Tao_Equus
Interfaith Forums
Carried over from thread Dignity in differnt Vultures which was getting hijacked by a discussion of the authenticity of the Quran as being the undisputed words of Muhammad as revealed by the archangel Gabriel.
Authenticity of Religious Books
- Thread starter Tao_Equus
- Start date
Tao_Equus
Interfaith Forums
Good point and in an ideal world I would state the same. But it is not an ideal world and many people do use the authenticity of certain texts to give them a special place or importance. Whether a text is devine narration or the tool of a poltical elite is important. Its like asking whether nuclear capability is to be used for the production of electricity or as a weapon of mass murder.
To me parts of the Bible and Quoran are deliberately designed by religious/political elites to both pacify and keep the greater populace in a state of fear and defference to that elite. So when trying to ellucidate this point it becomes important to clarify the authenticity of these texts.
I understand that from a personal and spiritual level there can still be much that is good to be drawn from these works. There are many threads here that go there so I ask that you indulge me on this.
It may be that it is better in the Politics section though and I have no objection to it being moved there.
Regards
TE
To me parts of the Bible and Quoran are deliberately designed by religious/political elites to both pacify and keep the greater populace in a state of fear and defference to that elite. So when trying to ellucidate this point it becomes important to clarify the authenticity of these texts.
I understand that from a personal and spiritual level there can still be much that is good to be drawn from these works. There are many threads here that go there so I ask that you indulge me on this.
It may be that it is better in the Politics section though and I have no objection to it being moved there.
Regards
TE
extremely powerful contemplation..
Dondi
Well-Known Member
Dondi,
manipulated how? I suppose the only reason one would really want to verify is if the entire thing was being taken as a literal truth, which may very well your truth. For me, I'm less concerned with taking the texts I hold sacred on a literal level and where they are not meaningful or helpful for me, I interpret them in a way that makes them so. It's not so important that I am interpreting them according to their original meaning as uncovering that with most things is near impossible and hardly relevant to the present-day conditions of most modern religions. You also have to decide then, for example, at what point you want to stop going back to the original meaning. Do you want to stop when everything was put together? To when it was separate sources, oral and/or written? To the sources those texts borrowed from? All the way back to the beliefs of our earliest ancestors? Abrahamic religions generally seem to be about getting away from the original meaning, declaring their new meaning using some of the old sources.
Christianity uses pagan myths to tell its story, but in doing so it's also separating itself from paganism by incorporating Judaic ideas. And at the same time it's separating itself from Judaism by, for example, completely voiding the majority of the mitzvot under a new covenant while still very much taking part in some of the Jewish vocabulary.
Judaism still uses the name Elohim, as well as the names of what were once deities in various pantheons. And yet, it uses them in the context of monotheism, assigning new meanings. Rabbinic Judaism offers a different understanding of much of the Torah by incorporating what it calls an "oral Torah" its own claim to authenticity of course being not that it was a new revelation, but that it was always part of the old one.
Islam borrows the name of the god of a pantheon, and incorporates certain mythical elements from the local religions that pre-dated Islam like jinnis. But it also casts it all in a monotheistic framework. And Islam also borrows from Judaism and Christianity, yet it's always setting itself apart from them in the ways it understands these things.
Nor have these religions always stayed the same since then. We can see how the Torah for example, talks about things like God's back and face, God's hand, maintaing the anthropocentric view of divinity of the religions that predated it, even after removing graphic representations, that is idols, of God as a human being, or anything else of this world. Even in the Talmud this is continued with talk of God's tefillin and such. But then we get to the point where Muslims are translating the philosophers into arabic, and this carries over into Judaism and Christianity as well with people like Maimonides and Aquinas.
You can also look at how science has changed religion. We no longer take passages referring to the "firm-ament" literally. Even a creationist would understand that in a different way. Or of the waters that are separated by it as being literal waters. We've all mostly come to the understanding that the earth revolves around the sun in an expanding universe that is not made of water. The sky may be blue, but above our atmosphere is only the void of space and all of the celestial inhabitants of the cosmos: planets, stars, black holes, and assorted space junk.
Ethics too, have changed. No longer do we see the death penalty as so appropriate, and Christianity and Judaism have both come to new understandings of passages that deal with it in their own way.
Dauer
manipulated how? I suppose the only reason one would really want to verify is if the entire thing was being taken as a literal truth, which may very well your truth. For me, I'm less concerned with taking the texts I hold sacred on a literal level and where they are not meaningful or helpful for me, I interpret them in a way that makes them so. It's not so important that I am interpreting them according to their original meaning as uncovering that with most things is near impossible and hardly relevant to the present-day conditions of most modern religions. You also have to decide then, for example, at what point you want to stop going back to the original meaning. Do you want to stop when everything was put together? To when it was separate sources, oral and/or written? To the sources those texts borrowed from? All the way back to the beliefs of our earliest ancestors? Abrahamic religions generally seem to be about getting away from the original meaning, declaring their new meaning using some of the old sources.
Christianity uses pagan myths to tell its story, but in doing so it's also separating itself from paganism by incorporating Judaic ideas. And at the same time it's separating itself from Judaism by, for example, completely voiding the majority of the mitzvot under a new covenant while still very much taking part in some of the Jewish vocabulary.
Judaism still uses the name Elohim, as well as the names of what were once deities in various pantheons. And yet, it uses them in the context of monotheism, assigning new meanings. Rabbinic Judaism offers a different understanding of much of the Torah by incorporating what it calls an "oral Torah" its own claim to authenticity of course being not that it was a new revelation, but that it was always part of the old one.
Islam borrows the name of the god of a pantheon, and incorporates certain mythical elements from the local religions that pre-dated Islam like jinnis. But it also casts it all in a monotheistic framework. And Islam also borrows from Judaism and Christianity, yet it's always setting itself apart from them in the ways it understands these things.
Nor have these religions always stayed the same since then. We can see how the Torah for example, talks about things like God's back and face, God's hand, maintaing the anthropocentric view of divinity of the religions that predated it, even after removing graphic representations, that is idols, of God as a human being, or anything else of this world. Even in the Talmud this is continued with talk of God's tefillin and such. But then we get to the point where Muslims are translating the philosophers into arabic, and this carries over into Judaism and Christianity as well with people like Maimonides and Aquinas.
You can also look at how science has changed religion. We no longer take passages referring to the "firm-ament" literally. Even a creationist would understand that in a different way. Or of the waters that are separated by it as being literal waters. We've all mostly come to the understanding that the earth revolves around the sun in an expanding universe that is not made of water. The sky may be blue, but above our atmosphere is only the void of space and all of the celestial inhabitants of the cosmos: planets, stars, black holes, and assorted space junk.
Ethics too, have changed. No longer do we see the death penalty as so appropriate, and Christianity and Judaism have both come to new understandings of passages that deal with it in their own way.
Dauer
Tao_Equus
Interfaith Forums
If you go to the Islam section you will get thread after thread of quotations that are presented as the incontrovertable word of Allah. These quotations are not limited to there but continualy find there way into so many of our discussions and we are asked to take them as literal truths. This particualr thread was started after after a discussion between Muslimwoman and myself started to hi-jack an unrelated question.
This literalism pervades Islam in our modern era, just as it has in Christianity in previous era's in Europe, and threatens to do so again in the US, and with Judaism in Israel. So I find it entirely pertinent to raise it as a topic of discussion here.
You yourself may feel content to draw what 'good' you can find relevant to you from any of the holy scriptures and that is fine and good for you. But you do suprise me in objecting to this thread. In refutation of a further point you made, 1000's of people a year die by execution justified by these literal interpretations and they are increasing not decreasing.
TE
Dondi
Well-Known Member
Taking something literally or metaphorically has much to do with authenticity. If one discounts the literal view in favor of a metaphorical view because simply because a literal meaning is not feasable for one to believe in your own mind, then how can one really find meaning at all? If I were to say that I didn't believe God really said thus and such when the scriptures clearly indicate so or I interpret that to mean something metaphorically, wouldn't that take away from the authenticity of God's Word?
If God really didn't tell Noah to build an ark and save himself and the animals from a deluge that wiped out the rest of mankind, how am I supposed to take that? Did all of mankind die metaphorically? What lesson can I learn of this? That Moses is a good story teller?
If the bible is nothing more than metaphoric hype, why should I believe it to be of any use to me? How can we believe what any of it says as truth if it's just fables disguised as truth. If anything it will lesson my view of scripture and quite frankly would dismiss it as much as I would dismiss any of Dr. Seuss' writings.
I don't see the Genesis account of creation in contradiction with science. In fact, if you look at other ancient accounts of creation, the Genesis makes the most sense. The big bang theory supports the idea that God started the universe out of nothing and that there was a sequence of events that leads to the creation of the universe, earth, and man. The scriptures speak of an expanding universe: "Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:" - Psalm 104:2 The heavens are described as being empty space and the earth is described as being captured in a gravitationally in space, without strings attached or Atlas holding her up: "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing." - Job 26:7 It even describes the earth as an orb: "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth" - Isaiah 40:22 I could get into the literal creation days, appealing to Einsteinian theories of time and relativity and the views of certain physicists who support the idea, but I feel that would exhaust and derail the thread.
I do not wish to delve into deeply a discussion on origins. My point is that we do not necessarily have to compromise the plain literal rendering of the scripture.
The death penalty in the Torah was meant for a specific people at a certain point in time. It was necessary to impose the penal law in order to preserve the culture of the Israelites. However the moral law (summed up in the Ten commandments) that predicated the penal law didn't change. Any death penalty imposed today will depend on the laws of a particular society. What we learn from the Ten Commandments is that murder is wrong and deserves punishment, but because the U.S., for instance, is not bound by the Mosiac Law, there is a flexibility to what kind of punishment is meted out, depending on the circumstances and motive of the crime. Unfortunately, the death penalty is not effective as a deterrent because we have other laws that allow for a lengthy appeal process, whereas there was no such process during biblical times. But that doesn't make the ancient Israelites punishment any less valid.
I hear you all.
If the innerancy and authenticity is in question, and many are using the books as litterally the word of G-d and using it as an excuse create murder, mahem or lord over others...there is an issue.
But it appears to me, despite the repetition of indicating that others are selective in their readings and interpretations...all who wish to create murder, mahem and lord over others are also being selective in their readings and interpretations.
In addition those are so inclined to create murder, mahem, and lord over others will find a book, a leader, a method that allows them to justify their actions, if not the Torah, the Bible, the Koran, they'll disfigure and abuse the Vedas, the Upanishads, or create their own books to satisfy their need.
In every religion that has their terrorist/warmonger denomination/sect it also as denominations/sects that completely disagree with their interpretations.
Now don't just toss out Dr. Seuss or Aesops Fables or some Disney or Pixar production because it is fiction...Jesus spoke in fiction and parables...to get the point across...he wasn't the first...won't be the last...I'm thinking he followed G-d, Moses, and prophets before him and used the same tools...
If the innerancy and authenticity is in question, and many are using the books as litterally the word of G-d and using it as an excuse create murder, mahem or lord over others...there is an issue.
But it appears to me, despite the repetition of indicating that others are selective in their readings and interpretations...all who wish to create murder, mahem and lord over others are also being selective in their readings and interpretations.
In addition those are so inclined to create murder, mahem, and lord over others will find a book, a leader, a method that allows them to justify their actions, if not the Torah, the Bible, the Koran, they'll disfigure and abuse the Vedas, the Upanishads, or create their own books to satisfy their need.
In every religion that has their terrorist/warmonger denomination/sect it also as denominations/sects that completely disagree with their interpretations.
Now don't just toss out Dr. Seuss or Aesops Fables or some Disney or Pixar production because it is fiction...Jesus spoke in fiction and parables...to get the point across...he wasn't the first...won't be the last...I'm thinking he followed G-d, Moses, and prophets before him and used the same tools...
Dondi
Well-Known Member
I just knew someone will diss me on my reference to Dr. Seuss. I'm well aware of the moral content of Dr. Seuss. Yertle the Turtle was one of my favorites, and it was an allegorical rip against Hitler. My point was that I had no doubt that it was fiction because it was intended to be read as fiction, though based on an actual person. But the historical stories in the Bible make no such pretense. They are naturally assumed to be true.
Parables are different. When Jesus spoke of a certain someone, you knew He was explaining a truth in story form. They may or may not have had historical basis on them, that is why he kept the figures in the story anonymous. In this way, His audience could put themselves in the story.
I do not know what you mean when you say that Jesus spoke in fiction, other than the parables, I mean. Perhaps you could direct me to an example, please.
Concerning the use of the literal in cases of suicide bombers and such, the problem with these folks is that they do not take the whole counsel of what their particular text says. It's when people take things out of context that they are in danger of extracting the wrong idea or distort the passage beyond it's true meaning.
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
judaism hasn't executed anyone for 2,000 years. in fact, rabbi akiva (C1st)was on record as saying that nobody would ever get the death penalty if he had anything to say about it.
b'shalom
bananabrain
b'shalom
bananabrain
Dondi
Well-Known Member
I think it apropo you mistyped lessen as lesson! As I don't think it reduces...but does increase the lesson!
Naturally? We naturally assume because that is what we were brought up to believe, others have no such natural assumption, as they believe the stories, poetry and prose in the bible to be a combination of historical fact which has been amplified for the purpose of understanding and keeping the story alive as all oral traditions are.
I didn't mean to diss you on your Doctor Seuss dismissal, simply hoped to amplify it as powerful stuff as well.
In my reference to Jesus I should have indicated fiction/parables...not meaning to imply they were seperate.
Tao,
I never objected to this thread. I simply raised a valid point. Your introduction was fairly non-specific without going and checking out other threads on the board, which left it pretty open for me to make a general comment on the authenticity of religious books. Certainly, it is in comparative religion, which opens it up to views from all religious perspectives, and I took your statement about Islam to be merely an example of claims to authenticity and the damage they can do. My question was not addressed to you. It was addressed to the forum in response to your introductory post.
I'm not certain how that refutes anything I've said. Can you clarify?
Dondi,
Meaning is vague and ambiguous. It is experiential, subjective, and deeply personal. When two people, or a group of people, are finding the same meaning, they are merely sharing the same subjectivity about something. What the original author intends is not necessarily the meaning of a work of art. It is simply the originally intended meaning. However, if people view it in a different way, and the original meaning is lost -- perhaps the artist never shared it -- then the meaning of the piece is what it's taken for.
Look at the swastika. Now, in it's original context, there's nothing negative about it. However, the meaning that it takes on today is very negative. A neo-nazi might say, "Yes, but in its original context..." which is completely valid, however they are merely doing this to deny the level of meaning it has come to take in the contemporary mind. Someone from Asia who made the same defense would probably be more honest in their intentions, but as you can see, as this all regards meaning, it is very subjective. And it would be hard to say, at least to me, that the new meaning the swastika has taken is less valid.
Here is one of the differences between our views, because in my view, it's not the literal word of God. It's more the myths told by humans making sense of their experience of the Divine, whatever that is. And I don't want to confuse my use of the word experience with any sort of purported universal mysticism because I don't think it's at all that clear. They're simply responding to something that in one way or another, by one experience or another, they sense in the world.
As the richly symbolic language of myth.
That would be a good place to start.
Even as you take it literally, do you see it as merely history or as something meant to teach us and show us things?
One time I had a dream. I think I made a thread about it here. I was on a silent meditation retreat and was having lots of crazy dreams. One night I dreamt that the world was flooding, and the whole earth was going to be swallowed up in water. And I was still holding onto something. I had to use the bathroom. I went to someone who was near me, the water almost to our knees at that time, and I asked, "Is there time for me to use the bathroom?" They told me no and shook their head. I wasn't afraid at all. It seemed only natural that the water would come. And I let it come.
What does it mean to stay afloat in the waters of change, that come to wash away all the negativity? What does it mean to bring the creatures of the planet with you? What is the reason, that before this, one would be required to create a vessel of such specific restrictions in dimension? And so on.
I'm sorry you would dismiss Dr. Seuss' writings. He's got some beautiful stuff. Cat in the Hat, One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish, Hop on Pop. Brilliant books.
I wouldn't really use the word hype when relating to sacred text, although certainly approaching it from a more secular perspective we could say, "Ah, this is propoganda here, and here we have some polemic." But I'm not sure how much that can be a spiritual tool. And it's dwelling on the original meaning. I also am not so certain it was originally intended to be metaphor. I would suggest it wasn't, but that it was probably meant to be taken as myth, and I think it's probably a lot harder for an adult today to get in touch with myth the same way our ancestors did. For children I think it's easier. Their minds are more fluid, imaginative, and they just don't really judge their experiences. I was speaking to my girlfriend the other day and I told her Torah is like a communal dream. I really think that's how myth used to function. It gave a communal shape to the childlike imagination, the storyteller in each of us, which allowed us to relate to each other when we talked about the world. And like a dream, it's built of everything we're exposed to in our lives, and our processing of it, along with the churning gurgle of our minds. I also don't think we've lost that part of us. Most of us just push it to the side in favor of other things like rationalism or literalism. I don't think an imaginative approach would be better, rather that we should use all of our faculties.
And in answer to the last question, why is it important to accept anything it says as something other than personal truth?
Which isn't the only, or necessarily the most accurate way to understand the text. bereishit bara elohim et hashamayim v'et ha'aretz could also mean, "In the beginning of God's creating of the heavens and the earth" and would fit the context better, as it goes on to describe what it was like at that time, and later on God creates things that are part of the earth and the heavens, like when God creates the "firm-ament", the solid dome that surround the earth, and calls it heaven. Nor does genesis mention literally that creation was a sequence of events. It mentions that it was a specific sequence of events. Even if we could say that genesis is the most accurate of creation stories, being the most accurate is much different from true accuracy. If you meant tohu v'vohu, as a reference to creatio ex nihilo, those words would better translate to suggest chaos, and not nothingness.
Wouldn't that make more sense as a reference to the firmament? The firmament has already been made synonymous with the heavens. We find later in line 5 that the earth should not be moved for ever and ever. That would also go against modern science.
The word you're translating as empty space is tohu. Now if we go back to Genesis, we find there that tohu is often translated instead as unformed. It seems much more likely the use of tohu is intentional and meant to refer to the same thing as it does in Genesis. b'li mah, without anything. Which is an accurate description of the world in the beginning of God's creating. If it really did mean nothing at all, that would deny the existence of the waters, of the "ruach elohim" which is often translated as the spirit of God, of the "tehom" often translated as deep but similar to Tiamat.
Or more reasonably the circle is a reference not to the earth itself, but to the dome of the heavens, the firmament which surrounds the earth. As I see it, what you are doing is absolutely a compromise of the plain meaning of the text. It's interpretation, which always goes beyond the plain meaning.
And that response is precisely along the lines I gave, that you would find a way to justify letting go of it. As part of this, you also claim that the moral laws are only in the 10 commandments, yet there are many more moral laws in the Torah, and not just the punishments for them. It is simply one way of letting go of those things that Christianity has found no longer valid. Judaism does the same thing in different ways.
To a modern rational mind, for us, if something makes no declaration of being fiction, then we assume it is meant to be true. And yet this is the way of the sacred texts of most people, which then leads me to suggest the possibility that our ancestors did not see things so black and white, as truth and fiction, science and fantasy, but instead maintained a more ambiguous mythical perspective of the world.
Dauer
I never objected to this thread. I simply raised a valid point. Your introduction was fairly non-specific without going and checking out other threads on the board, which left it pretty open for me to make a general comment on the authenticity of religious books. Certainly, it is in comparative religion, which opens it up to views from all religious perspectives, and I took your statement about Islam to be merely an example of claims to authenticity and the damage they can do. My question was not addressed to you. It was addressed to the forum in response to your introductory post.
I'm not certain how that refutes anything I've said. Can you clarify?
Dondi,
Meaning is vague and ambiguous. It is experiential, subjective, and deeply personal. When two people, or a group of people, are finding the same meaning, they are merely sharing the same subjectivity about something. What the original author intends is not necessarily the meaning of a work of art. It is simply the originally intended meaning. However, if people view it in a different way, and the original meaning is lost -- perhaps the artist never shared it -- then the meaning of the piece is what it's taken for.
Look at the swastika. Now, in it's original context, there's nothing negative about it. However, the meaning that it takes on today is very negative. A neo-nazi might say, "Yes, but in its original context..." which is completely valid, however they are merely doing this to deny the level of meaning it has come to take in the contemporary mind. Someone from Asia who made the same defense would probably be more honest in their intentions, but as you can see, as this all regards meaning, it is very subjective. And it would be hard to say, at least to me, that the new meaning the swastika has taken is less valid.
Here is one of the differences between our views, because in my view, it's not the literal word of God. It's more the myths told by humans making sense of their experience of the Divine, whatever that is. And I don't want to confuse my use of the word experience with any sort of purported universal mysticism because I don't think it's at all that clear. They're simply responding to something that in one way or another, by one experience or another, they sense in the world.
As the richly symbolic language of myth.
That would be a good place to start.
Even as you take it literally, do you see it as merely history or as something meant to teach us and show us things?One time I had a dream. I think I made a thread about it here. I was on a silent meditation retreat and was having lots of crazy dreams. One night I dreamt that the world was flooding, and the whole earth was going to be swallowed up in water. And I was still holding onto something. I had to use the bathroom. I went to someone who was near me, the water almost to our knees at that time, and I asked, "Is there time for me to use the bathroom?" They told me no and shook their head. I wasn't afraid at all. It seemed only natural that the water would come. And I let it come.
What does it mean to stay afloat in the waters of change, that come to wash away all the negativity? What does it mean to bring the creatures of the planet with you? What is the reason, that before this, one would be required to create a vessel of such specific restrictions in dimension? And so on.
I'm sorry you would dismiss Dr. Seuss' writings. He's got some beautiful stuff. Cat in the Hat, One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish, Hop on Pop. Brilliant books.
I wouldn't really use the word hype when relating to sacred text, although certainly approaching it from a more secular perspective we could say, "Ah, this is propoganda here, and here we have some polemic." But I'm not sure how much that can be a spiritual tool. And it's dwelling on the original meaning. I also am not so certain it was originally intended to be metaphor. I would suggest it wasn't, but that it was probably meant to be taken as myth, and I think it's probably a lot harder for an adult today to get in touch with myth the same way our ancestors did. For children I think it's easier. Their minds are more fluid, imaginative, and they just don't really judge their experiences. I was speaking to my girlfriend the other day and I told her Torah is like a communal dream. I really think that's how myth used to function. It gave a communal shape to the childlike imagination, the storyteller in each of us, which allowed us to relate to each other when we talked about the world. And like a dream, it's built of everything we're exposed to in our lives, and our processing of it, along with the churning gurgle of our minds. I also don't think we've lost that part of us. Most of us just push it to the side in favor of other things like rationalism or literalism. I don't think an imaginative approach would be better, rather that we should use all of our faculties.
And in answer to the last question, why is it important to accept anything it says as something other than personal truth?
Which isn't the only, or necessarily the most accurate way to understand the text. bereishit bara elohim et hashamayim v'et ha'aretz could also mean, "In the beginning of God's creating of the heavens and the earth" and would fit the context better, as it goes on to describe what it was like at that time, and later on God creates things that are part of the earth and the heavens, like when God creates the "firm-ament", the solid dome that surround the earth, and calls it heaven. Nor does genesis mention literally that creation was a sequence of events. It mentions that it was a specific sequence of events. Even if we could say that genesis is the most accurate of creation stories, being the most accurate is much different from true accuracy. If you meant tohu v'vohu, as a reference to creatio ex nihilo, those words would better translate to suggest chaos, and not nothingness.
Wouldn't that make more sense as a reference to the firmament? The firmament has already been made synonymous with the heavens. We find later in line 5 that the earth should not be moved for ever and ever. That would also go against modern science.
The word you're translating as empty space is tohu. Now if we go back to Genesis, we find there that tohu is often translated instead as unformed. It seems much more likely the use of tohu is intentional and meant to refer to the same thing as it does in Genesis. b'li mah, without anything. Which is an accurate description of the world in the beginning of God's creating. If it really did mean nothing at all, that would deny the existence of the waters, of the "ruach elohim" which is often translated as the spirit of God, of the "tehom" often translated as deep but similar to Tiamat.
Or more reasonably the circle is a reference not to the earth itself, but to the dome of the heavens, the firmament which surrounds the earth. As I see it, what you are doing is absolutely a compromise of the plain meaning of the text. It's interpretation, which always goes beyond the plain meaning.
And that response is precisely along the lines I gave, that you would find a way to justify letting go of it. As part of this, you also claim that the moral laws are only in the 10 commandments, yet there are many more moral laws in the Torah, and not just the punishments for them. It is simply one way of letting go of those things that Christianity has found no longer valid. Judaism does the same thing in different ways.
To a modern rational mind, for us, if something makes no declaration of being fiction, then we assume it is meant to be true. And yet this is the way of the sacred texts of most people, which then leads me to suggest the possibility that our ancestors did not see things so black and white, as truth and fiction, science and fantasy, but instead maintained a more ambiguous mythical perspective of the world.
Dauer
Tao_Equus
Interfaith Forums
Forgive me my misunderstanding.
It was specificly this that I was refuting...
Its simply not true. I just read yesterday the the Iraqi government are are now the worlds 4th most 'eager' executors, surpassing even Saddam in the number of court sentenced executions.
Regards
TE
It was specificly this that I was refuting...
Its simply not true. I just read yesterday the the Iraqi government are are now the worlds 4th most 'eager' executors, surpassing even Saddam in the number of court sentenced executions.
Regards
TE
Tao,
It's alright. I could have probably been a little more clear in my first post.
You are right and I did overstep with my words in making a generalization. I should have said that generally attempts have been made by religious communities to understand references to the death penalty as not currently valid for one reason or another, or to interpret them differently, even though there are still others who use religious texts as justification for the death penalty.
Dauer
It's alright. I could have probably been a little more clear in my first post.
You are right and I did overstep with my words in making a generalization. I should have said that generally attempts have been made by religious communities to understand references to the death penalty as not currently valid for one reason or another, or to interpret them differently, even though there are still others who use religious texts as justification for the death penalty.
Dauer
Muslimwoman
Coexistence insha'Allah
as salaam aleykum TE
My apologies to everyone, I asked Tao to start this thread so we could continue a conversation that had gone off topic and I then couldn't get to the computer because of work commitments. Hence, the beginning of the thread seeming a little vague. Sorry TE, my fault I shall stand on the naughty spot for 10 minutes.
It is getting late so I shall try to formulate a reply TE but if I don't have time to post it tonight I will certainly do so tomorrow. Looking forward to continuing our talk.
Salaam
My apologies to everyone, I asked Tao to start this thread so we could continue a conversation that had gone off topic and I then couldn't get to the computer because of work commitments. Hence, the beginning of the thread seeming a little vague. Sorry TE, my fault I shall stand on the naughty spot for 10 minutes.
It is getting late so I shall try to formulate a reply TE but if I don't have time to post it tonight I will certainly do so tomorrow. Looking forward to continuing our talk.
Salaam
Muslimwoman
Coexistence insha'Allah
Apologies to everyone that it is such a long post but it is a contiuation of a discussion, that started this thread.
as salaam aleykum TE, to continue….
Thought I’d add your post so everyone knows what we were talking about.
Where did you get “that the Quran is not the Word of God” by reading this article? The article discusses the written version of the Quran and we all know and accept that the Quran was originally memorised and passed verbally (as indeed all scriptures were).
As for you saying that the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) did not write the Quran down, I can easily explain this – the Prophet could not read or write. Some people translate the first words of the Angel Gabriel to Mohammad as being “read, Mohammad read” but the Arabic actually translates to “recite Mohammad recite”. The Quran was revealed to the Prophet over 23 years and he was required to memorise each verse as it was revealed to him. So to say the Prophet left his “political allies” to do seems to be suggesting a dark meaning. Less than 5% of the population, in that time in history, could read or write, so everyone (rulers, businessmen, clerics, etc) used scribes.
Ok first, Abu Bakr Siddiq was one of the closest companions of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) and was the first Caliph (he took over the care of the ummah (Mulsim people) on the death of Prophet in the year 632, by unanimous election. He only held this position for 2 years before his death.
Please read the article again. You will see that it refers to the huffadh of Qur’an, these were a people that had memorized the whole Quran and they were dying in battle. Umar (who later became the 2nd Caliph) was concerned that the Quran must be preserved, so he and Abu Bakr charged that it be written into a complete book (the Quran that we read today). The task was given to Zayd ibn Thabit, as he had been a scribe for the Prophet during his life (the Prophet is referred to in this part of the article not by name but as RasoolAllah – meaning Messenger of G-d).
Zayd then went around collecting any knowledge of the Quran and the life of the Prophet. Everyone that had memorized the Quran repeated it for Zayd, these could obviously be compared to each other to ensure they were the same. This is how the Quran came to be set out as it is, it was not revealed to the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) in the order we now read it. The Quran was compiled in order of subject matter, I think anyone faced with such a charge would do the same thing – compile everything to do with a given topic together.
I do not reject the Book of Moses because it was written down by 4 different scribes. Scribes were simply a part of life in times before the general populace could read and write.
Happy to accept that you do not accept the Quran as the word of G-d, as I trust you are happy to accept that I believe it to be the word of G-d, and I feel it has been well protected over the centuries – hence the equality between men and women. If the Quran had been interfered with by men then women would have a minimal role in the Quran, they would be marginalized and oppressed within the Quran, as they have been in life but this is not the case. The Quran offers such amazing rights to women but then the scholars bring in the hadiths and they are another matter, that is where the oppression of women comes into being.
It is my personal opinion that whilst some authentic hadiths still exist, many have been misinterpreted/changed by men since the 8th century (look at my posts on the Islam board, the thread is called Discussing Taqlid (meaning blind imitation). I discuss here an event in history called ‘the closing of the gates’. It was this period of time and these misinterpreted/changed hadiths that have gone against the teaching of the Quran and fallen in line with the traditions of marginalising/oppressing women. One example, find a single verse in the Quran that refers to stoning men or women as punishment for fornication - I'll save you some reading, you can't find it because there isn't one. Yet men and women are still, in 2007, stoned to death based on hadiths. Ever played chinese whispers? Scholars do try very hard to authenticate hadiths but all it took some centuries ago was a group of men that decided a, b or c was the way to go and hey presto an authentic hadith was born - it must be authentic because so many men repeated the same thing - see where I am going with this? It is specculation on my part but does explain how 800 years of Islamic rights for women disappeared over the space of a century or so.
Can I leave you with some inspiring (to me) words of a 7th century Islamic philosopher/economist/sociologist/historiographer:
“All records, by their very nature, are liable to error…”
“the first of these is partisanship towards a creed or opinion…..
the second factor….is over-confidence in one’s sources….
the third is the failure to understand what is intended….
the fourth is a mistaken belief in the truth….
the fifth is the inability to place an event in its real context….
the sixth is the common desire to gain favour of those of high ranks, by praising them, by spreading their fame….
the seventh, and the most important, is the ignorance of the laws governing the transformations of human society
Ibn Khaldun in The Muqadimmah (known as the Father of historiography (the study of the writing of history))
Now there was a clever man. Hands up anyone who is not guilty of at least one of these!!!!
Salaam
as salaam aleykum TE, to continue….
Thought I’d add your post so everyone knows what we were talking about.
Where did you get “that the Quran is not the Word of God” by reading this article? The article discusses the written version of the Quran and we all know and accept that the Quran was originally memorised and passed verbally (as indeed all scriptures were).
As for you saying that the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) did not write the Quran down, I can easily explain this – the Prophet could not read or write. Some people translate the first words of the Angel Gabriel to Mohammad as being “read, Mohammad read” but the Arabic actually translates to “recite Mohammad recite”. The Quran was revealed to the Prophet over 23 years and he was required to memorise each verse as it was revealed to him. So to say the Prophet left his “political allies” to do seems to be suggesting a dark meaning. Less than 5% of the population, in that time in history, could read or write, so everyone (rulers, businessmen, clerics, etc) used scribes.
Ok first, Abu Bakr Siddiq was one of the closest companions of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) and was the first Caliph (he took over the care of the ummah (Mulsim people) on the death of Prophet in the year 632, by unanimous election. He only held this position for 2 years before his death.
Please read the article again. You will see that it refers to the huffadh of Qur’an, these were a people that had memorized the whole Quran and they were dying in battle. Umar (who later became the 2nd Caliph) was concerned that the Quran must be preserved, so he and Abu Bakr charged that it be written into a complete book (the Quran that we read today). The task was given to Zayd ibn Thabit, as he had been a scribe for the Prophet during his life (the Prophet is referred to in this part of the article not by name but as RasoolAllah – meaning Messenger of G-d).
Zayd then went around collecting any knowledge of the Quran and the life of the Prophet. Everyone that had memorized the Quran repeated it for Zayd, these could obviously be compared to each other to ensure they were the same. This is how the Quran came to be set out as it is, it was not revealed to the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) in the order we now read it. The Quran was compiled in order of subject matter, I think anyone faced with such a charge would do the same thing – compile everything to do with a given topic together.
I do not reject the Book of Moses because it was written down by 4 different scribes. Scribes were simply a part of life in times before the general populace could read and write.
Happy to accept that you do not accept the Quran as the word of G-d, as I trust you are happy to accept that I believe it to be the word of G-d, and I feel it has been well protected over the centuries – hence the equality between men and women. If the Quran had been interfered with by men then women would have a minimal role in the Quran, they would be marginalized and oppressed within the Quran, as they have been in life but this is not the case. The Quran offers such amazing rights to women but then the scholars bring in the hadiths and they are another matter, that is where the oppression of women comes into being.
It is my personal opinion that whilst some authentic hadiths still exist, many have been misinterpreted/changed by men since the 8th century (look at my posts on the Islam board, the thread is called Discussing Taqlid (meaning blind imitation). I discuss here an event in history called ‘the closing of the gates’. It was this period of time and these misinterpreted/changed hadiths that have gone against the teaching of the Quran and fallen in line with the traditions of marginalising/oppressing women. One example, find a single verse in the Quran that refers to stoning men or women as punishment for fornication - I'll save you some reading, you can't find it because there isn't one. Yet men and women are still, in 2007, stoned to death based on hadiths. Ever played chinese whispers? Scholars do try very hard to authenticate hadiths but all it took some centuries ago was a group of men that decided a, b or c was the way to go and hey presto an authentic hadith was born - it must be authentic because so many men repeated the same thing - see where I am going with this? It is specculation on my part but does explain how 800 years of Islamic rights for women disappeared over the space of a century or so.
Can I leave you with some inspiring (to me) words of a 7th century Islamic philosopher/economist/sociologist/historiographer:
“All records, by their very nature, are liable to error…”
“the first of these is partisanship towards a creed or opinion…..
the second factor….is over-confidence in one’s sources….
the third is the failure to understand what is intended….
the fourth is a mistaken belief in the truth….
the fifth is the inability to place an event in its real context….
the sixth is the common desire to gain favour of those of high ranks, by praising them, by spreading their fame….
the seventh, and the most important, is the ignorance of the laws governing the transformations of human society
Ibn Khaldun in The Muqadimmah (known as the Father of historiography (the study of the writing of history))
Now there was a clever man. Hands up anyone who is not guilty of at least one of these!!!!
Salaam
I shall stand on the naughty spot for 10 minutes.
Hi,
A spot wouldn't be big enough for all offenders. It's a field.
s.
Hi,
Nice one.
I think these very wise words should be on the front page of this whole forum.
s.