I tend to see it differently, the Qur'an is "looking through Mohammed's eyes" I think its important to remember that the Qur'an in what is being revealed to Mohammed, that we are standing in his shoes when we hear the recital. Especially when there are statements like this: [35:23-24] You are only a warner. We have sent you with the truth, a bearer of glad tidings, and a warner. And there never was a nation but a warner had passed among them.
Okay, but .... Are the two positions irreconcilable? Could not Allah see what Muhammad saw? Among humans, I assert that in any transaction of communication, the primary responsibility lies with the broadcasting party. That is, if you attempt to communicate in a manner that the audience cannot understand, your communication will fail. Ask the Spaniards, for instance. What good would the divine revelation do if nobody could understand it? Because Muhammad is the Prophet, the messenger. He is not among the "We" that so endowed the warner. Else the English translations are even more of a wreck than most would suggest.
I think two positions are slightly different. Mohammed is the messenger, he's passing on a message. We are therefore constrained by the limitations of the messenger. We can only see what he can. I refer to your excellent post earlier that reviewed Karen Armstrongs opinion on what the Qur'an would have endorsed, did but Mohammed know about it.
SAM still believes in magical fairy creatures and stuff like that. Yeah SAM, it was an "Islamic" golden age. That Islam holds the distinction of being the only "Golden" Age complete with the loss of the human form in the arts says soemthing doesn't it. Maybe you should rename it the Yellow Age? The only golden yellow age where your ideal examples of "Goldness" come from as far from the Islamic World as possible - over in Spain Europe!!! Pffff.... our cute SAM Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
RE Poetry Ok Tiassa, I agree, but so what? I love to relax to death metal. Some people, like me, think it sounds like poetry. Some people think it sounds like noise and can't stand it. The point that I find intersting is IF we stop and suppose that the Qur'an is the Words of the CREATOR one would think it would be enlightening enough to at least toss into first year uni! Or that Philosophers down the ages such as Kent, would have stopped and said, hey this is God guy is good. But that's not the case because it's not good. It's actually pretty bad. Surely the CREATOR can do as good as Kent? Or isn't so subjective as to be no different than Death Metal. If so, then what's the point. Call spade a spade and call it a day. When people try to organize their political, personal and superstitious world around a cult of personality, history shows time and again it turns to crap. That's the point. You can say Kim Jung Il is a God all you want, you can brain wash North Koreans into thinking it's a Golden Age or SAM that there was an "Islamic" Golden Age, it's still all bullshit. Unless you were to say it is Junchi Golden Age and maybe it is, it's still crap, relatively speaking. And it's that relativeness we're trying to get at here. Relative to Kent or Plato or etc... you will find the Qur'an is Christian Biblical gibberish. That's my two cents worth anyway Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Michael I think I need to visit a museum. I'm going to visit a Holocaust Museum this coming week. Take the day off and spend my time there see what I think/feel about it. Not the Jewish Holocaust but one perpetrated by my country. You know, to get a really good perspective on things. That's another point come to think of it. Maybe I'll write about the Glorious American WWII... meh...
having had a few more beers now.. .... ... it all has this same smell of that stupid Kirk Cameron's version of the Origin of Species bullshit. I know there will always be that sort of shit out there, but, it shouldn't be tolerated. We should call bullshit on bullshit. Now in 1500 years when people are strapping on bombs and blowing themselves up over this Kirk Cameron Origin of Species ... well, you see where this is going. Bullshit! But the problem with bullshit is what can you do with it? Try to pick it up,shit on your fingers, kick it, it's all over your shoes.... yet it's so smelly you can't but help want to get rid of it.... ok i'm going to an onsen lets hope I don't drown.
True, and still we hope that maybe some day in the near future, you'll stop spreading it. Maybe even wash your hands? Take a bath? tiassa: Perhaps you may be interested in this, as an example of my point of view: http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed_3866.jsp
Hey Michael, I think you just proved my point about my initial response to this thread. Anyways is it so hard for you to ask a single thoughtful question without "funny" business, it leads me to question your intellectual integrity regarding this discussion :bugeye: So why don't you give me 1 thoughtful question, then we can work on other questions you may have after your first question is resolved. I don't feel tempted to answer a bunch of questions which really don't relate well and neither is the tone of the questions (with your provided context) serious. And must I remind you that a "thoughtful" question would include you knowing the assumptions behind the question. And if you are making any assumption then you should address it when you pose the question. Perhaps you should also try to justify your assumption so that everyone can say that you didn't just pull one out of thin air. I mean I don't want to present a serious scientific lecture in a place called a circus... if you understand what I'm saying. Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Even with this show you have not provided with with a single quote from the Quran or Hadith which supports your claim that "ISLAM for centuries has actively discouraged the translation of the quran into other languages" Please note the emphasis I added to the word "Islam"! And about the word prevent- Preventive Health Care does actually prevent diseases, it only tries to do so. (This ofcourse is similar to "discourage") You used the word "prevent" in a sentence with the absolute meaning while it can also have a more relaxed meaning. And also please remember I said "to oppose or to prevent", it is funny that you only chose to address the word "prevent" when I offered two different meanings to highlight the fact that you can have various "strengths" of discouraging something, but it seems that this actually seemed to have skipped you ? Perhaps its not so much my pride as a Muslim but rather your pride as a Christian Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I would love to continue to explain your stupidity with regards to word choice but I think the question I asked is more fundamental to the problem, which is that you made a statement that "ISLAM" has somehow discouraged the translation of the Quran. Please provide a single Quranic verse or a Hadith that supports your claim, or else I will just have to admit that after I don't know how many years that you still only know how to make statements. No reason to talk about the word "prevent" anymore as that is not even the issue. The issue is your claim about ISLAM discouraging translation of its own teachings! Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That is kind of disturbing, in my translation - every single page contains words of what would be, coming from any other source, a disturbing level of self-praise and self-glorification, paired with at least one threat of violence and vengeance against any who do not worship the self-glorifying source. Those two aspects of the recital dominate the book. They are pervasive, repetitive, and apparently structured to hypnotize: the continual repetition of threats, for example, seems to be just background for believers - when I say every single page, I am often disbelieved by people very familiar with the work who honestly don't notice them.
But as tiassa has pointed out, its a virtue of language and translation. You can probably find the same effect listening to a direct translation of a speech from Arabic/ Its how Muslims still talk to each other.
The "Golden Age" is merely Islamic propaganda. It was the result of conquest and pillage of other nations and peoples, and the stealing of their ideas and claiming it as their own.
The Quran is a glimpse into the mind of a cult leader. There isn't a shred of evidence other than the word of this cult leader that anything was "revealed." It could just as easily had been made up, which is the most likely case as is with every cult leader.
OK 786, One thoughtful question. OK. Does the possibility exist the Qur'an is not Perfect? Thanks, Michael
I've seen North Koreans interviewed in South Korea who STILL think Dear Leader is a God and North Koreans live in a Golden Age. That's in the here and now. Imagine 1500 years in the future with each successive Imam/Dear Leader adding to the propaganda.
Perhaps I'm splitting a hair? It's another tile in the mosaic. I find myself in what feels like an awkward position, although it probably isn't. To the one, I am a critic of religion generally, especially monotheism, and especially beyond that Abramic monotheism. To the other, though, I find a number of the bases of anti-religious rhetoric swirling around me inappropriately founded. And, to yet a third, as your own view emerges, it's an interesting line you walk because, while I am not unsympathetic to it, I don't yet understand it. For instance, Allah or Muhammad? It's hard to get a grasp on the dimensions of the issue. (Q)'s take—a cult leader—is a very modern assignation. Consider several Hindu-derived figures in American history. Vivekananda set the stage in the late nineteenth century with an American tour, and in his wake came three important swamis: Yogananda, Parmananda, and Krishnamurti. In their wake, many nefarious "cults" would arise, and Krishnamurti, who was the most definitively cultish a leader among them, was somewhat thrust into the role in youth by theosophists. Still, at least in American lore, there is a transition that occurs insofar as Joseph Smith was either the last major prophet or the first major cult leader. How we assess a religious foundation—was Jesus Christ a cult leader?—is often a question of applying either modern sensibilities, or attempting to sympathize with conditions contemporary to the alleged prophet. I don't think of Yogananda and Parmananda as cult leaders in a twenty-first century context, although it is easy to see how infamous pseudo-Hindu cults of the American twentieth century found inspiration and guidance in their work. For practical purposes, Islam is a religion, and I have no specific objections to referring to the Qur'an as a revelation. To speculate (I cannot hypothesize, as we cannot test the hypothesis) about Muhammad, we can say that the Qur'an was a revelation from God, or perhaps that it was a striking outcome of mental or neurological illness. The idea that Muhammad calculated the whole thing himself—inherent to the "cult leader" accusation—is extraordinary not only because of its modern connotations, but in consideration of the prophet himself and the magnitude of the task. There are some issues about the history described in the Qur'an that suggests the perspective is, indeed, Muhammad's. However, when we look at the language used, it is a difficult proposition that Muhammad should have been included in the "We" that narrates. For instance, the excerpt you provide from "Faater", if read in the context of Allah communicating with and through Muhammad, seems to draw a clear distinction between the revealer and he unto which a truth is being revealed. Unfortunately, "Al-`Alaq", which I understand to be the first sura revealed, is not so specific. I think in part I'm just missing something, but also we might be doing that thing where we argue about whether the wheels are turning clockwise or counter- while we stand on opposite sides of the road. It's not, in this case, that I'm proposing that "we're both right", as I'm operating from a comparative position of ignorance and cannot rightfully make that claim, but there are many occasions of a collective first person (e.g., "We") that do not appear to include Muhammad, such as: An-Nisaa — 4.131 And whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is Allah's and certainly We enjoined those who were given the Book before you and (We enjoin) you too that you should be careful of (your duty to) Allah; and if you disbelieve, then surely whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is Allah's and Allah is Self-sufficient, Praise-worthy. (Shakir translation) • • • To Allah belong all things in the heavens and on earth. Verily we have directed the People of the Book before you, and you (o Muslims) to fear Allah. But if ye deny Him, lo! unto Allah belong all things in the heavens and on earth, and Allah is free of all wants, worthy of all praise. (Ali translation) Muhammad was simply not in a position to direct the 'ahl al-Kitab as suggested in this passage. Prophets of the Old Testament did not claim original authorship. Even Aleister Crowley attributed Liber AL vel Legis (CCXX) to a strange being named Aiwaz or Aiwass. Many critics of Islam tend to have some sort of personal issue with Muhammad, such as (Q)'s suggestion of a cult leader, which would put the entire composition of the Qur'an as some sort of deliberate effort on the part of the Prophet. Whether it was Allah speaking to and through Muhammad, or simply a byproduct of epilepsy or some similar seizure disorder—or even mundane migraines—the difference I see between Michael's assertion that the Qur'an contains "the thoughts and ideas of 'The' Creator" and the primary alternative, that Muhammad deliberately calculated and wrote the thing himself is very important to resolving any number of questions about what constitutes Islam, legitimate Muslim faith, and so on. And these questions become very important in the contemporary context, when so many people would pretend that the long ills of the human condition are somehow the fault of Muhammad or Muslims. ____________________ Notes: The Koran. M. H. Shakir, trans. Emhurst: Tahrike Tarsile, 1983. University of Michigan. September 30, 2009. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/koran/ The Holy Qur'an. Abdullah Yusuf Ali, trans. 1934. Islam101.com. September 30, 2009. http://www.islam101.com/quran/yusufAli/index.htm
I notice that such "critics of Islam" are in general clueless about the Qur'an Note that no Muslims [at least none that I know of] consider the Qur'an to be the teachings of Muhammed. He is considered rasool-ullah or the messenger of God. And as is pointed out several times in the Qur'an his job is only to convey the message not enforce what the Qur'an says. This is such an important point that it is repeated several times over Say : "O mankind! I am to you ONLY a plain warner (innama ana lakum natheerun mubeenun)." [22:49 ] Say : I am ONLY a warner (Qul innama ana munthirun), and there is no god but God, the One, the Absolute, [ 38:65] Say: "As to the knowledge of the time, it is with God alone (Qul innama alAAilmu AAinda Allahi): I am (sent) ONLY to warn plainly in public (wa-innama ana natheerun mubeenun)." [67:26] Hence his [Muhammed's] knowledge is not absolute. He is merely reminding the people what they have to guard against. Any Muslim who claims to read the Qur'an could not miss this. We sent not forth any before thee, but men We revealed to of the people living in the cities. Have they not journeyed in the land? Have they not beheld how was the end of those before them?. [12:109] And We sent none before thee, but men to whom We made revelation -- question the People of the Remembrance, if you do not know -- nor did We fashion them as bodies that ate not food, neither were they immortal; [21:7-8] Say: I am ONLY a mortal like you (Qul innama ana basharun mithlukum) [18:110] In what way? Al Alaq [surah 96] 1 Read: In the name of thy Lord Who createth, 2 Createth man from a clot. 3 Read: And thy Lord is the Most Bounteous, 4 Who teacheth by the pen, 5 Teacheth man that which he knew not. 6 Nay, but verily man is rebellious 7 That he thinketh himself independent! 8 Lo! unto thy Lord is the return. 9 Hast thou seen him who dissuadeth 10 A devotee when he prayeth ? 11 Hast thou seen if he relieth on the guidance 12 Or enjoineth piety ? 13 Hast thou seen if he denieth and is froward ? 14 Is he then unaware that Allah seeth ? 15 Nay, but if he cease not We will seize him by the forelock - 16 The lying, sinful forelock - 17 Then let him call upon his henchmen! 18 We will call the guards of hell. 19 Nay, Obey not thou him. But prostrate thyself, and draw near. Whats not clear about this perspective? In my personal opinion this suggestion makes the most sense: Agreed. They are as far from the Qur'an as they can be. It is the age of Jahilliyah in Islam. note: Some Quranic statistics would probably help at this point. The word Merciful, Most merciful, Most gracious (Rahmanir Rahim) has been used 124 times in the Quran. The word 'Mercy' has been used I73 times. Contrast this with the usage of the word 'Wrath' (anger) and 'Wrathful' (Angry). The word Wrath or anger appears thrice in the entire Quran - (Sura Al-Fatiha 1.07, Al,Baqra 2.90, and AI Imran 3.11) Then the word wrathful or angry occurs four times in the entire Quran - Al-Mada, Al-Fath, Al,Mujadila and Al-Murntahina. link Welcome back, btw Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
For the lack of a better phrase, something seems to be getting lost in translation I meant in terms of the consideration I was making at the time. Nothing about the sura, by my reading, establishes that it is the Allah speaking, and not Muhammad, in the context the far ends of the spectrum, e.g., Michael's "thoughts and ideas of 'The' Creator" compared to (Q)'s "cult leader". A human might say such things, theoretically, of his own device, or communicate the message of God through his mouth. Comparatively, I think the excerpts from "An-Nisaa" make much more clear an establishment of the narrative voice than "Al-Alaq". If I were the Martian reader, I suppose. As a human, as Tiassa, I presume the Qur'an to have the context of Allah speaking through the Prophet. If I abandon that presumption, though, even 96.18, "We will call the guards of hell", could still be (mis)interpreted as something akin to a bishop instructing the flock instead of the word of God.
Except of course, for the fact that Mohammed could not ask people to "read" when he could not. The Qur'an was transmitted orally. The name itself "Qur'an" means "The Recital", the words are written to be sung, not read. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqc-SWDhcAo
