Okay, I'm starting this thread to discuss the Qur'an, its meaning, and its message.

I'll start from the standpoint of comparative religion. My initial claim is, that the Qur'an, while beautifully written, is really a very simple text. Its theology is one of the least complex of all the world's religions.

And, from this simplistic standpoint, it also demonstrates a marked lack of comprehension of other theologies. I won't get into posting specific verses yet, in support of my contention, but will definitely do so later.

I will also observe, that when we're discussing the "interpretation" of the Qur'an, we'll need to touch upon the Hadiths as well. Note for starters, that the Hadiths have gone through a period of "collection" and "selection" in much the same way that the books of the Christian Bible have - and, there is still considerable dispute over the "authenticity" of various Hadiths.

And my third claim, is that it is impossible to understand the Qur'an outside of its historical context.

Okay - so maybe we can start here. The Qur'an encourages individuals to understand the truth for themselves. It does not espouse an "absolute truth", other than to say that there is one God, and that good men will submit themselves to God. But it doesn't define God.

In this latter sense, there is a notable contradiction in the traditional "doctrine" of Islam, which claims that the "interpretation" of the Qur'an is "complete and final". One or the other may be true, but both can not be true at the same time.

For purposes of this discussion, I will suggest that whenever there is a contradiction between the Qur'an and its "interpretation", we should always defer back to the original text. ('Course I can't read Arabic, so I'll use the accepted English translations in support of my arguments).

Okay, that should be enough to get started. I'll chime in again later with details.

No takers? Hmm.....

You can find an online Qur'an here: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

Okay, let's do this a little differently. I'll make a bold assertion. The claim is, that Mohammed may have read the Christian Bible, but he certainly did not understand the Christian theology.

Here are some relevant verses from the Qur'an:

This passage appears to succumb to the misguided assertion that Christianity somehow invokes three Gods instead of one. For those of you that are familiar with Hindu, this assertion parallels the claim that the concepts of Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva are incompatible with monotheism.

Here is another:

Here we find the most cursory understanding of the concept of the Son, certainly one that is not grounded in Christian theology. The passage seems to claim that there is a dualism at play, an assertion which is thoroughly contradicted by the Christian tradition.

Hmm... these clearly seem to be the words of someone who does not understand Christianity.

What say you?

That is really not all that contraversial... unless you are a Muslim, I guess.
But Muhammed was definitely a pagan by heart and culture. He admired the theology of Judaism and Christianity, primarily the monotheism.
He had visions for whatever reason in which he spoke with what he believed was the God of Abraham, without necessarily understanding what that God was like in the other books so much.
The religion was formed based on revelation, not on scholarly study, and through the eyes of a pagan... which is exactly why it caught on.
It would be as if one of the country folk in medieval England rewrote the bible rather than merely accepting the religion and modifying it in his head to his worldview.
It was created by pagans, for pagans... to bring monotheism to the pagans using symbolism more familiar to them (for instance, the prominence of djinn- the spirits blamed for pretty much everything by the pagans).
Islam was really quite brilliant as far as a method to convert Middle Eastern pagans to a modern moralistic religion. The flaw is that Muhammed also expected Christians and Jews to be lining up for conversion even moreso than the pagans. They didn't have very detailed anthropological studies on how religions succeed back then, otherwise Muhammed would have known the pagans would be his main audience. But the miscalculation is part of what led to the incident that set the stage for problems between Islam and Judaism (the Jewish ambush while Muhammed was invading Mecca).

But the interesting part is that if you were raised Muslim, you probably could see the logical transition from the Old and New Testament to the Qu-ran. Just as Christians see a logical flow from the Old to the New. I don't think Jews see the connection. And as a person raised without religion, I hardly see consistency within one book let alone between the three.

So Muhammed's misunderstanding of Christian theology was probably for the better in bringing Islam to Middle Eastern pagans, no more relevant than the modern fundamentalist Christian interpreting the Old Testament to fit within his own view. It worked.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...
And I do not need to know.

Get your daily dose of truth*

* or something approximating it

Mohammed was illiterate.

Reading something, and having someone read something to you are two different things. So even if Mo' had someone read the bible for him, I don't think it would be possible for Mo' to get the full flavor of the act of reading something himself. Like the difference between reading a book and watching a movie based on a book.


I only read the first 3-4 books of the Quran. To be honest.

non i would suggest u something first when u quote from the quran kindly quote the full verse to avoid confusion
4-171


now i will jump in here
IN THE NAME OF ALLAH I BEGIN

you have quoted a wrong verse non
the correct verse is
21-25
and look at the next verse after this-what a beautiful verse this is

nest java we muslims have complete faith that prophet MUHAMMAD(peace be upon him)is the messanger of ALLAH and he did receive revelations from ALLAH

some point are very good in this


100% right-the prophet (peace be upon him)could neither write or read

__________________
http://www.nkusa.org/index.cfm
anti orthodox jews hate israel
www.ahmed-deedat.co.za/

Thanks man, I was hoping you would chime in here.

I'm going to read your post in detail before commenting.

Maybe you can help me understand some more passages in the Qur'an.

Okay - let's see, I was using a colloquial translation, perhaps I should have used the older version(s).

Okay, so what are we saying here? As I understand this passage, it is denying (or minimizing) the validity of the "facets of a diamond" interpretation. The analogy, is that if Allah is like a diamond, then human beings with our primitive capabilities can sometimes only perceive one "facet" at a time. In Hindu, these are called "incarnations", in Christianity they're called "aspects", and in Buddhism they are called "minds". None of these interpretations deny that there is One God, however they suggest that it is impossible for human beings to perceive or understand "all" of God (at the same time). One could argue, I suppose, that this analogy represents some kind of "henotheism", but it seem to me that would be missing the point. Are you familiar with the Sufi literature? If so, how does it fit in your view of Islam? Or does it?


What do the sayings about "servants" mean, in these passages? What is being said here?

I understand that. I think that's what I was trying to say, but it's hard since I tend to come from the neutral, non-religious perspective
I usually sound like I'm belittling religious beliefs when I'm trying to be respectful. It's the price I pay for not belonging to a religious group.

My point is ssimply that this is why Islam can have a completely different interpretation of Jesus' divinity from Christianity while still believing in the same God.
Christians are often lost in how Jews might feel the same way about them and their version of Old Testament theology.
Religion is more perception of reality than words on paper.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...
And I do not need to know.

Get your daily dose of truth*

* or something approximating it

yes sir i am here
first this-i am a servant of god so u are so was jesus and so was prophet MUHAMMAD(peace be upon them)-we are not children for god is free from these kinds of things

and now to your second query ALLAH says that jesus was no more than a messanger and not a god-he was a human just like us chosen to deliver the message of islam to humanity

u believe jesus to be your god but we say god is one and jesus was just a messanger and christains also believe in trinity but we do not

__________________
http://www.nkusa.org/index.cfm
anti orthodox jews hate israel
www.ahmed-deedat.co.za/

Hmm.... I'm not sure I understand that. The "child" analogy refers to something that "creates" something else - as a father creates a child. Why would you say that God is free from these kinds of things? Surely if he created us, then we are all His children?

Yes - Jesus never said he was the "only" child of God. Other people may have said that about him, but as far as we know Jesus never said that. In fact, as far as we know, he is reported to have said exactly the opposite - that we are all children of God (ie, in the sense of the "child" analogy).

I think, that the "child" analogy refers to animals and trees and rocks too - they, in a sense, are also "children" of God. Can you understand the analogy that way, or is that too loose? God "created" them, created their molecules, their shape, their function, and so on - so in a sense, they are God's "children".