On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Samiya Illias <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> >> That is due to selective literalism, that you can do with any piece of >> literature or code of law, and conveniently blame it on the author. >> > > That's the problem with literalism though. It's always selective, when > language is often less clear. Literalism implies one correct way of > interpreting the scripture, when even the companions disagreed on how to > interpret the Prophet stating "No one should pray the afternoon prayer > until after they reach Banū Qurayzah." This example can be interpreted in > two ways: 1) Wait for everybody, even if time of offering passes or 2) > Everybody should hurry up and be punctual, no waiting. > Hadith is a human effort to document history. You should not compare it with scripture. > > Or when Al-Haq is taken to have such a wide range of meanings you > describe, how do we select the proper literal meaning and who could say? > We use the same word in Urdu (my native language), so the word haq and its various forms and usages are quite commonplace to us and easy to understand. However, when attempting to translate it in English, it does seem strange to someone new to Arabic or the Quran. It is important to first read the entire Quran to get a overall understanding, and then compile and cross-check with other verses related to the same topic if there seems to be confusion. For example, the verse which states [kill them wherever you find them Quran 9:5] is abused by both terrorists as well as Islam-bashers. Yet, if one were to study the context, as well as the directives for taking human life, one would learn that this particular directive was issued to the Messenger and his companions, after announcing the annulment of a particular treaty [Quran 9:1], and giving a four month notice period to them. Moreover, studying the stories of the Messengers [messengers are a special class of prophets with whom divine decision comes], one learns from the Quran that each nation to whom a messenger was sent were clearly warned of an imminent punishment if they did not believe and mend their ways, and the punishment did indeed befell all nations thus warned, except the nation of Messenger Jonah as they did believe and mend their ways. Further, from other verses regarding taking human life, we come to learn that no one can take human life except as capital punishment executed by the state in two cases: [1] after a person has been convicted of murder, through proper recourse to law and justice; [2] to curtail those who are creating 'fitnah' [corruption/terrorism in the land, disrupting law and order and causing harm]: this could be through courts of justice or through a declared war by the head of the state. You might argue that literal translation is the cause. However, in various threads, some members have discussed at length war and abuse, past and present, by various nations and by people belonging to various religions. Those who want an excuse to harm others will always find a way to abuse anything which suits their purpose. If everybody can select their own meaning in whatever way, then we could > never distinguish abuse of the text from the opposite. > Yes, we can. We have an inner moral compass, a conscience, which guides us. Further, it states in the Quran that God never orders immorality. Hence, it becomes our duty to double-check our interpretations of the text whenever we find something we consider wrong or immoral. > The second Caliph of Islam, `Umar b. al-Khattāb often took a less literal > approach for example, and decided at times that benevolent meaning and > rationales behind the text is more important > That is understanding the spirit and the letter, and then applying it. > than the immediate literal level: He allowed Jews into Jerusalem to > worship, > I haven't studied the history in particular detail, however I don't see any reason why he would even think of stopping the Jews from praying. > he exempted thieves from common capital punishment in years of famine, > Yes, I'm aware of the suspension of the punishment during the years of famine, and I think I also mentioned it once on this forum > and negated punishment of exile when people were found guilty of > fornication. > I do not find the 'punishment of exile' for this anywhere in Chapter 24 of the Quran. Am I forgetting any verse from somewhere else in the Quran? Can you please point it out? > > Taking a non-literal stance allows you to resolve contradictions, because > it gives access to possible larger meanings of the text beyond its > immediate wording. This way, overarching principles of scripture that are > general enough to bear on larger social, political, economic issues can be > brought into discussion. > > Also, when new and complex situations arise that have no precedent in > scripture, > For new and complex situations, ijtihad is the generally adopted method which means that religious scholars discuss and advise the believers what they think should be done. That is known fatwa. However, there are differing opinions on whether it is just advise or a binding directive upon the believers. I prefer to think it as 'advice' to be adopted by each individual at his/her own discretion and consideration, as the religious scholars are also human and thus limited by their knowledge and understanding. > literalism just remains stuck in the past, mired in contradictions and > ambiguity of interpretation (not due to "blaming it on the author", that is > your faith; mine is that language is often this ambiguous, especially > concerning theological subjects because most people are aware of blasphemy > problem, and don't wish to pretend being the voice of god) while critical > distance and doubt allow possibly new and creative responses to a problem, > while not betraying the purpose of the text. This freedom is immediately > lost, when such larger meaning is made literal. > > That's why I can relate to the position that literalists have perhaps less > faith. They seem to not trust their God's truth, and have to look for > little sentences in scripture to make their point. A critical theologian, > that allows doubt and goes against scripture when the time is proper, has > more faith here, as he learns and studies the will of god beyond the > letters and admits the possibility that their God is greater than anything > produced by letters; this attitude is open to expanding her/his > understanding of reality and does not get stuck in literal interpretations > that limit his conception of god. > God is greater than any and everything. God is also able to articulate whatever He wishes to communicate to us. Scripture is divine revelation. Morever, as per the verse in the Quran [http://quran.com/15/9], it is our faith that God has taken the responsibility of guarding the arabic text of the Quran from any changes, so we are rest assured that the arabic text is free of corruption. What I don't understand is that the same people who will study scientific papers and business letters and documents and legal notices in great detail, hanging on to each word, how can they so easily refute the scriptures, when it is such an important document, possibly from God? > This theologian stays true to more scientific attitude of ignorance in > face of the unknown. > > Alhazen described his theology: "I constantly sought knowledge and truth, > and it became my belief that for gaining access to the effulgence and > closeness to God, there is no better way than that of searching for truth > and knowledge." > That is prescribed by the Quran. It directs us to use our intelligence, it directs us to pray for more knowledge, and it states that, on that day, the truthful are going to benefit from their truth. Samiya > > I doubt that Alhazen could have shared with us his scientific > contributions, revealing reality to us the way he did, if he had decided to > just read, recite, and take literally scripture all day, every day. He > sought truth, because he had faith in it; instead of abandoning truth for > scripture, as this would imply less faith perhaps. He was to some degree > schooled in methods and art of doubt, as can be seen in his position on > Ptolemy. PGC > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
