Is the Quran for all time?
-
Peace all,
I have been thinking of this question for a while, but the recent discussions about the Quran have led me to really ask if the Quran is for all time. Perhaps it was only for people of that time. For at least 4yrs now we have been arguing about salat, chopping off hands, crucifixion, inheritance, those who our oaths bind us to, etc. but we have no conclusive decision. Maybe the reason why we cannot decide where hajj is to, what exactly the quranic year is composed of, or when we begin fasting is b/c we are not meant to know...it is not for us to know. Maybe the entire purpose of the Quran was to warn us through the message, which is the backbone of the Quran and would never be corrputed or lost as common knowledge. It seems that most of these issues were common knowledge to the people of the past and many of the laws in the Quran can only be instituted in a Quranic society, which hasn't existed since the time of the Prophet. Perhaps our current duty is to hold to the spirit of the Quran. Or maybe the Quran is as clear as water and we have all just missed it... -
Perhaps our current duty is to hold to the spirit of the Quran. Or maybe the Quran is as clear as water and we have all just missed it...
Peace
I hate that term, 'the spirit of', I dont know why. Nevertheless, i think that is just it. out of memory "They try to interpretate their meaning (verses), saying "what does Allah mean by this", but only Allah knows their meaning"
There are so many people, intelligent, bright, educated and honest people, who have been scratching their head over the issues you refer to properbly since day one. And as you say, no conclutions have been reached. Could this be because, and this is just my pet thought.
There are 2 ways in the Quran. Some will focus on LAW, they will discuss the punishments etc. And some will focus on a spiritual system of behaviour that doesnt require law, because people feel right and wrong as clear as fysical pain nearly. See it in the light of our sister relegions. judaism is heavily based on law, where Xtianity has gone out in the weeds with a guitar and flowers in the hair, and little fat angels with trumpets, and rainbows, and green fields ...ok you get the point. To me both are idolators, the jews are just very good at hiding this fact.
The Quran offers both these, while at the same time being purely monotheistic. When i read the Quran i see anarchism. God wants me to be an anarchist, and that is not in the punk sense of the word. But the sense that i will be governed by natural good and honest behaviour and not stick my nose in other peoples business unless they make it my business.
See how some people find it logic to cut off hands and others dont. could it be, because both are equally true. That a language that are so loose as arab was chosen to give this freedom of understanding? I dont know. But its a thought.
But what I CAN observe with nearly all of these searchers, basically from all the 3 system is that they become different in their whole view on ehtics. They may not agree on detail in scripture, in law, in hippe lala, but they know whats right and what isnt in this world by heart. I find them to be uniquely openminded, critical, analysing and honest people. They are the kind of people who make the worlds problems their personal problems in one way or another, because by destroying justice, nature and by making forbidden the good provision, somebody has just made it their business.
Maybe its just me, but at the moment suddenly i seem to bump into them everywhere. I was utterly depressed because i was so focused on that my scriptural understanding was so different from everybody elses. Im not anymore. It would seem that good people are good people nomater what they read. and fortunally good people come together and does not mock other peoples differences, but enjoy the variaty, i just wish there were more of them. yes thats greedy )
Ok, ball back in your field, this became more of a blog entry, sorry.
peace
-
Man, you really got my head started. I have been having these excact thoughts.
version one. Society based on a republic, with various laws that can be interpretated along the way. Not unlike democracy of today actually. Government, body of law, police. When i read the natural republic, this view became clear to me. Depending on interpretator, there will be cutting of hands, taking back the stolen whatever. Eventually, this will end as a police state, given the succes of it requires the mentality of version two to function at all.
Version two. There are small communities where a democracy would actually work. Never will it be allowed to be top controlled, natural leaders meaning. In any smaller group, usually the one most fit for leading eventually wins the groups trust merely by being him/herself. Fakes are always found out in small groups.
UNfortunally not all is good and understand this, so each groups is altso a militia wich unfortunally is, was and always will be the price for freedom.
Dont count on anyone to protect you, protect yourself. If someone wrongs you, act according to the limits instantly. You see someone stealing, you know this harm the group as a whole, dont just look at at it, stop it. etc...Are people around you hungry, that is your personal problem because the group will be harmed as a whole by this. So if you cant do it for love, do it for your own ass.
Unfortunally what we try to do, is mix them. We have the intend of version 2, but are looking at version 1 as the answer, because that is the model we see all around us.
Peace
-
I forgot to add this to my first post. I was sitting in class one day when we were discussing the punishments for different types of murder, and I realized that this mode of punishment in the quran is very much moot now. All the Quran says is that if a believer intentionally kills another then that person should repent or die. Well, how much more complexity do we have now? What is the definition of intention? How do we know for sure if that person committed the crime. I am very much pre capital punishment in an ideal state where everyone knows each other and one person feels the need to kill...but now when an entire city consists of millions of people, how can we ever be sure that a person is guilty ? especially when we add discriminatory police practices, internal corruption, etc to the pile, we can never be sure. What about manslaughter or death that was "near" certain? What degree of certainty do we need for something to be an intentional? It is much more complicated now, so I do not think that even with the example of murder laws, that the Quran is all there is to lawmaking.
-
I forgot to add this to my first post. I was sitting in class one day when we were discussing the punishments for different types of murder, and I realized that this mode of punishment in the quran is very much moot now. All the Quran says is that if a believer intentionally kills another then that person should repent or die. Well, how much more complexity do we have now? What is the definition of intention? How do we know for sure if that person committed the crime. I am very much pre capital punishment in an ideal state where everyone knows each other and one person feels the need to kill...but now when an entire city consists of millions of people, how can we ever be sure that a person is guilty ? especially when we add discriminatory police practices, internal corruption, etc to the pile, we can never be sure. What about manslaughter or death that was "near" certain? What degree of certainty do we need for something to be an intentional? It is much more complicated now, so I do not think that even with the example of murder laws, that the Quran is all there is to lawmaking.
Peace icephren
Moot? Or just up to each society to decide?
Let me clarify if the Qur'an, for example, says "intentional" murder is condemned, the fact that we now have much more complicated ideas about what intention is, etc, doesn't make the intentionality requirement necessarily moot. It can also imply that each society, given its understanding/technology/etc, defines intentionality in its own way. This is not against the Qur'an nor does it render the Qur'anic injunction obsolete. Indeed, this is consistent with the Qur'an's examples of consultation between the people.
-
maybe the Quran is as clear as water and we have all just missed it...
That is what i believe is the case, the Quran was always clear as water to me since i was a child
Salam
-
-
Peace magi,ichephren and all. You raise some very good points magi. I think true small scale personal democracry/anarchy is our natural state of being.
Ichephren; very good points you raised. I think the 'thing' that is valid for an individual person for all times is not the quran,but a persons own continually evolving heart,(conscience.) which constantly tries to find a peaceful/decent/respectful/truthful/beneficial insight to all knowledge or situations it comes across..
Peace all. -
Salaamun alaikum Ichepren,
Questions to you , if I may
I have been thinking of this question for a while, but the recent discussions about the Quran have led me to really ask if the Quran is for all time.
-
what makes something 'for all time' ?
-
If the essence of man, which the Quran addressed at point 'x' in time hasnt changed (as is my definition of 'essence', the unchangabilities of man), then what has rendered the Quran obsolete?
-
What is your criteria for determining 'obscolescence' of a particular document ?
-
You understand our lack of coherence on Quranic concepts to be an indicator of the Quran's time-limited applicability. May I ask how do you know that it's not our limitations itself (through lack of adherence to the Quran, not through being time-distant from Muhammad ibn Abdullah) that isn't the reason for our lack of coherence?
-
What is the 'spirit' of the Quran which you wish to apply?
thank you
-
-
Peace all,
Salaamun alaikum Ichepren,
Questions to you , if I may
I have been thinking of this question for a while, but the recent discussions about the Quran have led me to really ask if the Quran is for all time.
-
what makes something 'for all time' ?
-
If the essence of man, which the Quran addressed at point 'x' in time hasnt changed (as is my definition of 'essence', the unchangabilities of man), then what has rendered the Quran obsolete?
-
What is your criteria for determining 'obscolescence' of a particular document ?
-
You understand our lack of coherence on Quranic concepts to be an indicator of the Quran's time-limited applicability. May I ask how do you know that it's not our limitations itself (through lack of adherence to the Quran, not through being time-distant from Muhammad ibn Abdullah) that isn't the reason for our lack of coherence?
-
What is the 'spirit' of the Quran which you wish to apply?
thank you
Answers
- When it is understandable to all people for all time and relevant to the issues in those peoples' lives for all time
2.Why do you assume that it is only the "essence of man" that can determine relevance. And what do you mean by the "essence of man?"
3.When people of a specific time cannot apply it or understand it
4.That only adds evidence for the idea that it may be obsolete. If we at this time cannot understand the book, then it is not useful. Your question is also circular. You said that we may not be able to understand b/c we do not apply the book...but how do we apply the book if we do not understand it?
5.This is obvious and I can predict that it will lead to a match of semantics. When I said the "spirit of the Quran," I mean the underlying reasons for specific laws and rituals. Ex. the spirit of salat is getting closer to God. This is a simple concept
I should also add that I did not use the word "obsolete," that is a term that you have infused into this discussion. I just think that perhaps some parts of the book are not understandable b/c they were not meant to be understood by us. It does not make the spirit behind the law, etc. obsolete, only the specific understanding of people who received the book.
-
-
Ichepren
- When it is understandable to all people for all time and relevant to the issues in those peoples' lives for all time
I see, ok. Is this criteria of 'understandability for ALL people for ALL time' your own or from al-quraan itself? Al-quraan tells us of people who are deaf, dumb and blind so I don't think this 'understandability' criteria is correct.
2.Why do you assume that it is only the "essence of man" that can determine relevance. And what do you mean by the "essence of man?"
I think the second question above should precede the first question. The 'essence of man' are the unchangable truths about man and his destiny and the reason its relevant is (obviously, at least to me) that man's destiny is an overwhelming reality. Al-quraan speaks of this essence and so is relevant for all man for all time.
3.When people of a specific time cannot apply it or understand it
I see. And is it possible that it has to do with their own deficiencies? Also, 'people of a specific time' is an unjustified monolith. I am from this specific time and I do not feel so about al-quraan. On the contrary, I find al-quraan completely penetrative of my human condition.
4.That only adds evidence for the idea that it may be obsolete. If we at this time cannot understand the book, then it is not useful. Your question is also circular. You said that we may not be able to understand b/c we do not apply the book...but how do we apply the book if we do not understand it?
Apply the book? Can you please quote the reference for this? I seem to be unable to recall mentioning practice and applicability here. What I do remember saying is that our limitations could be the reason for our incoherent understanding. That was all.
As for the underlined section above, who is 'we' ? Are you speaking for yourself or free-minders? Disagreements existing doesn't mean all parties are unclear. It could mean that X is right and Y is wrong. We all disagree with Sunnis about the sources of Islam. Going by your logic, that in itself would render the Quran time-bound at the outset.
5.This is obvious and I can predict that it will lead to a match of semantics. When I said the "spirit of the Quran," I mean the underlying reasons for specific laws and rituals. Ex. the spirit of salat is getting closer to God. This is a simple concept
A simple but an artificial concept nevertheless. When Al-quraan demands obedience, it doesn't leave room for 'spirit' or 'letter'. Indeed, imaan is indicated by the phrase 'we hear and we obey', not by the phrase 'we hear and we will seek the spirit of the law'. Al-quraan metaphorises when it chooses to and not unless.
Lets assume for a second your dichotomy of spirit and letter is correct. I would then ask how you would treat the punishment for public lewdness (24/2) ?
I should also add that I did not use the word "obsolete," that is a term that you have infused into this discussion. I just think that perhaps some parts of the book are not understandable b/c they were not meant to be understood by us. It does not make the spirit behind the law, etc. obsolete, only the specific understanding of people who received the book.
On the contrary, 'obsolete' means 'no longer usable' so that's exactly what it means. However, I take your point that the word was introduced by myself and I will refrain from using it from this point.
And as for the underlined section above, al-quraan says that it's 'hudan linaaas' (2/185). It readily uses the word 'section' (firq for people and 'badh' for book) and yet doesn't do so here. Therefore, I conclude that the underlined section above is false.
-
There are 2 ways in the Quran. Some will focus on LAW, they will discuss the punishments etc. And some will focus on a spiritual system of behaviour that doesnt require law, because people feel right and wrong as clear as fysical pain nearly. See it in the light of our sister relegions. judaism is heavily based on law, where Xtianity has gone out in the weeds with a guitar and flowers in the hair, and little fat angels with trumpets, and rainbows, and green fields ...ok you get the point. To me both are idolators, the jews are just very good at hiding this fact.
I think you have completely misunderstood the idea of what judaism is based on.
Our Tor? is not a "law". It means "teaching" or "herritage" like the one you recieve from your parents. It is what points or casts a direction.
"The law" would rather be ha-lakha which neither authoric nor is it a static one but fluently and constant changing.As speaking of the Koran, there's nothing implying that it's of the nature of a "law".
Please explain the idoltery of judaism to me!
Kindly,
S -
I think you have completely misunderstood the idea of what judaism is based on.
Our Tor? is not a "law". It means "teaching" or "herritage" like the one you recieve from your parents. It is what points or casts a direction.when people start banging their head against a wall as part of their releigious practice, they have 1. estabslished a law 2.is comitting idolatry.
YHVH is undoubtly a volcano spirit, or ceveral verses certainly suggests this. "Yhvh was a pillar of smoke by day, and a pillar of fire by night", "the lord THUNDERS wonderfully with his voice", "Thunder is in hebrew called the voice of God - Strongs Bible concordance" etc ..
Peace
-
Peace mquran. Do you think all of the quran is literally relevent to todays society? Do you take the quran as superior to what you can see/verify with your own mind/eyes? Where is bird flu,aids,nuclear weapons,global warming,chemistry,medical breakthroughs,cancer,chemical warfare,social statistics,social research,psychological research,esp,detailed dream analysis,quantum physics,gulf wars,tsunamis,pregnancy tests,pregnancy scans, etc.. directly in the quran?
Peace all. -
when people start banging their head against a wall as part of their releigious practice, they have 1. estabslished a law 2.is comitting idolatry.
First of all, what part of banging ones head against the wall implies that a law by doing so is being established.
Second, how does this act imply that the law being established by the head banging, is the Tor??
Third, what part of jewish liturgy even involves "...people start banging their head against a wall" in the first place?YHVH is undoubtly a volcano spirit, or ceveral verses certainly suggests this. "Yhvh was a pillar of smoke by day, and a pillar of fire by night", "the lord THUNDERS wonderfully with his voice", "Thunder is in hebrew called the voice of God - Strongs Bible concordance" etc ..
Thunder is not caused by volcanos. So this would make the Lord a volcano/thunder spirit, right? Can you please explain how this fits the context of idolizing jews.
As a matter of fact I believe that what you just quoted is not of the Tor? you keep insisting is a "law". Would you mind refering to what verses they come from? -
Peace enquirer,
Yes quantum physics is directly found in the Quran, i'm busy now with writing an article about it. Secondly enviromental issues is also directed in the Quran, by saying we have to search a balance with nature, so God already gave us a way we should live, you want an answer for something we caused by not answering to this advise already given in the Quran. And God advises us to study our world to find answers. The Quran gives us hints HOW to look, not always WHERE to look. Wars are started by us, not Him, don't push our responsibillity of free will on to God, saying He allows it, so He is not a merciful God. We ALLOW war, we ALLOW stupid ass holes to be in power, we ALLOW people to starve in Africa. These are OUR responsibillities. And God pushes us to understand nature and ourselves. He only gives us a direction, there are examples of psychology and science in the Quran, so your demand of direct answers or i dismiss it as a good revelation is unwarranted. Tsunami's has to do with laws of nature. These tsunami's are direct results of OUR handling of enviroment, stop blaming God.....
Peace
-
Peace mquran.
Peace and blessings upon you.
Do you think all of the quran is literally relevent to todays society?
Yes i do.
Do you take the quran as superior to what you can see/verify with your own mind/eyes?
Yes I do.
Where is bird flu,aids,nuclear weapons,global warming,chemistry,medical breakthroughs,cancer,chemical warfare,social statistics,social research,psychological research,esp,detailed dream analysis,quantum physics,gulf wars,tsunamis,pregnancy tests,pregnancy scans, etc.. directly in the quran?
Not there.
Question does this make al-quraan deficient or is your categorisation system itself deficient. If you feel al-quraan is deficient, why don't you produce a coherent treatise like it?
-
Peace arnoldyasin. I agree with a lot of your excellent reply.
I am not blaming god...i am blaming the interpretation of god...
As for the quran,i also blame the interpretation of it,and the belief that it is perfect or absolutely necessary for guidance...
Peace all. -
Peace mquran. If you say you put the quran before your own eyes/minds verification process,then how do you know that your mind is correct in verifying that the quran is correct? Would you allow whippings,right hand posession and amputations in todays western societies? Yes,i feel quran is relatively deficient, in that it does not explain or answer every question in life.(but then why should a mans words do all that anyway?) I feel it can be a useful book,but not the permanent,perfect,complete constitution for all times. You claim that the quran is a coherent treatise? Well not for many people...,a lot of 'quran only' posters have not even come to a uniform agreement on what salat is...,never mind how to treat the quran as a 'coherent treatise'.
Ok,here is my small,incomplete,subjective,fallible,deficient treatise for success;
'Keep your minds open,and keep doing good deeds.'...
Thats as coherent as any verse of the quran is...
Peace all.