Announcement

Collapse

Comparative Religions 101 Guidelines

Welcome to Comp Religions, this is where the sights and sounds of the many world religions come together in a big World's Fair type atmosphere, without those delicious funnel cakes.

World Religions is a theist only type place, but that does not exclude certain religionists who practice non-theistic faiths ala Buddhism. If you are not sure, ask a moderator.

This is not a place where we argue the existence / non-existence of God.

And as usual, the forum rules apply.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Muslim vs. Jewish interpretations of holy books

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Muslim vs. Jewish interpretations of holy books

    Why do Muslims today tend to interpret the Qur'an more literally than Jews interpret the Torah? Basically, it seems that altho both books support killing people who have gay sex, almost no Jews today seem to believe killing them is a good idea, but a significant number of Muslims continue to support it. In a similar way, Sabbath breaking is a capital offense in the Torah but I'm pretty sure they don't kill people in Israel if they light a fire on Saturday. On the other hand, both Israel and predominantly Muslim countries have anti-blasphemy laws (but in Israel there is no death penalty for blasphemy while in many Muslim-majority countries there is). Is it simply that Judaism is not an evangelical religion, so there is no need to try to force compliance on nonbelievers? Or is there another reason?

    Also, just to be clear, I recognize that there are a variety of interpretations among both Muslims and Jews; I'm speaking in broad general terms.
    Find my speling strange? I'm trying this out: Simplified Speling. Feel free to join me.

    "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do."-Jeremy Bentham

    "We question all our beliefs, except for the ones that we really believe in, and those we never think to question."-Orson Scott Card

  • #2
    "interpret Quran literally"---probably does not actually mean what the literal words say---it most likely means--interpret "law" "literally" (which in this context means harshly).
    ...for example, in some (muslim-majority) countries---the anti-blasphemy laws actually comes from British law--which was put in place as a protection of religion---but is now being abused.....(but abuse of law also occurs with modern (mis) interpretations and (mis) applications of Sharia.) My own opinion on this matter is that Modern law is formulated as a basis of punishment (retributive justice)---that is, law is to be used to punish a human beings for crimes. But "Law"(fiqh) was used (in Islamic history) mainly as a mechanism to settle disputes equitably. Thus the bulk of dispute resolutions concerned civil/commercial matters.... The Quran does deal with some issues that could be considered "crimes" (within Islam) such as adultury, theft, treason...etc.

    The Quran does not approve of (male) homosexuality but does not give any punishment for homosexuality so generally the verse about adultery is used---but this verse is interpreted to apply to public adultery. (4 witnesses required).

    Sharia is for Muslims only---but Modern law practices are not very amenable to legal pluralism within a geographical territory---Modernity prefers that one law applies to all. This distorts the classical practice of Islamic jurisprudence which was meant to be plural. Islamic jurisprudence has a purpose and a methodology. The Quran is a Guide---but it is not a textbook of law, and there are other sources besides the Quran in the formation of Jurists opinions.

    Generally, (classical)Muslim jurists understood that Justice must be balanced with compassion and mercy so, although criminal punishments seemed harsh (Deterrent justice) the harsh law was meant as a preventive and not to be applied. The principle was that the judge must use his/her discretionary power to bend towards compassion and mercy as much as possible.

    There are a few accusations of "literal" interpretations of the Quran---but this has little to do with law---rather, it concerns the issue of anthropomorphism of God. for example ---if the Quran mentions the "right hand" of God---is it referring to what we human beings see as the shape of the human hand or is it metaphorical---or something in-between....etc...and other such contentions/disputes....

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by siam View Post
      "interpret Quran literally"---probably does not actually mean what the literal words say---it most likely means--interpret "law" "literally" (which in this context means harshly).
      ...for example, in some (muslim-majority) countries---the anti-blasphemy laws actually comes from British law--which was put in place as a protection of religion---but is now being abused.....(but abuse of law also occurs with modern (mis) interpretations and (mis) applications of Sharia.) My own opinion on this matter is that Modern law is formulated as a basis of punishment (retributive justice)---that is, law is to be used to punish a human beings for crimes. But "Law"(fiqh) was used (in Islamic history) mainly as a mechanism to settle disputes equitably. Thus the bulk of dispute resolutions concerned civil/commercial matters.... The Quran does deal with some issues that could be considered "crimes" (within Islam) such as adultury, theft, treason...etc.

      The Quran does not approve of (male) homosexuality but does not give any punishment for homosexuality so generally the verse about adultery is used---but this verse is interpreted to apply to public adultery. (4 witnesses required).

      Sharia is for Muslims only---but Modern law practices are not very amenable to legal pluralism within a geographical territory---Modernity prefers that one law applies to all. This distorts the classical practice of Islamic jurisprudence which was meant to be plural. Islamic jurisprudence has a purpose and a methodology. The Quran is a Guide---but it is not a textbook of law, and there are other sources besides the Quran in the formation of Jurists opinions.

      Generally, (classical)Muslim jurists understood that Justice must be balanced with compassion and mercy so, although criminal punishments seemed harsh (Deterrent justice) the harsh law was meant as a preventive and not to be applied. The principle was that the judge must use his/her discretionary power to bend towards compassion and mercy as much as possible.

      There are a few accusations of "literal" interpretations of the Quran---but this has little to do with law---rather, it concerns the issue of anthropomorphism of God. for example ---if the Quran mentions the "right hand" of God---is it referring to what we human beings see as the shape of the human hand or is it metaphorical---or something in-between....etc...and other such contentions/disputes....
      When an iman issues a fatwa about jihad and killing people, is that based on British law? Siam, would you be willing to personally tell the leaders of ISIL, ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other militant Muslims that their interpretations of Islam are wrong and that they should not be killing all these people in the name of Islam?
      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
        When an iman issues a fatwa about jihad and killing people, is that based on British law? Siam, would you be willing to personally tell the leaders of ISIL, ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other militant Muslims that their interpretations of Islam are wrong and that they should not be killing all these people in the name of Islam?
        Are you personally responsible for confronting every crackpot Christian that misuses sacred text to justify violence?
        Siam isn't responsible for crazy people's behavior.
        Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
          Are you personally responsible for confronting every crackpot Christian that misuses sacred text to justify violence?
          Siam isn't responsible for crazy people's behavior.
          I am certainly not suggesting he is.
          Last edited by robrecht; 12-15-2016, 07:52 AM.
          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
            I am certainly not suggesting he is.
            What was the point of this question?

            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
            Siam, would you be willing to personally tell the leaders of ISIL, ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other militant Muslims that their interpretations of Islam are wrong and that they should not be killing all these people in the name of Islam?
            Look at it honestly.

            What would a 'No' answer mean?
            What would a 'Yes' answer mean?

            You're a well written person, robrecht - thoughtful, really - so don't take my bagging on you to heart.
            I just hate to see nutty right wing rhetoric make it into your otherwise thoughtful offerings.
            Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
              What was the point of this question?


              Look at it honestly.

              What would a 'No' answer mean?
              What would a 'Yes' answer mean?

              You're a well written person, robrecht - thoughtful, really - so don't take my bagging on you to heart.
              I just hate to see nutty right wing rhetoric make it into your otherwise thoughtful offerings.
              A 'no' might simply be a completely understandable fear of violent Muslim extremists, and I would not fault siam in the least for such a response. A 'yes' might indicate an heroic willingness to confront one's own coreligionists for their shameful use of sacred texts. I would hope that some Muslim saints are doing something along these lines, but, again, this would be heroic in the extreme so I cannot say it is expected. But I would like Muslims and others to be able to talk about the best ways to confront these extremists. In the past, siam has sometimes tended to only focus on everything that is bad about Western culture, and I don't disagree with such critiques, but I do think more is needed from Muslims to address these issues.

              Thank you for the compliment, by the way.
              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
                Are you personally responsible for confronting every crackpot Christian that misuses sacred text to justify violence?
                We would loudly and clearly denounce it, and denounce those who are teaching/directing the violence. AND, we would encourage and congratulate law enforcement for bringing them to justice.

                Siam isn't responsible for crazy people's behavior.
                How do you know what he does in real life?
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  We would loudly and clearly denounce it, and denounce those who are teaching/directing the violence. AND, we would encourage and congratulate law enforcement for bringing them to justice.
                  I know that when I spent time posting on atheist forums that I quickly grew tired of the demands to apologize for every goofy thing someone has done in the name of Christ over the past 2,000 years.
                  I was once asked to condemn rape and apologize to a woman because she was raped by her youth pastor.

                  It was downhill from there.
                  Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Except in Islam, going by the Koran and the early history with Mohammad hisself, the peaceful Muslims are the unorthodox ones. They are the aberration, not ISIS and the 'radical' muslims. They are just doing what Mohammad taught and did himself and wrote down in the Koran.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by siam View Post
                      There are a few accusations of "literal" interpretations of the Quran---but this has little to do with law---rather, it concerns the issue of anthropomorphism of God....
                      Or the thirst for world domination.

                      VIDEO 1000 Muslims block London streets chanting Allahu Akbar to demand Islamic caliphate


                      The street outside the empty embassy in Belgrave Square, London, was closed off as it filled with protestors and Islamic leaders chanting loudly and calling for America to be punished over Aleppo.

                      The demonstration became an alternative to an official rally calling for an end to the bloodshed in Syria outside Downing Street.

                      During the speeches which lasted almost an hour the crowd chanted Allahu Akbar 'God is the greatest' and cheered for those calling for a global caliphate.

                      A poet invited to talk shouted: "We need a Caliph who will clean up these streets. Who will smack up armies and who will back beef [fighting].

                      "Backhand your missiles back to your land, that’s the plan.

                      "World domination at hand. We can expand and take out these fools."
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
                        I just hate to see nutty right wing rhetoric make it into your otherwise thoughtful offerings.
                        I don't see why you need to call it "nutty right wing" rhetoric when progressitards are just as good, if not better at utilizing the same sort of rhetoric.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                          When an iman issues a fatwa about jihad and killing people, is that based on British law? Siam, would you be willing to personally tell the leaders of ISIL, ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other militant Muslims that their interpretations of Islam are wrong and that they should not be killing all these people in the name of Islam?
                          ----Yes.

                          to clarify some terms---Imam/Sheikh is a scholar (both of jurisprudence and theology), Fatwa is a non-binding legal opinion. (since the Islamic legal tradition is pluralistic---there are many opinions even within a particular school of law.) A Faqih is an Islamic jurist (one who has studied Fiqh/jurisprudence) and Usul is the methodology at arriving at law.

                          Some violent extremist groups are clearly criminals/criminal gangs abusing religion as a legitimizing tool for greed, power, or ego. Which is why I disagree with the use of the term "Jihad" when referring to such people because Jihad is essentially a struggle for Justice---and the misuse of the term can validate the criminal activities of the extremists as done "for justice".
                          Yet, there are Muslim groups who have legitimately taken up arms "for justice" in opposition to oppression. Consider, the Rohingya (Muslims) of Burma are facing persecution and genocide, they have tried to find asylum in other countries but are being refused---if they take up arms against the government of Burma in self-defense---are they violent extremists/terrorist? Should I condemn them? There are tensions in China between the Uyghur (Muslims) and the Han Chinese. The Chinese government calls a few of the Uyghurs as extremist/terrorist---are they? or are they activists/freedom fighters?---or are some activists and others criminals?

                          Even more troubling (for me) are the non-violent extremists. These are people who hold extreme exclusivist views and while they may not necessary have/use weapons, they can cause much strife and discord ...and even terror (extreme harassment). Such people want to divest Islam of its diversity and insist on a monoculture---that only their way/view is right. To say to such people that their views are "unislamic" is to fall into the same trap of making a particular view dominant (mine not theirs)....which endangers that Islam becomes more of a monolith than it already is...

                          So the problem (for the Muslim community/Ummah) is two-fold 1) to confront violent/criminal behavior 2) to confront extremist ideas/ideology. The first should ideally be tackled using law, the other has to be challenged using philosophy/principles of ethics. The 2nd part is already being done by both Muslim scholars and young Muslims. The implementation of law to deter criminal behavior can only occur once violence has stopped and order is restored. In a vacuum where there is no authority---there will not be means to have a fair and equitable system of justice. However, small independent communities in unstable regions may be able to set up their own systems so as to create order and peace, at least within their communities...?.....it is not necessary that a legal system always be state-controlled....?...

                          On the other side is state violence and oppression. When states are in control of law---the violence and oppression can become "legitimate" (lawful) and since states have power---oppression can also become systemic/normative. As a Muslim---but also as a human being what are the best ways to confront and change such a situation? It is more difficult (for me) to answer this question when the "state" is secular/non-Muslim---because, if it is a Muslim-Majority state, at least there is a possibility that Muslims can use the legitimacy and authority of the Quran and Islamic tradition to persuade people to return to Justice, Compassion and Mercy, Equality and Human dignity. This is one reason why I think that there must be more dialogue/conversations with religious philosophies, particularly with the ethical/moral dimensions so that people and communities (globally) have a reference point. (religious philosophies = ideas about the "way of life", its meaning and purpose)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                            I don't see why you need to call it "nutty right wing" rhetoric when progressitards are just as good, if not better at utilizing the same sort of rhetoric.
                            Because it was a case of 'nutty right wing' rhetoric.
                            If it was a case of 'progress moon bat babbling' I would have called it out as such.

                            Also, the right wingers are more likely to say nutty things whereas the left wingers are more likely to be nutty things.
                            Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by siam View Post
                              ----Yes.
                              Yes, in answer to which question?

                              1. Yes, when an iman issues a fatwa about jihad and killing people, that is based on British law?

                              2. Yes, you personally would be willing to tell the leaders of ISIL, ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other militant Muslims that their interpretations of Islam are wrong and that they should not be killing all these people in the name of Islam?

                              Originally posted by siam View Post
                              to clarify some terms---Imam/Sheikh is a scholar (both of jurisprudence and theology), Fatwa is a non-binding legal opinion. (since the Islamic legal tradition is pluralistic---there are many opinions even within a particular school of law.) A Faqih is an Islamic jurist (one who has studied Fiqh/jurisprudence) and Usul is the methodology at arriving at law.

                              Some violent extremist groups are clearly criminals/criminal gangs abusing religion as a legitimizing tool for greed, power, or ego. Which is why I disagree with the use of the term "Jihad" when referring to such people because Jihad is essentially a struggle for Justice---and the misuse of the term can validate the criminal activities of the extremists as done "for justice".
                              What, if anything, can Muslims do to bring these criminals/criminal gangs to justice? If they are abusing Islam, is there any authority within Islam that can be helpful here?

                              Originally posted by siam View Post
                              Yet, there are Muslim groups who have legitimately taken up arms "for justice" in opposition to oppression. Consider, the Rohingya (Muslims) of Burma are facing persecution and genocide, they have tried to find asylum in other countries but are being refused---if they take up arms against the government of Burma in self-defense---are they violent extremists/terrorist? Should I condemn them? There are tensions in China between the Uyghur (Muslims) and the Han Chinese. The Chinese government calls a few of the Uyghurs as extremist/terrorist---are they? or are they activists/freedom fighters?---or are some activists and others criminals?

                              Even more troubling (for me) are the non-violent extremists. These are people who hold extreme exclusivist views and while they may not necessary have/use weapons, they can cause much strife and discord ...and even terror (extreme harassment). Such people want to divest Islam of its diversity and insist on a monoculture---that only their way/view is right. To say to such people that their views are "unislamic" is to fall into the same trap of making a particular view dominant (mine not theirs)....which endangers that Islam becomes more of a monolith than it already is...

                              So the problem (for the Muslim community/Ummah) is two-fold 1) to confront violent/criminal behavior 2) to confront extremist ideas/ideology. The first should ideally be tackled using law, the other has to be challenged using philosophy/principles of ethics. The 2nd part is already being done by both Muslim scholars and young Muslims. The implementation of law to deter criminal behavior can only occur once violence has stopped and order is restored. In a vacuum where there is no authority---there will not be means to have a fair and equitable system of justice. However, small independent communities in unstable regions may be able to set up their own systems so as to create order and peace, at least within their communities...?.....it is not necessary that a legal system always be state-controlled....?...

                              On the other side is state violence and oppression. When states are in control of law---the violence and oppression can become "legitimate" (lawful) and since states have power---oppression can also become systemic/normative. As a Muslim---but also as a human being what are the best ways to confront and change such a situation? It is more difficult (for me) to answer this question when the "state" is secular/non-Muslim---because, if it is a Muslim-Majority state, at least there is a possibility that Muslims can use the legitimacy and authority of the Quran and Islamic tradition to persuade people to return to Justice, Compassion and Mercy, Equality and Human dignity. This is one reason why I think that there must be more dialogue/conversations with religious philosophies, particularly with the ethical/moral dimensions so that people and communities (globally) have a reference point. (religious philosophies = ideas about the "way of life", its meaning and purpose)
                              I think I understand your concerns about making Islam more monolithic than it already is, but are nonviolent extremists really more troubling for you than violent extremists? Really? While I am certainly no expert, it seems to me the violent extremists also have a monolithic view of what constitutes true Islam and they add violence on top of that.
                              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X