A question concerning the Quran

[aneeshm]

I have to put to my readers a question concerning the Quran , the answer to which may hold a key to the understanding of the current conflict .

According to the Quran , the Quran is the indestructible , unchanging , and eternally valid word of God , and is to be seen and interpreted as such . This interpretation is also accepted by today's Muslim clergy . This is the view taught to students in Muslim countries , in both religious and secular schools ( except Turkey , which has been influenced by Europe ) . According to the Quran , Mohammad , the prophet , lived the "perfect" life . That is , all his actions were inspired purely by God and were thus the epitome of perfection .

This attitude towards the Quran and the life of Mohammad has shaped , and continues to shape , Islamic jurisprudence to this day . The foundation of Islamic law are the Quran and the Hadith ( which are a record of the Prophet's life ) , whose final authority comes from God ( because the authority of the life of Mohammad comes from the Quran , which comes from God ) . That is why Islamic law can be , in some cases , too absolutist for the liking of people who have made their own laws by the democratic process .



Western scholars and the Western public ( and also the Western-educated intelligentsia in India ) , however , do not accept this interpretation . They attempt to interpret the Quran and Hadith as they interpret other texts – secularly , with a view to history . Sometimes , it degenerates into apologism , and an attempt to interpret away some things in the Quran which are accepted as gospel by the Islamic world and by Islamic jurists . In fact , this selective re-interpretation has gone so far that anyone rejecting it is held to be anti-Muslim ( if he is not a Muslim ) , or a fundamentalist fanatic ( if he is a Muslim ) , and thus both are ignored .

This leads to a disconnect between people's perception of what the Islamic world is , and what it actually is . This disconnect prevents many people from forming the slightest understanding of the causes of the issues that the Muslim world faces today . And that is a cause for concern , because you cannot address something you do not understand .

There is an inherent contradiction in this whole scenario – can you interpret a book by any other standard than the one it has provided for itself ? Is it that , due to a fear of bringing to light the darker aspects of the religious texts , Western scholars are reluctant to use the standards provided by the texts themselves to judge them ?


Ultimately , it boils down to this : which interpretation is the “correct” one for understanding the Muslim world – the Muslim one , or the Western one ? And is it really honest to use any other interpretation than the one the text provides for itself ( irrespective of the results of such interpretation ) ?

[Spiffor]

Muslims are divided on the issue. There is not one Muslim understanding of the Quran.


Currently, there is a politically strong streak of "vulgar" Islamic fundamentalism, where the people are led by many imams to believe that the Quran is to be taken literally - without any reflection as to what "literally" means (i.e the theology behind it sucks). This isn't the first time that fundamentalism is influent in Islam, and there's a fairly similar vulgar fundamentalism occuring in American protestantism (although it fortunately didn't result in violent terror).

These vulgar fundamentalists tend to use out-of-context quotes of the Quran that fit their political agenda.

OTOH, there are also many Imams who consider that even though the Quran is indeed the true word of God, God has chosen his words so that he could be understood by the people of the time. As a result, they seek to interpret what God's actual message is, now that our modern minds don't attribute the same meanings to the words spoken so long ago. You'll find quite a bit of serious fundamentalist scholars in that streak of thought.


Also, the Muslims are very divided about the Hadith. They agree that Mohammed's life was inspired by God, but there's a divide about the extent to which Mohammed's life was perfect. Unlike the Christian version of Jesus, Mohammed is human through and through, even though he was chosen and inspired by God. As a result, you have many different schools about the hadith. Those I heard of are:
- The hadith have only a historical value. There's a reason why they aren't the Quran: Mohammed isn't God.
- The hadith are the "user's manual" for the mortals to understand God's words. The people of the time needed explanations to understand what God meant, and the hadith fill this role.
- The hadith are inspired by God, and should be a source of inspiration for believers. However, they aren't the unchanging word of God, and shouldn't be applied literally
- Mohammed is perfect, and the hadith are everlasting and should be followed literally.

---

Generally speaking, however, you are right that the Quran bears in itself a higher potential for fundamentalism than other texts. It is indeed supposed to be the direct word of God (Muhammed just repeats by heart what God told him), and this is why so many Muslim schools worldwide emphasize on learning the Quran by heart in classical Arabic, even when the students don't understand a word of it. There is also a widespread belief that the translations in foreign languages (and modern Arabic) are a tolerable introduction to Islam, but aren't the real thing.

However, the Quran is not the only religious text to have the seeds of fundamentalism. The leviticus is supposed to be the eternal law from God's mouth, yet mainstream judaism has been officially re-interpreting its ancient texts for centuries if not millenia. Even though the leviticus is not exempt of vulgar fundamentalism, it is relatively marginal in the hugeness of judeo-christianty: you'll mostly see it among those American protestants who idolize King James' traduction of the Bible.

[Spiffor]

Oh, and to react to your political point:

The Muslim world is diverse. Yes. Diverse.

Islam spans an immense territory, from central Africa to Indonesia. There are also sizeable Muslim minorities in some non-Muslim countries, including mine or yours.

You can't paint the Muslim World with a broad brush. It's way too big for that. You have countries that are so different, like
- an Indonesia that is rapidly industrializing,
- a Mali that is full of pre-Muslim traditions,
- a very westernized Tunisia,
- a schizophrenic Iran (torn between a liberal middle class and a reactionary lower class and peasantry),
- a Morocco where the State is rather more progressive than society,
- a Qatar which is becoming one of the most modern countries in the world,
- a Turkey which has undergone its own anti-religious revolution in the past,
- a Saudi Arabia that promotes vulgar fundamentalism across the world.
- an Afghanistan which is still feudal, except in the cities,
etc.

Quite a few differences between these countries. Each country had its own political dynamics (and in the case of big countries, there are often contrarian dynamics, such as in Iran). Islam has played a large role in all of them, because very few countries have separated state and religion (Turkey is the exception). But the role Islam played, and the results, are different in each individual country, and there even are differences within each country.

[aneeshm]

I am not saying that the Muslim world is not divided - it is , in fact , very divided , and very bitterly . But amongst all the divisions there runs the common thread of the acceptance of the Quran as the ultimate authority . It is irrelevant whether it is to be taken literally or interpreted - the premise behind the understanding of both is its eternal divinity .

OTOH, there are also many Imams who consider that even though the Quran is indeed the true word of God, God has chosen his words so that he could be understood by the people of the time. As a result, they seek to interpret what God's actual message is, now that our modern minds don't attribute the same meanings to the words spoken so long ago. You'll find quite a bit of serious fundamentalist scholars in that streak of thought.

But the problem with that view is that the Quran is also , according to itself , eternally valid , which precludes any question of it being chosen for a particular time or place ( otherwise the Islamic God's omnipotence , manifested in his ability to craft an eternally valid text , would be under question ) .

However, the Quran is not the only religious text to have the seeds of fundamentalism. The leviticus is supposed to be the eternal law from God's mouth, yet mainstream judaism has been officially re-interpreting its ancient texts for centuries if not millenia. The leviticus is not exempt of vulgar fundamentalism however, but you'll mostly see it among those American protestants who idolize King James' traduction of the Bible.

The same is the case with Hinduism . The difference is that Judaism and Hinduism give religious leaders the authority to change , and even discard , parts of religious texts to suit themselves . For example , many Hindu scholars have rejected the Vedas in whole or in part , and have still retained religious authority . Something like that may prove to be impossible for Islam , as there is no one authority for religious matters , nor is there any hope for a re-interpreter to gain recognition if he chooses to go through the accepted route for Muslim scholars .

[Robert]

Muhammed is not perfect in the Quran, or in the view of muslims. Muhammed asks 7 times for forgiveness for his sinds, and the muslims still pray to this date to Allah to ask if Muhammed may be saved from hell.

Isa (Jesus) is the only person in the Quran from who we do not read that he sins.
Like the muslims are waiting for the return of Isa (Jesus)

In fact the Muslims believe that the Quran is divine itself. It's more or less the word of Allah who came to us as a book. And thus in fact is the Quran as holy and perhaps even the same as Allah.

That's a huge difference with the Bible, which is a book written by men, accordring to the christians. Not dictated. Christians believe it's been inspired, but not completely 100% divine.

Like the separation of state and religion is not an option in Islam. It is an option in christianity. The Bible says that we should obey the rulers.

Therefor it's not that smart to think that the Islam will follow the same way as christianity did, regarding state and religion. Islam is in it's core a different, state-driven religion. Christianity is a personal-religion in it's core.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

However, the Quran is not the only religious text to have the seeds of fundamentalism. The leviticus is supposed to be the eternal law from God's mouth, yet mainstream judaism has been officially re-interpreting its ancient texts for centuries if not millenia.

in fact there are some striking parallels between traditional Islams use of "Itjihad" to make Sharia a living, evolving thing, and the processes by which Halacha changes in traditional Judaism. IIUC the period of 700 - 900 CE, when the main centers of rabbinic thought were the Yeshivot in Mesopotamia, in close proximity to the Abbasid capital at Baghdad, were a time of mutual interchange of ideas - the two law centered monotheisms influenced each others approaches to texts and law.

[lord of the mark]

"The difference is that Judaism and Hinduism give religious leaders the authority to change , and even discard , parts of religious texts to suit themselves "


This is NOT the case as far as traditional Judaism (today represented by the Orthodox and Conservative movements) is concerned.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by aneeshm

But the problem with that view is that the Quran is also , according to itself , eternally valid , which precludes any question of it being chosen for a particular time or place ( otherwise the Islamic God's omnipotence , manifested in his ability to craft an eternally valid text , would be under question ) .

WRT to this issue, the two branches of traditional Judaism part company. Both hold that the bible is eternally valid, and both hold that interpretation is in the hand of man. Orthodox Judaism, IIUC, sees this, however, as ultimately tending toward a "right interpretation" with change slowing down over time. Conservative Judaism, OTOH, sees the process of interpretation as one that is meant to continue, as society changes, and one that need not slow down.

I dont see how this impacts on G-ds omnipotence. The law revealed to Moses is an eternally valid text, yet the mission of the prophets was still necessary. An eternally valid text does not have to be comprehensive,
nor does it have to be subject to only one ideal interpretation to be reached at the beginning of its history. Not unless youre a fundamentalist, of course.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"The difference is that Judaism and Hinduism give religious leaders the authority to change , and even discard , parts of religious texts to suit themselves "


This is NOT the case as far as traditional Judaism (today represented by the Orthodox and Conservative movements) is concerned.

Thank you for correcting me . I did not know that . Though my point WRT Hinduism still stands - there were and still are many Hindu sects which deny the authority of the Vedas , sometimes completely . Indian reformists , like Swami Dayanand , have used the authority to re-interpret things very constructively , and have managed to bring sweeping positive changes in the lifestyles of their otherwise orthodox followers .