View Single Post
  #38  
Old 15 June 2007, 11:46 AM
King_Crimson King_Crimson is offline
 
Join Date: 13 March 2006
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueStar View Post
My point is that even when the words are in the original language, there are people who have wide ranging views on what they mean (This goes for all people who adhere to a religious text) From when you decide on which translation to read (in the case of books being read in a different language to how they were originally penned) to what you consider that word to mean at the time, to if you consider them commandments from God directly, suggestions, metaphorical, or just an arcaic and no longer relevant relic of the time. Faith Freedom will obviously pick the interpritation which suits the agenda it has, just like there are sites which are keen to extract rather horrifying sections of the bible and present them at face value, only to be told they're reading them wrongly or out of context by proponents of that religion. (Which is not to say there wont be people with in that religion which take the same view of those passages as Faith Freedom or American athiest blogs).

My personal view is that people mould their religious texts around their views and not vice versa. If a man wants to beat his wife and he's religious, he'll damn well find something which allows him to do it. If a woman belives her religion is peaceful and comes across a verse which seems to advocate violence, she'll find a way around it. If a guy likes eating lobster and hates gays, he'll find backing in a text which (some feel) calls both an 'abomination' to carry on how he likes.
I agree with your thoughts here on for the mostpart, however your implication that FFI will pick the 'worst' interpretation and run with it is wrong. Reading the article you will see that FFI presents evidence from scholars and many many translations of the verse, and then goes on to translate the arabic words of the phrase.

So unless you can fault the arabic itself, your point in this case is wrong.

The bottom line is that Muslims believe that the Quran itself is:
(a)Uncorrupt
(b)Uncorruptable
(c)the exact and literal word of their deity (Allah)
(d) Muhammad Sunnah (example) is to be followed by EVERY Muslim for ALL time (these are the ahadith).

So if you want to know what a verse/text means then you either look at many many translations (by different people), read the Tafsir for the verse (commentary) or learn arabic and do it that way.

If the Quran is uncorrupt, as Muslims claim, then you can't play around with the translation (given by context).

That's my point; I am glad you shared your perspective; I too hold it in most situations. My thoughts are not an atttack on Muslims but explanations of the Quran/ahadith. I do not say that ALL Muslims beat their wives; I say "This is what the Quran says".

Thanks

-KC
Reply With Quote