Do the Koran only people consider the following?

[sum]

Hello MesMorial

In your post addressed to me you presented a lot of quotes and responded to them.

None of these quotes were mine. You have addressed your post to the wrong person.

sum

[sum]

Hello MesMorial

You told me that you do not believe the Koran has a divine origin. You have also said that you are not a muslim. You reject the ahadith.

Do you follow in any way the guidance in the Koran even though you do not believe in its divine origin?

sum

[darth]

If one accepts that the quran does not have divine authorship, then it follows that they accept that the quran has human authors (we are deliberately discounting aliens here).

Any book authored by a human is a presentation of the thoughts/beliefs/ideas of the author. Hence the idea of "reinterpretation" wherein one tries to pass of one's own thoughts and ideas as someone else's is a form of fraud (opposite to plagiarism where you pass off someone else's ideas as your own). How can one project their thoughts and ideas to somebody that lived centuries ago? The only case where such interpretations is allowed and is not a problem - is when the original intent of the author is maintained. In the case of the quran, the quraners ignore all historical evidence that could prove the original intent of the author. You can never know the original intent without referring to the authors own examples/explanations as recorded (orally or written) by him or contemporaries. Hence such reinterpretations are not acceptable and are all fraudulent.

They quraners need to state clearly that they do not know the original intent of the verses and are reinterpreting them as they think is correct. Thus the new interpretations can be accepted, not as the quran, but as the thought and beliefs of the people that interpreted them.

Secondly, there are those that would use the variations in the arabic language to try and reinterpret. This would again perpetuate a fraud. A lot of the arabic grammar rules were standardized based on the quran, which again goes back to the arabic language as spoken during the time of mo and specifically by the sect of mo. What was accepted as the meaning by the people of that time, mo's contemporaries and those that followed them is what is allowed. Any deviation from this will not prove the original intent of author and thus cannot be accepted. Usage of a word in one verse in a particular way does not make it the standard interpretation elsewhere. As long as the same word was interpreted in multiple ways, as long as all the explanations of scholars going back to the time of mo use the different meanings, as long as those interpretations were not challenged by mo's contemporaries or descendants, one cannot suddenly claim a meaning different from traditional explanations. Thus idribuhanna in 4.34 mean "beat" and not "kiss" or "cite" or "put away" or anything else.

Lastly, we are not talking of specific sects. Sunnism and shiasm is of no difference to us. We are not focusing on any specific sunni or shia traits but islam as a whole.

[MesMorial]

Hello MesMorial

In your post addressed to me you presented a lot of quotes and responded to them.

None of these quotes were mine. You have addressed your post to the wrong person.

sum

I am sorry I wrote your name instead of "Darth."

Again, I do not follow any of the Qur'an except what I would already agree with.

[sum]

Hello MesMorial

Your quote -
Again, I do not follow any of the Qur'an except what I would already agree with.

Would you agree that the Golden Rule is an ideal way to relate to others?

sum

[MesMorial]

Darth;

The original intent is established only by hearsay, and the original intent is not supported by what is written in the Qur'an. Again, my approach is to use what the Qur'an actually says against Sunnism whether ahadith are true or not. If ahadith are true, it only supports us. If they are false, it only supports this.

As for "beating", there is not enough detail in the Qur'an to allow it. "Set them forth" is perfect since it invokes a legal procedure as in 4:35. You cannot retain women to hurt them, so if they do not want to be with the husband they can get a divorce through proper means. Fearing disobedience is not grounds enough to physically hurt them.

"Beating" is also assymetrical to the solution in 4:128, where serious discussion is needed.

Since we are using the Qur'an, we get to protest against wife-abuse as well as reliance upon hearsay.


***

Your quote -
Again, I do not follow any of the Qur'an except what I would already agree with.

Would you agree that the Golden Rule is an ideal way to relate to others?

We have already discussed the Golden rule.

[sum]

Hello MesMorial

Your quote -
We have already discussed the Golden rule.

Please refresh my memory on this. Do you consider the Golden Rule to be a good basis to relate to others? To me, it seems as good as you can get. Would you agree?

sum

[darth]

Darth;

The original intent is established only by hearsay, and the original intent is not supported by what is written in the Qur'an.

How do you know what was the original intent of author if all that is recorded as original intent is only hearsay? How do you know it is not supported by what is written by the quran? I say the original intent as recorded by mo's actions and what the quran says match perfectly. What you are saying is - "I do not have the original intent and I do not like the meaning of the words in the quran as understood historically. So I will change the meaning of the words". So, not only have you rejected the historical records, you have also written a new book. This is okay, as long as you understand that it is your new book. Your method can never be shown to be the original author's words and intent. Trying to pretend that your words are actually the original authors is a fraud. Quit doing that.

As for "beating", there is not enough detail in the Qur'an to allow it. "Set them forth" is perfect since it invokes a legal procedure as in 4:35. You cannot retain women to hurt them, so if they do not want to be with the husband they can get a divorce through proper means. Fearing disobedience is not grounds enough to physically hurt them.

Put forth does not make sense in the 4.34. What is 'put forth'?

"Beating" is also assymetrical to the solution in 4:128, where serious discussion is needed.

You want to make it symmetrical, but unfortunately it is not. In 4.34 a man is allowed to punish (in varying degrees even if you ignore the beating) a woman whom he suspects of being arrogant/disobedient. In 4.128 a woman is given permission to enter into some kind of agreement if she fears her husband is in contempt of her. A woman cannot advice or ignore the bad husband, can she? A woman cannot 'idribuhanna' her husband, can she?

Since we are using the Qur'an, we get to protest against wife-abuse as well as reliance upon hearsay.

Unfortunately, even without what you call "hearsay", اضربوهن idribuhanna still remains. And a very valid meaning for اضربوهن idribuhanna is 'beat them'. You would think if that had not been the original intent of the author in 4:34, he would have used another word that did not have this very clear and very valid meaning?

[MesMorial]

Hello MesMorial

Your quote -
We have already discussed the Golden rule.

Please refresh my memory on this. Do you consider the Golden Rule to be a good basis to relate to others? To me, it seems as good as you can get. Would you agree?

sum

You stopped replying in "A Question for MesMorial". I hope this refreshes your memory.

...

[MesMorial]

How do you know what was the original intent of author if all that is recorded as original intent is only hearsay? How do you know it is not supported by what is written by the quran? I say the original intent as recorded by mo's actions and what the quran says match perfectly. What you are saying is - "I do not have the original intent and I do not like the meaning of the words in the quran as understood historically. So I will change the meaning of the words". So, not only have you rejected the historical records, you have also written a new book. This is okay, as long as you understand that it is your new book. Your method can never be shown to be the original author's words and intent. Trying to pretend that your words are actually the original authors is a fraud. Quit doing that.

Hi Darth!

My interpretation of the Qur’an does not rely on hearsay, so your question is odd.

The Qur’an does not support reliance on hearsay, but says that the Qur’an should be studied alone.

The only example you can think of is 4:34, and even jizya can be argued from a linguistic AND contextual viewpoint.

I have given my reasons why wife-beating is not derived from anything but hearsay, and unlike you I am not defending it. I am not sure why you have a problem with this interpretation. My point is not to appeal to Sunnis, if you get my point. I am appealing to logic, not to the hearsay Muhammad followers/defenders (such as yourself). You are simply saying these things are good for Sunnis (because Sunnis accept the Qur’an, and you uphold the particular Qur’an they should be accepting).

Put forth does not make sense in the 4.34. What is 'put forth'?

Set them forth (separate from them) via legal avenues. I have said this multiple times.

You want to make it symmetrical, but unfortunately it is not. In 4.34 a man is allowed to punish (in varying degrees even if you ignore the beating) a woman whom he suspects of being arrogant/disobedient. In 4.128 a woman is given permission to enter into some kind of agreement if she fears her husband is in contempt of her. A woman cannot advice or ignore the bad husband, can she? A woman cannot 'idribuhanna' her husband, can she?

She can separate (4:130). Whoever owns the home can stay. The context is about dowry, but it applies to injustice in general.

Unfortunately, even without what you call "hearsay", اضربوهن idribuhanna still remains. And a very valid meaning for اضربوهن idribuhanna is 'beat them'. You would think if that had not been the original intent of the author in 4:34, he would have used another word that did not have this very clear and very valid meaning

It is quite obvious. Verse 4:34 can be understood as instructing to strike one’s wife under a particular circumstance, or it can be understood as banishing/setting them forth through official channels (e.g. arbitration).

The more Qur’anically-consistent approach is the latter (but that is a separate topic), and even if Harry decided to go for the traditional one, he would have to embarrass himself:

Harry would have to explain why the Qur’an says to do three things all at once, these things being admonishment, separation in beds and striking. These would have to be as a preventative, since the verse says to only do it if they FEAR ill-conduct (maybe based on past experiences). Thus Harry would be asking his wife to provide proof that she was not being disobedient, or else beat the truth out of her.

Now physically striking one’s wife based on unproved reasons runs counter to the need for proof (e.g. 24:4).

However, suspicion itself results in marital dissonance, which is why the ultimate penalty of setting them forth/citing them to authority works perfectly. 4:35 continues 4:34 by stating that if the HUSBAND does not take the appropriate action (i.e. citing his wife) of 4:34, SOMEONE ELSE should appoint an arbiter.

Just to clarify, if a husband intends to cite his wife to authority, he must of course let her know (admonish her), and separate from her (just like men must not have sex with their wives if they have intention to divorce).

Now if someone interprets 4:34 to mean “strike” the wife, this begs the question of how many times, and what if they do not obey? How can an outsider only FEAR separation if a man is abusing his wife? Surely the woman would have no reason to even WANT to remain with him (i.e. there will be a definite divorce, and not one to be feared!)!

Thus a Muslim really has no choice but to reject “wife-beating”.

viewtopic.php?f=69&t=10951

If you want to support wife-beating, then please gives us details on how hard, when to stop etc.. After all, the Qur’an is detailed. Also provide a single scrap of substance to support ahadith.

Get to the point.

Cheers.

[sum]

Hello MesMorial

Your quote -
You stopped replying in "A Question for MesMorial". I hope this refreshes your memory.

This was a rather impolite reply - I expected better of you.

Your quote -
The cruel punishment I have a problem with is Hell.

Your replies are always clouded and never very specific. Is this a muslim trait that still lingers within you? You were asked about the cruel punishments in the Koran and the only one that concerned you, according to your reply. was hell. It would appear, therefore, that you support beheading, crucifixion, amputations and exile.

Your quote -
Ironically, the Qur’an only uses the Golden Rule the rejection of which was one of your main concerns.

This is a very woolly reply. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the Koran abides by the Golden Rule regarding all people. Am I correct in understanding this to be the case?

Can you think of a better way for people to relate to one another than the Golden Rule?

sum

[MesMorial]

sum;

Hello MesMorial

Your quote -
You stopped replying in "A Question for MesMorial". I hope this refreshes your memory.

This was a rather impolite reply - I expected better of you.

Not really; short reply for a short memory. I feel no guilt in being a bit more forceful when less has failed.

Your replies are always clouded and never very specific. Is this a muslim trait that still lingers within you? You were asked about the cruel punishments in the Koran and the only one that concerned you, according to your reply. was hell. It would appear, therefore, that you support beheading, crucifixion, amputations and exile.

The problem is most likely your good ability to cloud the issue. For example, 5:33 does not negate the golden rule (or the gold-plaited iron rule). 5:38 is a separate matter, a deterrent. It is not the golden rule and I would have a problem with it as law, but I am sure folks would have ample warning such that they would be stupid to receive it.

If you want to talk about the golden rule rather than legislation (different), I am not sure where it is not in the Qur’an.

This is a very woolly reply. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the Koran abides by the Golden Rule regarding all people. Am I correct in understanding this to be the case?

Can you think of a better way for people to relate to one another than the Golden Rule?

Not as wooly as that. I already provided points, including evidence that laws are equivalent for all folks.

Perhaps you should work on your comprehension before asking something else. Otherwise I would think you were attempting something else.

[sum]

Hello MesMorial

Your Islamic background is still present in your replies. You are using my words in your replies which muslims commonly do. If we stick to just one small point, on its own -

Your quote -
The cruel punishment I have a problem with is Hell.

This comment of yours was in a reply to me asking you if you supported the cruel punishments in the Koran and you gave the above reply. Your reply can only be interpreted as meaning that you support the cruel punishments in the Koran except for Hell.

Is this correct?

sum

[darth]

My interpretation of the Qur’an does not rely on hearsay, so your question is odd.

The Qur’an does not support reliance on hearsay, but says that the Qur’an should be studied alone.

You are unable to prove that your interpretation matches the original intent of author. Hence it is to be dismissed as a 21st century hearsay

The only example you can think of is 4:34, and even jizya can be argued from a linguistic AND contextual viewpoint.

(4.34 is not my only example. It is one example).

You cannot argue from a linguistic point of view since there is no arabic language treatise dated back to the time of author that explains usage of words at the time of author. Similarly you do not have the context since you have discarded all historical documents related to mo's time. Thus your explanations do not explain the author's original intent. Hence again to be dismissed as 21st century hearsay

I am appealing to logic, not to the hearsay Muhammad followers/defenders (such as yourself).

It is not "logic" to change words in a book without showing that it matches author's original intent. It is "fraud". Logic is - discarding a book that is illogical, erroneous and divergent from humane values. Logic is - to stop treating such a silly book as a philosophical treatise and simply treat it in a historical manner (like cave paintings) as the ranting of a 7th century madman

I will put a response to your points on 4.34 in the other thread.

[MesMorial]

Hello MesMorial

Your Islamic background is still present in your replies. You are using my words in your replies which muslims commonly do. If we stick to just one small point, on its own -

Your quote -
The cruel punishment I have a problem with is Hell.

This comment of yours was in a reply to me asking you if you supported the cruel punishments in the Koran and you gave the above reply. Your reply can only be interpreted as meaning that you support the cruel punishments in the Koran except for Hell.

Is this correct?

sum

But I don't have an Islamic background beyond a year.

Cruelty is defined as knowingly causing pain and suffering to another. Again, cruelty towards a cruel person is law, and it enforces the golden rule on people.

Perhaps you can see my problem.

[MesMorial]

Darth;

You are unable to prove that your interpretation matches the original intent of author. Hence it is to be dismissed as a 21st century hearsay

Assuming the Qur’an is divine, then we would demonstrate the likely intent of the author was not “beat”.

You cannot argue from a linguistic point of view since there is no arabic language treatise dated back to the time of author that explains usage of words at the time of author. Similarly you do not have the context since you have discarded all historical documents related to mo's time. Thus your explanations do not explain the author's original intent. Hence again to be dismissed as 21st century hearsay

The Qur’an is sufficient to discover the use of the word. Muhammad is irrelevant since when using it against religion, we have to talk under the “assumption” that it is God’s word for Sunnis.

It is not "logic" to change words in a book without showing that it matches author's original intent. It is "fraud". Logic is - discarding a book that is illogical, erroneous and divergent from humane values. Logic is - to stop treating such a silly book as a philosophical treatise and simply treat it in a historical manner (like cave paintings) as the ranting of a 7th century madman

Which author? That is your fallacy. You are unable to get the point.

Cheers.

[MesMorial]

Please also provide the link.

[darth]

Assuming the Qur’an is divine, then we would demonstrate the likely intent of the author was not “beat”.

Then it get even more complicated. If it is not of human authorship, then we need to determine which non human authored it. We cannot assume it is God. It can just easily be authored by the devil. If the author is the devil, then it could very well mean "beat". Get it?

The Qur’an is sufficient to discover the use of the word. Muhammad is irrelevant since when using it against religion, we have to talk under the “assumption” that it is God’s word for Sunnis.

Just talking of 4:34 shows that the quran is insufficient. Even you believers cannot decide what the quran says - is it "beat her/banish her/cite her"? Depends on who is explaining it, right?

Which author? That is your fallacy. You are unable to get the point.

Yes, which author, mess? Can you tell us who authored the quran?

Obviously, from 4:34 we know the nature of this author - he is either someone who wants to beat women or else he is someone who uses words that have the meaning strike/beat when he means something else. In the first case he is a violent misogynist and in the second case he is a dumb idiot. Which one are you picking? (At least I do not commit the blasphemy of calling this person "divine".)

[MesMorial]

Then it get even more complicated. If it is not of human authorship, then we need to determine which non human authored it. We cannot assume it is God. It can just easily be authored by the devil. If the author is the devil, then it could very well mean "beat". Get it?

No, it is you who does not get it. If I am arguing on a theological level, it means I must work with the assumption that God wrote it.

Just talking of 4:34 shows that the quran is insufficient. Even you believers cannot decide what the quran says - is it "beat her/banish her/cite her"? Depends on who is explaining it, right?

This point is explained in the other thread.

Yes, which author, mess? Can you tell us who authored the quran?

You are funny.

[sum]

Hello MesMorial

You are still avoiding giving specific answers.

The Koran specifies the following punishments - beheading, crucifixion, amputations and lashings.

Do you think that these are cruel and unacceptable and should have no place in modern society?

sum