Quote:
Originally Posted by dlish
idyllic,
while i only have an hour and a half before i go to work, i fear that even this isnt enough time for me to answer all your questions, queries and proddings. seriously. I'm happy to give you the lowdown and tell you my side of the equation, others here might be able to chime in too.
however, i do have one concern here, that from the limited knowledge you have about islam, the quran, sunnah, hadith, along with the different opinions and interpratations of the different schools of thought and the imams themselves, it is impossible that you can make any sort of stance on this matter, or base your knowledge on any conclusion. i personally know many imams and sheikhs who devote their lifetime to specialize in the study of shariah law.
however, this is the type of language that concerns me with your post...
I am also led to believe.....
From what I know of the Qur'an, which isn't much...
It seems to me that Muslims ....
I am led to believe that the words of the Qur’an ...
It seems to me that the Qur’an disallows...
It seems to me that Muslims are forced ...
and thats just reading through that quickly...there may be others
you're makiing assumptions on things you do not know, have heard from others or just plainly wrong.
i think what you do need to do is go down to your local bookstore and buy a quran off the shelf..or better yet, if theres a muslim bookstore in town, they'd probably be happy to give you one.
after reading the english version (try the Yusuf Ali or the Pickthal translations into english which i recommend are the best for ease of reading) try and read about the history of hadith and the 4 schools of thought which can become a bit daunting. just as a basis to try answer some of your questions.. if your intention is purely for the pursuit of knowledge, then that is what id recommend.
the other request i have is that you break up your questions from the body of your assumptions as it gets confusing. i will try and answer these questions tonight, as much as i can, but i wont be home before 10pm tonight so it may have to be over a few days
again, id love to answer all the questions..as ive said before i dont profess to know everything, but as the resident muslim here, id love to try and help you (and everyone) understand queries they may have. dont take my response the wrong way, but i think you'll just need to work on the way you present your view instead of a lump of text which makes readability pretty hard. ...and for the record, i dont get upset.
lots of assumptions, lots of theories, lots of questions...i'll try my best
|
Sounds great dlish, Thank you in advance for your perspective, I look forward to your help and knowledge. Please understand I use those phrases to insure it is understood that I am not questioning the faith of Islam as much as I am questioning the ability to question the practices of Qur’anic fundamentalism as based in Shar’iah and how it pertains to secularism within Islam. I am wanting to insure that it is apparent I am asking these questions without any solid preconceived convictions blanketing the religion but to insure whoever wishes to discuss this that I am asking based on the perceptions of Islam as any outsider may view it. I say, “it seems to me,” or “I am led to believe,” because that is the reality of it, It seems to me that the teachings of the Qur’an are not easily understood even with reading the actual book line by line, and I am led to believe, by not only many verses within the Qur’an, but by societies perspectives and the differing viewpoints of Islam, that separating Shar’iah from government policy without personal interpretations of the Qur’an may be very difficult indeed, considering those interpretations will need to take into account what most people are coming to view as personal freedoms.
It is difficult to introduce oneself to Islam by simply reading the Qur’an. I am reading the Qur’an, as best as a newbie can without the historical input, as I said it can be quite the ride in poetic verse without contextual help from a religious leader, but an interesting and beautiful read. I am repeatedly brought back to attempting to separate the religion from the politics so as to appreciate the words without letting to many media stories skew my interpretations, this is a very difficult task as the extremists have used many verses as their weapon of choice in furthering their tyranny, and the voices of opposition in those interpretation are drowned out by the horror stories of war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
It's not easy to revamp religious laws because now the source material is nearly impossible to change (in the day of mass-printed holy books). It would be impossible for the Pope to go back and cross out a bunch of crazy stuff in Deuteronomy because it doesn't fit modern sensibilities. The Hadith are a bit more fluid because certain ones can move in and out of favor, but any particularly unpopular rules from the Qur'an are going to be impossible to change without pissing off a lot of people. Muslims believe that the Qur'an is perfect, similar to Christians believing the Bible is inerrant.
What you end up with, in my understanding of history, is the fundamentalists that take everything as gospel (ha! religious pun!), and the moderates that take some of it as gospel and dismiss other parts because they're outdated or offensive. The problem is that the moderates don't really have good reason to abandon parts of their religion, at least not reasons they're willing to admit. My mother, a Catholic, supports abortion, supports divorce, supports contraception, supports homosexual rights, etc. So what does that mean when she opens up the inerrant word of the Christian God and sees these things basically set in stone? She won't admit it to herself in such blatant terms, but she thinks parts of the Bible are flat out wrong. She thinks things that the Vicar of Christ says are flat out wrong. She disbelieves inerrancy. She probably believes that Jesus died on the cross for her original and subsequent sins, but that's hardly the only thing in the Bible. Worse still, when she's confronted by a fundy armed with specific Bible verses, there are things she just can't reconcile, so she reverts. I've actually seen her change her stance on homosexuality (temporarily) when confronted by a nutter wielding a Bible and calling out specific quotes about homosexuals. It kinda sucked.
My point is ultimately those archaic, cruel laws are going to be sticking with us for the foreseeable future. Sure, moderates will use what little wiggle room there is to drag their faiths kicking and screaming into the present, but the verses don't change. It's because of that inflexibility that religious law, imho, can't work. It's why I love the Constitution so much; it's a living law.
|
Much truth here, I grew up going to church, occasionally, with my grands, my grandfather was a church “elder” and always attended bible studies, I still have his books, but he was VERY vocal about his perceptions of the word, both he and my grandmother would refuse to say that Jesus descended into hell, can you image, when we would say the Apostles’ Creed my grandparents would be silent at that part and refuse to speak it, at first I was embarrassed as some members would look at us disapprovingly, I thought that my grandparents must be anti something, but I realized as I grew older, they were really being pro-humanity and pro-love…. in their own way. I respect them and religion now because of this, that they gave me the ability to believe in what I deemed to feed humanities peace and love focus, without forcing me to believe words merely because someone else did, they taught me it was good to learn for oneself the truths of freedom of choice, period. It has empowered me, and to some degree, causes me to be slightly disillusioned by those who do not stand for the perspectives of intrinsic human kindness with full knowledge of what is beneficial for humanities evolution, imho.
I used to think it was hard to grasp that anyone would use an omnipotent power in this day as an excuse for tyranny, but I now realize the simplicity of power that resides in this form of control..... it occurs within a myriad of religions/ideologies, even just simple fear of the unknown can create a bases for tyranny. It seems to me that Islam is the squeaky wheel right now and the book is the Qur’an and considering the breathe and width of control allowed within the interpretations of this religious doctrine, it is a powerful, powerful tool when in the wrong hands interpreted for self-serving oligarchies, it can be rather frightening, so too was the Old Testament at one time, and the New when interpreted with malicious intent. I have a great deal of comfort in exposing the antiquities of the Bible, recognizing the cohesive necessity of history and yet finding in the words, truth, but this is what I was taught, or allowed to learn. So I have been reading the Qur’an now and studying Islam and find that many are just not permitted the same pleasure of interpretations, at least this is the appearance that I understand is a reality based on all the media and the fear mongers, the Islamophobics, and to some degree many Muslims, particularly fundamentalists, but without fail extremists.
I wonder if there is any reality to this inability to question the words or to interpret them personally. Is it actually the word of Allah that states you cannot alter the perceptions of the Qur’an or is it merely some self-serving men/women who still wishes to use the words as some form of power over man and woman (especially woman) kind. Let me add, I have read plenty in all books that I find to be so dated as to be totally defunct of value in this day of scientific awareness, those passages/verses I merely write off as mankind learning to protect life with the least amount of scientific knowledge available.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaver
Another example off the top of my head which is always misinterpreted modernly is why Sloth is a deadly sin and the phrase "idle hands do the devil's work". The definition of sloth has changed over the centuries, most notably in the 1800s with our own knowledge of depression. Sloth isn't a deadly sin because everyone needs to pull their own weight to survive... but because of a misunderstanding of depression. Depression makes it hard to get out of bed, it saps energy and causes you to not care about work... and causes one to do the only unforgivable sin (suicide). So naturally they determined the actions they saw prior to the suicide made the suicide occur. Sloth as a sin is only misinterpreted in the modern interpretations, just as the previous one. So if you wish to give your mother ammunition against fundys, she'll have to go back to older (and more knowledgeable interpretations).
|
Very good, this is exactly the things I am looking for, that personal interpretations left to the will of those who search deeply with a "happy" or "intrinsic" good heart, so to say, find in the words value that is more than others who would find sorrow, sadness, despair, anger, hate, war, etc. Absolutely a beautiful perspective Seaver and I can see the association and the value, love this. Your interpretation also bares witness the necessity to keep a deep separation of religious ideology from state involvement so that people are permitted the opportunities to find these positive truths without state represented religious leaders altering it's meaning before consumption into some poison to sedate the masses in an attempt to control said masses via religious doctrine. With this control the doors open to the beginnings of tyranny, wherein the “house of the tyrannical leaders" is more and more a place of worship, where we are taught to worship the humans who have bent doctrine to suit their own tactics, thereby the "house" of leaders becomes less and less a building of secularism based in the protection of personal freedom separated completely from religious idealizations. Eventually the state becomes the religion, religion becomes the state of mind and the leaders become infallible super-humans who rule tyrannically with doctrine as their law and weapon, and these laws are usually the cruelest in all forms of humanities control.
I tell my kids that the words Toy and Gun cannot be used together, ever..... so to, I believe, that the words State and Religion must not ever merge, not ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaver
For example, if they pull out the Sodom and Gommorah tale about homosexuality... "...let them out so that we may know them..." It gets interpreted modernly that everyone in the city was gay so god smote it. In reality it was breaking the sacred duties of a host against his guest... a guest should never be gang-raped while the host can prevent it (especially angels I guess). If fundy's dont believe it... then simply ask them why would he offer up his own daughter to be gang-raped? The duty of the host/guest was more important than preventing the rape of your own daughters... something which could never be properly understood today. It said nothing about homosexuality, it was rape.
|
A lot of people disagree with your interpretation of religious law and you're using this as a defense of religious law? You sure you want to go down that line of thinking? |
I had never heard of this interpretation, but I could see where it can be fair to draw this line of thought in a way to break down the some of the homophobes religious control. This is what needs to be done with religious text so that we as humans can perceive alternate views outside of those taught to us within a singular tribe (family heritage, local church, friends, etc.) we need the opportunity to see perspective from others and to choose the one that best suits the progression of humanity away from oppressive thinking, to teach our children advancements in mankind and continue concreting the split between church and state by removing any negatives that can be used to tyrannize a population. The Sodom and Gomorrah parable is used to tyrannize over sexual proclivities, so lets alter the perceptions of mankind, remove the stigma, blame that which we know is wrong, i.e. rape, good move. Though the story still sucks that he would offer his daughters, we are well aware of the conditions women started in the world of religion, eventually we will find a way to view positive, Wow, now that I think about the realities of women within all three books, women still have a long way to go for freedom over the ability to be tyrannized by religious doctrine, scary long way, to the core. Societies based in secularism where women are gaining some ground in equality are far more progressive and technologically advanced, this is what matters now, this is the push for secularism that must be accomplished, and women need to be freed from religious tyranny so they may help in teaching further secular awareness.
Can that happen, can the words of religion ever be interpreted in a way that would free women from the blanket of religious oppression? I cannot find a way to view the origins of woman as created from man in a way that would allow equality for the female gender. Maybe a new thread here, with personal perceptions of how to read religious doctrine with equality for both sexes?
---------- Post added at 05:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:00 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlish
i think some of the laws may need revamping, how so, i cannot say, but the fact is that islam and shariah isnt a rigid body of laws and is open to interpretation, further analysis and criticism contrary to what some might think. It's evolution is obvious over the past 14 centuries, but like ive mentioned, its still 6 centuries behind christianity. Thats not to say that islam will condone scantily clad women in 600 years or pre-marital sex etc, but that islam is prone to change with time within the confines of islamic law.
|
If this question crosses the line of personal choice just tell me, no prob. but what is the issue with scantily clad women, or pre-marital sex, aside from religious doctrine. Is there a verse within the Qur'an that speaks specifically of a woman being less than virtuous if she wears a bikini to the beach (over simplifying here, for pov), or being unrighteous if she is not proven a virgin. Is it against Shar'iah to view the female body outside of the bedroom (not necessarily nude) or for the female to be scantily clad. Do you think that Islam could ever view scantily clad women as still virtuous? I know I am adding more questions to you dlish, but this one caught my eye.