View Full Version : Question about Koran
simont
11-22-2002, 08:21 AM
It is impossilbe to read and understand the written Torah without the Oral Torah. I'm curious, is there a standard interpretation that is supposed to be used in order to understand the verses of the Koran?
reason
11-22-2002, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by simont
It is impossilbe to read and understand the written Torah without the Oral Torah. I'm curious, is there a standard interpretation that is supposed to be used in order to understand the verses of the Koran?
To understand Kuran you have to learn Arabic. Translation of the Quran is not the Quran and you are not to use it in anyway other than to help clarify some verses. Interpretations of the Kuran are up to the person reading it, If you have knowledge of Arabic and have any common sense you can interpret it. Although Classical Arabic can be a pain to learn because it is a very hard and rich language .
ibrodsky
11-22-2002, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by reason
To understand Kuran you have to learn Arabic. Translation of the Quran is not the Quran and you are not to use it in anyway other than to help clarify some verses. Interpretations of the Kuran are up to the person reading it, If you have knowledge of Arabic and have any common sense you can interpret it. Although Classical Arabic can be a pain to learn because it is a very hard and rich language .
So when Saudis, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. read the Koran in Arabic all they need is common sense to get it right?
Scary.
Originally posted by simont
It is impossilbe to read and understand the written Torah without the Oral Torah. I'm curious, is there a standard interpretation that is supposed to be used in order to understand the verses of the Koran?
Yes. There are 3 authenticated books called "tafaseer" and are the ultimate reference of interpreting Koraan. They are extremely authenticated that it's almost impossible to contradict any of them. Interpretation of Koraan is not left according to your mind. You have to follow the exact interpretation that was dictated to you from these books. They are:
Tafseer Ibn Katheer
Tafseer Al Galilayn
Tafseer Al Tabary
Tafseer Al Qortoby.
Trying to use your own mind to interpret anything of the Koraan will lead you to be announced infidel as what happened to an ex-Professor in Cairo University (Professor Hamed Abo Nasr) couple of years ago when he tried to use his mind to interpret Koraan, and he was announced infidel and he had to ask for asylum in the Netherlands.
simont
11-23-2002, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Ezra
Yes. There are 3 authenticated books called "tafaseer" and are the ultimate reference of interpreting Koraan. They are extremely authenticated that it's almost impossible to contradict any of them. Interpretation of Koraan is not left according to your mind. You have to follow the exact interpretation that was dictated to you from these books. They are:
Tafseer Ibn Katheer
Tafseer Al Galilayn
Tafseer Al Tabary
Tafseer Al Qortoby.
Trying to use your own mind to interpret anything of the Koraan will lead you to be announced infidel as what happened to an ex-Professor in Cairo University (Professor Hamed Abo Nasr) couple of years ago when he tried to use his mind to interpret Koraan, and he was announced infidel and he had to ask for asylum in the Netherlands.
So are terrorist groups and religious leaders calling for Jihad following the interpretations dictated within these texts?
Originally posted by simont
So are terrorist groups and religious leaders calling for Jihad following the interpretations dictated within these texts?
There is nothing called "terrorists' interpretation" or "moderate interpretation" of Koraan. There is only one interpretation of Koraan and everyone follows it. The only difference between the behavior of terrorists and the behavior of moderates is that the later tend to ignore some commands (either directly related to Jihad or related to dealing with non-Muslims), whereas the so-called extremists insists on obeying each order and command in the Koraan.
As you can see, from a religious point of view, the so-called extremists point of view can not be argued or proved wrong. Since, if you believe in some religion, you can't really take what you want and leave what you don't like in it. That's why normal Muslims support these acts (at least from religious point of view. Maybe some condemn it from a humanly point of view, but as you know in the East, the religion is much more important than human) and NON of the so-called moderate Islamic scientists (Olama) was able to debate or prove that these acts are wrong.
simont
11-23-2002, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by Ezra
There is nothing called "terrorists' interpretation" or "moderate interpretation" of Koraan. There is only one interpretation of Koraan and everyone follows it. The only difference between the behavior of terrorists and the behavior of moderates is that the later tend to ignore some commands (either directly related to Jihad or related to dealing with non-Muslims), whereas the so-called extremists insists on obeying each order and command in the Koraan.
As you can see, from a religious point of view, the so-called extremists point of view can not be argued or proved wrong. Since, if you believe in some religion, you can't really take what you want and leave what you don't like in it. That's why normal Muslims support these acts (at least from religious point of view. Maybe some condemn it from a humanly point of view, but as you know in the East, the religion is much more important than human) and NON of the so-called moderate Islamic scientists (Olama) was able to debate or prove that these acts are wrong.
I'm not quite sure I understand you. Are you saying that the strict religious point of view, the one that takes the whole Koran and interpretations into account, is that terrorist attacks against non-Muslims is law, or just the opposite? If its the former, then Islam is simply a menacing religion that needs to be eliminated somehow. If its the latter, than I dont understand your statement that Muslims must support these acts from a religious point of view. I would think the opposite to be true. They should be saying, you are violating Islam by only obeying those parts of it that suite your cause, no?
Originally posted by simont
I'm not quite sure I understand you. Are you saying that the strict religious point of view, the one that takes the whole Koran and interpretations into account, is that terrorist attacks against non-Muslims is law, or just the opposite? If its the former, then Islam is simply a menacing religion that needs to be eliminated somehow. If its the latter, than I dont understand your statement that Muslims must support these acts from a religious point of view. I would think the opposite to be true. They should be saying, you are violating Islam by only obeying those parts of it that suite your cause, no?
I'm sorry if my reply was a little ambiguous.
As you might see in previous threads, attacking non-Muslims is a general well-established rule in Koraan (we already mentioned a large number of verses about that). This rule has some very minor exceptions, but you can very easily get around these exceptions. That's why it's very easy to justify the attacks on non-Muslims from Koraan. And that's why the so-called terrorists find it very easy to recruit new members using Koraan.
The problem is that these rules (of attacking non-Muslims) are very well defined that no one can ever interpret them in any another peaceful way. Hence, the only way to avoid it, is to eliminate these verses totally. As you might easily deduce, it's almost impossible to ask Muslims to remove parts from their Koraan.
reason
11-25-2002, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by Ezra
Yes. There are 3 authenticated books called "tafaseer" and are the ultimate reference of interpreting Koraan. They are extremely authenticated that it's almost impossible to contradict any of them. Interpretation of Koraan is not left according to your mind. You have to follow the exact interpretation that was dictated to you from these books. They are:
Tafseer Ibn Katheer
Tafseer Al Galilayn
Tafseer Al Tabary
Tafseer Al Qortoby.
Trying to use your own mind to interpret anything of the Koraan will lead you to be announced infidel as what happened to an ex-Professor in Cairo University (Professor Hamed Abo Nasr) couple of years ago when he tried to use his mind to interpret Koraan, and he was announced infidel and he had to ask for asylum in the Netherlands.
Ezra when you have four interpretations of the Kuran then how are they all official? simont none of what Ezra said is true. If you have any good knowlegde of classical arabic you can interpret the Quran . I dont need a 500 year old interprtaion of the Kuran when I know I could do better than these people who attempted its interpretation at first.
simont
11-25-2002, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by reason
Ezra when you have four interpretations of the Kuran then how are they all official? simont none of what Ezra said is true. If you have any good knowlegde of classical arabic you can interpret the Quran . I dont need a 500 year old interprtaion of the Kuran when I know I could do better than these people who attempted its interpretation at first.
You see, that doesn't really make sense to me. Two people can sit down and read a section of the Torah and have completely different interpretations. This in and of itself isn't necessarily so bad, unless the interpretations are theologically contradictory. Then only one of them can be correct. It makes sense to have a complimentary interpretation to a book like the Bible or Koran because such disputes could arise. I'm assuming that both inciteful religious leaders and moderate Muslims have a good knowledge of classical arabic. So by your logic, they are both equally right? The Koran does say to carry out suicide bombings and attacks against Western countries?
Originally posted by reason
Ezra when you have four interpretations of the Kuran then how are they all official? simont none of what Ezra said is true. If you have any good knowlegde of classical arabic you can interpret the Quran . I dont need a 500 year old interprtaion of the Kuran when I know I could do better than these people who attempted its interpretation at first.
None of what I said is true? Just to remind you in another thread, a Muslim fellow (Ayesha) accused YOU of not knowing anything about Islam, which I totally agree with as well.
What is the contradiction of having four Tafaseer and all of them are official and authenticated?
Anyway, reply to simont question. If there were many interpretation of Koraan, why couldn't the Islamic Olama in your country convince normal people that what Osama Bin laden is doing and what suicide bombers are doing is wrong from the point of view of Islam?
reason
11-25-2002, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Ezra
None of what I said is true? Just to remind you in another thread, a Muslim fellow (Ayesha) accused YOU of not knowing anything about Islam, which I totally agree with as well.
What is the contradiction of having four Tafaseer and all of them are official and authenticated?
Anyway, reply to simont question. If there were many interpretation of Koraan, why couldn't the Islamic Olama in your country convince normal people that what Osama Bin laden is doing and what suicide bombers are doing is wrong from the point of view of Islam?
Because they are corrupted buy politics. I dont know whats going on in their minds, they condemned 911 yet dont condemn killing civilians in Isreal. I dont know, its as much a puzzle to me as it is to you. People who just want to reach power on the hatred of Isreal buy supporting it so they dont lose favor.
simont
11-25-2002, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by reason
Because they are corrupted buy politics. I dont know whats going on in their minds, they condemned 911 yet dont condemn killing civilians in Isreal. I dont know, its as much a puzzle to me as it is to you. People who just want to reach power on the hatred of Isreal buy supporting it so they dont lose favor.
Does it matter what is going on in their minds or whether they are interpreting the Koran sincerely? If there is no absolute and accepted interpretation then any interpretation is correct. To say the least, then, Islam can be criticized for being vague enough to allow for these types of major disputes. Ezra has said there is a standard interpretation. Does this interpretation condone, encourage terrorism of the sort we are seeing today? And if there is no standard interpretation, how can we stop those who use the Koran to incite terror?
BTW, I'd assume these are questions most Muslims at least have an answer to. Do any Muslims out there have a response?
Originally posted by reason
Because they are corrupted buy politics. I dont know whats going on in their minds, they condemned 911 yet dont condemn killing civilians in Isreal. I dont know, its as much a puzzle to me as it is to you. People who just want to reach power on the hatred of Isreal buy supporting it so they dont lose favor.
Non of the "political" Islamic clerks were able to debate the illegality of the 9/11 events from religious point of view although their governments wished they were able to do that to avoid the US pressures.
Regarding the suicide bombers, I haven't seen a SINGLE Muslim clerk (regardless of political or non-political) who condemned it using Koraan.
Originally posted by simont
Does this interpretation condone, encourage terrorism of the sort we are seeing today?
As I said the Koraan is very clear-cut in the issue of Jihad and the required attitude from Muslims against non-Muslims. It's impossible to find anyway of interpreting Koraan such that you remove the legality of killing non-Muslims without removing portions of the Koraan itself. As you might see in the other threads, non of the Muslims in the forum were able to come with any sort of interpretation of these verses other than a single meaning: Muslims should kill non-Muslims till Islam dominate the world. Even these standard Tafseer of Koraan has the same interpretation.
ayesha
11-26-2002, 05:51 AM
Originally posted by reason
Ezra when you have four interpretations of the Kuran then how are they all official? simont none of what Ezra said is true. If you have any good knowlegde of classical arabic you can interpret the Quran . I dont need a 500 year old interprtaion of the Kuran when I know I could do better than these people who attempted its interpretation at first.
BS. dont listen to him simont.
simont
11-26-2002, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by ayesha
BS. dont listen to him simont.
Why is it BS? And can you give me a better answer?
reason
11-26-2002, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by simont
Why is it BS? And can you give me a better answer?
Hehe if she could she would dont you think?
ayesha
11-27-2002, 03:20 AM
Originally posted by simont
Why is it BS? And can you give me a better answer?
everything i would say ezra has said. what 'reason' says is bull no more, no less. he likes to tell people waht they want to hear rather than the truth because sometimes the truth may not sound that good.
ayesha
11-27-2002, 03:22 AM
Originally posted by reason
Hehe
your age is really showing, no wonder i feel ike im talking to a brick wall when i talk to you-too much huh?
simont
11-27-2002, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by ayesha
everything i would say ezra has said. what 'reason' says is bull no more, no less. he likes to tell people waht they want to hear rather than the truth because sometimes the truth may not sound that good.
OK, so what are the "tafaseer" all about? Why are there four of them (are they covering different parts of the Koran)? Who wrote them? When? Are they accepted by all (even the terror inciters) as the true interpretation of the Koran?
Also, whenever scholars are trying to expose violent messages in the Koran, they always quote the text directly...Might be useful to provide some quotes and explanations from these "tafaseer" that support/contradict violence in Islam?
ayesha
11-28-2002, 03:07 AM
Originally posted by simont
OK, so what are the "tafaseer" all about? Why are there four of them (are they covering different parts of the Koran)? Who wrote them? When? Are they accepted by all (even the terror inciters) as the true interpretation of the Koran?
Also, whenever scholars are trying to expose violent messages in the Koran, they always quote the text directly...Might be useful to provide some quotes and explanations from these "tafaseer" that support/contradict violence in Islam?
i am going to commence a discussion about just this with ibrodsky & others in the 'muslims (and others) debate...' thread, so i will address these Q there. that sound good?
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.