To Mo on here we go again

Submitted by Plato (United Arab Emirates), Jan 28, 2007 at 06:44

I may be extravagant but not an exaggerator.

"Firstly, there are different schools of thoughts yes, they differ in jurisprudence, they are in consensus in most (that's 90+ %) things in the Quran, but where there is a question mark ..."

You have been avoiding a key question, why does the Koran need interpretation if its claim that it is "clear book easy to understand is true". It means that as you put it, there is a question mark about some areas of the Book. And saying that would probably blasphemy in some of your co-religionists eyes.

For if as your claim "the Quran came to make plain what is lawful and what is not" why is not plain even to the scholars let alone the ordinary believer. You cannot have it both ways Mo. Either the Koran is plain or it is not. Either there are question marks over some verses or there are not. Which is it.

"But when it comes to all the nitty-gritty aspects in religion or even things that are supposed to be clear, but do appear to have room for further understanding upon it..."

Mo, why don't you be just honest and admit that the Koran is not a clear book. Those underlined words make that clear. It is like when you say 'changing the political dynamics of a country' or making them 'sharia compliant' instead of saying Islam approves of plain unprovoked attack on infidel countries. Just equivocation if you know what I mean.

"....it may be that this particular view is irrelevant or perhaps it has become obsolete given the context of modern day society; this is where Ijtihad (re-interpretation) comes along."

It is nice to know that Islam can evolve to meet changing times, rather than being stuck in seventh century Arabia. Correct me if I am wrong but I thought according to Sunni theology Itjihad was more or less outlawed centuries ago.

Hadiths, hundreds of thousands of them, floated around the Caliphate for two centuries and then were collected into books. True. How many of those books are accepted. Let us take Bukhari. Are you willing to swear by all the hadiths in it? In case you are I would like to bring some of them to your notice.

"When I means acceptable, I mean to say to the majority or to the public. There is interpretation, but they must be done within the guidelines set by the Prophet (p) when he said "following me and following the Sahabahs ..."

Now that brings up the question of whether the Koran or its inpretations are judged by public opinion. You are skating on thin ice. Decide what the Koran is saying by popular vote?

"You mention chapter 111 of the Quran, it may not sound coherent to you, but when in Arabic it make perfect sense, the words used are beautiful..."

My comment on this is, beautiful words don't make beautiful meaning. I don't have Arabic so what you have transliterated may well be beautiful sounding words. Children sing "Ringa ringa rosies, here we go round the mulberry bush, husha, busha..." I find those words beautiful. But what do they mean? Does Allah cursing Abu Lahab and his wife and threatening to burn them to cinders carry some beautiful meaning to you.

"Just like you failed to grasp chapter 111 when just reading the verses in English, without relevant understanding pre-hand, you will also fail to understand these verses that you have made reference to. Words in the Quran must be understood, and context must be given to each verse, I do not see any other way."

You have given me the relevant context to this verse. I am still in the dark about what eternal message it is trying to convey. Abu Lahab and wife are dead, so is the prophet. Mo, this context thing which crops up whenever I quote from the Koran is a dangerous thing. You seem to be saying that meaning can be found only from the context in which it was revealed. You are aware that there are many verses that start with "Oh ye who believe.." You must admit that it is addressing the believers of the time, ie the Arabs who had become Muslims. You seem to be saying since they are addressed to them they have no relevance now. Yes or No?

003.118 : O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the Signs, if ye have wisdom.

003.130 : O ye who believe! Devour not usury, doubled and multiplied; but fear Allah; that ye may (really) prosper.

033.030 : O wives of the prophet! whoever of you commits an open indecency, the punishment shall be increased to her doubly; and this IS easy to Allah.

You see the way the Koran addresses the wives of the prophet. It is specific to them. Similarly 'O ye who believe' is specific to the people of the time who were being addressed. They have no relevance for any other people or time. Can you fault the logic of this? If you fault it then all verses that begin with O ye believe is addressed to all believers for all time. Otherwise it is meant only for the Arabs being addressed then.

Read without context verse 3.118 is a command of Allah for all time. In that case you cannot have any non-Muslim friends as they will corrupt you. And Allah says they will ruin you and are full of hatred for you. And who can dispute the all-knowing Allah? You better keep them at arms length. Or perhaps you interpret it as a verse addressed only to the Arabs of the time. Then you are let off the hook. Now which is it. Please consult your imam. But before you do that run through the Koran to see in how many places it says 'O ye who believe.'

Reading 3.130 you can take usury or you can reject taking usury depending on what you make of 'O ye who believe.'

Context is very tricky as I been saying to you in some of my other replies to you.

"You ask me if I would see any other way in relation to the hadith you have quoted; I do not possess adequate knowledge in the field of Shariah but if this is a required punishment for this crime in shariah, I say yes 100%. At least it is better for 25 years in prison, later let out."

A very honest reply. Presumably death and torture is better than prison life. Why build prisons. Let everyone follow the mercy to all mankind and kill off the prison population. You consider it better. Why don't you check with people in prison. You once said one must use logic and reason. It does not seem to apply to Sharia as it is a mercy from Allah to mankind.

"I agree with you on the fact that faith can sometimes be reasons for extremism, but I will re-iterate that the Quran works as a catalyst. when Muslims feel that their land, and people are being attacked by outsiders, whatever the reason may be, WMD or routing out Al-Qaeda or otherwise...

Equally well people can blame the Koran for attacks on the Byzantines, Egypt, Spain, India when its followers went about 'changing the political dynamics' of these and other countries. You should also not object to the Crusades because for the followers of the Bible it was a catalyst when the Christians felt that their land and people were being attacked by outsiders and with very little reason except they refused to accept Islam. Do only followers of the Koran have the right to defend themselves and attack others in the name of Allah?

"...The Muslims who these verses directly related to knew what it meant, because important distinctions where made between the combatants and that of the women and children."

Really? If so why were women and children taken as captives and sold as slaves. The combatants could be killed the women and children were protected so that they could be made into slaves and concubines. Mo, booty is allowed by the Koran and booty included women, children and prisoners. Don't shut your eye to the verse I quoted about booty.

"I won't rely upon Ibn Ishaq's work too much, it was not meant to be on a historic nature, as implied by him, his stories are exaggerated at times and can give a view not so in line with what actually took place."

That is a funny statement you make. He is about the only biographer we have of Mohammed. Almost all the others have copied him practically verbatim. Run through your hadiths, Mo, and see how many of them quote Ibn Ishaaq. You are rejecting the original source book on your Prophet. There will be no substance to the person left. It is the earliest book I know which gives the contexts of a large number of the verses revealed. Without Ishaq your prophet will disappear into the mists of history. Would you be willing to believe Ishaaq when confirmed by one of the Shahi Hadiths? The torture and killing of killers of the prophet's camel herders is in Bukhari.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".