Quran's shariah and it's applicability

Zlatan

Hello born again, all, i wish you peace and salvation...

Bornagain, although you maybe haven t choosen the happiest examples i think you might well be onto something ...

Led by my decade long experience in its application and study, misunderstanding, difficulties and mistakes therein, i often get impression that many if not all of the instructions and regulations are deeply culturaly or enviromentaly related and cant be sucessfuly understood or applied, or are not meant at all to be applied to cultures other than that of the original recipients...

of course i might be well wrong, however i would like to be proven that better from citing "O you people"...

after all the revelation have come in arabic...

there is a room for questioning the validity of its detail instructions to other than arabs... arent all the revelations previous to this sent in the language of its people? how it happened that this sunnah/pattern is now changed?

best wishes, Zlatan

mquran

Salaamun alaikum born-again,

How to save our spirit from hell-fire is what I meant by spiritual guidance. The only reason I restricted Quran's guidance is the Quran itself.

Well, as far as I can see from al-quraan, its guidance was meant to help people achieve salaam IN THIS LIFE itself. Of course, I respect your right to question but without evidence from al-quraan, i can hardly accept it.

Just look at adultery witness system. Now we have medical tests to prove whether there's been some kind of cheating. Let's say hypothetically a man is suspicious of his wife and he got some proofs that he is being cheated on. What would he do? Wait to catch his wife with four witnesses or get help from mainstream medicine or something? If you choose the latter then you're not living in accordance of the Quran.

That's right, you're not. However, what makes you think evidence cannot be falsified by the medical people? What makes you think the 'medical tests' itself isn't false ? I'd rather trust the book because i believe it was written by one who knows the hidden and the witnessable.

This is why I keep saying it all boils down to how much you trust the book. I will not fault you not saying its relative to the time, but the book itself doesn't say that.

The other example is inheritance system. Women now have their economic freedom. It would be unjust to apply Quran's law today

Unjust ? Well, if you say something is 'unjust', then we need to question you just as we question the Quran. So we need another criteria instead of the quran. What assures us that you as a criteria is sound ?

Killers should be killed unless he/she is forgiven by the victim's kins. See this is the general message. But had the Quran indicated how the killers must be killed e.g. with a sword, would you still be strict enough to chop off heads like some countries do?

The Quran does leave some choices to us (5/101-102). For Holly and Jessica's killer, I'd personally choose the most painful execution but that's just me.

I'm not sure what is theft punishment since everyone's interpretation of the verse is different.

That's because we're dealing with this in cyberspace. You believe it to mean that aliens will come and abduct the thief and it wouldnt matter. It would matter if you're in power though.

thanks and peace

mquran

Salaamun alaikum Zlatan,

Led by my decade long experience in its application and study, misunderstanding, difficulties and mistakes therein, i often get impression that many if not all of the instructions and regulations are deeply culturaly or enviromentaly related and cant be sucessfuly understood or applied, or are not meant at all to be applied to cultures other than that of the original recipients

2 questions, if you don't mind.

You mentioned that you've experienced 'misunderstanding'. How would you know that your current 'impression' (mentioned above) isn't also a misunderstanding ?
How do you know something is 'culturally and environmentally related' unless you consulted sources outside al-quraan? And if you did consult outside sources, you would be contravening al-quraan's principle that it is in detail. How then can your analysis be objective if you're reading something according to your own principle rather than its own?

of course i might be well wrong, however i would like to be proven that better from citing "O you people"...

Better ? Al-Quraan has a very clear word for 'arabs' (please see 41/44, 16/103) yet it never has the phrase 'o ye arabs' or 'o ye embedded in arab culture' or 'o ye who understand the curent arabic of the time'.

It very clearly says 'o humankind'. So why does this address need to be 'bettered', please ?

after all the revelation have come in arabic
...

Yes, because if revelation were to come at all, it must come in a human language. How on earth could we communicate if not through a language ?

Secondly, Allah says that Arabic is the detailling factor of al-quraan (41/44 and 41/3). Quranic Arabic is the tool which carries forth its concepts in the most profound manner possible.

there is a room for questioning the validity of its detail instructions to other than arabs... arent all the revelations previous to this sent in the language of its people? how it happened that this sunnah/pattern is now changed?

Rather than assume that revelations 'previous to this' were only sent to a particular racial group or ethnic group or linguistic group, wouldn't it be better if you actually showed that this was the case from al-quraan itself ?

thanks for a most stimulating discussion, salaam.

Zlatan

salaam to you mujahid as well!

Rather than assume that revelations 'previous to this' were only sent to a particular racial group or ethnic group or linguistic group, wouldn't it be better if you actually showed that this was the case from al-quraan itself ?

i was actualy pointing to 144 where it is said in a most clear manner....

It very clearly says 'o humankind'. So why does this address need to be 'bettered', please ?

heres why ...it could be imo misleading to translate an-nass as humankind(though linguisticaly speakin it could be correct) ...but another possible translation is the people....and the in the people or al(n) in an-nas could be reffering to a specific group of people or humankind....specified elswhere in the book....this specific group of people could be inhabitants of mother of the cities and those around it...(see beggining of the)chapter 42

again i am not claiming all this 100% sure ... i was just talking about an impression....

this discusison is aggraviated because of our incoplete knowledge of the language-which is again an argument, it seems, in favor of my hypothesis...

best wishes and thanks for the stimulating discussion

Zlatan

mquran

Salaamun alaikum again Zlatan,

i was actualy pointing to 144 where it is said in a most clear manner....

Lets first recapitulate what we're discussing, ok ?

We're discussing the temporality of Quranic law. You are somewhat of the opinion that it is limited to original recipients. You then quote 14/4 to justify the claim that al-quraan in totality is only for Arabs of the time. Correct me if this paragraph is inaccurate, ok ?

Lets look at the verse again

We sent not a messenger except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people (illa bilisaani qawmihi), in order to make (things) clear to them. Now Allah leaves straying those whom He pleases and guides whom He pleases and He is Exalted in power, full of Wisdom (14/4)

A 'rasool' has to demostrate the book , give information about alkitaab walhikmah and bring about growth or tazkiya (please see 3/164). He doesn't have to bring about a new book. In fact, he doesn't need to bring a written text at all. 14/4 mentions no such thing.

heres why ...it could be imo misleading to translate an-nass as humankind(though linguisticaly speakin it could be correct) ...but another possible translation is the people....and the in the people or al(n) in an-nas could be reffering to a specific group of people or humankind....specified elswhere in the book....this specific group of people could be inhabitants of mother of the cities and those around it...(see beggining of the)chapter 42

How is it, if its linguistically correct its misleading ?

Al-quraan specifically mentions about sectionanlisation. It mentions about 15 terms for specific sectioning modes. Here are some

firqa
hizb
ashaab
aali
ahl
qaum
umma
shiaa
shuub
qabail
ikhwaan
hope thats enough as i forgot the other 4... oops

so i think when Allah wants to section humankind, He would have said so

again i am not claiming all this 100% sure ... i was just talking about an impression....

Well, the only course to take is the operationalisation of the book and the actualisation of results. So i'm in the same boat as you.

this discusison is aggraviated because of our incoplete knowledge of the language-which is again an argument, it seems, in favor of my hypothesis...

Try asking 10 Arabs what is 'ad-deen'. See how many of them give you a complete Quranic semantic map of the concept. In my experience, being Arab can have an adverse effect which nullifies any advantage when you want to absorb Quranic concepts. At least, when you're a non-arab, the word is free from preconceptions in your mind.

thanks and peace.

unknownuser

Don't think that I don't trust the Reading and I agree that it is a guidance. But a SPIRITUAL GUIDENCE.

Absolutely! There can be no "doubt" in that -)

In my view the language of the scripture is that of the 6th Arabia, the Morality of the scripture is the morality of the 6th century Arabia. That is why you get "spoils of war" being distributed amongst the victors. That is why the victims of war becomes your "Right Hand" possesion that can be made into slaves and concubines. This kind of Morality is unacceptable in this century. But the universal spiritual message of the scripture remains the sameBe God-conscious, Be compassionate...

Regards,

mquran

Salaamun alaikum,

In my view the language of the scripture is that of the 6th Arabia, the Morality of the scripture is the morality of the 6th century Arabia. That is why you get "spoils of war" being distributed amongst the victors. That is why the victims of war becomes your "Right Hand" possesion that can be made into slaves and concubines. This kind of Morality is unacceptable in this century. But the universal spiritual message of the scripture remains the sameBe God-conscious, Be compassionate...

Some questions for you, if you don't mind

Can you please point to me where the words 'spoils of war' are mentioned in al-qur'aan ?
Can you please tell me if you indeed believe so, what is your criteria for moral relativism ? In other words, if Quranic morality doesn't apply, whose criteria will you choose ?

thanks and peace.

unknownuser

Hello mquran,

Some questions for you, if you don't mind

Can you please point to me where the words 'spoils of war' are mentioned in al-qur'aan ?

Y.Ali They ask thee concerning (things taken as) spoils of war. Say '(such) spoils are at the disposal of Allah and the Messenger So fear Allah, and keep straight the relations between yourselves Obey Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe.'

R.Khalifa They consult you about the spoils of war. Say, 'The spoils of war belong to GOD and the messenger.' You shall observe GOD, exhort one another to be righteous, and obey GOD and His messenger, if you are believers.

Pickthal They ask thee (O Muhammad) of the spoils of war. Say The spoils of war belong to Allah and the messenger, so keep your duty to Allah, and adjust the matter of your difference, and obey Allah and His messenger, if ye are (true) believers.

Shakir They ask you about the windfalls. Say The windfalls are for Allah and the Messenger. So be careful of (your duty to) Allah and set aright matters of your difference, and obey Allah and His Messenger if you are believers.

Literal They ask/question you about the spoils/gifts . Say "The spoils/gifts (are) to God and the messenger, so fear and obey God and correct/repair that what is between you, and obey God and His messenger, if you were believing."
Surah 81

Can you please tell me if you indeed believe so, what is your criteria for moral relativism ? In other words, if Quranic morality doesn't apply, whose criteria will you choose ?
thanks and peace.

"Morality" evolves. For example in the past "MIGHT IS RIGHT" was a form of morality. That is if you are strong enough then you can steal your brothers land. And that was OK. And thats what the Kings and Emperors did in the past, and all the countless conquerors and dictators that have come and gone. But we now have universal declarations of Human Rights, The Geneva Conventions and of course Rules of Democracy. All these forms of morality have been invented by human beings to govern their affairs. But Scriptures have been used in many cases as GUIDE to evolving our human MORALITY. For example Quranic laws of inheritance have been used and evolved by all the European Countries. So has the concept of "Just War" in Quran have been evolved into the Geneva Conventions. Therefore I would use our God-given Reason together with Scritpure as Guidance to make and evolve morality and rules that best serves as a society...

Regards,

mquran

Salaamun alaikum LoteTree,

The word 'al-anfaal' is rooted in NFL which appears in 17/78 as 'profit' (there's no way 17/78 can mean war spoils).

A further proof of this can been in 8/41 And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah,- and to the Messenger, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer,- if ye do believe in Allah and in the revelation We sent down to Our servant on the Day of Testing,- the Day of the meeting of the two forces. For Allah hath power over all things.

If you note, the phrase 'in war' is in brackets. The reason for this is, this was never part of the verse. The actual wording is 'from ANYTHING' (min shai'). So whatever profits you attain, you need to give it to the appropriate parties.

"Morality" evolves.

Does it ? What authority tells us so ?

For example in the past "MIGHT IS RIGHT" was a form of morality. That is if you are strong enough then you can steal your brothers land. And that was OK.

Was it ? Who is saying so, please ? If you were one of the oppressed back then, would you say it was ok ?

And thats what the Kings and Emperors did in the past, and all the countless conquerors and dictators that have come and gone. But we now have universal declarations of Human Rights, The Geneva Conventions and of course Rules of Democracy
.

Hahahaha. Seriously, you believe in all this ? The bosnians were massacred for 7 years before any one came to help. The new guineans were oppressed by the indonesian army when Suharto was a friend of the USA.

These words have no meaning in the real world. A firaunic dictatorship still exists.

All these forms of morality have been invented by human beings to govern their affairs. But Scriptures have been used in many cases as GUIDE to evolving our human MORALITY. For example Quranic laws of inheritance have been used and evolved by all the European Countries. So has the concept of "Just War" in Quran have been evolved into the Geneva Conventions. Therefore I would use our God-given Reason together with Scritpure as Guidance to make and evolve morality and rules that best serves as a society...

Best serves society ? Right, please go and tell that to the Vietnamese who were napalmed by the US army. I'm sure they were well-served when they were being burnt to a crisp.

The Quran incises the human condition and tells us what we must do to attain salaam or peace. Nothing else matters with respect to that.

unknownuser

Peace mquran,

A further proof of this can been in 8/41 And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah,- and to the Messenger, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer,- if ye do believe in Allah and in the revelation We sent down to Our servant on the Day of Testing,- the Day of the meeting of the two forces. For Allah hath power over all things.

The verses before and after including 841 (from 839 - 845) talk about war/fighting, hence the booty or "spoils of war" or loosely "profits". My question is how does one share/assign 20% (1/5th) with/to Allah and HIS messenger??? roll

unknownuser

Hello mquran,

The word 'al-anfaal' is rooted in NFL which appears in 17/78 as 'profit' (there's no way 17/78 can mean war spoils).

I have given you many different translations of this verse. Even Rashad Khalif, the native Arabic speaker translates this as "spoils of war" and you say it is wrong. Who am I to disaggree with you? I can only go by what many translations agree with. Even the Surah itself is translated as "Spoils of War". So if you think it is wrong then that is ok.

"Morality" evolves.

Does it ? What authority tells us so ?

With due respects to you, please read history...

For example in the past "MIGHT IS RIGHT" was a form of morality. That is if you are strong enough then you can steal your brothers land. And that was OK.

Was it ? Who is saying so, please ? If you were one of the oppressed back then, would you say it was ok ?

Please read history. Right of victory allowed past kings, emperors and dictators to take over lands all over.

And thats what the Kings and Emperors did in the past, and all the countless conquerors and dictators that have come and gone. But we now have universal declarations of Human Rights, The Geneva Conventions and of course Rules of Democracy.

The bosnians were massacred for 7 years before any one came to help. The new guineans were oppressed by the indonesian army when Suharto was a friend of the USA.

Hahahaha. Seriously, you believe in all this ?

Universal Human Rights? Geneva Convention - Who would not? Americans electrocute Prisoners and Saudis lopped their heads off. But does that stop people committing murder? No.
What you are saying in effect is that very existence of Universal Declarations and Geneva conventions should stop all the ills of humanity. This is nonsense of course! We are evolving. Human society is evolving. In the Biblical and Quranic times it was a common practice that when people fought a war, the victors usually killed the all the male survivors and made the women into slaves and concubines. This is not a common practice anymore. So Morality has evolved

The Quran incises the human condition and tells us what we must do to attain salaam or peace.

Why does it have be the Quran then? Why not other scripture which addresses the human condition? Why not Bagavad Gita or even the poetry of Khalil Gibran?

Regards,

mquran

Salaamun alaikum Danish,

The verses before and after including 841 (from 839 - 845) talk about war/fighting, hence the booty or "spoils of war" or loosely "profits". My question is how does one share/assign 20% (1/5th) with/to Allah and HIS messenger???

I agree that the passage deals with warfare, but 8/41 specifically deals with 'ghanim' or benefits/profits from ANYTHING (min shain) is to be channeled to the cause.

Allah and his messenger represent the deen. Whatever we make in life, we need to give 1/5th to the cause.

thanks and peace

mquran

Salaamun alaikum,

I have given you many different translations of this verse. Even Rashad Khalif, the native Arabic speaker translates this as "spoils of war" and you say it is wrong. Who am I to disaggree with you? I can only go by what many translations agree with. Even the Surah itself is translated as "Spoils of War". So if you think it is wrong then that is ok.

Ok, lets move on. This isn't our main point. Btw, Rashad being Arab means nothing. He's been known to interject words when it suits him.

With due respects to you, please read history...

A question to you If human beings consider something 'moral' , does that mean anything to you ? Why are you telling me to read history ?

Please read history. Right of victory allowed past kings, emperors and dictators to take over lands all over.

If that's the case, then americans have a right to be in iraq ? If morality has evolved, why does American power allow them to be in iraq ?

Universal Human Rights? Geneva Convention - Who would not? Americans electrocute Prisoners and Saudis lopped their heads off. But does that stop people committing murder? No.
What you are saying in effect is that very existence of Universal Declarations and Geneva conventions should stop all the ills of humanity. This is nonsense of course! We are evolving. Human society is evolving. In the Biblical and Quranic times it was a common practice that when people fought a war, the victors usually killed the all the male survivors and made the women into slaves and concubines. This is not a common practice anymore. So Morality has evolved

Has it ? You need to ask bosnians because if I remember correctly from the war, the serbians massacred the men and raped the women.

As for taking women 'prisoners of war' and concubinage, I suggest you read the Quran carefully. Nowhere does the Quran allow this kind of slavery and concubinage.

Why does it have be the Quran then? Why not other scripture which addresses the human condition? Why not Bagavad Gita or even the poetry of Khalil Gibran?

Ok, well if you believe the Quran is comparable to any other message, then that's your choice. I respect your choice but I do think it was be pointless to discuss further.

thanks and peace.

unknownuser

Ok, lets move on. This isn't our main point. Btw, Rashad being Arab means nothing. He's been known to interject words when it suits him.

And I take it you don't do that?
Rashad being Arab means nothing to you? Why not? The man speaks the language of the scripture! It is like saying that guy speaks Hebrew and therefore he does not mean anything but the English translation of the Torah that is important.

Why are you telling me to read history ?

If you had read history then you would have known that Victors in a war in the ancient times usually killed all the males of the city and made women and children into slaves. That was a common practice. But this is not a common practice anymore. So again I tell you morality evolves.

Please read history. Right of victory allowed past kings, emperors and dictators to take over lands all over.

If that's the case, then americans have a right to be in iraq ? If morality has evolved, why does American power allow them to be in iraq ?

Read politics for that. What I am saying to you that in the ancient times Vicotors would have killed off all the males of the city and made women and children into slaves. This was a common practice in the ancient times but not now! thats why Americans did not make slaves out of the women and children and killed off all the males. So human morality has evolved.

Has it ? You need to ask bosnians because if I remember correctly from the war, the serbians massacred the men and raped the women.

So did the Nazies. But world has brought Nazies to Justice. And World is bringing Serbians to justice too. But the process is slow. The World has made a start. Evolution of Morality is very slow like evolution of lifeforms on this planet. Evolution takes time. But we as human beings have come very far from our violent beginings. There will be many more set backs but we are on the path of evolution...

Ok, well if you believe the Quran is comparable to any other message, then that's your choice. I respect your choice but I do think it was be pointless to discuss further.
thanks and peace.

Why mquran are you scared that you might Truth in the Baghavad Gita or in the Poetry of Khalil Gibran? God is just mquran. He allows every individual the same opportunity to discover God himself, to attain the same certainty that was granted to the Prophets of past. If you say it is pointless to discuss other paths to God then I think you are limiting yourself. But that is your choice and I respect your views...

Regards,

mquran

Salaamun alaikum,

And I take it you don't do that?

I definitely try not to. Further, I've yet to publish a translation of my own

Rashad being Arab means nothing to you? Why not? The man speaks the language of the scripture! It is like saying that guy speaks Hebrew and therefore he does not mean anything but the English translation of the Torah that is important.

Being arab or non-arab doesn't help with one's UNDERSTANDING of the message. Rashad clearly had a problem with marrying orphan women so he interjected 'thier mothers' (i.e..marry thier mothers). He was another victim of this disease of modernity-worship, probably.

If you had read history then you would have known that Victors in a war in the ancient times usually killed all the males of the city and made women and children into slaves. That was a common practice. But this is not a common practice anymore. So again I tell you morality evolves.

Does a common practice make it RIGHT ? Will you please address this question. I'm not asking about what people do. I'm asking if something can be RIGHT at point in time 'a' and WRONG at point in time 'b'.

Read politics for that. What I am saying to you that in the ancient times Vicotors would have killed off all the males of the city and made women and children into slaves. This was a common practice in the ancient times but not now! thats why Americans did not make slaves out of the women and children and killed off all the males. So human morality has evolved.

Sorry to say this, but I think you're very deluded. Iraqis have lost sovereignity over thier national assets. They ARE slaves now and worse , they are slaves to an invader under the GUISE of democracy and justice.

So did the Nazies. But world has brought Nazies to Justice. And World is bringing Serbians to justice too. But the process is slow. The World has made a start. Evolution of Morality is very slow like evolution of lifeforms on this planet. Evolution takes time. But we as human beings have come very far from our violent beginings. There will be many more set backs but we are on the path of evolution...

The 'world' you speak of doesn't exist for one simple reason there's no governing body which adheres to al-hukm, the permanent laws embedded in the universe by Allah. That is why Iraq was invaded. That's why the Bosnians suffered. That's why Kuwait was saved relatively quickly. Firaun hasnt changed. His magicians still use illusions to make ppl think things are all right. But they never will be all right unless Al-islaam is established.

Why mquran are you scared that you might Truth in the Baghavad Gita or in the Poetry of Khalil Gibran? God is just mquran. He allows every individual the same opportunity to discover God himself, to attain the same certainty that was granted to the Prophets of past. If you say it is pointless to discuss other paths to God then I think you are limiting yourself. But that is your choice and I respect your views...

Let me rephrase. If Al-Quraan isn't your criteria, then THIS discussion is pointless. You tell me 'morality evolves'. Now, there's no thing in the world called morality which u can touch, is there ? So 'morality' depends on our definitions. To you, a change of terminology signals a change of morality. Fine. If that's how you judge, that's nothing to do with me. But this discussion is pointless because you don't accept the Quran and its internal criteria of reading.

As for 'scared of finding truth...', the answer is no. I have read most major texts of major religion and I have not found the same conceptual power as I saw in al-quraan. I am not saying al-quraan is necessary for salvation but I believe it's the perfectly detailed map of the human condition. Other maps do exist, but to me they are fragmented. Of course, you don't need any map to walk the path. You can just walk blindly according to your internal compass.

unknownuser

Rashad being Arab means nothing to you? Why not? The man speaks the language of the scripture! It is like saying that guy speaks Hebrew and therefore he does not mean anything but the English translation of the Torah that is important.

Being arab or non-arab doesn't help with one's UNDERSTANDING of the message. Rashad clearly had a problem with marrying orphan women so he interjected 'thier mothers' (i.e..marry thier mothers). He was another victim of this disease of modernity-worship, probably.

I don't understand you there. How can you understand the message if you do not understand the Language? This is silly! The message is delivered through a human language. This language needs to be understood for the message to be understood. I think Rashad had no choice of translating it in any other way. So did the other translators!

If you had read history then you would have known that Victors in a war in the ancient times usually killed all the males of the city and made women and children into slaves. That was a common practice. But this is not a common practice anymore. So again I tell you morality evolves.

Does a common practice make it RIGHT ? Will you please address this question. I'm not asking about what people do. I'm asking if something can be RIGHT at point in time 'a' and WRONG at point in time 'b'.

That is what history tells us. Right or Wrong? By our standards it is wrong. But humanity have evolved to view it as wrong.

Read politics for that. What I am saying to you that in the ancient times Vicotors would have killed off all the males of the city and made women and children into slaves. This was a common practice in the ancient times but not now! thats why Americans did not make slaves out of the women and children and killed off all the males. So human morality has evolved.

Sorry to say this, but I think you're very deluded. Iraqis have lost sovereignity over thier national assets. They ARE slaves now and worse , they are slaves to an invader under the GUISE of democracy and justice.

All the male inhabitants did not get their head chopped off did they? So I say that is a progress.

So did the Nazies. But world has brought Nazies to Justice. And World is bringing Serbians to justice too. But the process is slow. The World has made a start. Evolution of Morality is very slow like evolution of lifeforms on this planet. Evolution takes time. But we as human beings have come very far from our violent beginings. There will be many more set backs but we are on the path of evolution...

The 'world' you speak of doesn't exist for one simple reason there's no governing body which adheres to al-hukm, the permanent laws embedded in the universe by Allah. That is why Iraq was invaded. That's why the Bosnians suffered. That's why Kuwait was saved relatively quickly. Firaun hasnt changed. His magicians still use illusions to make ppl think things are all right. But they never will be all right unless Al-islaam is established.

No govering body yet but only matter of time. Techonology is uniting the world and in due course it will unite all nations and we all be called citizens of planet Earth. But I am sure there will be many more set backs before any of this comes to any fruition. But we have no choice but we are evolving towards that end...

You can just walk blindly according to your internal compass.

This better than lead blind by someone's else's compass is it not? Does God not stress over and over again in the Quran that those who use their reason will find truth of God? So why should you use someone's else's reasoning and their Compass?

Regards,

mquran

Salaamun alaikum,

I don't understand you there. How can you understand the message if you do not understand the Language? This is silly! The message is delivered through a human language. This language needs to be understood for the message to be understood. I think Rashad had no choice of translating it in any other way. So did the other translators!

Had no choice but to distort the message ? Or do you think he translated 4/3 correctly ? If so, I ask you to bring forward the evidence. I have both editions of his translations and both have the interpolation.

Please read
http//www.submission.org/suras/sura4.htm

to see Rashad's interpolation for yourself.

I assert my point once again in case you forget. Just because the major translators agree on something, that doesn't make it right. Al-Quraan has its own internal methodology and verification system.

That is what history tells us. Right or Wrong? By our standards it is wrong. But humanity have evolved to view it as wrong.

Earlier in your post, you said
"Morality" evolves. For example in the past "MIGHT IS RIGHT" was a form of morality. That is if you are strong enough then you can steal your brothers land. And that was OK

So in the past, it was ok to rape, pillage and plunder if you were mighty ? Back then, people weren't human enough (by today's oh-so-fantastic standards anyway) to warrant being saved.

I opine that it is YOU who needs to evolve TOWARDS the standards set by Al-Quraan. Al-Quraan has already stated

On that account We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land (5/32)

All the male inhabitants did not get their head chopped off did they? So I say that is a progress.

Correct. YOU say it is progress. This is why I asked a question you keep evading Who are you to set standards as to what is civilised and what isn't. Where is your authority to do so ?

I ask again does the fact that humans do all sorts of evil things make something RIGHT even at the time ? Who sets standards, humans or God?

No govering body yet but only matter of time. Techonology is uniting the world and in due course it will unite all nations and we all be called citizens of planet Earth. But I am sure there will be many more set backs before any of this comes to any fruition. But we have no choice but we are evolving towards that end...

Believe it or not, I am working towards that vision because I see it emanating from al-quraan , that the being of humanity is one single umma. Our difference is, I question everything and not take any definition for granted.

This better than lead blind by someone's else's compass is it not? Does God not stress over and over again in the Quran that those who use their reason will find truth of God? So why should you use someone's else's reasoning and their Compass?

Are you saying that using Al-Quraan is using someone else's compass ? Please be clear on this.

unknownuser

I assert my point once again in case you forget. Just because the major translators agree on something, that doesn't make it right. Al-Quraan has its own internal methodology and verification system.

I say if lot of translators are saying the same thing then this has more weight than yours.

So in the past, it was ok to rape, pillage and plunder if you were mighty ? Back then, people weren't human enough (by today's oh-so-fantastic standards anyway) to warrant being saved.

Thats what happened in the past. You cant change the past mquran but you can make future better. But human beings have evolved from our dark past. And yes most human beings have advanced in their standards. If you can't see that then I can't do anything about that apart from to suggest that you read history.

I opine that it is YOU who needs to evolve TOWARDS the standards set by Al-Quraan. Al-Quraan has already stated

So that I can have my share of spoils of war? and make the women into slaves and concubine? Mark or chop thief's hands for stealing? No mquran it is you who needs do the the evolving.
Do you know why European countries are more succesful? It is because they can think outside of the scripture. They use their reason and not make scripture their reason.

On that account We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land (5/32)

and this is the verse that comes after above verse

Y.Ali The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

R.Khalifa The just retribution for those who fight GOD and His messenger, and commit horrendous crimes, is to be killed, or crucified, or to have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or to be banished from the land. This is to humiliate them in this life, then they suffer a far worse retribution in the Hereafter.

Pickthal The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;

Shakir The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,

Literal But (the) reward (of) those who embattle/fight God and His messenger, and they strive/endeavor in the earth/Planet Earth corruption/disorder , that they be killed or they be crucified , or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposites, or they be expelled/exiled from the land, that (is) for them shame/scandal/disgrace in the present world, and for them in the end (other life is) a great torture.

Do you think we could apply cutting off hands and crucifying in our present day? I don't think so.

All the male inhabitants did not get their head chopped off did they? So I say that is a progress.

Correct. YOU say it is progress. This is why I asked a question you keep evading Who are you to set standards as to what is civilised and what isn't. Where is your authority to do so ?

The evolving humanity sets standards. The more we evolve the better standards we will set...

No govering body yet but only matter of time. Techonology is uniting the world and in due course it will unite all nations and we all be called citizens of planet Earth. But I am sure there will be many more set backs before any of this comes to any fruition. But we have no choice but we are evolving towards that end...

This better than lead blind by someone's else's compass is it not? Does God not stress over and over again in the Quran that those who use their reason will find truth of God? So why should you use someone's else's reasoning and their Compass?

Are you saying that using Al-Quraan is using someone else's compass ? Please be clear on this.

Ok let make my position clearScripture is only a GUIDE to me. I don't take it as whole truth or absolute truth. So you are right. Our debate has ended.

Thanks.

Regards,

mquran

I say if lot of translators are saying the same thing then this has more weight than yours
.

What are you doing here then ? Go haunt some Christian or Sunni forum where you can get more 'the more who say it, the more correct it is' mentality.

Only one post ago you were telling us
'Does God not stress over and over again in the Quran that those who use their reason will find truth of God?'
and now, because the translators you quoted agree on something, you find that agreeable even though you dare not even analyse the verse itself word by word. So much for 'use thier reason', huh ?

Thats what happened in the past. You cant change the past mquran but you can make future better. But human beings have evolved from our dark past. And yes most human beings have advanced in their standards. If you can't see that then I can't do anything about that apart from to suggest that you read history

The question was IS THIS MORAL OR NOT ? Are you afraid to answer this? Up in the thread, you asserted that 'this was ok' remember ? Now you're telling us 'thats whats happened in the past' . This is quite typical of human inconsistency in judgement, yet too arrogant to accept God's judgement.

So that I can have my share of spoils of war? and make the women into slaves and concubine? Mark or chop thief's hands for stealing? No mquran it is you who needs do the the evolving.

Lets assume for a second that the above interpretations of yours are correct. ok ?

Can you please tell me what is YOUR CRITERIA of determining that these punishments are 'less evolved'. Please don't shy away from answering this. You are an evolved human being, far more evolved than the monkeys who lived before you. Evolved human beings should use thier reasoning and be able to answer questions, correct ? Or does evolving mean that you grow less able to conduct a meaningful discussion.

As for your interpretations above , i ask again Bring forward your evidence. Don't hide behind translators. Being evolved should mean that before you judge a text, you should at least see for yourself what it says.

Do you know why European countries are more succesful? It is because they can think outside of the scripture. They use their reason and not make scripture their reason.

Really ? It had nothing to do with the fact that they , with thier might, plundered the entire world before this ? I know entire third world nations who would disagree with you. Eurocentrism worshippers forget that that the rest of the world have a right to live and prosper too.

Sorry, but the only reason you say this is, in my opinion, that you've never looked at the Quran thoroughly, BY ITS OWN INTERNAL PRINCIPLES. From your application of the Quran, I opine that you have never gone beyond the translators paradigm.

If you read the Quran for yourself, you will see that it captures the condition of present day European nations and what thier ultimate fate is if they refuse to accept God's laws.

And as for the deification of human reasoning, that is your choice. I don't trust human reasoning, I trust Allah.

Do you think we could apply cutting off hands and crucifying in our present day? I don't think so

And for the third time, I will ask you ON WHAT CRITERIA DO YOU THINK NOT ? It seems you will never face this question and I can guess why. Once you tell us your criteria, it will be open for deconstruction.

In the UK, burglars weren't even given a custodial sentence due to liberals like yourself. As a result, decent human beings who work hard for a living had to just sit back and wait for the police while witnessing thier houses being burgled! Now, they have returned to the Quranic mizaan or balance by saying its ok to use 'reasonable force' to incapacitate a burglar.

So as for cutting hands and crucifiction, for those people who cause such mischief, I say they should get equivalent to thier dues. Why should society pay for thier acts?

Now, please tell us BASED ON WHAT CRITERIA CAN YOU SAY AM I WRONG ?

The evolving humanity sets standards. The more we evolve the better standards we will set...

Ah, its good to SET standards. Funnily no one actually ever FOLLOWS those standards. Why wont Bush sign the kyoto act ? You see, what you propagate is something nonsensical because 'humanity' as a controlling polity DOESN'T EXIST. There is no gandhi sitting on the throne. Humanity is strangely very biased when it comes to setting standards.

Ok let make my position clearScripture is only a GUIDE to me. I don't take it as whole truth or absolute truth. So you are right. Our debate has ended.

If you don't take the scripture as whole truth, why are you quoting it ? You assume to force your interpretations when you don't even believe in it nor even, I imagine, know its language. Quite strange for an evolved human being of the 21st century.

Ok, lets move on from the scripture. Lets talk about YOUR CRITERIA for determining what is 'morality'. I have some questions for you

What does it mean to be moral?
Does morality have any cultural bearings ?
You mentioned HUMANITY sets standards ? Who was consulted in this standard setting ?
Is there a linnear progression to morality? What are the conditions and exceptions if there is?

Lets be evolved human beings and face these questions. We don't need any 7th Century book to tell us because the book is time bound and can't give us all the answers since we've evolved so much.

unknownuser

I say if lot of translators are saying the same thing then this has more weight than yours
.

What are you doing here then ? Go haunt some Christian or Sunni forum where you can get more 'the more who say it, the more correct it is' mentality.

I don't seem to understand you. All I said if more people translate the same thing in the same way then this has more weight than your own translation does it not? So how did Christian or sunni come into this...?

Thats what happened in the past. You cant change the past mquran but you can make future better. But human beings have evolved from our dark past. And yes most human beings have advanced in their standards. If you can't see that then I can't do anything about that apart from to suggest that you read history

The question was IS THIS MORAL OR NOT ? Are you afraid to answer this? Up in the thread, you asserted that 'this was ok' remember ? Now you're telling us 'thats whats happened in the past' . This is quite typical of human inconsistency in judgement, yet too arrogant to accept God's judgement.

I again I am failing to understand you. I have already said by OUR PRESENT STANDARDS what happened in the past is WRONG and yes immoral. But we have evolved since then. The MIGHT IS RIGHT morality was accepted norm in the past but not anymore - do you understand? (please don't bring Iraq and Bosnia - we are not talking about politics) but evolution of morality).

So that I can have my share of spoils of war? and make the women into slaves and concubine? Mark or chop thief's hands for stealing? No mquran it is you who needs do the the evolving.

Lets assume for a second that the above interpretations of yours are correct. ok ?

Can you please tell me what is YOUR CRITERIA of determining that these punishments are 'less evolved'. Please don't shy away from answering this. You are an evolved human being, far more evolved than the monkeys who lived before you. Evolved human beings should use thier reasoning and be able to answer questions, correct ? Or does evolving mean that you grow less able to conduct a meaningful discussion.

Again I don't understand you. The CRITERIA is our EVOLVED COLLECTIVE HUMAN CONSCIOUS.

Do you know why European countries are more succesful? It is because they can think outside of the scripture. They use their reason and not make scripture their reason.

Really ? It had nothing to do with the fact that they , with thier might, plundered the entire world before this ? I know entire third world nations who would disagree with you. Eurocentrism worshippers forget that that the rest of the world have a right to live and prosper too.

So did the Romans, so did the Islamic Empires, so did the many Empires come and gone in the past. Read History mquran! Japan was conquered. Hey now they are most successful nations on Earth. India was ruled by the British, hey now they are becoming one of the fastest IT Technology centres in the world compared to neigbouring Pakistan. Being successful is looking forward to the future and not in the past!

Sorry, but the only reason you say this is, in my opinion, that you've never looked at the Quran thoroughly, BY ITS OWN INTERNAL PRINCIPLES. From your application of the Quran, I opine that you have never gone beyond the translators paradigm.

Though I do not speak Arabic but I have studied Quran for two years.

If you read the Quran for yourself, you will see that it captures the condition of present day European nations and what thier ultimate fate is if they refuse to accept God's laws.

Hey did I not say that already that European nations already applied the Quranic Principles to their society? And did they use Quran? No! they relied on their Reason and thats what Quran tells you to do. Use your reason and use Quran as a guide and not absolute Truth or whole truth and not make quran as your REASON.

And as for the deification of human reasoning, that is your choice. I don't trust human reasoning, I trust Allah.

Now you have come to the mentality of the "Islamic mind"! Now can you so why European and other western nations are so succesful in everything? So mquran I have no hope for you...

In the UK, burglars weren't even given a custodial sentence due to liberals like yourself.

Hey I am so glad that I live in a liberal society and not some country where you get your head lopped off for speaking your mind!

So as for cutting hands and crucifiction, for those people who cause such mischief, I say they should get equivalent to thier dues. Why should society pay for thier acts?

I don't understand this - are you saying it is ok to chop peoples hands off for stealing? Can you clarify this too me?

Ah, its good to SET standards. Funnily no one actually ever FOLLOWS those standards. Why wont Bush sign the kyoto act ? You see, what you propagate is something nonsensical because 'humanity' as a controlling polity DOESN'T EXIST. There is no gandhi sitting on the throne. Humanity is strangely very biased when it comes to setting standards.

Hey I am not Bush. Argue with him for not signing upto kyoto!

Ok let make my position clearScripture is only a GUIDE to me. I don't take it as whole truth or absolute truth. So you are right. Our debate has ended.

If you don't take the scripture as whole truth, why are you quoting it ? You assume to force your interpretations when you don't even believe in it nor even, I imagine, know its language. Quite strange for an evolved human being of the 21st century.

I did not quote scripture to start with. I merely extended what you quoted.

Ok, lets move on from the scripture. Lets talk about YOUR CRITERIA for determining what is 'morality'. I have some questions for you

Lets not do such a thing at all. The person who does not trust his own reason it will be pointless to continue this argument.

I have noted your points. Thank you.

Adios.

Regards,