Not sure I see the problem in theory

Post #246,186 by ChrisR 2/25/06 10:14:57 PM Reply	Not sure I see the problem in theory You nor I could probably care less about what the Muslims (or any other religion) says about our ultimate punishment or reward. The problem is not that we're going to hell. The problem is any attempt to make life on earth hell, or worse, expedite the trip. That's not to say that it doesn't influence the behavior of the adherents. But unless the text says that it's ok to kill, maim, or otherwise mistreat non-believers, then I don't have a problem with them believing whatever it is they want to believe. So is there one set of rules that govern behavior towards believers versus non-believers in the here and now? That's really the only relevant question - unless, of course, we're engaging in proselytizing as opposed to apologetics. My belief is that those who mete out the justice of God, proclaim themselves to be God. But then I personally have much more faith in the 17th and 18th century period of enlightenment than I do the Roman or Turkish periods. Freedom to choose, whether it be choosing such things as a deity, science and/or music is the most important quality of what it means to be human. I suspect that people that are coerced into believing, by means of either coercion or pressure, are ultimately nulling and voiding their part of the bargain.
Post #246,198 by Another Scott 2/25/06 11:42:04 PM Reply	I should have added more context. I'm interested in how Muslims resolve the apparent contradictions between verses in the Quran that advocate peace and co-existence with other religions (especially Judaism and Christianity) and those like 5:10 which seem to point to something different. I know much less about the Quran than about the Bible, but it seem to me that, like the Bible, one can find verses to support either side of the issue. So is there one set of rules that govern behavior towards believers versus non-believers in the here and now? That is indeed the question. And since the Quran seems to be, at best, ambiguous about that, it points to the importance of examining the words and actions of those political and religious leaders who point to the Quran as supporting their views. On the BBC yesterday, I head a story about Sharia. A [link\|http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-02-19T164056Z_01_L19720800_RTRUKOC_0_UK-RELIGION-BRITAIN-MUSLIMS.xml\|recent poll] indicates that 40% of Muslims in the UK want Sharia applied to Muslim areas there. A few short interviews were conducted, one with a UK Muslim, one with a Canadian Muslim (who opposes Sharia law in Canada, where it was advocated [link\|http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3599264.stm\|a couple of years ago]). A Muslim scholar was also asked about cases where Sharia have been applied recently - like a sentence of [link\|http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/10/23/nigeri4117.htm\|stoning in Nigeria]. He said that Sharia dates back to a time when death was punishment for offenses in many cultures, but that Sharia itself does not demand stoning. It, rather, is a system of rules that is consistent with Islam. Since it's based on [link\|http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/beliefs/sharia/practical.shtml#start\|interpretations of the Quran and the Sunnah rather than codified laws], there are often misinterpretations. With the implication that there's nothing inconsistent with having Sharia practiced in the UK or Canada or elsewhere. I found his arguments unconvincing, myself. In short, Islam seems to be quite maleable, just as Christianity is. Being able to trace the Quran back to Mohammad, and having a single authoratative text, doesn't seem to eliminate the ambiguity that seems to exist and that is common in other religions (like Christianity). So, you're right, I'm not worried about my soul too much. ;-) I'm hoping to gain better understanding of how systems and other Muslims resolve the apparent contradictions in the Quran. Cheers, Scott.
Post #246,226 by JayMehaffey 2/26/06 2:45:16 PM Reply	Theological answer [link\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_%28exegesis%29\|abrogation] Naskh, an Arabic language word usually translated as "abrogation" and alternately appearing as the phrase al-nāsikh wal-mansūkh ("the abrogating and abrogated [verses]"), is a technical term for a major genre of Islamic legal exegesis directed at the problem of seemingly contradictory material within or between the twin basises of Islamic holy law: the Qur'ān and the Prophetic Sunna. In its application, naskh typically involves the replacement (ibdāl) of an earlier verse/tradition (and thus its embodied ruling) with a chronologically successive one. The complete suppression (ibtāl) of a regulation so that not even its wording remains is recognized as well, though only in the case of the Qur'ān. Quite simply, when two parts contradict each other, which ever one was said by Muhammed last is considered offical. Then the fun starts, because the Koran isn't in chronological order there are verses where you can arrange things so that which ever verse you want is last. Muslim scholars also use the standard Biblical methods. Hair splitting arguments over trivial differences between verses, careful choice of the amount of context given for verses to obscure it in some cases and detail it out in others. Arguments over which verses are allusions and other literary constructs and which should be read literally. Claims that the scope of some verses are very narrow and apply only to specific people or places or periods in history while other verses have a broad scope and apply always. There are fewer arguments that a word in the Koran meant something different then it does now, but that does come up from time to time. In fact the only one you don't see are aguments about how something should be translated, because all serious religious discussion of the Koran is done in Arabic. But there is a closely related problem in the recitation of the Koran though. There are several different ways of pronouncing the verses of the Koran because the original arabic doesn't contain vowel information. In must cases these differences are trivial differences, but in some they disagree about the tense of a sentence or other significant feature. The Koran itself isn't subject to the arguments about which books should be included and which shouldn't, but the Hadith are a critical part of the faith and are subject to even more arguments in that regards then the Bible. In practice, it works rather like the Bible. People come to a conclusion, and then they think up verses that support their posistion. Jay Of course the religion also influences what conclusions they come to. People know what their religion considers acceptable and what matters are considered dogma.
Post #246,228 by Another Scott 2/26/06 3:19:52 PM Reply	Interesting. Thanks.

Welcome to IWETHEY!