Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Religious texts are always open to interpretation, both by those within and those outside of it. It is a fine line to straddle. Islam particularly has been demonized by those who read the Quran to do just that, because of terrorism. All religions are vulnerable to that.
A debate about Islam and criticism from within and outside of it. https://youtu.be/w5wclhYcWaA
Religious texts are always open to interpretation, both by those within and those outside of it. It is a fine line to straddle. Islam particularly has been demonized by those who read the Quran to do just that, because of terrorism. All religions are vulnerable to that.
A debate about Islam and criticism from within and outside of it. https://youtu.be/w5wclhYcWaA
When you have a son who is a Muslim, you have to take a fresh look at Islam. I did, and I am still not impressed. It was interesting -- I agreed to read the Koran if he agreed to read Buddhist scriptures. I got through more than half of the Koran, he got through 0 pages of Buddhist scriptures. That aside, I was not impressed. But that is not to say that all Muslims are bad. I've met quite a few very fine people who are Muslims, both students and adults.
When you have a son who is a Muslim, you have to take a fresh look at Islam. I did, and I am still not impressed. It was interesting -- I agreed to read the Koran if he agreed to read Buddhist scriptures. I got through more than half of the Koran, he got through 0 pages of Buddhist scriptures. That aside, I was not impressed. But that is not to say that all Muslims are bad. I've met quite a few very fine people who are Muslims, both students and adults.
that is an interesting perspective you are able to offer. As father and son what sort of discussion were you able to have about it?
that is an interesting perspective you are able to offer. As father and son what sort of discussion were you able to have about it?
We didn't talk a lot about it since he didn't keep his end of the bargain. However, he did invite me to go to the mosque several times, but I declined. However, I associated with his Muslim friends quite a bit, as well as his Muslim wife. We tended to focus on other things.
Religious texts are always open to interpretation, both by those within and those outside of it. It is a fine line to straddle. Islam particularly has been demonized by those who read the Quran to do just that, because of terrorism. All religions are vulnerable to that.
A debate about Islam and criticism from within and outside of it. https://youtu.be/w5wclhYcWaA
My understanding of the Quran is that while it is a rewriting/summarization of the Bible plus the Islamic books, the more salient point is that it was written by one person, or close enough in time by a group of people such that a single voice is preserved. Compare that to the books of the Bible, which are obviously written by many people over a long period of time. This makes the Bible more confusing and open to interpretation. The Quran also benefitted from centuries' worth of Jewish and Christian Biblical interpretation that attempted to synthesize the messages of the Bible. This makes the Quran much "tighter" as it were, and reduces the space for interpretation. I think it's a major reason Islam is more doctrinally inflexible.
I found the woman in the audience who said she works with muslim women who just like Irshad voice their opposition to the way women are oppressed within the religion and are finding ways to bring reform. However Irshad and her books and the platform given to her because of her open criticism of Islam has hurt their cause, she said. Irshad Manji was favorite guest of Bill Maher and other Islamophobes. While Irshads are necessary for speaking out about her religion, she is one voice, and a loud one. And it is one view, a valid one, but a single perspective. Unfortunately because of knee jerk reaction to Islam, Muslims get targeted by such open discussion.
It is a complex problem. Interpretation is important and where it comes from and how it is colored is also important. It is best that it comes from within the religion.
My understanding of the Quran is that while it is a rewriting/summarization of the Bible plus the Islamic books, the more salient point is that it was written by one person, or close enough in time by a group of people such that a single voice is preserved. Compare that to the books of the Bible, which are obviously written by many people over a long period of time. This makes the Bible more confusing and open to interpretation. The Quran also benefitted from centuries' worth of Jewish and Christian Biblical interpretation that attempted to synthesize the messages of the Bible. This makes the Quran much "tighter" as it were, and reduces the space for interpretation. I think it's a major reason Islam is more doctrinally inflexible.
Interesting viewpoint. Reform though needs to come from within the religion, and it does.
I found the woman in the audience who said she works with muslim women who just like Irshad voice their opposition to the way women are oppressed within the religion and are finding ways to bring reform. However Irshad and her books and the platform given to her because of her open criticism of Islam has hurt their cause, she said. Irshad Manji was favorite guest of Bill Maher and other Islamophobes. While Irshads are necessary for speaking out about her religion, she is one voice, and a loud one. And it is one view, a valid one, but a single perspective. Unfortunately because of knee jerk reaction to Islam, Muslims get targeted by such open discussion.
It is a complex problem. Interpretation is important and where it comes from and how it is colored is also important. It is best that it comes from within the religion.
While I agree with the first bolded sentence, I don't quite agree with the second.
Whenever we try to analyze text, I think we have a LOT to consider as far as interpretation goes. For example, we have to consider WHO the writer is. Some younger people write better than some older people. And just because someone may lack a formal education doesn't mean that they also lack writing skills. By the same token, if someone who is somewhat educated, it doesn't mean that they write well enough for others to really get the gist of what they're trying to say.
AND, even if someone DOES write well, it doesn't mean that the average 'joe' will comprehend what's written. Some will read a verse from the bible, and take it literally, when it's really meant metaphorically.
Take something as 'simple' as the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That one single sentence has been re-fashioned, misinterpreted, and butchered since it was set in stone. I actually knew of a (convicted) rapist who used that verse in order to justify his rape against his girlfriend. After all, he was "doing unto HER" (having sex with her, albeit, against her will) that which he wanted HER to 'do unto HIM'. Never occurred to him that "DO unto..." isn't the same thing as "FORCE unto..." in that regard.
Point is, that ANY text can be misinterpreted...misconstrued...butchered...depend ing on our frame of mind...who the writer is and their intentions...time of day or time of century...male or female...
Interpretation isn't only about the writer, but also about the reader. But the reader isn't always the 'best' person to interpret.
While I agree with the first bolded sentence, I don't quite agree with the second.
Whenever we try to analyze text, I think we have a LOT to consider as far as interpretation goes. For example, we have to consider WHO the writer is. Some younger people write better than some older people. And just because someone may lack a formal education doesn't mean that they also lack writing skills. By the same token, if someone who is somewhat educated, it doesn't mean that they write well enough for others to really get the gist of what they're trying to say.
AND, even if someone DOES write well, it doesn't mean that the average 'joe' will comprehend what's written. Some will read a verse from the bible, and take it literally, when it's really meant metaphorically.
Take something as 'simple' as the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That one single sentence has been re-fashioned, misinterpreted, and butchered since it was set in stone. I actually knew of a (convicted) rapist who used that verse in order to justify his rape against his girlfriend. After all, he was "doing unto HER" (having sex with her, albeit, against her will) that which he wanted HER to 'do unto HIM'. Never occurred to him that "DO unto..." isn't the same thing as "FORCE unto..." in that regard.
Point is, that ANY text can be misinterpreted...misconstrued...butchered...depend ing on our frame of mind...who the writer is and their intentions...time of day or time of century...male or female...
Interpretation isn't only about the writer, but also about the reader. But the reader isn't always the 'best' person to interpret.
I don’t disagree. If it seemed as though I meant something else then i was not expressing myself accurately. Religious texts try, inadequately to express what is not expressible with mere words. Spirituality is intuitive, inferred.
Those within the religion, and culture, learn to extract from the texts what is important and what is not. Not perfectly, but then who is perfect? Reading the same from outside the religion, and using it to damn all those who are within it, is where malicious bamboozling lies.
The Golden Rule is not so golden precisely because it is open to interpretation, just as the rapist did. It is best instead to follow Do No Harm. We all understand what harm is.
I don’t disagree. If it seemed as though I meant something else then i was not expressing myself accurately. Religious texts try, inadequately to express what is not expressible with mere words. Spirituality is intuitive, inferred. Those within the religion, and culture, learn to extract from the texts what is important and what is not. Not perfectly, but then who is perfect? Reading the same from outside the religion, and using it to damn all those who are within it, is where malicious bamboozling lies.
The Golden Rule is not so golden precisely because it is open to interpretation, just as the rapist did. It is best instead to follow Do No Harm. We all understand what harm is.
I read this somewhere and it fits in nicely with what you stated (bolded above).
"God's message is buried under man's words"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
