of Islaam and its history--those whom do so are usually ignorant of the facts and need to investigate further or are simply trying to justify their erroneous position ( they'd rather have their wine and do what they want regardless of the plain evidence to the contrary. But it's all good, I drink alcohol myself because I'm no longer a muslim!).

What history are you referring to? Not trying to be sarcastic or anything, honest question. History relevant to someone who wants to be a muslim?

and I don't see how Wakas was splitting-hairs in his post. Regardless, there is an article on the main free-minds site itself on this. Knowing your opinion on it would be nice, it moreorless covers the basics of the issue
http//www.free-minds.org/are-women-be-beaten

Peace.

agnosticzenguy

What history are you referring to? Not trying to be sarcastic or anything, honest question. History relevant to someone who wants to be a muslim?

and I don't see how Wakas was splitting-hairs in his post. Regardless, there is an article on the main free-minds site itself on this. Knowing your opinion on it would be nice, it moreorless covers the basics of the issue
http//www.free-minds.org/are-women-be-beaten

Peace.

As for 434, the root word of that which is in question has many meanings hence I can understand how one could be tempted to translate it as meaning seperation instead of beating, however I would side with the early arab interpreters on this one. I agree that your interpretation isn't entirely without merit though.

As for history, while some of you may have encountered this already, here's a little Islaamic history written by a non-muslim. Since ahadith aren't trusted, here's an account of early islaam in action which demonstrates that much of what is rejected is in fact authentic and most probaly originated from muhammad.

While there are others that predate this from which one can gain an idea of how early muslims practiced the religion, this is one of the better ones (imo) as it describes several practices rejected by some ahlul quraan as man-made innovation derived from ahadith.

But of course this is solely for those whom treat traditional islaamic practices in their entirety (traditional salaat, hijab, the prohibition of alcohol, etc.) as falsity and without authentic precedent. Yeah, I think that it's relevant for the one whom desires to become a muslim but is taught (by some of you guys) that "orthodox" islaam is an abomination, lol.

So here we go. Muhammad dies 632, Tu-huan (from whom this account originates) is taken prisoner to Iraq and returned to china in 762...Bukhari is born in 810.

"T'ung tien (published 801)

"In 801 Tu Yu presented his encyclopaedic administrative tract, the T'ung tien, to the throne. He had begun it as long ago as 768 while serving at Yang-chou on the staff of his patron Wei Y?an-fu, military governor of Huai-nan. Over the years he continued to add material on new and important developments. Large sections of the work were not written by Tu Yu himself, but were taken over integrally from the Cheng tien of Liu Chih (d. ca. 760), a political treatise in historical form, and from the K'ai-y?an li, the official ritual code completed in 732."

This particular passage is ultimately based on the experiences of Tu Huan, who was taken to Iraq as a prisoner before returning to China in 762. The first two paragraphs are also found in the T'ang History. The text reads (pp. 245-249)

****Tu Huan's Ching-hsing chi says Another name is Kufa (Ya ch?-lo). The Arab king is called mumen, and his capital is located at this place. Both men and women are handsome and tall, their clothing is bright and clean, and their manners are elegant. When a woman goes out in public, she must cover her face irrespective of her lofty or lowly social position. They perform ritual prayers five times a day. They eat meat, fast and they regard the butchering of an animal as meritorious. They wear silver belts about the waist from which they suspend silver daggers. They prohibit the drinking of wine and forbid music. When people squabble among themselves, they do not come to blows. there is also a ceremonial hall which accommodates tens of thousands of people. Every seven days the king comes out to perform religious services; he mounts a high pulpit and preaches the law to the multitudes. He says "Human life is very difficult, the path of righteousness is not easy, and adultery is wrong. To rob or steal, in the slightest way to deceive people with words, to make oneself secure by endangering others, to cheat the poor or oppress the lowly?there is no sin greater than one of these. All who are killed in battle against the enemies will achieve paradise. Kill the enemies and you will receive happiness beyond measure"

**Taken from the book "Seeing Islam as Others Saw It A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam"

peace

easternqibla

**Taken from the book "Seeing Islam as Others Saw It A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam"

I must read this someday, but for now at 800+ pages I must forgo it!

Richard

Wakas

In case it was not clear, I made no reference to your spelling, I said what I did because of the points you were trying to make in your post.

I take that as a "no" you cannot answer the conundrum I highlighted. It's ok, everyone else seems to run away from that one. If you wish to read more, I recommend www.Quran434.com it also does not agree with "separate from them".

And thanks for that excerpt from Hoyland's book. I have it. In case you are unfamiliar with those who follow a Quran based islam, some do not reject the things you mention.
And in case you are not familiar with the earliest Islamic traditions/history, they state salat was two daily
http//www.scribd.com/doc/37518694/Uri-Rubin-Morning-and-Evening-Prayers-in-early-Islam-by-muslims

In any case, I sincerely hope that as part of your academic studies they discussed/emphasised an evidence-based approach. This tends to resolve many issues.

SarahY

Hi there,

I'm a graduate of the Islaamic University of Al-Madinah (in Saudi)

How'd your family take your views? i'm surprised you're not beheaded yet

Since when was studying in Medinah free? Anyways.

So are you trying to guide people from their "misleading" interpretations of Islam? I disagree with the assumption that people try to bring Islam in sync with modern liberal values and I think it's unfair to say that. You're just pigeon holing a whole group of people, maybe there is people that do that but you can't label everyone as such. Modern values take on lessons from history, it wasn't just a modern creation. furthermore there is bound to be some parallels or do you think that's impossible.

I'm female, and I personally do not believe the Quran commands beating of women nor do I believe that it states separation.

Historical references are not verifiable in all senses, forgery has seeped through the hadith corpus and no scholar will disagree to that. I recommend reading

http//www.scribd.com/doc/119660399/dialogues-of-hadith-different-perceptions-and-insights

Particularly on forgery and tafsir.

You know you made me think.. for example the issue of Aisha whether or not she was loyal or not. I'm sure you know the story. Wouldn't that have that been the perfect example to "beat" her. I have never read any historical evidence of such btw that's not why i don't believe in beating but just thought i'd mention it.

No doubt Muhammad was not a mere delivery man and he himself practised and taught the Quran.

There is something known as the "living sunnah" ever heard of the term?? not all traditions come from hadith but actual practises.

women never were so strict in their coverings, just by reading ibn battuta's travels you can know that and yes i mean islamic muslim women. it's interesting how different regions had different practises. Also you should realise many authors have their own bias.

For example you give the idea that Tu Haun saw muslims in such a way and because they were like that then, it gives more evidence. but you fail to realise. the prehistorical history of that area.

for example Zoroastrianism and their 5 times prayers...
Cyrus the Great who was twelve centuries before Islam, established the custom of covering women to protect their chastity. this practise was passed down empires, and handed down to the Byzantines. from history we know the Arab conquerors inherited it and their practices were transmitted. you can read about it from Mackey, Sandra & Harrop, Scott (1996). The Iranians Persia, Islam and the Soul of a Nation.

it's no surprise that later on Bukhari included it in his works.

I think the assumption is the way muslims are now (the sunnis/salaf or whatever orthodox muslims you wanna name) are what muslims are and should be and this is their history. so if this is islam and i don't agree with it, i've rejected it. yet here are a bunch of people here saying no this is not islam, who do they think they are? they can't just reinterpret and reinvent the wheel.

I don't believe muslims are more or less exactly like muhammad taught them. there has been lots of events that have shaped islam to what it is today.

People who follow the Quran are not reinterpreting or reinventing the wheel, they're doing what they believe God told them to do. verifying truth, thinking, pondering, learning, discovering. The Quran is not for the mindless. But let me tell you something, we're HUMAN. so we make mistakes but the beauty of acquiring knowledge helps correct any errors. I'm not perfect but i try and do as i understand, because the scholar at the mosque isn't going to take me to jannah.

Again, I disagree how can our interpretations be dishonest? because hadith is rejected? is that why? I'm sure you know but i'll remind you tafsir of Quran isn't just by hadith.

you said
"Abu Hurayrah as the biggest liar "
and there is varying accounts of how long he spend with the prophet- 2 years - 3 years - 4 years. lets say 4 years. he has the most recorded hadiths, yet spent less time than any other companion. the only reason people know of "abu burayrah" is because of hadith, yet can anyone mention a merit towards him? maybe 1 or 2 if they're well read. they'll also find disparaging remarks about him too.

anyway the point is that there is something called false claims, there is something called hypocrites, there is something called fitnah.

I wonder how many ahkam that are practised today come from abu huraira's sayings..

There are many paths that lead to God, 2969

and the way that orthodox muslims practise is an INTERPRETATION of what muhammad taught them. it is nothing but whims and desire to blind follow scholars in the name of they are more learned. what if people actually studied hadith and realised abu huraira was a liar, i wonder how much things they would reject to follow.

The one who strives and seeks knowledge is not the same as the one who sits idle.

The Quran stands on it's own, today muslims don't like to hear it. Even non muslims or yourself. one reason is because it goes against their theories.

for example, correct me if i am wrong but it seems like you're trying to say islam is what it is today with the hadiths thats how it is, you can't accept it any other way. if you do it's your own whims and desires, so because of that you reject it..

In psychology that's what they call cognitive dissonance.

Anyway islam is more complex than hadith, some people desire to learn about it, others have no interest.

enjoy your stay in the forum and sorry if i come across offensive i just felt like putting my thoughts out.

peace

ayyub

SarahY bravo That was a very well written, researched and informative response. I find it interesting when I hear people say Quran guided Muslims are following their "whims and desires". Maybe some do, but for the most part from my experience I've found them to be very sincere in their quest to determine God's will.

Azz

"Seeing Islam as Others Saw It A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam"

Will definitely give this book a look, it sounds very interesting.

I don't understand why "alcohol" is so heavily attributed to quran-only muslims. I've seen one or two threads about it on here before (I don't doubt there have been more) but the general consensus on it seems clear to me That intoxication is to be avoided (for obvious reasons) and alcohol should be treated with caution.
On face covering, I'll openly admit I'm not the most knowledgable guy on it ever. I'm not convinced that this specific method of "Dressing humbly/sensibly" isn't more due to social/cultural reasons though. What constitutes as doing this differs everywhere in the muslim world. Hell, in some places in Africa women hardly cover up at all and men wear typical hijab-style clothing. All I know is that both men and women are supposed to dress decently, of course there'll be wiggle room for the interpretation of something like this.
Praying 5 times doesn't seem inherantly wrong to me either, I don't think there's any sort of upper limit on how many times one can pray (aside from those "forbidden times of day to pray" in some circles) Method of prayer also differs everywhere too. Ditching the hadith specifically doesn't have much to do with prayer as prayer isn't rooted in any hadith (or atleast the sahih hadith) to my knowledge. Personally, I still do prayer the way my father taught me, but usually only at fajr and isha - before you ask, there's plenty of evidenced discussion about that all over the forum. (sometimes I pray more if I feel I need it for whatever reason, often in times of distress in my life and the like) The shahada is slightly different for me too, obviously.

These are just my views as of the time of writing this message. Other people may have slightly different views on these sorta things to me.

It's not a modernist movement, by the way (you didn't explictly state this but you seem to be implying it) Have you heard of Shafi'i's treatise 'Kitab Jima al-llm' ("The book of the amalgamation of knowledge&quot? It features a response to quran-only muslims.

Peace

Harun

Peace to all

]How'd your family take your views? i'm surprised you're not beheaded yet

.... rotfl rotfl rotfl

Peace
Harun

Bigmo

Hi everyone,

I'm a graduate of the Islaamic University of Al-Madinah (in Saudi) whom--believe it or not--left Islaam and ended up embracing agnosticism..and then agnostic buddhism. That's right, went from the salafi manhaj to kufr--I had to be honest with myself, I couldn't reconcile Islaam with common-sense.

But anyways, I'm not here to debate the deen nor try to lead you to kufr--no, believe what you want--however I'd like to point out that your translation of the Quraan is misleading as is your general interpretation of Islaam. Basically, what you've done is similiar to what the liberal xtian establishment has done Your attempting to re-construct Islaam so as to bring it in sync with modern pc liberal values.

Like it or not Yes, the Quraan commands the beating of women (not seperation) and we know from historical references (Islaamic and non-Islaamic alike) that, apparently, Muhammad did teach the believers how to apply what's in the Quran, things that continued as tradition passed down from one to the other --like how to perform salaat at the specified times, the covering of women and so forth. Muslims have been praying and women have been covering themselves more or less as Muhammad taught them up until today.

While I agree that there's much falsity and non-sense in the ahadith and can understand your desire to abandon them (this issue is exactly what kick-started my exit from Islaam) your interpretation of Islaam is a bit dishonest. It would be more honest of you to say "Yes, we aknowledge that Orthodox Muslims practice much of what Muhammad taught them but we'd rather do it our own way, according to (as the salafis would say) our own whims and desires"

Peace to everyone.

Well maybe the other side is interpreting the Quran in a dictaotorial style. I am not sure what the Quran has to do wil liberal Western ideas. Maybe the similarity has to do with freedom which the Sunni and Shia orthodoxy lack. Now lets look at the Quarn and how it understands freedom and compare that with Sunni and Shia Islam.

1682 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message .

6107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides Him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you a guardian over them.

479-80 Say'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. A nd for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."

1128 He (Noah) said "O my people! think over it! If I act upon a clear direction from my Lord who has bestowed on me from Himself the Merciful talent of seeing the right way, a way which you cannot see for yourself, does it follow that we can force you to take the right path when you definitely decline to take it?

1753-54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner. Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe .... Hence, We have not sent you with power to determine their Faith.

21107-109 (O Prophet?) 'We have not sent you except to be a mercy to all mankind" Declare, "Verily, what is revealed to me is this, your God is the only One God, so is it not up to you to bow down to Him?' But if they turn away then say, "I have delivered the Truth in a manner clear to one and all, and I know not whether the promised hour is near or far."

2267 To every people have We appointed ceremonial rites which they observe; therefore, let them not wrangle over this matter with you, but bid them to turn to your Lord. You indeed are rightly guided. But if they still dispute you in this matter, `God best knows what you do."

24.54. Say "Obey God, and obey the Messenger. but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message).

8821 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.

4828 He it is Who has sent forth His Messenger with the Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to the end that tie make it prevail over every religion, and none can bear witness to the Truth as God does.

3616 17 (Three Messengers to their people) Said, "Our Sustainer knows that we have indeed been sent unto you, but we are not bound to more than clearly deliver the Message entrusted to us.'

3941 Assuredly, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. Whoso guided himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper.

426 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach ....

6412 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.

6725 26 And they ask, "When shall the promise be fulfilled if you speak the Truth?" Say, "The knowledge of it is verily with God alone, and verily I am but a plain warner."

10.99-100. If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe! No soul can believe, except by the will of God, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand

28.55-56 And when they hear vain talk, they turn away therefrom and say "To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be to you we seek not the ignorant," It is true thou wilt not be able to guide whom thou lovest; but God guides those whom He will and He knows best those who receive guidance.

109.1-6 Say O ye that reject Faith,! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, To you be your Way, and to me mine.

74.11-17 Leave Me with whom I created alone!, To whom I granted resources in abundance, And sons to be by his side, To whom I made (life) smooth and comfortable, Yet is he greedy-that I should add (yet more);- By no means! For to Our Signs he has been refractory!, Soon will I visit him with a mount of calamities!

"So have We appointed for every Prophet an enemy - devils of men and Jinns; who inspire each other with seductive, deceptive speech which leads astray; but had thy Lord willed they would not have done so. So leave them with what they do devise. And let the hearts of those who believe not in the Hereafter listen to it; and let them be well pleased with it; and let them gain what they can gain!" 6113-114

"And when you see those who meddle with Our revelations, withdraw from them until they meddle with another topic. And if the devil causes you to forget, sit not, after the remembrance, with the congregation of wrongdoers. 668

2256 There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing

So freedom is sancrosanct in the Quran and that determines how a Quranist will look at many issues.

huruf

I must say outright and plainly that what is writen in the initial post of this thread reads to me wholly idiotic.

like for instance, where it says

"your interpretation of Islaam is a bit dishonest. It would be more honest of you to say "Yes, we aknowledge that Orthodox Muslims practice much of what Muhammad taught them but we'd rather do it our own way, according to (as the salafis would say) our own whims and desires"
"

?Ya salaam! As we say in Spanish said the frying pan to the pot, get out of here you are soiling me.

So the interpretation done by the Quranic people here is interested, but the interpretations that differ from it are always downright honest and spotless. Come to think of taking something for granted.

No, man, Agnosty... to me you show the typical male ego overflowing with the delusion that women should not get redeemed by themselves or by anybody else but great cute guys like themselves. That women should be redeemed by clever guys like those who trample and kick the Qur'an, because it they take the Qur'an as truth, they no longer can pose as the great guys they should be and worshiped by the eversothankful females that would never have dreamed of attaining such an honour. Therefore, in order to be them the Gods of the of the women, the God of the women. the only one there is, the same for them(masculine) as for them (feminine) should be done away with. It is diagnostic that the writer chose the beat thing, which by now smells of rats like hell .

No man, you want people to discard the Qur'an because with the Qur'an in our hands we will not applaud idols like male redeemers of women. But we do not need your grandstandings to be free and to be us. We have ourselves and the Qur'an and our brains and our GUTS and Truth to counter the self-deluded male ego sick posing as cheikhs and the self deluded male ego sick great guys posing as redeemers of women.

We do not need idols, we need truthful women and men who are humble and listen and read attentively and DO NOT TAKE ANYTHING FOR GRANTED.

Salaam to all and kindest regards to prophet Buda, who is no guilty of misleading anyone, I think

Emil

Hi everyone,

I'm a graduate of the Islaamic University of Al-Madinah (in Saudi) whom--believe it or not--left Islaam and ended up embracing agnosticism..and then agnostic buddhism. That's right, went from the salafi manhaj to kufr--I had to be honest with myself, I couldn't reconcile Islaam with common-sense.

But anyways, I'm not here to debate the deen nor try to lead you to kufr--no, believe what you want--however I'd like to point out that your translation of the Quraan is misleading as is your general interpretation of Islaam. Basically, what you've done is similiar to what the liberal xtian establishment has done Your attempting to re-construct Islaam so as to bring it in sync with modern pc liberal values.

Like it or not Yes, the Quraan commands the beating of women (not seperation) and we know from historical references (Islaamic and non-Islaamic alike) that, apparently, Muhammad did teach the believers how to apply what's in the Quran, things that continued as tradition passed down from one to the other --like how to perform salaat at the specified times, the covering of women and so forth. Muslims have been praying and women have been covering themselves more or less as Muhammad taught them up until today.

While I agree that there's much falsity and non-sense in the ahadith and can understand your desire to abandon them (this issue is exactly what kick-started my exit from Islaam) your interpretation of Islaam is a bit dishonest. It would be more honest of you to say "Yes, we aknowledge that Orthodox Muslims practice much of what Muhammad taught them but we'd rather do it our own way, according to (as the salafis would say) our own whims and desires"

Peace to everyone.

Salam brother

Interesting to see someone with your background, it is seldom that a person with your education is not blaming us to be kaffirs.......Sad but true........But I guess we have that in common that we both are kaffirs according to the conservative traditional islam.

But........

You are doing the exact thing a traditional muslim who wants to debate does. They directly attack, asking how we could ever be able to interpet certain verses without using hadith. The two verses you mention are by far very popular with traditonalists where they hope to catch us off-guard so later they can proclaim victory because we cannot answer.

When debating with QAs traditional muslims already have a fixed idea that it is impossible to know the answer to all by only using the Quran. They have a "black and white" attitude meaning that verses in the Quran can only be interpeted in a right or wrong way. For them there are no possibilities to use the Quran as a tool to create an Ummah which would work for nations and tribes that differ from eachother. They do not understand that an (for example) Arab society could never have the same rules as a South American society. They do not understand that in order to make the Quran "work" in all societies there must be room for different interpretations. We see different ways, we are different. The Quran accepts this and recognises it. Allah has made us into different nations and tribes in order to recognise eachother. Perhaps by discussing we can learn from eachother?

Traditional islam uses hadith from prophet Muhammed which is OK. But what is not OK is that they forget is prophet Muhammed lived and ruled in a very small part of the world. He used the Quran to design the Ummah best suited for the region he lived in. Prophet Muhammed was the religious, political and the military leader. The sayings recorded by people like Bukhari reflects all roles prophet Muhammed had. Without knowing which saying is political (for the Ummah) and which is religious (for muslims only) it is impossible to know which one to use when interpreting the Quran.

You (and traditional islam) must let go of the notion that there is only one answer to a question. As a buddhist you must know this, it should not be a surpise for you. Are we really not muslims because we have misinterpreted a verse? Who is the judge what interpretation is right? Hadith, the Ummah or the Quran?
You should focus your attention on trying to understand why we (AQ) believe the only source needed for our guidance is the Quran, the ONLY islamic source which has been proven as the word of God.

Speaking of 434; Under what circumstances is the man allowed to beat his wife? Is it when she does not listen to him? Is it when she developes a will of her own? Is it when she doesnt want to cook him dinner? Or is it when she is leaving islam? This question you should first ask before saying that we misinterpret the Quran. You should ask us to prove by using the Quran that verse 434 does not mean physical punishment instead of saying we are wrong because a hadith has taught you the right interpretation.

Bigmo

Salam brother

Interesting to see someone with your background, it is seldom that a person with your education is not blaming us to be kaffirs.......Sad but true........But I guess we have that in common that we both are kaffirs according to the conservative traditional islam.

But........

You are doing the exact thing a traditional muslim who wants to debate does. They directly attack, asking how we could ever be able to interpet certain verses without using hadith. The two verses you mention are by far very popular with traditonalists where they hope to catch us off-guard so later they can proclaim victory because we cannot answer.

When debating with QAs traditional muslims already have a fixed idea that it is impossible to know the answer to all by only using the Quran. They have a "black and white" attitude meaning that verses in the Quran can only be interpeted in a right or wrong way. For them there are no possibilities to use the Quran as a tool to create an Ummah which would work for nations and tribes that differ from eachother. They do not understand that an (for example) Arab society could never have the same rules as a South American society. They do not understand that in order to make the Quran "work" in all societies there must be room for different interpretations. We see different ways, we are different. The Quran accepts this and recognises it. Allah has made us into different nations and tribes in order to recognise eachother. Perhaps by discussing we can learn from eachother?

Traditional islam uses hadith from prophet Muhammed which is OK. But what is not OK is that they forget is prophet Muhammed lived and ruled in a very small part of the world. He used the Quran to design the Ummah best suited for the region he lived in. Prophet Muhammed was the religious, political and the military leader. The sayings recorded by people like Bukhari reflects all roles prophet Muhammed had. Without knowing which saying is political (for the Ummah) and which is religious (for muslims only) it is impossible to know which one to use when interpreting the Quran.

You (and traditional islam) must let go of the notion that there is only one answer to a question. As a buddhist you must know this, it should not be a surpise for you. Are we really not muslims because we have misinterpreted a verse? Who is the judge what interpretation is right? Hadith, the Ummah or the Quran?
You should focus your attention on trying to understand why we (AQ) believe the only source needed for our guidance is the Quran, the ONLY islamic source which has been proven as the word of God.

Speaking of 434; Under what circumstances is the man allowed to beat his wife? Is it when she does not listen to him? Is it when she developes a will of her own? Is it when she doesnt want to cook him dinner? Or is it when she is leaving islam? This question you should first ask before saying that we misinterpret the Quran. You should ask us to prove by using the Quran that verse 434 does not mean physical punishment instead of saying we are wrong because a hadith has taught you the right interpretation.

Good point. The reason why there is a similarity I think between Quran and liberal values probably has to do with the protestant revolution which made scriptures the final authority rather than the Church.

Emil

Good point. The reason why there is a similarity I think between Quran and liberal values probably has to do with the protestant revolution which made scriptures the final authority rather than the Church.

I have never seen that connection before...........learn something new everyday..........thanks Bigmo handshake

Bigmo

I have never seen that connection before...........learn something new everyday..........thanks Bigmo handshake

Although the doctrines of Protestant denominations are far from uniform, some beliefs extending across Protestantism are the doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide.

Sola scriptura maintains that the Bible (rather than church tradition or ecclesiastical interpretations of the Bible) is the primary and supreme source of binding authority for all Christians. This does not exclude other sources of binding authority, rather it places other forms of authority in subordination to the authority of Scripture.

Sola fide holds that salvation comes by grace through faith alone in Jesus as the Christ, rather than through good works.

Protestant churches generally reject the Catholic doctrines of papal supremacy and magisterial authority, including both papal infallibility and the general infallibility of the Church. Because of this, Protestant ministers and church leaders have somewhat different roles and authority in their communities than do Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox priests and bishops.

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism

So we can see some similarities regarding the authority of scripture between protestanism and Quranic Islam.