How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 The Quran Quontroversy   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

The Quran Quontroversy

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


50 posted 01-23-2007 09:05 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

quote:
Or if you want, the affairs of civil society are too important to be placed in the hands of God.


Geeze, Brad.  I could almost mistaken you for an Augustinian or a Lutheran!

I would agree with your position with a few minor modifications.  First, and generally, the affairs of civil society differ from the affairs of the church.  Both the state and the church serve specific purposes that, in most cases, fall neatly within their respective "jurisdictions," if you will.  Because both exist in this world, however, there are times when the two institutions find themselves in conflict.  This observation reflects the Founding Fathers' wisdom in balancing "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" with "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

Second, if you accept the possibility that there is a sovereign God, then both civic and ecclesiastical matters are never out of His hands.  Even if you don't believe there is a God, I think you would find yourself in agreement with the likes of Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin insomuch as certain matters belong in the hands secular institutions and others in the hands of the sacred.

To be fair, if you want to be sensitive to the encroachments of the sacred onto secular domains, you must also be sensitive to the encroachments of the secular on the sacred.  Marriage, for example, was not in the jurisdiction of secular government until the late 1800's (I believe a Montana court started a trend that became commonplace across the nation).  And look at the mess that has caused!

Jim
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


51 posted 01-23-2007 09:21 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Sorry for the second post.  Forgot to mention something.

As to the so-called "Quran Controversy," I think the importance is in the oath, rather than the book on which the elected official lays his/her hand.  It doesn't really matter to me whether an oath is sworn with one's hand on the Bible, the Quran, or Black's Law Dictionary.

Jim
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


52 posted 01-24-2007 06:24 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

I can sacrifice 'secularism' for 'pluralism'.

I can keep my hands off the sacred. But where you draw the line is exactly what we should be discussing.  
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


53 posted 01-24-2007 11:58 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Brad, what happens when neither the irreligious or the religious are satisfied with the line?  

I think we're bound to always have that tension in this age.  

Tagging on the name "pluralism", which really only amounts to one philosophy among the diverse crowd, doesn't solve anything.


Stephen.    
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


54 posted 01-25-2007 11:13 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

LR,

Having read all that you posted, I'll share with you my impression.


First of all, I am genuinely glad that there are some mollifying passages in the Koran, which hint at limitations for prescribed violence.  It does seem to me that these limiters are somewhat more vague than the war-rallying scriptures seem to be.  You may disagree.


As to the Bible being "equally vague" as you put it, I have to disagree.  While one may certainly take the Old Testament and parade examples of divinely sanctioned violence, the New Testament contains no such prescriptions but rather a host of scriptures which counsel us in the opposite direction.  It also gives a Theological explanation (in the writings of Paul) of a dramatic shift which shows an advancement on our part from an age of law and justice, to an age of grace (whose advent was the person of Jesus Christ).  And despite what Ron said about the New Testament NOT telling us not to kill witches, that isn't exactly true.  The persuasions to peace in the New Testament are many and unequivocal, such as:


"Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
" (Matthew 5:9)


You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'  But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:38-39)


"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Matthew 5:43-45)


"But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."(Matthew 26:52)


But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.  If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Luke 6:27-29)


Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.”  (Romans 12:17)


So in summary, I guess I can go as far as saying that I am glad to find whatever degree of inhibiting teaching is actually in the Koran.  I still think there is a significant difference between the New Testament which supercedes all such prescriptions, and the Koran which places bellicosity and its too-moderate moderation, side by side.  People throughout history have been able to accuse particular groups of Christians as warmongers ... but have typically called their founder and his teachings as pacificstic to the point of imbalance and impracticality.


Given that people have an ability to disregard prescriptive teaching of their own religion, can we conclude that these texts have nothing to do with the outcome?  I don’t think so.


But I do thank you, LR, for you taking the time to share that information with me.  It gives me more to think about.


Brad:
quote:
The idea being, I think, a practicing "Render what is Caesar's unto Caesar . . . ."

Or if you want, the affairs of civil society are too important to be placed in the hands of God.



interesting way to misinterpret a biblical text.  If the widow's mite teaches us anything, it's that Caesar should not be the head of all civic function.  Funny that it wasn't Caesar alone that was inscribed on our own coins so long ago.


quote:
I wasn't shooting for the equivalence of different religions, I was saying or trying to say that religion and government should be separate entities. The irony is that the link and quote that I posted weren't trying to show equivalence, they were showing the opposite.



But religious ideas and Government has never been completely separated in our nation.  The basic human rights which are spoken of are even based upon a very definite and particular religious statement.  It can be reasonably argued that the kind of separation you usually opt for never was intended by the "establishment of religion" clause.


quote:
To me, the fact that Baghdad was the center of rationality and science a thousand years ago and their subsequent rejection of that path is an example that we Westerners (as loosely defined as I can make it) should not follow.


No kidding.  Does Christianity have the same negative view of reason and science as Islam does?  What is the religious climate from which Western Science sprang?  Though Christianity refuses to deify science, it doesn't deny its value.


quote:
let's not fall into the trap of religious equivalence by arguing that their are two societies, one Christian and one Islamic, and then argue that one is morally superior because of that.


I think you're glossing over the influence of Judaism and Christianity on Western Culture.  But since you put it in those terms, what's your explanation of moral superiority?  Secularist philosophy?


Stephen
  
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


55 posted 01-26-2007 08:26 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Brad:

Where to start?

Chief Justice Berger developed a test that would come to be known as the Lemon Test to determine whether a law violates the establishment clause of the Constitution.  (1) The statute must have a secular legislative purpose, (2) its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion and (3) it must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

The key measures in this test are "primary" and "excessive" (difficult to delineate at times).  This is why Judeo-Christian symbols and practices that might have encroached into public life, but are primarily of historic significance, have been found to not violate the establishment clause.

While I'm not crazy about the Lemon Test, I think it is a reasonable compromise.  I believe the Supreme Court recognized that, while the establishment clause fixes a wall between the sacred and secular when it comes to government, that wall can be a moving target at times.  I think it is also worth mentioning that a forced syncretism violates the establishment clause as well.

Second, I think it is important to distinguish Muslims from Islamists (I do not believe the latter are true Muslims) and then ask whether either of the two are capable of making a true oath to uphold the Constitution of a representative republic.  I grew up with several Muslims and spoke often with them regarding their faith.  I believe whole-heartedly that any of my friends could truely swear to uphold the Constitution.  The latter, however, is iconoclastic, and the Islamiste sharia is incompatible with our most basic sense of liberty.  In an Islamist state, for example, women are often regarded as property or have the legal status of minors (thus, having few, if any, rights).

I think the real danger is that we, as Americans in general, seem to get so caught up in symbols that we forget the salient points.  The French actually do a much better job of differentiating Muslims from Islamists, and have been doing so for a long time, while Americans are only now beginning to recognize the Muslim/Islamic people are not the same as Islamist people.

So I don't think the issue is so much whether the legislator swears on the Bible or the Koran, but rather whether the legislator is capable of swearing a true oath to uphold our Constitution.  It is true that legislators are elected to represent the people who elected them, but they have a responsibility to uphold the Constitution first and foremost.  An Islamist might be able to accomplish the first, but could certainly not accomplish the second.  Given their way, all women would be veiled, non-citizens, and non-Islamists would have few or no legal protections.

Stephen:

While I agree with you that one can argue that, in many ways, the United States was founded on Christian principles, I think the argument is less convincing than some might lead you to believe.  Granted, intellectual heavy weights like Dr. D. James Kennedy ascribe to this view, it is difficult to read the writings of Paine, Franklin, and Jefferson, and then read the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, without recognizing that the language therein is, at best, a Deistic compromise.  True enough, many early government leaders didn't share such Deistic views of separation (the establishment of a Congressional chaplain is an indication of this, for example).  If you read enough of Madison (a Christian), you will find that he agreed with the Deists on this point more than he disagreed.

And, Stephen, again I would point out that all of Islam is not anti-reason in the same way that all Christianity is not anti-reason.  Remember, it was Islam that preserved Aristotle, science, and philosophy during the Western Dark Age.  There is a rich tradition in Islam, and, sadly, this tradition is at a dire risk of being lost as the Islamists gain in influence and seek to purge those influences from the Muslim world.

Jim
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


56 posted 01-26-2007 09:39 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Jim:
quote:
Granted, intellectual heavy weights like Dr. D. James Kennedy ascribe to this view, it is difficult to read the writings of Paine, Franklin, and Jefferson, and then read the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, without recognizing that the language therein is, at best, a Deistic compromise.



Of course Jim.  I recognize that.  I only insist that Deism is watered down Christianity   ... a very distant view of a very definite religious expression.  


My point wasn't that our nation was built upon pure Christian dogma, but rather that there never was a total separation of religious ideas and government.  How different is the aim of secularists today.


quote:
Remember, it was Islam that preserved Aristotle, science, and philosophy during the Western Dark Age.  There is a rich tradition in Islam, and, sadly, this tradition is at a dire risk of being lost as the Islamists gain in influence and seek to purge those influences from the Muslim world.


Hey Brad brought it up, not me.  


I'm still not sure how much of this tradition arose out of Islam's theology, rather than in spite of it.  


Of course there is the possibility that Islamic religious leaders have gone awry of the Koran itself, in their negative views of science.


It was just amazing to me that Christendom has been criticized with the rest of Western culture for embracing modernism and the false security of "control", and yet Brad can still, with a straight face, compare it to Islamic anti-reason.    


Stephen.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


57 posted 01-27-2007 06:51 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Stephen,

quote:
But since you put it in those terms, what's your explanation of moral superiority?


Isn't one of the few things we've (Jim, Ron, you, me and many others) have agreed on over the years is that a moral choice must be freely made in order for it to be moral?

A society is morally superior to another insofar as it maximizes that maxim and the other does not.

Jim,

I can accept your Islamist/Muslim distinction. I don't like the word 'Islamist', it has always seemed an attempt to muddy the very distinction you want to make, but Sullivan makes the Christian/Christianist distinction. If you can accept that one, I guess we're stuck with both of them -- two ugly words if you ask me but the distinctions are necessary.

back to Stephan,

quote:
It was just amazing to me that Christendom has been criticized with the rest of Western culture for embracing modernism and the false security of "control", and yet Brad can still, with a straight face, compare it to Islamic anti-reason.


I'm not quite sure what you mean here. But, if anything, I'll give Christianity the nod. You can argue that I'm deemphasizing Christianity to prop up the Enlightenment, but the only reason I'm doing that is to counter your deemphasis of the enlightenment in order to contrast Christianity to Islam.

If we look at the societies, things of course are a little bit more muddy.

  

jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


58 posted 01-29-2007 01:09 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Brad:

Maybe a better answer to the muddying of the rhetorical waters is to abstain from shortening terms before the general public understands the distinction.  Instead of "Islamist," we might refer to such people as Islamo-Fascists or, as Alek Toumi (an Algerian Berber dissident) refers to them in his play, "Madah-Sartre" (University of Nebraska Press), Fascislamists.  And I don't have a problem with the "Christianist" term as long as it is used to refer to "Christian" fascists, and not merely Christians advocating to preserve the same freedom of religion all religious-minded people have.  The place to argue theological and philosophical position is Mars Hill, not the Senate.

I think you'll be far more effective in presenting your Enlightenment position with Evangelicals if you take a few steps back to the Reformation Period where much of the Enlightenment political philosophy has its roots (it was Luther who first advocated for separation of sacred and secular powers).

In his "Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope" (32ff), Luther contends that:

quote:
32] Accordingly, that Christ in His passion is crowned with thorns and led forth to be derided in royal purple, this signified that in the future, after His spiritual kingdom was despised, i.e., the Gospel was suppressed, another kingdom of a worldly kind would be set up [in its place] with the pretext of ecclesiastical power. 33] Therefore the Constitution of Boniface VIII and the chapter Omnes, Dist. 22 and similar opinions which contend that the Pope is by divine right the ruler of the kingdoms of the world, are [utterly] false and godless. 34] From this persuasion horrible darkness has been brought into the Church, and after that also great commotions have arisen in Europe. For the ministry of the Gospel was neglected, the knowledge of faith and the spiritual kingdom became extinct, Christian righteousness was supposed to be that external government which the Pope had established.

35] Next, the Popes began to seize upon kingdoms for themselves; they transferred kingdoms, they vexed with unjust excommunications and wars the kings of almost all nations in Europe, but especially the German emperors, sometimes for the purpose of occupying cities of Italy, at other times for the purpose of reducing to subjection the bishops of Germany, and wresting from the emperors the conferring of episcopates. Yea, in the Clementines it is even written: When the empire is vacant, the Pope is the legitimate successor.

36] Thus the Pope has not only usurped dominion, contrary to Christ's command, but has also tyrannically exalted himself above all kings. And in this matter the deed itself is not to be reprehended as much as it is to be detested, that he assigns as a pretext the authority of Christ; that he transfers the keys to a worldly government; that he binds salvation to these godless and execrable opinions, when he says it is necessary to salvation for men to believe that this dominion belongs to him by divine right.

37] Since these great errors obscure [the doctrine of] faith and [of] the kingdom of Christ they are in no way to be concealed. For the result shows that they have been great pests to the Church.


http://www.bookofconcord.org/treatise.html

I share Luther's view that church's claim to political authority over civic powers leads to the confusion of the church's primary mission (i.e., the preaching of the Gospel) with the mission of civil government (i.e., to maintain public order and care for its citizens).  This, in turn, invalidates the authority of the church and makes it a false church when measured against Biblical standards.

I think this would be more readily received by Evangelicals and secularists alike.  It would be just as much a mistake to ignore the historic abuses of Christendom as it would be to group all Christian opinion into one flawed position.  Ironically, I think secularists can find some common ground with Christians on some of these issues.  As long as neither treads too far on the other's turf by interfering with the civil liberties of the other, I think it is a workable alliance.  It certainly was in 1776 and 1789.  It is when one side or another regards the other as an "Other" that should be exterminated that we have a problem.

Jim
rhia_5779
Senior Member
since 06-09-2006
Posts 1304
California


59 posted 02-20-2007 06:41 AM       View Profile for rhia_5779   Email rhia_5779   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rhia_5779

First off, what about in the golden ages when The muslims were tolerant of jews and christians and let them live within society. The medieval christians.. lets see not only burned, mutilated,tortured, and killed and drowned other cultures but they did it also to their own kind.

So you don't exactly have a clean slate. The crusades were STUPID!!!!! And there were so many massacres in that.

STephan, denise, do you read arabic? I sincerly doubt it but I am very curious.

A good friend of mine, is islamic and can read arabic and speak it fluently. She studys and reads the Quaran probaly on a weekly basis.  According to her and most arabic scholars that aren't so fanatically the Quaran doesn't state about killing unbelievers. Apparently you and the fanatical believers are one of the same mind, you both interpet the Quaran to say that its o.k to kill unbelievers.
Do you know what the Quaran is?
It is the words recorded and the laws of islam as told by the Last prohpet of Islam Mohammed.  
Mohammed preached that it was wrong to kill. At all
If the rules that have to be abided by are thus

The Muslims say that it is wrong to kill.That to kill even in war anyone other than the one is is currently confronting you is WRONG.
Then how can you claim that is violent
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


60 posted 02-20-2007 02:16 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Rhia:

I'll be the first to admit that I have not studied Muhammad as thoroughly as I've studied Luther (or Camus, for that matter), but I have read much of the Qur'an - which is a difficult read - and I do think I know something about the origins of Islam.  Further, I have studied anti-colonialist writings, which posited that fighting the the only means one had at his or her disposal to relaim one's national identity.  These writings helped ignite the Islamo-fascists

I might be able to accept that passages in the Qur'an that justify violence can be interpreted as being limited to their original context, but I think that either your friend is wrong or you are misunderstanding her point.  And I don't dispute that there were aspects of Medieval Islam that were nobel and cultured.

But I don't think you read the distinctions I made earlier between Islam and Islamo-fascism.  If any part of your criticism was directed at me, I think it was misguided.  So what do I know about Muhammad, the Qur'an, and the beginnings of Islam?

After Muhammad was rejected in his hometown of Mecca, and subsequently fled to Medina with his followers, he was well received in Medina.  Medina was, at that time, involved in bloody feuds between competing Arab clans. Muhammad seized this opportunity to exhort his audience with his Qur’anic revelations, and succeeded in consolidating the various Arab clans under one constitution.  In this legal document, Muhammad was acknowledged as “prophet” and final authority in settling civil disputes (in essense, he was a theocratic dictator).  

Subsequent Qur’anic revelations endorsed his policy of raiding Meccan trade caravans, granting permission “[to fight] because they are wronged … [They are] those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right … except that they say ‘Our Lord is God’” (Sura 22:39-40).  Later revelations would command, “Then fight in the cause of God, and know that God heareth and knoweth all things” (Sura 2:244).

Supposedly because some were reluctant to take up arms, later revelations offered incentives to those who fight (vs. “those who sit at home and receive no hurt”) such as “special rewards” and entrance to Paradise (Suras 4:95-96; 3:194-195).  Muhammad’s military power quickly increased, and within a few years, he had succeeded in winning several battles and conquering Mecca.  

After Mecca’s fall to Muhammad, numerous Arabian tribes swore allegiance to him, while others were defeated by the Muslim armies.  Heathen tribes were required to renounce paganism and profess Islam, while Jews and Christians could practice their own faiths, but were required to pay taxes and tributes.

As you mentioned, the Qur’an is believed by Muslims to be the full and final revelation of God to mankind, conveyed to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel over a twenty-three-year period and corresponding perfectly to the eternal original in heaven.  The Qur’an is divided into two periods: (1) the Meccan Period – Muhammad is primarily a “warner” calling men to moral reform in recognition of their accountability to God and (2) the Medinan Period – Muhammad’s role shifts from preacher to prince, and these suras would eventually become the foundation for Islam ethics and law.

Granted, fundamentalism tends to find whatever it wants to find in its scriptures, suras, or manifestos.  But I think you are wrong to suggest that the blood of the Jews and Arabs slain by Crusaders is on the hands of every Christian living today.  To suggest such a thing, and in order to be consistent, you would have to acknowledge that the blood shed by the victims of Muhammad Atta and his clan is on the hands of every Muslim.  Both positions are simply ridiculous.

Jim
rhia_5779
Senior Member
since 06-09-2006
Posts 1304
California


61 posted 02-20-2007 04:07 PM       View Profile for rhia_5779   Email rhia_5779   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rhia_5779

I'll be the first to admit that I have not studied Muhammad as thoroughly as I've studied Luther (or Camus, for that matter), but I have read much of the Qur'an - which is a difficult read - and I do think I know something about the origins of Islam.

Do you read ARabic?

And I never said that the blood is on all the hands. I said that the religon of Christianity isn't all that saintly either and that they don't have a clean slate. The religon not the people would have the blood on their hands if i had said\meant that
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


62 posted 02-20-2007 05:11 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

My copy of the Qur'an was translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali.  You can Google him if you'd like.

I suppose I cannot truly know anything about Islam because I don't speak or read Arabic.  So then everthing I know about the Roman Empire is rubbish because I cannot read Latin, all I've read of Camus and Sartre is worthless because I do not reach French well.  Plato ... Aristotle ... can't read much classical Greek either.  Are you suggesting that one cannot know anything about another culture before you are fluent in that culture's language?

I doubt you speak Arabic either, so technically, by your standard, you cannot speak any more authoritatively on the subject than I can.  But then I think there is a problem with both your standard and your line of argumentation.

Did you ignore the suras I quoted concerning the justification of violence in the Qur'an?

Jim
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


63 posted 02-21-2007 01:17 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Authority?

jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


64 posted 02-21-2007 08:42 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Brad:

In the sense of the level of one's mastery of a subject.  Did I misuse the phrase "any more authoritatively?"

Jim
rhia_5779
Senior Member
since 06-09-2006
Posts 1304
California


65 posted 02-21-2007 04:13 PM       View Profile for rhia_5779   Email rhia_5779   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rhia_5779

My copy of the Qur'an was translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali.  You can Google him if you'd like.
(I believe you)

I suppose I cannot truly know anything about Islam because I don't speak or read Arabic.  (I didnt say that. But cannot truly understand what is meant without reading some arabic. The Arabic doesnt translate directly to english

I don't ignore it either, I read them.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


66 posted 02-21-2007 05:54 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

No, Jim. I was reading this at work, yesterday, and just thought that many of the points in this thread seemed more interested in declaring one's own authority at the expense of someone else's than in trying to give any insight into the Quran itself.

The Quran was written, what, sixteen hundred years ago? I'm not sure learning Arabic will give you the magic key anymore than learning modern English will unlock Beowulf.

It looks to me like we're just stuck having to make up our own minds.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


67 posted 02-21-2007 11:45 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
It looks to me like we're just stuck having to make up our own minds.


But that's a given.  It was doubtless true that people had to "make up their minds" about whether the sun revolved around earth or not, also.  And yet there was an objectivity to the study of the earth, and still is.  And there are still geocentrists around.  (check the WWW if you don't believe me)  


Certainly there are qualities which would make some more "authoritative", on the issue of whether or not the Koran teaches violence.  Having actually read the verses that might apply to such questions is the first step.  (And I'm not buying that language doesn't translate adequately enough for an accurate understanding.  I have a different theory for all the "diversity" of interpretation)  


To seriously state that Mohammed taught that it is wrong to kill (simple as that), even in the context of war, makes me think that the text hasn't been really read thoroughly ... which would lessen "authority" considerably.  There's still a textual and practical objectivity to be reckoned with, whether or not it can be known with precision.  


Stephen.  
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


68 posted 02-22-2007 08:31 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

quote:
It looks to me like we're just stuck having to make up our own minds.


As opposed to having others tell us what we absolutely must believe about it?  What a novel idea, Brad!

quote:
I was reading this at work, yesterday, and just thought that many of the points in this thread seemed more interested in declaring one's own authority at the expense of someone else's than in trying to give any insight into the Quran itself.


As you can see, I provided the bait, but no one bit.   I've never been one to easily accept that I cannot do something or know something.  Seems self defeating to accept such a notion without trying.

Jim
rhia_5779
Senior Member
since 06-09-2006
Posts 1304
California


69 posted 02-22-2007 04:55 PM       View Profile for rhia_5779   Email rhia_5779   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rhia_5779

Apparently I'm not the only one who doesn't read fully whåt is written. I did.

When please enlighten me did I say that mohammad said straight that it was wrong to kill at all even in war?
I would love to know, I just reread what I did wrote and it didnt appear to say so. Please tell me if I read wrong  though.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


70 posted 02-22-2007 05:16 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Here is free Arabic grammar I found from Google Book Search:

A Practical Arabic Grammar, by Duncan Stewart

I am thinking of taking a closer look at it myself.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


71 posted 02-22-2007 09:01 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

rhia:
quote:
When please enlighten me did I say that mohammad said straight that it was wrong to kill at all even in war?
I would love to know, I just reread what I did wrote and it didnt appear to say so. Please tell me if I read wrong  though.


"Mohammed preached that it was wrong to kill. At all
If the rules that have to be abided by are thus

The Muslims say that it is wrong to kill.That to kill even in war anyone other than the one is is currently confronting you is WRONG.
Then how can you claim that is violent"



If I misread you, then your writing is more opaque than the Koran's.    


Of course, to be fair, you did make a distinction between the Muslims and Mohammed, in their teaching.  But it is not apparant from your text.  Does it say that Mohammed preached that "killing is wrong at all"?  What did you mean by that?


It is much more likely in a rant forum like our own, that our brief texts will involve grammatical mistakes that obscure what is said.  (which may be the case betwee us)  It's much less likely when one thinks God is speaking, and makes hundreds of pages of it, including repetition.    


But I would ask you to clarify your view, if you think I've misunderstood.


Stephen

rhia_5779
Senior Member
since 06-09-2006
Posts 1304
California


72 posted 02-23-2007 12:10 PM       View Profile for rhia_5779   Email rhia_5779   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rhia_5779

Sorry i will try to fix now. But what I meant to say that he preached that it was wrong to kil innocents. He preached that it was wrong to kill even in war anyone who wasn't directly confronting you.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


73 posted 02-23-2007 10:21 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I think we need Muhammad's and his followers' definition of "innocents" who shouldn't be killed since that seems to be a qualifier.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


74 posted 02-23-2007 10:59 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

Is Islam incompatible with democracy
as those willing to die say?


,
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> The Quran Quontroversy   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors