Religion - A view point from logical point of view
-
https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJrfoWWlYCc#t=683
Please focus on the part (starting from minute 600) where he talks about the religion and the their books in particular and the part that every one
claims to have been holding the right book/religion.My logic tells me that he is not all wrong in his claims or deduction. What is your opinion? Because whether we agree or not
religion plays central role in such atrocities (used directly or indirectly).Regards
-
One could write a book and convey the same knowledge as Quran, even if not with the same words. A problem is that current interpretations do not represent what the original Arabic wishes to say. There is something above normal with Quran though and it seems affected by a "higher intelligence" but it never becomes better than its interpreter. A person who is wise and absorbed the knowledge of Quran could theoretically write a book conveying the same information.
Have faith
-
One could write a book and convey the same knowledge as Quran, even if not with the same words.
I can't disagree more with you here. Quran challenges any man to produce a work of similar quality. Are you gonna accept that challenge, Man of Faith? If you are talking about translations, we are not talking about Quran. Quran is in arabic.
-
I said convey the same knowledge if you know what it says. It is a spiritual guide not a mythical scripture. I can write down Jesus' elaboration on the 'Guidelines' (usually called 10 commandments) and I convey knowledge on a similar level, although Quran is a lot of pages of knowledge. But beneath that Quran teaches something that a majority of people miss and that is how abstractly God wants us to perceive the world.
Quran is written in a special way which may not be imitated, but it does not mean another text cannot convey the same knowledge on spirituality as it wants to convey, if they are as knowledgeable as the one who composed Quran on the topic.
Jesus taught a similar perception on the phenomenon of God so to say no one knew the information before is wrong. Quran's abstract teachings were nothing new when it came.
You need to separate knowledge and literary style when you interpret that no one can make a scripture like it, as the knowledge Quran conveys was with prophets already, or at least Jesus, and those who understood Jesus' explanation on the realm could have the same level of knowledge (about assimilation and affinity with God etc etc).
Have faith
-
Hello runninglikezebras,
I can't disagree more with you here. Quran challenges any man to produce a work of similar quality. Are you gonna accept that challenge, Man of Faith? If you are talking about translations, we are not talking about Quran. Quran is in arabic.
Check this link out by Ali Sina, where he explains quite honestly on this matter
http//faithfreedom.org/faq/65.htm
This website is said to contain 'surahs like it'. First read Ali Sina's article and then this one
http//suralikeit.com/
I personally have not much idea on this concept of challenge to produce a surah like it. Also Edip Yuksel came to much of the same conclusion as Ali Sina regarding the literary challenge itself. Edip said the 19 theory is meeting the challenge better. But since many of us non-submitter Muslims tend to ignore the 19 theory, so it becomes a problem for us to justify this ayah.
Peace,
Samira
-
Harmony with you Samira,
It also is necessary that the interpretation/translation about "no surat like it" is properly understood. You need to remember Qur'an has been in playful hands.
Have faith
-
Hello Man of Faith,
Yeah you are right. Have you checked Ali Sina's article? And the 'Sura like it' page? Well if what Ali Sina is true, it defeats the literary challenge of the Quran being presented in the existing interpretations.
Peace,
Samira
-
By the way it occurred to me, there are indeed contradictions present in the current interpretation of he Quran, when certain verses are not abrogated, as Sunnis did. Such as on 2256 on no compulsion in religion, and later revealing verse which speak otherwise. Surah Bara'ah is a perfect example.
95 So when the restricted months have passed, then you may kill those who have set up partners wherever you find them, take them, surround them, and stand against them at every point. If they repent, hold the contact prayer, and contribute towards betterment, then you shall leave them alone. God is Forgiving, Compassionate.
911 If they repent, and they hold the contact prayer, and they contribute towards purification, then they are your brothers in the system. We explain the revelations for a people who know.
I thought no compulsion in religion means no compulsion to make a person have faith in Islam, or for them to practice the ethics and rituals within Islam? But these verses contradict this.
This following verse also looks like it is promoting some form of converting blackmail or something, because it talks on protecting them just so they can hear the words of God. This 'converting blackmail' mindset is actually quite common among Muslims
96 If any of those who have set up partners seeks your protection, then you may protect him so that he may hear the words of God, then let him reach his sanctuary. This is because they are a people who do not know.
This verse is clearly saying that we can't trust people who commit Shirk, since it says 'How can such people have a pledge with God and His messenger?'
97 How can those who have set up partners have a pledge with God and with His messenger? Except for those with whom you made a pledge near the Restricted Temple, as long as they are upright with you, then you are upright with them. God loves the righteous.
Too many unnecessary fighting verses, such as this
9123 O you who believe, fight those who are around you of the rejecters, and let them find strength in you; and know that God is with the righteous.
There is no way someone could take such verses seriously. They seriously need complete reinterpretation, if it is the interpretations which have problems. Just saying.
-
Harmony,
There is no way someone could take such verses seriously. They seriously need complete reinterpretation, if it is the interpretations which have problems. Just saying.
I second that emotion.
Have faith
-
By the way it occurred to me, there are indeed contradictions present in the current interpretation of he Quran, when certain verses are not abrogated, as Sunnis did. Such as on 2256 on no compulsion in religion, and later revealing verse which speak otherwise. Surah Bara'ah is a perfect example.
95 So when the restricted months have passed, then you may kill those who have set up partners wherever you find them, take them, surround them, and stand against them at every point. If they repent, hold the contact prayer, and contribute towards betterment, then you shall leave them alone. God is Forgiving, Compassionate.
911 If they repent, and they hold the contact prayer, and they contribute towards purification, then they are your brothers in the system. We explain the revelations for a people who know.
I thought no compulsion in religion means no compulsion to make a person have faith in Islam, or for them to practice the ethics and rituals within Islam? But these verses contradict this.
This following verse also looks like it is promoting some form of converting blackmail or something, because it talks on protecting them just so they can hear the words of God. This 'converting blackmail' mindset is actually quite common among Muslims
96 If any of those who have set up partners seeks your protection, then you may protect him so that he may hear the words of God, then let him reach his sanctuary. This is because they are a people who do not know.
This verse is clearly saying that we can't trust people who commit Shirk, since it says 'How can such people have a pledge with God and His messenger?'
97 How can those who have set up partners have a pledge with God and with His messenger? Except for those with whom you made a pledge near the Restricted Temple, as long as they are upright with you, then you are upright with them. God loves the righteous.
Too many unnecessary fighting verses, such as this
9123 O you who believe, fight those who are around you of the rejecters, and let them find strength in you; and know that God is with the righteous.
There is no way someone could take such verses seriously. They seriously need complete reinterpretation, if it is the interpretations which have problems. Just saying.
These often misinterpreted verses are only misinterpreted because they are isolated from the Quranic context. By citing the ayaat alone in a dubious translation it's easy to understand where the mistake originates from. The Quran is - wether you are convinced of code 19 or not - a literary work that has qualities we can compare to a holographic image. It's only when you look at the entire image from multiple angles it will reveal its beauty and intelligent, complex design.
ps I'm not supporting Code 19 with this post, there is plenty of evidence the Quranic verses are interlocking from a literary, linguistic perspective.
-
These often misinterpreted verses are only misinterpreted because they are isolated from the Quranic context.
And what is the Quranic context?
Even with the additional history being looked at, as Edip Yuksel did, the verses still do not look much better. The 'kill them wherever you find them' phrase for whoever sets up partners after the restricted months, during the Prophet's time, can only give an imagery of the violence and bloodshed that was committed during the Prophet's time. At least the extreme fear that was given to the polytheists is something to note (Muslims still sometimes use this fear-based tactic taken from such examples when dealing with those who oppose their faith in some way, and hence managed to shut up many people from speaking their truth). And again what's with the excessive usage of the ritualistic prayer and ritualistic charity? Muslims all over the world do these things on a regular basis, yet the vast number of the same people still follow a desert mindset and do not think beyond. Which gets me questioning on the purpose of such rituals in the first place. Except as a way to feel closer to the creator because of leaving everything aside to recite the supplications within prayer. And the Salah ritual is also seen as a form of yoga ritual.
By citing the ayaat alone in a dubious translation it's easy to understand where the mistake originates from.
I used the Free-minds translation. Like I said some words need entirely new translations, otherwise we can still see how such verses promote hate towards polytheists, protecting them so we can blackmail them to accept Islam, striking fear in their hearts, thinking them as untrustworthy, and finally fighting them when needed and showing strength to let them know as Muslims we have the upper hand.
I live among polytheistic people myself at home and in my uni, and it amazes me to think how I would end up thinking about them if I actually paid real attention to such verses.
The Quran is - wether you are convinced of code 19 or not - a literary work that has qualities we can compare to a holographic image.
The Quran's claim on producing a 'sura like it', if based on it's literary style, can be proven false with some real and deliberate attempt, and there are already a number of surahs appearing, and the second link that I posted are said by some Arab people to be like the Quran or even superior to the Quran in some ways in their literary style, and most importantly, less violent in content too, so you don't end up shriveling every time you read a few verses and you come across the typical Hell punishment where a person will be tortured to the extreme if they do this or don't do this, or some fighting verse.
It's only when you look at the entire image from multiple angles it will reveal its beauty and intelligent, complex design.
Yes, there is a lot of beauty in it's literary style. Although a book's beauty would not convince me of it's authenticity or make me follow it's words. If beauty was the only criteria, then if Leonardo Da Vinci or Michelangelo (many of whose works cannot be copied despite years of art education) produced works of art and claimed them to be symbolic messages from God, many people would have been drawn towards them and believed them.
Also if a book looks beautiful in it's linguistic style but contained direct words of witchcraft or mind-control of human beings, people are not supposed to follow it either, except if they agree to be indoctrinated and go along with the beauty of it's literary style itself to convince them to follow it's content.
Peace,
Samira
-
And what is the Quranic context?
Even with the additional history being looked at, as Edip Yuksel did, the verses still do not look much better. The 'kill them wherever you find them' phrase for whoever sets up partners after the restricted months, during the Prophet's time, can only give an imagery of the violence and bloodshed that was committed during the Prophet's time. At least the extreme fear that was given to the polytheists is something to note (Muslims still sometimes use this fear-based tactic taken from such examples when dealing with those who oppose their faith in some way, and hence managed to shut up many people from speaking their truth). And again what's with the excessive usage of the ritualistic prayer and ritualistic charity? Muslims all over the world do these things on a regular basis, yet the vast number of the same people still follow a desert mindset and do not think beyond. Which gets me questioning on the purpose of such rituals in the first place. Except as a way to feel closer to the creator because of leaving everything aside to recite the supplications within prayer. And the Salah ritual is also seen as a form of yoga ritual.
First of all Edip Yuksel is not a a linguist. I don't advise trusting his view on the matter. Here's a hint, look at the other verses in Quran that deal with violence. If you understand them correctly they are only allowing self-defense. This is even compatible with the Geneva human rights convention a people being oppressed and persecuted have the right to defend themselves.
I used the Free-minds translation. Like I said some words need entirely new translations, otherwise we can still see how such verses promote hate towards polytheists, protecting them so we can blackmail them to accept Islam, striking fear in their hearts, thinking them as untrustworthy, and finally fighting them when needed and showing strength to let them know as Muslims we have the upper hand.
Even an alternative more peaceful translation wont stop those trying to abuse it for justifying unnecessary violence.
I live among polytheistic people myself at home and in my uni, and it amazes me to think how I would end up thinking about them if I actually paid real attention to such verses.
They wouldn't be relevant unless those polytheistic people you mention would be attacking, persecuting you and your family giving you no option but to reply with violence. I also highly doubt your categorizing them as polytheistic equals what the kind of polytheism Quran is talking about in those verses.
The Quran's claim on producing a 'sura like it', if based on it's literary style, can be proven false with some real and deliberate attempt, and there are already a number of surahs appearing, and the second link that I posted are said by some Arab people to be like the Quran or even superior to the Quran in some ways in their literary style, and most importantly, less violent in content too, so you don't end up shriveling every time you read a few verses and you come across the typical Hell punishment where a person will be tortured to the extreme if they do this or don't do this, or some fighting verse.
I find the idea you are propagating here quite disturbing. I looked at the verses you posted they are nice poetry. But we are not discussing poetry here. If they aren't poetry they are most likely from God as well making the verse about producing a surah like it still valid. That website you linked is not doing a very good job disproving that verse if it's using verses from coming from God to prove someone can produce verses like God. Are you suggesting we should change the Quran?
Yes, there is a lot of beauty in it's literary style. Although a book's beauty would not convince me of it's authenticity or make me follow it's words. If beauty was the only criteria, then if Leonardo Da Vinci or Michelangelo (many of whose works cannot be copied despite years of art education) produced works of art and claimed them to be symbolic messages from God, many people would have been drawn towards them and believed them.
Also if a book looks beautiful in it's linguistic style but contained direct words of witchcraft or mind-control of human beings, people are not supposed to follow it either, except if they agree to be indoctrinated and go along with the beauty of it's literary style itself to convince them to follow it's content.
Again, I'm not talking about poetic qualities.
Certainly you can find a wonderful surah coming from God in another scripture but Quran is the only intact complete work we have. Those surahs like it you mention are fragments of an original message that no longer interlock.
-
First of all Edip Yuksel is not a a linguist. I don't advise trusting his view on the matter. Here's a hint, look at the other verses in Quran that deal with violence. If you understand them correctly they are only allowing self-defense. This is even compatible with the Geneva human rights convention a people being oppressed and persecuted have the right to defend themselves.
I could have agreed with you, except if I didn't find the ritualistic prayer and ritualistic charity being repeatedly mentioned, if that is how Salah and Zakah are to be translated. Which means Salah and Zakah words need some completely different translations from the typical prayer and charity translations to make at least a little sense.
Jesus's words on 'loving your enemy', where one does to enemy what they would want for themselves in a similar position, would have made more sense than lengthy fighting instructions, even if in self-defense. We human beings are smart, and can figure out how to fight if required.
Even an alternative more peaceful translation wont stop those trying to abuse it for justifying unnecessary violence.
I don't agree. Other religious texts do not contain so much of in-the-face hair-raising and disturbing verses. If they do, the followers many a time acknowledge it, don't try to justify their usage in the present world, and do some real cherry-picking on the teachings that do make sense and promote real peace. We Muslims usually don't even acknowledge if anything is really wrong, and quickly pass the blame on others.
I find the idea you are propagating here quite disturbing. I looked at the verses you posted they are nice poetry. But we are not discussing poetry here. Are you suggesting we should change the Quran?
I just said the challenge of producing a surah like it, if in the literary context, don't make any sense.
I looked at the verses you posted they are nice poetry.
Nice poetry as in nice to the senses. When listened to or read without understanding the meaning at all. Similarly for example, if there was a beautiful-sounding poetry presented to us, which contain witchcraft and cannibalism described in detail, we would also call it nice poetry if we didn't know the meaning of the lines.
There are people also raising possible grammatical errors contained in the Quran, but I wouldn't go there yet, since I am still taking matters slowly.
End moral Don't trust your senses to make decisions about a book based on it's aesthetic beauty alone, and giving that the highest importance when judging the overall quality of the book. The content and grammar of the book should be given more priority, and ultimately, the decision on making an overall judgment of the book.
Peace,
Samira
-
Btw you are asking me to tell you the context but the context is there in surah 9. You just abrogated it and made it look like Quran is telling us to commit uncalled for violence. Any part of that surah that tells us not to be violent and leave them be you completely left out.
-
I could have agreed with you, except if I didn't find the ritualistic prayer and ritualistic charity being repeatedly mentioned, if that is how Salah and Zakah are to be translated. Which means Salah and Zakah words need some completely different translations from the typical prayer and charity translations to make at least a little sense.
Human translations and interpretations will always fail. You can't blame the Quranic text for it.
Jesus's words on 'loving your enemy', where one does to enemy what they would want for themselves in a similar position, would have made more sense than lengthy fighting instructions, even if in self-defense. We human beings are smart, and can figure out how to fight if required.
I don't share your view of Jesus as one who would never resort to violence. He was a state enemy and quite rebellious sometimes as well (eg the story about him starting a riot inside the temple). Those same words of loving your enemy are inside surah 9. I guess you overlooked them. It even suggests protecting your enemies if they need your protection!
I don't agree. Other religious texts do not contain so much of in-the-face hair-raising and disturbing verses. If they do, the followers many a time acknowledge it, don't try to justify their usage in the present world, and do some real cherry-picking on the teachings that do make sense and promote real peace. We Muslims usually don't even acknowledge if anything is really wrong, and quickly pass the blame on others.
You are cherry-picking while you claim not to be. You cut out the entire peaceful content of surah 9's message. Btw I could give you plenty of similar examples in the bible etc. What religious text would be complete if it does not tell us when we are defending ourselves we are committing a sin or not?
I just said the challenge of producing a surah like it, if in the literary context, don't make any sense.
Maybe I'm slow in understanding but how does a surah that is from God outside Quran negate Gods challenge to humans to produce a surah like it? FInd me a surah like it from human authorship. I think you are misunderstanding the challenge.
-
Human translations and interpretations will always fail. You can't blame the Quranic text for it.
So you agree that there are some massive misinterpretations of some major words, such as Salah and Zakah, being present.
I don't share your view of Jesus as one who would never resort to violence.
I never mentioned that. I mentioned his emphasis on the Golden Rule that's all.
Maybe I'm slow in understanding but how does a surah that is from God outside Quran negate Gods challenge to humans to produce a surah like it? FInd me a surah like it from human authorship. I think you are misunderstanding the challenge.
I didn't get it. What do you mean? How can a Surah of God be present outside the Quran? The chapters in suralikeit.com are of human authorship.
-
So you agree that there are some massive misinterpretations of some major words, such as Salah and Zakah, being present.
I agree.
I didn't get it. What do you mean? How can a Surah of God be present outside the Quran? The chapters in suralikeit.com are of human authorship.
Eg in the other scriptures there are still some intact verses. I didnt really research the surahs posted on that website. If they aren't from other scripture most likely it's just poetical nonsense.
-
Eg
(1) And We set forth parables for men in order that they may remember
(2) The parable of a smart bird is that of a smart bird which beheld the first signs of winter so he migrated to the south seeking abundant warmth
(3)And the parable of a gullible dumb bird is that of a gullible dumb bird which beheld the first signs of winter so he closed his eyes and went to sleep delightfully
(4)And as we ordered the winds to blow and the thunder to peal and surround him with a shivering cold
(5)He took off seeking the warmth of the south but your Lord has the greatest judgment
(6) And We caused the rain to fall from above him with plenty of water.
(7) And then we decided to disable him from flying
( And caused him to fall to the ground then gave him a feverish shivering
(9) He fell down and your Lord is most knowing where he fell, he fell near a female camel We have over fed
(10) And there the camel emptied what was in her belly over him and so he was covered by her dung
(11) He said My mother was not happy with my lifestyle otherwise my life would not have ended this way
(12) But as soon as her dung warmed up his body he began shaking happily and joyfully
(13) The bird began singing and there heard him a cat that your lord had sent to accomplish a mission that was predetermined
(14) He removed the dung from over him and the bird was very happy
(15) But the cat ate him and the punishment of your Lord was very great
(16) Those who believe and do good works should learn from what We have recited three morals that you may remember
(17) That you should not consider those who throw dung on you as your enemies for there may be in their dung benefits for you while you do not know
(1 That you should not consider those who remove the dung from over you as your friends for there may be harm to you while you are blinded (not knowing the reason behind their action)
(19) And that if you were in a warm place even if your cover was nothing but dung you should be satisfied with your haven and you should not speak or walk on earth showing off your satisfaction that you may be safe.Is that of similar quality in your opinion? The challenge is not talking about only aesthetic value. The highest quality in Quran is it's message and meaning.
-
I looked at those links in more detail and I'm sorry but it's total gibberish. It's like saying the lyrics from Niki Minaj are equal to the books of Umberto Eco in quality. Lmao
Looking at the more sensical ones. Try to interlock them with the rest of Quran and they fail miserably. They lead to contradiction.
-
Eg in the other scriptures there are still some intact verses. I didnt really research the surahs posted on that website. If they aren't from other scripture most likely it's just poetical nonsense.
So basically any attempt to make a surah like it would be brushed off as plagiarism from other scriptures, or that it is poetical nonsense. Yeah and how many Arabic scriptures from God do we know about? And you defended the earlier fighting verses as being 'nice poetry'.
Is that of similar quality in your opinion? The challenge is not talking about only aesthetic value. The highest quality in Quran is it's message and meaning.
I have seen some passages of interpretations of the Quran of similar quality or completely nonsensical as well. Especially verses containing injustice in it. All of it which are radically supported by many Muslims.
Looking at the more sensical ones. Try to interlock them with the rest of Quran and they fail miserably. They lead to contradiction.
I never mentioned that we need to interlock the Surah with the rest of the Quran. The challenge considered by many Muslims is to produce a Surah similar to the literary excellence of the Quran, if that is considered accurate. If the linguistic style is on par, the challenge is met.
Check out the below two links of Surahs which were forgeries but created problems among Muslims regarding their authenticity
http//answering-islam.org/Quran/Miracle/wilaya.html
http//answering-islam.org/Quran/Miracle/nurain.htmlHere is what Edip wrote on his translation of 223 verse, regarding the literary excellence
"...The most popular position among Muslim scholars is that the miracle of the Quran is its literary excellence. This is, however, an imaginary or false claim, since there is no objective or universal criteria for comparing literary texts and thereby preferring one over the other. The miraculous nature of the Quran or the Quran's claim of divine authorship and its universal appeal cannot be relegated merely to the literary taste of those who know Arabic, which may change subjectively. It is impossible to argue that the Quran is divine by comparing its literary aspects to those of Al-Mutanabbi, Taha Hussain or any other Arabic literary work. Bukhari and Ibn Hanbal, the two so-called authentic hadith collections of Sunnism, tacitly confess the impossibility of distinguishing the Quranic statements from man-made literary works since they narrate a text, which is still uttered by millions of Sunni mushriks in ?bonus? prayers called nawafil. According to their report, Ibn Masud, one of the most prominent comrades of prophet Muhammed, and allegedly one of the most prolific sources of hadith, had included that prayer to his Quran as an independent chapter while expunging the last two chapters. The claim of medieval Sunni and Shiite sources regarding the requirement for two witnesses for each verse to authenticate their divine nature, regardless of the truth-value of the claim, is another acknowledgment of their inability to distinguish a Quranic revelation from fabricated statements via the so-called literary excellence criterion..."
