Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that God would send down a book to a largely illiterate population that requires degreed people to interpret it is hysterical on its face. That's just a job security thing for the Ibn Saud University graduates.

According to a biography that circulated on jihadist internet forums in July 2013, Baghdadi obtained a BA, MA and PhD in Islamic studies from the Islamic University of Baghdad.

Surely someone that has studied Islam that long is not mistaken on it's true meaning.

I would think that someone that has spent years studying Islam is a better candidate for an example of Islam than casual followers that inhabit DCUM.

To understand ISIS, you have to understand the khawarij and their history in Islam. The khawarij appear with almost every generation. The prophet (saw) warned us against them. Narrated Yusair bin 'Amr: I asked Sahl bin Hunaif, "Did you hear the Prophet saying anything about Al-Khawarij?" He said, "I heard him saying while pointing his hand towards Iraq. "There will appear in it (i.e, Iraq) some people who will recite the Quran but it will not go beyond their throats, and they will go out from (leave) Islam as an arrow darts through the game's body."

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:
I don't think we are talking about the same thing. When I say context, I'm talking about when and why the verse was revealed, there is no dispute on that as those are historical events, so your context and my context cannot be different. Shias and wahabis have their own interpretations but they are a minority , so the majority of Muslims do not practice Islam the way they do. Does it mean they are wrong? I don't agree with some of their interpretations but that is my opinion. However if someone tells me Islam says to kill unbelievers, I can theologically prove them wrong, using facts and events that are recorded and preserved and using the message of the Quran. When it comes to veiling or not, that comes under interpretation, that's a practice, so that has nothing to do with the Core of the message. There are 4 schools of thought in Sunni Islam which means, there are only 4 recognized interpretations of the major Islamic laws. Shias have their own school but they represent less than 10% of the Muslims. You don't need a priest to interpret something for you if you are learned, and have knowledge. If you've never studied the Qu'ran, how can you make up your interpretations? Muslims are supposed to learn their religion, ponder on it. The quran itself says “A book We have sent down to you, blessed, that men possessed of mind may Ponder its signs end so remember”. (38:29)

"Do they not then earnestly seek to understand the Quran, or are their hearts locked up?"

If the Word of God was stated only in very simple language, its application in a wide variety of cultures, eras, and fields of study would be extremely limited, so again, God balanced His Book between simplicity and complexity to serve the needs of all humanity at the same time.
So, whenever you read the Quran, you should ponder upon its meaning, what is the meaning of this verse? What is the meaning of this word?
This does not mean that you invent (the meaning) from yourself , this is not permissible, rather you should refer to the authentic trustworthy books of Tafseer .

And if after that, you still don't know. The Quran tells you to ask. You have to ask the people of knowledge, Allah says, "So ask of those who know the Scripture, if you know not." [(16): 43] and the Messenger (saw) said,

"…Shouldn't they have asked if they didn't know?! Verily the cure of all ignorance is to ask!" [Abu Dawood]

So when we say, we don't need priests , what is meant is we don't need an intermediary, we pray directly to God, but we definitely need scholars to understand Islam. The companions had the Prophet (saw) who explained to them the meaning of the verses, you cant learn Islam or read the Quran in a vacuum, you will just not get the message that way.

We are talking about the same thing. There's lots of room for disagreement even if you know the historical context. There are differences in figuring out what exactly happened 1400 years ago (the hadith are a good example of this). Then if you can agree on the historical facts, you still need to interpret it within the historical context. For example, do verses commanding "fight in the cause of Allah against oppressors" refer to a physical or a spiritual fight? Knowing that one such verse was delivered in the context of attacks by Meccans doesn't necessarily answer this question. Nor does historical context answer questions about what constitutes "oppression" or "persecution" (cartoons?) or where the "limits" on responding are set. Historical context raises as many issues as it solves. Enter legions of independent scholars, some of them Wahabbi or Taliban, all issuing opinions about what this verse means. If you asked 10 scholars you might get 10 different answers for some questions, and each of them would think he's right.

Oh yes, I agree. There is a lot of room for disagreement but scholars differ on a lot of things but very rarely do they differ in Aqueedah or pillars, or Fiqh. Most of the disagreements are on contemporary issues and in that case, the ruling is to follow the stronger opinion ( there usually is one). That being said, it is perfectly OK to differ in opinions, so long as those opinions are based on Qur'an and Hadith and are not going against Islamic teachings. And that's why I cited earlier the example of "Killing someone", that goes clearly against islamic teachings, so one can theologically prove that it is wrong regardless of what school of Islam you belong to. I don't think there is a difference in historical context concerning the Qu'ran but you cited that there are some about the Hadiths, I can agree with that and that's why the Qur'an is superior to the hadiths, since the hadiths are the work of men, though there is an agreement about the 2 major books of Sunni hadiths.

For the verse "Fight in the cause of Allah against" that you mentioned, if one knows the history and context, they will understand that all verses revealed during that time commanded the Muslims to be patient and not to fight, to ignore and forgive the Pagans. It was after the emigration to Madinah that the first command to fight against them came through this verse, so this verse refers to a physical fight

Anonymous wrote:The idea that God would send down a book to a largely illiterate population that requires degreed people to interpret it is hysterical on its face. That's just a job security thing for the Ibn Saud University graduates.

According to a biography that circulated on jihadist internet forums in July 2013, Baghdadi obtained a BA, MA and PhD in Islamic studies from the Islamic University of Baghdad.

Surely someone that has studied Islam that long is not mistaken on it's true meaning.

I would think that someone that has spent years studying Islam is a better candidate for an example of Islam than casual followers that inhabit DCUM.

Some issues with historical context:

Agreeing on facts: did Mohammed actually want Ali to succeed (Shiites) or not (Sunnis). Each side has its own very different historical evidence.

Agreeing on interpretation: the verses about covering seem to clearly refer to your chest and maybe to your hair. But could "beautiful parts" mean a full body veil?

Muslima wrote:
I don't think we are talking about the same thing. When I say context, I'm talking about when and why the verse was revealed, there is no dispute on that as those are historical events, so your context and my context cannot be different. Shias and wahabis have their own interpretations but they are a minority , so the majority of Muslims do not practice Islam the way they do. Does it mean they are wrong? I don't agree with some of their interpretations but that is my opinion. However if someone tells me Islam says to kill unbelievers, I can theologically prove them wrong, using facts and events that are recorded and preserved and using the message of the Quran. When it comes to veiling or not, that comes under interpretation, that's a practice, so that has nothing to do with the Core of the message. There are 4 schools of thought in Sunni Islam which means, there are only 4 recognized interpretations of the major Islamic laws. Shias have their own school but they represent less than 10% of the Muslims. You don't need a priest to interpret something for you if you are learned, and have knowledge. If you've never studied the Qu'ran, how can you make up your interpretations? Muslims are supposed to learn their religion, ponder on it. The quran itself says “A book We have sent down to you, blessed, that men possessed of mind may Ponder its signs end so remember”. (38:29)

"Do they not then earnestly seek to understand the Quran, or are their hearts locked up?"

If the Word of God was stated only in very simple language, its application in a wide variety of cultures, eras, and fields of study would be extremely limited, so again, God balanced His Book between simplicity and complexity to serve the needs of all humanity at the same time.
So, whenever you read the Quran, you should ponder upon its meaning, what is the meaning of this verse? What is the meaning of this word?
This does not mean that you invent (the meaning) from yourself , this is not permissible, rather you should refer to the authentic trustworthy books of Tafseer .

And if after that, you still don't know. The Quran tells you to ask. You have to ask the people of knowledge, Allah says, "So ask of those who know the Scripture, if you know not." [(16): 43] and the Messenger (saw) said,

"…Shouldn't they have asked if they didn't know?! Verily the cure of all ignorance is to ask!" [Abu Dawood]

So when we say, we don't need priests , what is meant is we don't need an intermediary, we pray directly to God, but we definitely need scholars to understand Islam. The companions had the Prophet (saw) who explained to them the meaning of the verses, you cant learn Islam or read the Quran in a vacuum, you will just not get the message that way.

We are talking about the same thing. There's lots of room for disagreement even if you know the historical context. There are differences in figuring out what exactly happened 1400 years ago (the hadith are a good example of this). Then if you can agree on the historical facts, you still need to interpret it within the historical context. For example, do verses commanding "fight in the cause of Allah against oppressors" refer to a physical or a spiritual fight? Knowing that one such verse was delivered in the context of attacks by Meccans doesn't necessarily answer this question. Nor does historical context answer questions about what constitutes "oppression" or "persecution" (cartoons?) or where the "limits" on responding are set. Historical context raises as many issues as it solves. Enter legions of independent scholars, some of them Wahabbi or Taliban, all issuing opinions about what this verse means. If you asked 10 scholars you might get 10 different answers for some questions, and each of them would think he's right.

Anonymous wrote:The idea that God would send down a book to a largely illiterate population that requires degreed people to interpret it is hysterical on its face. That's just a job security thing for the Ibn Saud University graduates.

Religion is good business.

The idea that God would send down a book to a largely illiterate population that requires degreed people to interpret it is hysterical on its face. That's just a job security thing for the Ibn Saud University graduates.

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As this discussion indicates, there are many Islams, depending on how you interpret Quranic verses, whether you take the Quran literally, and which (if any) hadith you think are authentic. Muslima has her Islam. However, it's not so easy to say "Islam says X about blasphemy and violence and those other people doing Y are bad Muslims." Those other people may think they are good Muslims.

I do not have my own Islam. I didn't create my version of islam. There are different interpretations of certain verses, agreements on authenticity of hadiths but it is wrong to say that there is no way to say x version of Islam or Muslims are wrong. There are accepted rules, that learned scholars have agreed on. The interpretation of Islam that I follow, is that accepted by the majority of Muslims in the world. It is not the only interpretation but that doesn't mean all interpretations are right. We can prove theologically how something is wrong or unIslamic. I have always been amazed by critics of Islam who attempt to prove to us that our religion requires us to be blood-thirsty killers. Have they ever considered what would happen if we believed them?

There is lots of disagreement on interpreta

tion. For example, you are a Sunni, but millions of Shiites disagree with you on key points. I don't believe you're Wahhabi, but are you saying they're "bad" Muslims where various articles of faith, like niqabs and sharia punishments, are concerned?

That's the thing about saying you need context to read the Quran-it's basically saying that my context is right and yours is wrong, ergo my interpretation is right and yours is wrong. The Shiites and Wahhabis have their own contexts. (As an aside, Islam is also supposed to be a religion where you don't need a priest to interpret meaning or context for you.) Everybody thinks they're right, whether the disagreement is on veiling requirements or vanishing imams, and it's not for you to say they're necessarily straying from the "right" interpretation. That's also the thing about having no centralized authority: there are so many independent judges issuing conflicting interpretations on nearly every issue.

I don't think we are talking about the same thing. When I say context, I'm talking about when and why the verse was revealed, there is no dispute on that as those are historical events, so your context and my context cannot be different. Shias and wahabis have their own interpretations but they are a minority , so the majority of Muslims do not practice Islam the way they do. Does it mean they are wrong? I don't agree with some of their interpretations but that is my opinion. However if someone tells me Islam says to kill unbelievers, I can theologically prove them wrong, using facts and events that are recorded and preserved and using the message of the Quran. When it comes to veiling or not, that comes under interpretation, that's a practice, so that has nothing to do with the Core of the message. There are 4 schools of thought in Sunni Islam which means, there are only 4 recognized interpretations of the major Islamic laws. Shias have their own school but they represent less than 10% of the Muslims. You don't need a priest to interpret something for you if you are learned, and have knowledge. If you've never studied the Qu'ran, how can you make up your interpretations? Muslims are supposed to learn their religion, ponder on it. The quran itself says “A book We have sent down to you, blessed, that men possessed of mind may Ponder its signs end so remember”. (38:29)

"Do they not then earnestly seek to understand the Quran, or are their hearts locked up?"

If the Word of God was stated only in very simple language, its application in a wide variety of cultures, eras, and fields of study would be extremely limited, so again, God balanced His Book between simplicity and complexity to serve the needs of all humanity at the same time.
So, whenever you read the Quran, you should ponder upon its meaning, what is the meaning of this verse? What is the meaning of this word?
This does not mean that you invent (the meaning) from yourself , this is not permissible, rather you should refer to the authentic trustworthy books of Tafseer .

And if after that, you still don't know. The Quran tells you to ask. You have to ask the people of knowledge, Allah says, "So ask of those who know the Scripture, if you know not." [(16): 43] and the Messenger (saw) said,

"…Shouldn't they have asked if they didn't know?! Verily the cure of all ignorance is to ask!" [Abu Dawood]

So when we say, we don't need priests , what is meant is we don't need an intermediary, we pray directly to God, but we definitely need scholars to understand Islam. The companions had the Prophet (saw) who explained to them the meaning of the verses, you cant learn Islam or read the Quran in a vacuum, you will just not get the message that way.

Note the ever-so-subtle demonisation of Muslims who aren't like you.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As this discussion indicates, there are many Islams, depending on how you interpret Quranic verses, whether you take the Quran literally, and which (if any) hadith you think are authentic. Muslima has her Islam. However, it's not so easy to say "Islam says X about blasphemy and violence and those other people doing Y are bad Muslims." Those other people may think they are good Muslims.

I do not have my own Islam. I didn't create my version of islam. There are different interpretations of certain verses, agreements on authenticity of hadiths but it is wrong to say that there is no way to say x version of Islam or Muslims are wrong. There are accepted rules, that learned scholars have agreed on. The interpretation of Islam that I follow, is that accepted by the majority of Muslims in the world. It is not the only interpretation but that doesn't mean all interpretations are right. We can prove theologically how something is wrong or unIslamic. I have always been amazed by critics of Islam who attempt to prove to us that our religion requires us to be blood-thirsty killers. Have they ever considered what would happen if we believed them?

There is lots of disagreement on interpreta

tion. For example, you are a Sunni, but millions of Shiites disagree with you on key points. I don't believe you're Wahhabi, but are you saying they're "bad" Muslims where various articles of faith, like niqabs and sharia punishments, are concerned?

That's the thing about saying you need context to read the Quran-it's basically saying that my context is right and yours is wrong, ergo my interpretation is right and yours is wrong. The Shiites and Wahhabis have their own contexts. (As an aside, Islam is also supposed to be a religion where you don't need a priest to interpret meaning or context for you.) Everybody thinks they're right, whether the disagreement is on veiling requirements or vanishing imams, and it's not for you to say they're necessarily straying from the "right" interpretation. That's also the thing about having no centralized authority: there are so many independent judges issuing conflicting interpretations on nearly every issue.

I don't think we are talking about the same thing. When I say context, I'm talking about when and why the verse was revealed, there is no dispute on that as those are historical events, so your context and my context cannot be different. Shias and wahabis have their own interpretations but they are a minority , so the majority of Muslims do not practice Islam the way they do. Does it mean they are wrong? I don't agree with some of their interpretations but that is my opinion. However if someone tells me Islam says to kill unbelievers, I can theologically prove them wrong, using facts and events that are recorded and preserved and using the message of the Quran. When it comes to veiling or not, that comes under interpretation, that's a practice, so that has nothing to do with the Core of the message. There are 4 schools of thought in Sunni Islam which means, there are only 4 recognized interpretations of the major Islamic laws. Shias have their own school but they represent less than 10% of the Muslims. You don't need a priest to interpret something for you if you are learned, and have knowledge. If you've never studied the Qu'ran, how can you make up your interpretations? Muslims are supposed to learn their religion, ponder on it. The quran itself says “A book We have sent down to you, blessed, that men possessed of mind may Ponder its signs end so remember”. (38:29)

"Do they not then earnestly seek to understand the Quran, or are their hearts locked up?"

If the Word of God was stated only in very simple language, its application in a wide variety of cultures, eras, and fields of study would be extremely limited, so again, God balanced His Book between simplicity and complexity to serve the needs of all humanity at the same time.
So, whenever you read the Quran, you should ponder upon its meaning, what is the meaning of this verse? What is the meaning of this word?
This does not mean that you invent (the meaning) from yourself , this is not permissible, rather you should refer to the authentic trustworthy books of Tafseer .

And if after that, you still don't know. The Quran tells you to ask. You have to ask the people of knowledge, Allah says, "So ask of those who know the Scripture, if you know not." [(16): 43] and the Messenger (saw) said,

"…Shouldn't they have asked if they didn't know?! Verily the cure of all ignorance is to ask!" [Abu Dawood]

So when we say, we don't need priests , what is meant is we don't need an intermediary, we pray directly to God, but we definitely need scholars to understand Islam. The companions had the Prophet (saw) who explained to them the meaning of the verses, you cant learn Islam or read the Quran in a vacuum, you will just not get the message that way.

Anonymous wrote:As this discussion indicates, there are many Islams, depending on how you interpret Quranic verses, whether you take the Quran literally, and which (if any) hadith you think are authentic. Muslima has her Islam. However, it's not so easy to say "Islam says X about blasphemy and violence and those other people doing Y are bad Muslims." Those other people may think they are good Muslims.

Exactly.

There is no leader or head person or group in Islam. There are factions (Sunni, Shi'a, etc), but there's no central authority. Islam is very much a "to each their own" religion, which can be both a good and bad thing. Everyone thinks THEY have the right interpretation, but "interpretation" is subject to large amounts of subjectivity.

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As this discussion indicates, there are many Islams, depending on how you interpret Quranic verses, whether you take the Quran literally, and which (if any) hadith you think are authentic. Muslima has her Islam. However, it's not so easy to say "Islam says X about blasphemy and violence and those other people doing Y are bad Muslims." Those other people may think they are good Muslims.

I do not have my own Islam. I didn't create my version of islam. There are different interpretations of certain verses, agreements on authenticity of hadiths but it is wrong to say that there is no way to say x version of Islam or Muslims are wrong. There are accepted rules, that learned scholars have agreed on. The interpretation of Islam that I follow, is that accepted by the majority of Muslims in the world. It is not the only interpretation but that doesn't mean all interpretations are right. We can prove theologically how something is wrong or unIslamic. I have always been amazed by critics of Islam who attempt to prove to us that our religion requires us to be blood-thirsty killers. Have they ever considered what would happen if we believed them?

There is lots of disagreement on interpretation. For example, you are a Sunni, but millions of Shiites disagree with you on key points. I don't believe you're Wahhabi, but are you saying they're "bad" Muslims where various articles of faith, like niqabs and sharia punishments, are concerned?

That's the thing about saying you need context to read the Quran-it's basically saying that my context is right and yours is wrong, ergo my interpretation is right and yours is wrong. The Shiites and Wahhabis have their own contexts. (As an aside, Islam is also supposed to be a religion where you don't need a priest to interpret meaning or context for you.) Everybody thinks they're right, whether the disagreement is on veiling requirements or vanishing imams, and it's not for you to say they're necessarily straying from the "right" interpretation. That's also the thing about having no centralized authority: there are so many independent judges issuing conflicting interpretations on nearly every issue.

Anonymous wrote:My worry about the Quran (although not about most Muslims) is that it has a strong undercurrent of Us versus Them. More than the Bible or the Talmud or other similar texts, it has more than its fair share of statements to the effect that non-Muslims aren't to be treated with the same dignity or worth. It is both obsessed with non-Muslims and dismissive of them at the same time.

You would only get this idea if you read the Quran literslly without any understanding of the context or what the verses are related to. The Quran was revealed during 23 years, and during those 23 years, a verse, chapter was revealed depending on what was going on at the time. So yes, there are battle/war verses in the Quran referring to the period where the Muslims were at war against the pagans in Makka. But all of the verses in the Quran, even the most violent one talk about Self-defense, it adjusts says, if they attack you, then do x, y z but if they stop, you stop. There isn't one that calls for going around the world killing unbelievers.
Quran 2:190 Fight in the cause of God those who start fighting you, but do NOT transgress limits (or start the attack); for God loveth not transgressors. Respect his freedom of choice to be a "Disbeliever" - as this is a right bestowed upon humanity by God:
Quran 18:29 proclaims, "The truth is from your Lord": it is the free will of any person to believe (in God) or to be an Infidel (Un believer).

 Even if a Muslim should be convinced that someone is a non-believer, still he must accept that his fate is in the hands of God alone, since no one human can condemn another - this must be left to the judgment of God. 
Quran 88:25-26 for behold, unto (ONLY) Us (means God) will be their return, Then it will be for (ONLY) Us to Judge (humans).
22:17 Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians (can mean an ancient religion or people with no specific religion), Christians, Magians, and Polytheists,- God will judge between them on the Day of Judgment: for God (alone) is witness of all things. 

My worry about the Quran (although not about most Muslims) is that it has a strong undercurrent of Us versus Them. More than the Bible or the Talmud or other similar texts, it has more than its fair share of statements to the effect that non-Muslims aren't to be treated with the same dignity or worth. It is both obsessed with non-Muslims and dismissive of them at the same time.

Anonymous wrote:As this discussion indicates, there are many Islams, depending on how you interpret Quranic verses, whether you take the Quran literally, and which (if any) hadith you think are authentic. Muslima has her Islam. However, it's not so easy to say "Islam says X about blasphemy and violence and those other people doing Y are bad Muslims." Those other people may think they are good Muslims.

I do not have my own Islam. I didn't create my version of islam. There are different interpretations of certain verses, agreements on authenticity of hadiths but it is wrong to say that there is no way to say x version of Islam or Muslims are wrong. There are accepted rules, that learned scholars have agreed on. The interpretation of Islam that I follow, is that accepted by the majority of Muslims in the world. It is not the only interpretation but that doesn't mean all interpretations are right. We can prove theologically how something is wrong or unIslamic. I have always been amazed by critics of Islam who attempt to prove to us that our religion requires us to be blood-thirsty killers. Have they ever considered what would happen if we believed them?

As this discussion indicates, there are many Islams, depending on how you interpret Quranic verses, whether you take the Quran literally, and which (if any) hadith you think are authentic. Muslima has her Islam. However, it's not so easy to say "Islam says X about blasphemy and violence and those other people doing Y are bad Muslims." Those other people may think they are good Muslims.