No book has been dragged more frequently into the forum of public opinion by the media and more intensely scrutinized, sometimes unscrupulously, by Western scholars than the holy the Quran. Westerners began to be more inquisitive about this book after 1979 and the inauguration of an Islamic government in Iran (IRI) and particularly throughout post 9/11 years. Many contemporary Western religious scholars seem to believe that Islamic radicalism is rooted in the teachings of the Quran and the distorted interpretations of some of its verses. However, what they overlook perhaps is that the Quran is basically different from other holy books they are familiar with, namely the Bible.
Modern scholarly interpretations of the Quran, unlike that of the Bible, have been slow to address situations in the contemporary environment. The Quran has been unfairly denied flexibility by Muslims who believe it is the miracle of Mohammad and the sacred words of God, and thus none of its verses (ayah) can be altered, invalidated, or be revoked. However, the generalities, piecemeal approaches, ambiguities, and frequent abrupt shifts in the themes of the Quran have given rise to a widely diverse assortment of interpretations of its verses by both Sunni and Shia interpreters who interpret the Quranic verses based on what they believe in, their theological persuasions and the kind of hadiths (sayings, practices, and traditions of Prophet Mohammed) they can find to support their arguments.
Some interpreters have tried unapologetically to reconcile some verses of the Quran with the scientific realities of today’s world, albeit superficially. They often come up with face-saving interpretations of verses viewed by many progressive scholars as outdated because they are plainly inapplicable in modern world or seem to instigate violence. The reemerging Muslim fanatics, who commit violent acts in the name of Islam, sift through the Quranic verses, medieval Islamic texts, and hadiths to muster validation for their dreadful ideology or find excuses for their transgressions. They also make reference to the deeds and the theological preaching of the Prophet Mohammad in search of justifications. It is really hard to fathom why they dig so deeply into the Quran and into the medieval Islamic texts, often cynically, in search of ambiguities, loopholes, to support something that is incompatible with core modern moral values and with the essence of human dignity.
Mullahs claim that they have a better understanding of the Quran and have a monopoly right to interpret its verses despite the fact that the Quran is simple and it is written in an easy-to-understand language because it always addresses the ordinary people. When you read the Quran carefully, you do occasionally come across statements and stories that may not conform to the conventional wisdom or to your definition of morality or fairness. However, to generation after generations of ordinary believers such stories are morally inspiring and, much to my chagrin, many act upon them and one wonders why. I suppose perhaps some Muslims are the bearers of unbending traditions. They are conditioned to look at the Quran as a whole through the eye of faith and not necessarily logic. They consider the Quran to be the miracle of the Prophet Mohammed, the irrefutable and unchangeable words of God. Any unqualified translation of the Quran is forbidden and everyone should recite the qualified translation in Arabic.
Muslims should accentuate its overall moral messages and should not care about non-literal translation for such a translation may distort the meaning of the scripture. It is recommended that the Quran be recited for the soothing power of its verses, poetic sound, and the tranquility of its rhythms. There are wide-spread the Quran recitation contests in Muslim countries. In Iran, they have even invented a quartet-like the Quran recitation band whose members recite verses of the Quran in harmony as if they were the lyrics of a popular song. Muslims are told it is blissful to keep a copy of the Quran at home and to recite it as often as they can. But for non-Arabic speaking Muslims, what is the point of this admonition to read the Quran only in Arabic if they don’t understand its meaning?
According to many Islamic scholars, the Quran was put together years after the passing of the Prophet Mohammed. It is a collection of his teachings and public declarations during the last twenty years of his life. It consists mostly of moral/ethical advice, ancient stories, legal injunctions, and simple civic, judiciary, and family rules and guidance. It has many distinctive attributes but, unlike an ordinary book, it lacks coherency; it is not chronological; it does not follow a persistent theme; and its tone is monopolistic. Frequent abrupt swings from one subject to another may sometimes confuse the naïve readers who may not understand the rationale behind them. To many, such shifts may engender contradictions and convey ambiguous messages. Nonetheless, Muslims believe there is an unknown divine mystery hidden in every verse and argument in the Quran.
Reading different Suras (chapters ) of the Quran often feels like navigating through the life and the career of Mohammed and his quest to spread his monotheistic messages. This is especially true when tracing his strategic transitions as visibly depicted by many verses in the Quran. The reader follows his journey from being a morality teacher and a compassionate personality in Mecca to being a statesman, ruler, and conquering leader in Medina. One thing that is undeniable is that the real life situations at the time persistently dictate the tone and the premise of Mohammed’s proclamations. In other words, the correlation between the tone of his public statements and the situations he encountered is undoubtedly detectable.
We should be mindful of this fact when reading the Quran and trying to understand the intended denotation of many verses, especially the ones that appear to espouse violence or allow retributive justice. For instance, the early the Quranic verses advocating intolerance, and rarely the use of force were revealed in fact as mainly self defense responses to the harassing behavior of non-believers at the time of Mohammed. Some Islamic leaders, however, claim that all the Quranic verses, even those recommending use of force, Jihad, are the words of God and eternally valid. They can, therefore, be invoked anytime to wage war or to punish so-called infidels, the enemies of the faith [whatever that means] at any time.
According to Islamic narratives, the Quran existed mainly in oral form during the life of Mohammed. It was preserved orally via public recitation of its verses by some of his close devotees. It was composed and complied into written form by Othman several years after the passing of the Prophet Mohammed, twenty years according to some Islamic sources. No one can dispute the fact that the Quran is based on the public preaching of Mohammed, but given the fact that its final version was put together so many years of his death, it was unlikely to preserve everything he uttered precisely. The probability of misquote, misrepresentation, and inaccuracy is significant. It is also unclear who had the authority to decide which ones of the many preserved fragments, oral and otherwise, are the exact utterances of the Prophet Mohammed, and who decided what should be included in the Quran, and what should not, and how such decisions were made,
It seems that religious specialists have an explanation for almost every conceivable anomaly and Islamic experts, mullahs in particular, are no exception. They offer plenty of rhetorical claims when it comes to exploiting the Quranic verses. This is a sly ploy by Shia mullahs who even hate Othman, the man who is credited for putting together the final version of the Quran. They consider him an illegitimate successor to the Prophet Mohammed and a usurper. Relying on the verses of the Quran, or more commonly on hadiths, mullahs often offer weird explanations for the claims they make, especially for the ones they cannot substantiate. Throughout the centuries they have concocted hundreds of thousands of hadiths to bolster their arguments especially when they could not find any reference in the Quran to prove their case. They firmly cling to their claim that the Quran represents the unadulterated words of God revealed to Mohammed and as such its edicts are eternal.
The Quran can be invoked at any time, if deemed warranted, by religious leaders who consider themselves to be the guardians of umma (Muslim community). Because there is no scientific proof for such an assertion, it is likely that it might have been Mohammed himself who composed the Quranic verses because many of them are tailored to the specific situation(s) he was confronting and had to deal with. Therefore, he may in fact be the bona fide author of this holy book. Mullahs may have vital interests to deny his authorship. To my mind, it is a diminution of Mohammed’s stature if we believe that he was only an instrument for passing on God’s messages to the people of Arabia without any of his own input.
To me, the important thing is the Quran’s content and how it inspires us, Muslims, to conduct ourselves and how we are viewed by others. Linking the Quran to mundane sources not only does not diminish its standing and its sanctity, it is indeed an advisable move that augments its flexibility and its applicability for more liberal adaptation of its injunctions and thus elevates its proper place in the modern world. The Quran can become more illuminating and inspiring for many present-day Muslims who are often mired in its many impractical and antiquated rules. The rigid-minded mullahs who believe that the Quranic rules are the irrefutable words of God should not keep modern Muslims from open-minded inquiry into their religion and its holy book.
Regardless of the source of its revelation, the Quran should be revered by Muslims and be interpreted by unbiased experts in a positive, constructive way for the betterment of all Muslims. I find it ironic that some demagogues try to apply medieval rules to modern time and spread their gloomy version of Islam through the use of state of the art information equipment such as computers, wireless electronics, and the Internet. One would think they would prefer to utilize medieval modes of communication to promote their medieval ideas and to underscore their rejection of modernity.
|Recently by varjavand||Comments||Date|
|The Rise of Secular America|
|Oct 29, 2012|
|War with Iran and the Economy|
|Oct 10, 2012|
|Why Do We Believe? II|
|Aug 25, 2012|
|نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز||Dec 04|
|Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day||Lawyer says death sentence suspended||Dec 03|
|Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day||Iterview with mother||Dec 02|
|احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱||Dec 02|
|Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day||46 days on hunger strike||Dec 01|
|Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti||In Barcelona||Nov 30|
|گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی||Nov 30|
|Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day||Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years||Nov 30|
|محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین||Nov 29|
|Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day||Kurdish Activist on Death Row||Nov 28|
Dear Varjavandby Cost-of-Progress on Wed Feb 10, 2010 03:17 PM PST
You know Islam is rotten , but because your essence of being is apparently intertwined in Islam, you can't fathom the thought of denouncing it.
That's is why our country is the way it is today.
1-2% of 1.3 billion is between 1.3 to 2.6 million EXTREMISTS. Wow. Is that not enough to give you a chill down your spine? As for the peaceful muslims, why don't they speak out against violence; against suicide bombings, against stoning, against the treatment of women, against gential mutilatiuons, against every assbackward thing related to Islam....? Why don't they SPEAK OUT?
You know what? Islam is great, but can we have it separated from politics, from Iran, from our being by....say 2 parsecs?
Love Islam? Keep it in the house......................
Omid Parsiby thexmaster on Wed Feb 10, 2010 03:13 PM PST
Those events are pretty minuscule compared the rest in the tables. The crimes under the IRI should be in there, and the Iran-Iraq war didn't make the cut. But the Iran-Iraq war shows the complexities of the world we live in.
You would probably file it under a religious war, and it did have religious implications especially on the Iranian side. But what about reasons like land? Oil? ethnicity? If you look at the list, you can see clearly geopolitics is what drives wars, and all the misery which comes with it. Religion at best is used as a tool, just like any ideaogy. Nation-states can also be considered an ideology, and more people have died for country than other reason. Even so called holy wars like the Crusades have their geopolitical undertones.
I understand that radical Islam has been a problem in the past few decades and is a challenge in the 21st century. But It comes to the point that some people start rewriting history to show all the misery throughout history has been caused by Islam, or religion in general. It's clearly not true. The world and its history is far more complex than that. But i'm hoping Islam starts progressing in the way Christianity has in the past. If this regime falls and leads to secular state, this would be a big step.
Dear Commenters;by varjavand on Tue Feb 09, 2010 07:50 PM PST
Obviously, the cruel and inhumane acts that have been committed under the name of Islam by some misguided followers have generated revolt and have inspired some people to reject Islam outright as often expressed in this forum by some writers or commenters. I believe doing so is neither a welcoming nor a practical solution to extremism or the misuse of religion by IRI. I have posted many article in recent months on this site about religion in general and Islam in particular. I do not consider myself qualified to pass any judgment or meant to espouse the idea of rejection of religion. People have certainly an inalienable right to practice any religion and subscribe to any moral values. That is their business as long as they tolerate others’ and do not inspire any violence or exploit the compassion of unsuspecting people. The fact that atrocities are committed by some under the cover of Islam does not justify the complete rejection of Islamic faith nor trashing this otherwise peaceful faith.
There are nearly 1.3 billion Muslims in the world only between 1 to 2 % are known to be extremists. While the actions of this minority group are in national news in every network almost every day, the majority of Muslims who go about their everyday business and engage in act of kindness do not get any media attention.
I was born and raised, perhaps as all of us did, in a Muslim family, neither my father, nor my mother as well my brothers and sisters could read or write, manifestly illiterate. They are all devout Muslim, No doubt ever cross my mind that I can have a better caring, peaceful, tolerant, kinder family.
Diversity is one of the biggest social issues in the United States, it is promoted and respected. We cherish not only racial diversity but also mental and intellectual diversity. Please post your comments as long as they made with respect to norms and other’s opinions, be cordial and collegial.
We are all constraint by our finitude which may render us incapable of making judgment about certain topics such faith and religion. Rejecting or trashing Islam, the religion that is practiced by more than one billion people is not the solution. Instead, as I expressed elsewhere, we need to inject the light of plausibility into our religion through every possible cracks we can find on the wall of dogmatism that has surrounded Islam. What else except the faith and spirituality help millions of ordinary people to endure the intolerable hardship that strikes occasionally our life? What else give them hope to continue and strive for a more prosperous tomorrow?
Response To ThexMaster:by Omid Parsi on Tue Feb 09, 2010 05:37 PM PST
You can't be Iranian or else you would know that your Wiki list is oddly missing Khomeini's genocide of political prisoners and religious and ethnic minorities (50,000+) is missing from the tables titled "Crimes against humanity" and "Genocide"... Just as the Iran-Iraq war with roughly 1000,000 dead is missing from the table titled "Wars".
I don't know where you hail from, but in the civilized world that I live in I can pick up my dog's shit with pages from the Bible or the Old Testament, and though most people, if they take notice at all, will not like me and will be offended to varying degrees, they would let it pass minding their own business, or respond with words. That is because the civilized laws derived from the Constitution that separates church and state will be on my side.
That is vastly different from the case with Islamists who are enraged to death (as proven by the case of Salman Rushdie and Danish Cartoons) if anyone, anywhere in the world did anything that they deemed offensive to their beliefs. This form of reaction shows Islamists' boneheaded ignorance of the limits of their power, their thin egos, low self-esteem and thuggish mindset.
Whether you like it or not, some people might like to use pages from your beloved Quran to pick up dog shit. And what are you going to do about it? Issue a Fatwa?! Bite them?! Attack them with a broken bottle? Summon the Taliban or the Baseej?! And what if someone did that and you did not even see it?! Are you then going to kill yourself for not being omnipresent to police everyone with a dog?!!
What you choose to do in such circumstance will determine whether you are a normal "Muslim" citizen or an "Islamist" psychopath. A sane Muslim will not want to poison his/her life over something that is entirely out of his/her control. As for the Islamist psychopath ... well, realistically, the only thing he/she can do is blow himself/herself up!! I just thought it would be nice if he/she did so in the middle of a vast desert, with no one in sight and no collateral damage... Sadly however, as we see almost everyday, that is too much to expect from a Jihadist psychopath ...
Bravoby thexmaster on Tue Feb 09, 2010 06:17 AM PST
"Listen to the news and the attrocity of religions (especially Islam) every day and every minute. Religion should be replaced by humanity, since all religions are lacking it."
What a novel idea. Get rid of religion, and greed, anger, jealousy, intolerance, hatred, war will be ridden from the world. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot taught us that well. Just look at the statistics of the worlds most deadliest wars and atrocities:
It's clear religion is the agitator and motive, and not land, power and ethnicity.
I believe Omid Parsi showed us best of how removing religion can lead to 'humanity', after suggesting all muslims should blow themselves and the quran be used to pick up dogshit.
Why even bother?by Cost-of-Progress on Mon Feb 08, 2010 05:12 PM PST
Why waste energy on a book written by others for others in a diffrent language, but forced on Persians? Once the politics and religion are separated, it is even less relevant.
Lots of other books to read. Try one from Greg Iles for starters...Awesome.
Mansorby varjavand on Tue Feb 09, 2010 06:36 AM PST
I don’t understand what is so insulting about the statement that “Quran is simple and it is written in an easy-to-understand language” According to many of its own verses, Quran addresses ordinary people, hence it is revealed in simple language according to these verses. Those who wish to impose their own brand of Islam on others believe Quran is so complicated that we need expert to interpret it for us and thus crafts rules and orders for every aspects of our life.
54 – 22, 32,and 40; And We have indeed made the Quran easy to understand and remember, then is there any that will remember
14- 4, And We sent not a Messenger except with the language of his people, in order that he might make (the Message) clear for them. Then Allah misleads whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.
19 – 97, And We have made (this Scripture) easy in thy language only that they may heed.
2 – 242, Thus Allah makes clear His Ayat (Laws) to you, in order that you may understand. 12 – 2, Verily, We have sent it down as an Arabic Quran in order that you may understand.
43 – 3, We verily, have made it a Quran in Arabic, that you may be able to understand (its meanings and its admonitions).
No priesthood in Islam
It seems you are determined to stick to your idea that Quran is a Book of Science” as I stated before, it is not. It is the book of ethical advices and moral guidance according to its own declaration. Nowhere in Quran can we find any verse we may infer from that Quranic verses are intended to be compatible or explainable with modern science. If that is the case, then prophet should be a scientist not a moral agent. Again, attempt to validate Quranic verses with scientific method, I believe, is futile and a self-defeating proposition, claiming that Quran is a book of science is a disservice to Islam and Muslim because science is dynamic and always changes. A new theory may render the old one obsolete, what happens then if a scientific researches prove that some of Quranic verses are not compatible with science. If we try to provide scientific rational for Quran, we also have to do the same for hundreds of hadiths, such as the one which prescribe Camel’s urine as a remedy for shortness of breath, is there a scientific proof for this hadith? The claim that prophet Mohammed could not read or write does not mean that he was illiterate. There are lots of people who could not read or write nonetheless, they are quite knowledgeable and have a sophisticated worldview.
Please read this article, you may find some answer to some of your other questions. //iranian.com/main/2009/feb/muslim-modern
what ifby MRX1 on Mon Feb 08, 2010 07:14 AM PST
just what if there is nothing positive or consturctive about Quran, then what....
Where is you evidence?by mansor12121 on Sun Feb 07, 2010 11:58 PM PST
I, Utterly, cannot understand how could you make these ironically shocking claim? This time you’ve been very insulting, my friend, but in a very polite way and well outlooked phrases. Insulting (with delicacy) because there should be a minimal level of respect to logic, otherwise people would think that you are making fun of their minds. You should support your claims with evidences. You say: “Quran is simple and it is written in an easy-to-understand language”!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????? wherever you live you can meet some arabs (preferably non-religious ones), and they will tell you how simple is the Quranic language!!!!!!!!! and how eeeeeeeasy! for any arab person to unerstand it!!! Just tell them that YOU think it was written with a simple language, and you definitely will see how much they will agree with you…………. but sarcasticly.
With all of my respect, I think you belong to another group of those helpless Mullas. You make Fatwas about things that you might, or might not, heard about once in your life.
You said UNAPOLOGETICALLY!!!
Some interpreters have tried unapologetically to reconcile some verses of the Quran with the scientific realities of today’s world, albeit superficially. They often come up with face-saving interpretations of verses viewed by many progressive scholars as outdated because they are plainly inapplicable in modern world or seem to instigate violence.You said so after staying silent in front of all the evidences that I gave you
You were totally helpless to give any explanation regarding the facts that I gave you except saying that you are not a scientist!!! None of these scientific realities of today’s world that I gave you (mentioned literally in Quran) was superficially!!! reconciled with it. The best academic (non muslim) scientists approved it with very detailed scientific explanation. And, as I told you before, I can myself alone post a very long list of these undeniable facts with the scientific approval.
There are countless scientific facts mentioned in Quran that would totally compose a huge complex of knowledge that is absolutely, entirely and comprehensively impossible for an illiterate man who lived in the desert 1400 years ago to come up with by any means at that time. Away from science, Quran and hadith states that muslims will divide into dozens of different groups. Sometimes so different that they will fight each other. Albeit all of these groups, Quran promised that there will be only ONE Quran for all muslims. Hadiths says that there will be a very big amount of false hadiths but never false or absent Quran verses.
Actually, that was a tremendous challenge. Each Islamic group could very easily put new or remove verses in Quran according to their favour exactly similar to what they did for hadiths. Again very easily each group could claim that THEIR Quran is the correct one as each one of them claims that their Islam is the absolute truth. That was practically and technically very easy because Quran was gathered many years after the death of Mohammed PUH. Also, the lack of an effective communication facilities among people of extremely wide locational, cultural, linguistic and other diversities in the Islamic world. And, the general state of ignorance among most people for many hundreds of years. That was not only very feasible, it’s actually the only logical result that Quran should have ended up with if it wasn’t under the protection of the divine super-power.
How can you explain an illiterate man to write a book with around an 80000 words with this amazing balance that has the following:You can easily verify the statistics if you just have an electronic copy of Quran with a search engine or you can do it manually if you like to. Just do it and make sure.After you complete your verification you must give me an explanation other than coincidences!!! or miss-recocilements!!!
"Day (yawm)" is repeated 365 times in singular form, while its plural and dual forms "days (ayyam and yawmayn)" together are repeated 30 times. The number of repetitions of the word "month" (shahar) is 12.The number of repetitions of the words "plant" and "tree" is the same: 26The number of times the words, "world" (dunya) and "hereafter" (akhira) are repeated is also the same: 115
The word "satan" (shaitan) is used in the Qur'an 88 times, as is the word "angels" (malaika).
The word faith (iman) (without genitive) is repeated 25 times throughout the Qur'an as is also the word infidelity (kufr).
The words "paradise" and "hell" are each repeated 77 times.
The word "zakah" is repeated in the Qur'an 32 times and the number of repetitions of the word "blessing" (barakah) is also 32.
The expression "the righteous" (al-abraar) is used 6 times but "the wicked" (al-fujjaar) is used half as much, i.e., 3 times.
The number of times the words "Summer-hot" and "winter-cold" are repeated is the same: 5.
The words "wine" (khamr) and "intoxication" (saqara) are repeated in the Qur'an the same number of times: 6
The number of appearances of the words "mind" and "light" is the same: 49.
The words "tongue" and "sermon" are both repeated 25 times.
The words "benefit" and "corrupt" both appear 50 times.
"Reward" (ajr) and "action" (fail) are both repeated 107 times.
"Love" (al-mahabbah) and "obedience" (al-ta'ah) also appear the same number of times: 83
The words "refuge" (maseer) and "for ever" (abadan) appear the same number of times in the Qur'an: 28.
The words "disaster" (al-musibah) and "thanks" (al-shukr) appear the same number of times in the Qur'an: 75."Sun" (shams) and "light" (nur) both appear 33 times in the Qur'an.
The number of appearances of "right guidance" (al-huda) and "mercy" (al-rahma) is the same: 79
The words "trouble" and "peace" are both repeated 13 times in the Qur'an.
The words "man" and "woman" are also employed equally: 23 times.
Arabic Gibberish, Imposed by Savage Bedouin Invaders ...by Omid Parsi on Sun Feb 07, 2010 04:52 PM PST
Isn't it utterly absurd for Iran that has obsessively sought its illusive "independence" for over a century to be enslaved by the delirious, nonsensical book of savage Bedouin invaders, written in their gibberish language?!
Let's rid the world of the Islamist zealots and their sadistic fetish for an object that embodies perpetual misery... Let's be clear: One should be free to use the pages of the "holy" book to pick up dog shit without recrimination. That is FREEDOM and anyone who cannot tolerate the thought, please go and explode yourselves (in the name of Allah) in the middle of a vast empty desert...
Quran is no different than any other phenomenaby Kooshan on Sat Feb 06, 2010 05:30 PM PST
In general, religion is meant to save "a person" from evil acts in this world. Unfortunately, Quran (just like any other worldly existence) is used as a tool in different forms:
1. Some use it just for it's genuine purpose to be a better human being.
We see the beauty, justice, compassion, and etc in this form of interretation.
2. Some use as they interpret to serve their cause.
We see the ugliness, coersion, corruption, injustice, prejudice, etc in this form of interretation.
3. Some do not believe in it's sacredness.
We see anhilation of civilizations in this form of interretation.
I'm sure you can find many examples in history that fits the 3 categories. It is a universal law and it applied to any religion based on saving humanity.
Today, Muslims are challenging the world and world is challenging Islam! I'm not sure if the basic problems we have now is any different than human civilization had seen in the past. I would say if the people in the era of Pharoahs wake up(provided can understand what is going on in the world) would feel and sympathize with the pains and anguish of majority of world habitats! The basic problems are the same, the forms has changed.
There wasby Anonymous Observer on Sat Feb 06, 2010 04:32 PM PST
a History Channel documentary on the Quran which was pretty interesting. I Googled it and these videos came up, which are either the whole, or parts of the program:
The study was pretty unbiased. The most interesting aspect was that a German Quran scholar believes that parts of the Quran are written in Aramaic and not Arabic. They sound similar (as the two language are), the words have quite different meanings. For example, the word "Houri" that is interpreted in Arabic as referring to "beautiful virgins" means "white grapes" in Aramaic, which was at the time of Mohamed a very expensive delicacy. Therefore, when the Quran talks about that reward, it may have not meant what the general population today believes it to mean. Pretty interesting stuff.
Quran is not the most scrutinized bookby Abnabot on Sat Feb 06, 2010 01:07 PM PST
I beg to differ with you in almost every point. Please type bible or torah scrutinized (as is in your text) in google to receive text of criticism of those wholly books, by astronomers and scientists from every age and century, i.e. Voltair. Why going far, read what R. Dawkins writes about religions such as "The God Delusion". No interpretation of Quran can dress it up humanly. Aren't you getting sick of the 30 years phrase of "mullahs are bad but Islam is good"! The only thing that any religous book, including quran, can inspire is violence. Listen to the news and the attrocity of religions (especially Islam) every day and every minute. Religion should be replaced by humanity, since all religions are lacking it.
Veiled Prophet,by varjavand on Mon Jun 28, 2010 03:33 PM PDT
Your point is valid and well taken. You know how precarious is to write critically about the holy books like Quran. I had to be careful not to undermine the sacredness of this holy book that I have cherished for so long and not to stir any controversy while making a point just for discussion purpose. This article is intended to generate a discourse on many important issue about our holy book. My hope is to increase its public exposure in the US. The way we should deal with many critical issues related to Islam hinges on the how we deal with those issues.
نمیدونم چرا یه دفه این به یادم اومد!!The Phantom Of The Opera
Sat Feb 06, 2010 06:24 AM PST
صرف نظر از داوری امروزمان نسبت به قدرت تشخیصمان مان در آن
دوران، مطمئن هستم که یکی از معروفترین شعارهای زمان انقلاب را به خاطر
دارید که میگفت:
" ما میگیم شاه نمیخایم، نخست وزیر عوض میشه؛ ما میگیم خر نمیخایم، پالون خر عوض میشه"...
The Pahlavis, all mullahs, and all public figures associated with the Green Movement must disclose the source and the amount of their wealth/income.
Two points:by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sat Feb 06, 2010 05:37 AM PST
Varjavand: No book has been dragged more frequently into the forum of public
opinion by the media and more intensely scrutinized, sometimes
unscrupulously, by Western
I don't see what you base this on. The bible has been through far greater analysis both good and bad in the Western public forum and media.
Princess: if you set out on the condition that the interpretation should be positive, then it would not be unbiased.
This is true. It is impossible to do an unbiased analysis if the result has to be positive. Unbiased analysis means being open to any result including negative.
Interesting!by Princess on Sat Feb 06, 2010 03:54 AM PST
Mr Vagarvand, I haven't read your article yet, but your title was enough to evoke an urge in me to comment.
Surely as an educated individual you must see that, "The Quran should be interpreted by unbiased experts in a positive, constructive way" is a contradiction in terms.
It has to be either unbiased (which would allow both the positive and the negative), or if you set out on the condition that the interpretation should be positive, then it would not be unbiased.