Book: Modern Muslim Intellectuals and The Quran
-
Now, when a society interferes with this aspect, by restricting info about this choice, influencing one choice over another, puting penalties in place for choosing differently etc then this society will eventually churn out people with a weak belief structure, i.e. they belive in something not through self-discovery and choice but due to familiarity/conditioning/influence, and as soon as this happens, that society, especially if made up of an apparently faithful community, will deteriorate. That struck me, because this has a knock on effect to so many things, especially thinking and application.
A very good point indeed.
-
peace all,
I started reading 'Modern Muslim Intellectuals and The Quran', first article was a review of Fazlur Rahman's work on 'A framework for interpreting the ethico-legal content of the Qur'an'. Here are the bits I deemed interesting
The above is a huge point.
I don't see the verses about polygamy the way Rahman does. I read the verses that if you marry more than one then know you will be judged accordingly and since you can not be fair in your treatment of them equally then know this is a liability you must accept on judgement day. The good deeds can wipe out the bad deeds though. Here the Koran focusses on treatment and fairness which polygamy by default compromises that negatively. So then the question is how much did you compromise on that and that is your liability you must accept. Its similar to divorce where with divorce comes an adverse affect on your children and you must accept the liabilities that comes along with that since fairness and equality is something you will be held accountable for. The good deeds wipe out the bad deeds but thats your bet. Fairness and equality will be compromised in a polygamy, how much is where every individual differ, but the liability is always there and the question is only to what extent did you compromise and how did you offset that. I read the verses as do so at your own peril.
I also do not accept the historicity argument since it means the verses have no value. They do, but we must understand them not just by their history but with the rest of the Koran. Remember abrogation is built on the concept of historicity between Mecca and Medina verses and early revelations and those that supposedly came down at the later years of Muhamad's prophecy. I see the verses of the Koran as wisdom but it can only be undertsood when we take the Koran as a whole. If everytime we are confronted with verses some of us may see as problematic we invoke the historicity argument then we are not reading the koran with depth. Remember the terrorist can also use the historicity argument everytime he is confronted with problematic verses that talk about peace and pluralism. As all of us here know Sunni jurist routinely do by their insistence that verse 9-29 abrogates over 100 verses. Another words they believe all those other verses are historic by nature since the later verses abrogates them. This is unacceptable and a way to reject the Koran without doing so outright. The Koran explains itself and with the verses are wisdoms that must be sought. This is not a lazy man's book. The lazy man is to recite the Koran and to read the Koran but to those who wish to understand the Koran they must read the Koran as a whole and try their best to detect the wisdom that comes with the Koran. I see Rahman's reading of the polygamy verses too simplistic and it fails to appreciate the ultimate aim of these verses and the message it is intending to send. Of course we all do read the Koran and understand it differently since wisdom has many angles.
-
peace all,
AQ = al quran
Finished the part about Shahrour's work on AQ being made of different parts/books. It was slightly unexpected, although I was familiar with some of his thoughts already.
What struck me initially was that I didn't feel what he was saying was intuitive. I think intuition and reading/understanding of AQ is fairly important, but having said that, just because I didn't find it intuitive doesn't mean I thought he was wrong. I have not studied AQ thoroughly, particularly with respect to this point so I cant really comment. I feel to prove what he said would require significant research/study.He also seems to be in favour of utilising science/reason/etc to understand AQ, rather than traditional sources/tafsirs/etc.
-
When I said
Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd - from revelation to interpretation.
Basically outlines why a single interpretation of the message(s) in AQ cannot be considered binding and for all time. This was decent.I should have said why one thing was he made the simple yet important point, that in all translations/tafsirs, IF they imply that their understanding is the correct one, then that puts them on a level with God, i.e. what they say is the truth, and to NHAZ that was inappropriate and needs to be guarded against.
-
peace all,
I'm on the last author, Sadiq Nayhum, whose work is reviewed in this book.
And guess what, he rejects the hadith as a source of legislation AND he also briefly discusses how this situation came about.
You can read parts of the book online. Click HERE.
See page 313 specifically for the above.
-
Do you people just say that "God is enough for me" when GOD has told us He has forgotten nothing in the Book ... why must we read the crap mere humans write to understand faith. Go read what the mere humans write about electricity, Physics, Gravity, Matha ........ but if you are ture beleivers read NOTHING but the Quran for Faith and the Torah and Bible tp make certain what youa re reading is the truth and .... think, understand, ponder and know.
Are they not going to ponder over the Quran or are their hearts under locks???
