Anonymous wrote:DCUMers,

The more we engage the islamophobes, the more each thread disintegrates into endless back and forth, recycled arguments. Differences of opinions are great but as you all saw, these posters have an agenda, which seems to be to spread hate. We even saw this in the way they argued with the moderator, who ultimately became frustrated with them too.

So lets take back our threads by ignoring these two or three PP's and redirect our discussion back to the topic. I am privileged to have a few very knowledgeable people educating me about their own holy book and I have learned so much. Don't let these few posters detract from educating the rest of us.

Tip: don't start so many threads on Islam if you don't want to engage other posters on Islam. DCUM is not a dawwah site, either.

(Yes, we know it's you. Not just because of the Islamophobes taunt, but also because of a grammar problem you have in almost every one of your posts, which I'm not going to explain because it's useful in situations like this.)

DCUMers,

The more we engage the islamophobes, the more each thread disintegrates into endless back and forth, recycled arguments. Differences of opinions are great but as you all saw, these posters have an agenda, which seems to be to spread hate. We even saw this in the way they argued with the moderator, who ultimately became frustrated with them too.

So lets take back our threads by ignoring these two or three PP's and redirect our discussion back to the topic. I am privileged to have a few very knowledgeable people educating me about their own holy book and I have learned so much. Don't let these few posters detract from educating the rest of us.

Anonymous wrote:Pp why are you following me around threads, desperate to communicate with me onthis thread about a subject in another thread. It doesn't matter to me if you are a different poster than the islamophobe. I have answered you on that thread. Go there.

Are you sure it's the islamophobe? not the evangelicalchristiancrusader? It must be difficult to keep your enemies so well catalogued.

Pp why are you following me around threads, desperate to communicate with me onthis thread about a subject in another thread. It doesn't matter to me if you are a different poster than the islamophobe. I have answered you on that thread. Go there.

Anonymous wrote:You keep saying that to yourself. Its your DCUM mantra.

I'm the PP you're talking to on the eye-for-eye thread, and I am NOT the PP above who deconstructed your long post. Shall we assume you've stopped answering questions and are back in insult mode?

You keep saying that to yourself. Its your DCUM mantra.

Anonymous wrote:

Why don't you go pick another fight with the moderator? Nobody even knows who the hell you are, but you sure know how to make friends everywhere you go.

This is an anonymous board. It is set up for no one to know who the hell anyone is. I am not here to make friends, and if the moderator has a problem with me, he won't need my invitation to pick up a fight. Or yours. I've never attacked you personally, and it is not my fault that you cannot stand for your argument to be questioned.

Were you the one who started the thread about the fanatical Imam a couple of days ago? If so, you scarcely got any views or replies on it. Get a clue. Nobody wants to engage with someone who spreads hate. Move along now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many, many people read the Quran and do not speak modern Arabic and particularly do not know the historical context of the verses. They are not able to interpret some of the verses in the Quran so they have no choice but to take a literal interpretation.

For example, the verses about killing apostates, if one doesn't know historical context, the importance of it, and reads it literally, will assume that apostasy in an of itself must be punishable by death. In fact, many a Sharia have incorporated this literal reading even though it is not in accordance with the intent of the law.

I'm not going to engage in a debate with you on whether the Quran truly intends for apostates to be put to death. That is not the subject of this thread. I'm simply using it as an example.

Upon further study, the student of the Quran will learn that not all apostates should be put to death. The true intent of the Quran has been misinterpreted by many.

I never mentioned apostasy and it is in fact not mentioned in the Quran, so I don't know why you mention it. Perhaps because it fits your argument of a little valiant scholar surrounded by Islamophobes. If you're not going to engage in a debate with me, the sun will still rise in the morning.

Anonymous wrote:

The typical reader of the Quran does not know Islamic history and many Qurans, particularly the ones read in Islamic countries, do not provide commentary or any historical context.

It's kind of amusing that you say this, seeing as the overwhelming majority of tafsir were authored by Islamic scholars in Islamic countries.

Anonymous wrote:
So were people aware that the "most authentic" hadith or historical context information existed. Of course they were. But those who were aware it existed and knew the history or studied the hadith were the learned men and these were few. Which one of them predicted the type of problems Muslims would face in modern society with violence being committed in Islam's name? If they could have predicted these problems, they would have painstakingly included the historical context in the Quran.

Violence committed in Islam's name is absolutely not a new historical phenomenon, and it should not present any particular challenges with interpretation since so much of the Quran talks about warfare. What IS a new phenomenon for the Muslim discourse is the idea of Muslims not being the majority, much less a ruling majority, and living as a relatively powerless, disenfranchised minority in the West. The totality of Shariah is based on the assumption of the Muslim rule in the Islamic state. It does not address living next to non-Muslims except as minorities under the Muslim rule. The whole concept of "fiqh of the minorities" (i.e. how Muslims should behave when they are a minority in a country they do not control) didn't even exist thirty or forty years ago. That's the area - not the warfare - that's causing the hottest debates between scholars since this is quite plainly a new situation for the Muslim communities.

Anonymous wrote:
As for your comment about nonArab readers, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Both Arab and nonArab readers would benefit from a more thorough reformed Quran.

You brought up the Quranic translators. I pointed out that providing historical commentary and context has nothing to do with the issue of translation.

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not going to go back and forth on this. I think this is quite self explanatory. If it's bothering you this much, you need to start doing your own research and making a few phone calls to learn more about reforming the Quran.

You sound a lot like that islamophobe who was simply interested in arguing, not learning. If you want to argue, join a debating club.

You forgot to add "bad cook mother of porn addict evangelicalcrusaderevangelical granny in miniskirt."

Why don't you go pick another fight with the moderator? Nobody even knows who the hell you are, but you sure know how to make friends everywhere you go.

Ha! Bad cook mother of a porn addict here. Thanks for the props, PP!

Anonymous wrote:Many, many people read the Quran and do not speak modern Arabic and particularly do not know the historical context of the verses. They are not able to interpret some of the verses in the Quran so they have no choice but to take a literal interpretation.

For example, the verses about killing apostates, if one doesn't know historical context, the importance of it, and reads it literally, will assume that apostasy in an of itself must be punishable by death. In fact, many a Sharia have incorporated this literal reading even though it is not in accordance with the intent of the law.

I'm not going to engage in a debate with you on whether the Quran truly intends for apostates to be put to death. That is not the subject of this thread. I'm simply using it as an example.

Upon further study, the student of the Quran will learn that not all apostates should be put to death. The true intent of the Quran has been misinterpreted by many.

I never mentioned apostasy and it is in fact not mentioned in the Quran, so I don't know why you mention it. Perhaps because it fits your argument of a little valiant scholar surrounded by Islamophobes. If you're not going to engage in a debate with me, the sun will still rise in the morning.

Anonymous wrote:

The typical reader of the Quran does not know Islamic history and many Qurans, particularly the ones read in Islamic countries, do not provide commentary or any historical context.

It's kind of amusing that you say this, seeing as the overwhelming majority of tafsir were authored by Islamic scholars in Islamic countries.

Anonymous wrote:
So were people aware that the "most authentic" hadith or historical context information existed. Of course they were. But those who were aware it existed and knew the history or studied the hadith were the learned men and these were few. Which one of them predicted the type of problems Muslims would face in modern society with violence being committed in Islam's name? If they could have predicted these problems, they would have painstakingly included the historical context in the Quran.

Violence committed in Islam's name is absolutely not a new historical phenomenon, and it should not present any particular challenges with interpretation since so much of the Quran talks about warfare. What IS a new phenomenon for the Muslim discourse is the idea of Muslims not being the majority, much less a ruling majority, and living as a relatively powerless, disenfranchised minority in the West. The totality of Shariah is based on the assumption of the Muslim rule in the Islamic state. It does not address living next to non-Muslims except as minorities under the Muslim rule. The whole concept of "fiqh of the minorities" (i.e. how Muslims should behave when they are a minority in a country they do not control) didn't even exist thirty or forty years ago. That's the area - not the warfare - that's causing the hottest debates between scholars since this is quite plainly a new situation for the Muslim communities.

Anonymous wrote:
As for your comment about nonArab readers, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Both Arab and nonArab readers would benefit from a more thorough reformed Quran.

You brought up the Quranic translators. I pointed out that providing historical commentary and context has nothing to do with the issue of translation.

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not going to go back and forth on this. I think this is quite self explanatory. If it's bothering you this much, you need to start doing your own research and making a few phone calls to learn more about reforming the Quran.

You sound a lot like that islamophobe who was simply interested in arguing, not learning. If you want to argue, join a debating club.

You forgot to add "bad cook mother of porn addict evangelicalcrusaderevangelical granny in miniskirt."

What would reform look like?

Many, many people read the Quran and do not speak modern Arabic and particularly do not know the historical context of the verses. They are not able to interpret some of the verses in the Quran so they have no choice but to take a literal interpretation.

For example, the verses about killing apostates, if one doesn't know historical context, the importance of it, and reads it literally, will assume that apostasy in an of itself must be punishable by death. In fact, many a Sharia have incorporated this literal reading even though it is not in accordance with the intent of the law.

I'm not going to engage in a debate with you on whether the Quran truly intends for apostates to be put to death. That is not the subject of this thread. I'm simply using it as an example.

Upon further study, the student of the Quran will learn that not all apostates should be put to death. The true intent of the Quran has been misinterpreted by many.

A reformed interpretation of the Quran can provide historical context and a more narrow reading.

The typical reader of the Quran does not know Islamic history and many Qurans, particularly the ones read in Islamic countries, do not provide commentary or any historical context.

So were people aware that the "most authentic" hadith or historical context information existed. Of course they were. But those who were aware it existed and knew the history or studied the hadith were the learned men and these were few. Which one of them predicted the type of problems Muslims would face in modern society with violence being committed in Islam's name? If they could have predicted these problems, they would have painstakingly included the historical context in the Quran.

As for your comment about nonArab readers, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Both Arab and nonArab readers would benefit from a more thorough reformed Quran.

I'm not going to go back and forth on this. I think this is quite self explanatory. If it's bothering you this much, you need to start doing your own research and making a few phone calls to learn more about reforming the Quran.

You sound a lot like that islamophobe who was simply interested in arguing, not learning. If you want to argue, join a debating club.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we really think that changing a few diacritical marks, even with the blessing of a committee of scholars of Islam and 7th century Arabic, will result in extensive or progressive changes to Quranic rules on inheritance, apostasy, punishment ?

NO I do not think there ail be "extensive" changes. I think the interpretation will change because additional commentary will be provided from original texts to explain rules better.

Do you think that people who provided previous commentaries did not see the original texts?

Basically, what is the basis for your expectation that the review of ORIGINAL texts will yield something different from what already exists? You may not like what people wrote in the 8th century, but you can't deny they were closer to the source than you ever will be.

It was not an issue of whether the original texts were seen. They still exist. They were seen before and will be seen again. But maybe the most authentic hadith or historical context associated with the verse will provide the footnote commentary to show the limited circumstances in which the ruling was evoked. The end result could be a different interpretation or different application or a narrower or broader reading of the Quranic verses.

Those who translated the Quran probably did not see a reason to do that before.

Again, what is the basis for your belief that the outcome of this will be any different from the currently available tafsir? Were people not aware of the "most authentic" hadith or the historical context associated with the verse? You speak of translators as if this exercise should be conducted primarily for the pleasure of non-Arabic readers. There is no reason why this should not be done in Arabic, for Arabs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we really think that changing a few diacritical marks, even with the blessing of a committee of scholars of Islam and 7th century Arabic, will result in extensive or progressive changes to Quranic rules on inheritance, apostasy, punishment ?

NO I do not think there ail be "extensive" changes. I think the interpretation will change because additional commentary will be provided from original texts to explain rules better.

Do you think that people who provided previous commentaries did not see the original texts?

Basically, what is the basis for your expectation that the review of ORIGINAL texts will yield something different from what already exists? You may not like what people wrote in the 8th century, but you can't deny they were closer to the source than you ever will be.

It was not an issue of whether the original texts were seen. They still exist. They were seen before and will be seen again. But maybe the most authentic hadith or historical context associated with the verse will provide the footnote commentary to show the limited circumstances in which the ruling was evoked. The end result could be a different interpretation or different application or a narrower or broader reading of the Quranic verses.

Those who translated the Quran probably did not see a reason to do that before.