• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Islamic Basics, part 1: Is the Quran perfect, timeless, and clear?

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
You sound like you are a fundamentalist (btw, you haven't answered any of my questions in four threads so far)

I'm a Universal Declaration of Human Rights fundamentalist, happy to cop to that.

As for answering your questions, seriously, try google. You want to know which scholars made the most widely used translations of the Quran? Google it dude.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
God selects the people of authority and gives them the knowledge of the book.

What's the process for this selection and authority giving process? Are there people alive today that have been selected by god and given this authority? If so, which sects agree?

ISIS is the farthest thing from the Quran. Maybe you can enlighten us with their claims and how it's hard to argue against them.

ISIS claims that they are defending Islam against infidels. They hope to restore the caliphate.
 
For most books, these issues aren't so important, but for the Quran, clearly they are. For example, the leaders of ISIS declare that they ARE following the messages in the Quran. And I have to say, from a purely logical perspective, it's hard to argue against their claims. It seems clear to me that this is a HUGE problem.

Most of their theological justification rely on material other than the Quran (hadith, Sirah, jurisprudence, history, etc.)
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Most of their theological justification rely on material other than the Quran (hadith, Sirah, jurisprudence, history, etc.)

I agree, but that's true in general. In general the Quran provides only the broadest of direction and the other material you mention fills in the gaps. But they must all be consistent with the Quran, correct?
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Not necessarily.

Certain schools of thought believe that there are some hadiths which abrogate passages of the Quran.

I agree with you that that happens in practice. The point of the OP was to hear from Muslims about their belief in the perfection of the Quran. (You and I seem to agree that it has many imperfections.)
 
I agree with you that that happens in practice.

Maybe I could have expressed that more clearly.

It's not a 'people do this even though they aren't supposed to' thing, it's an actual point of orthodox jurisprudence.

The point of the OP was to hear from Muslims about their belief in the perfection of the Quran.

Out of interest, how do you interpret the terms perfect and timeless? So if a Muslims said the Quran was perfect and timeless, what would you think that this entailed?
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Out of interest, how do you interpret the terms perfect and timeless? So if a Muslims said the Quran was perfect and timeless, what would you think that this entailed?

This can get into philosophy real quick-like :)

Since some of my bedrock values are logic and parsimony, I would say:

perfect = without error and without confusion for the majority of readers
timeless = true for all times, not just within a specific historical context

Now I've debated with Muslims who use significantly different definitions of these terms. To me, these are not arguments in good faith.
 
timeless = true for all times, not just within a specific historical context

Now I've debated with Muslims who use significantly different definitions of these terms. To me, these are not arguments in good faith.

Not sure you have the right end of the stick there.

Timeless, I would assume, relates to it being co-eternal with God.

Even with Orthodox Islam it is accepted that what is doctrinally correct has changed to some degree.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Timeless, I would assume, relates to it being co-eternal with God.

Millions of people make consequential decisions based on what's in the book. This claim of yours doesn't seem actionable to me. Can you explain how your claim can be used in a real life situation?

Even with Orthodox Islam it is accepted that what is doctrinally correct has changed to some degree.

Below is just one link - you can easily find many more - that enumerate the basic tenets of Islam. One of them is that the Quran is a gift from god to provide guidance. and that the Quran cannot be corrupted or distorted. This is Islam 101 stuff. It seems clear to me that these basic tenets do not hold up to logical scrutiny.

Islam Guide: Some Basic Islamic Beliefs
 

spirit_of_dawn

Active Member
What's the process for this selection and authority giving process? Are there people alive today that have been selected by god and given this authority? If so, which sects agree?

This is the process: God knows who is fit to be a Prophet and he selects his Prophets. He also knows who is fit to be the successor to the Prophet and He also appoints those people. He gives the Prophets and their successors the knowledge of the Book. As I said, In Shia Islam we believe that there is always a living person (whether apparent or in hiding) who is God's representative on earth. We believe that person is the 12th Imam, the Mahdi. Sunnis/Wahhabis mostly believe anyone can become a successor to a Prophet and we all know what mess those people created. They also don't believe in a person who is alive today that has this authority.


ISIS claims that they are defending Islam against infidels. They hope to restore the caliphate.

Well, this has nothing to do with the Quran.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
I said: ISIS claims that they are defending Islam against infidels. They hope to restore the caliphate.

Well, this has nothing to do with the Quran.

There are NUMEROUS verses in the Quran that instruct Muslims to defend Islam against infidels. I don't think we need to waste each other's time on this point, when quick online searches can verify this.

As for the caliphate, also easily searchable, here is one of the first links I found:

Verses Of The Holy Quran Proving The Caliphate Of His Eminence, Ali
 
Millions of people make consequential decisions based on what's in the book. This claim of yours doesn't seem actionable to me. Can you explain how your claim can be used in a real life situation?

It's a point of Islamic orthodoxy, nothing to do with me.

What I'm saying is that you seem to be using a different meaning for 'timeless' than Muslims making such a claim would mean by it. Then you complain that it is 'bad faith' because people use a term in a different way than you would like it to be used.

It is possible to believe that the Quran is timeless, and that certain passages were relevant to a specific time only, hence abrogation for example.

Below is just one link - you can easily find many more - that enumerate the basic tenets of Islam. One of them is that the Quran is a gift from god to provide guidance. and that the Quran cannot be corrupted or distorted. This is Islam 101 stuff. It seems clear to me that these basic tenets do not hold up to logical scrutiny.

If you want to have a better understanding of things like this read Heaven on Earth: a Journey Through Sharia Law - Sadakat Kadri for a bit of background, it's a really interesting book (not apologetics or anything like that). Heaven on Earth: a Journey Through Sharia Law

You spend a lot of time discussing the topic, so I assume you are interested in learning more about it.
 

spirit_of_dawn

Active Member
I said: ISIS claims that they are defending Islam against infidels. They hope to restore the caliphate.



There are NUMEROUS verses in the Quran that instruct Muslims to defend Islam against infidels. I don't think we need to waste each other's time on this point, when quick online searches can verify this.

As for the caliphate, also easily searchable, here is one of the first links I found:

Verses Of The Holy Quran Proving The Caliphate Of His Eminence, Ali

What I meant is that the manner that ISIS is acting has nothing to do with Islam. Yes, the Quran might speak about self-defense but that isn't a Quranic idea. Everyone practices self-defense. And the ISIS belief about the caliphate has no Shia-Islamic basis.
 

Firemorphic

Activist Membrane
I'm a Universal Declaration of Human Rights fundamentalist, happy to cop to that.

Defending ISIS's ideology is not a 'universal declaration of human rights', yet you ahead and do it anyway.


As for answering your questions, seriously, try google.

Google won't tell me what Icehorse read, Google won't tell me how Icehorse came to the conclusions Icehorse came to.

You want to know which scholars made the most widely used translations of the Quran? Google it dude.

I know over forty English translators, I was never interested (nor asked for) in suggestions from you Icehorse, nice dodge again. At this point it's quite obvious you a very, very narrow perspective (on everything concerning the history of the Qur'an and Islamic history) based of mere feelings rather evidence, you're not very well read at all and nothing to back up your claims.
 
Last edited:

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Defending ISIS's ideology is not a 'universal declaration of human rights', yet you ahead and do it anyway.

Google won't tell me what Icehorse read, Google won't tell me how Icehorse came to the conclusions Icehorse came to.

I know over forty English translators, I was never interested (nor asked for) in suggestions from you Icehorse, nice dodge again. At this point it's quite obvious you a very, very narrow perspective (on everything concerning the history of the Qur'an and Islamic history) based of mere feelings rather evidence, you're not very well read at all and nothing to back up your claims.

I'm an editor. I read the book. I spot checked the translation I read against a couple of other translations. They largely lined up. And I understand some cognitive science.

Normal people reading the book will read the words and take from them the most natural meanings. The book is EXTREMELY repetitive as anyone who has read the book will tell you. Such repetition WILL aid in transferring the messages into the reader's long term memory.

Now on he other hand, scholars will do their scholarly thing and read all sorts of deep meanings into scripture. They will get PhDs obsessing over tiny details. Good for them. What I'm interested in is how the book impacts large populations. For example, large polls indicate that nearly ONE BILLION Muslims think that theocracy is how governments ought to work, and that Sharia is a good idea. These ONE BILLION Muslims live all over the world. What they have in common is Islam, and Islamic scripture. The overwhelming, common sense evidence is that Muslims take the Quran seriously and that they take much of it at face value. None of this should be too surprising.

And BTW, I never defended ISIS, and your claim that I did, is clearly not an argument in good faith. What I said was that ISIS claims - and can defend - that their actions are inspired (and they would argue sanctioned), by the Quran. I don't defend this crap for one minute. I think the Quran promotes many horrible ideas and I think ISIS is despicable.

I've allowed you to draw me back in a couple of times, but this really will be my last word, you simply don't post in good faith.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
What I'm saying is that you seem to be using a different meaning for 'timeless' than Muslims making such a claim would mean by it. Then you complain that it is 'bad faith' because people use a term in a different way than you would like it to be used.

Are you arguing that when Muslims claim their book is perfect, unalterable and timeless, that they don't mean its advice will be true forever?

You spend a lot of time discussing the topic, so I assume you are interested in learning more about it.

As we've discussed in the past, I'm not all that interested in scholarly interpretations of scripture. This is not a value judgment. Perhaps there are useful things to learn from such scholarship, but for the most part it seems less important than what's happening in the world today.

What I'm interested in is how scripture impacts what people believe and how they behave. The Quran promotes many ideas that are abhorrent in modern society. A large percentage of the world's Muslims just so happen to believe in many of the same abhorrent ideas that are promoted by the Quran. (Why it's almost as if they understand and agree with what they're reading. ;) )

So when Muslims claim their book to be perfect, unalterable, and timeless, I do them the courtesy of taking them at their word. And if they are deliberately using misleading meanings for common words, then those bad faith claims are on them.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
What I meant is that the manner that ISIS is acting has nothing to do with Islam. Yes, the Quran might speak about self-defense but that isn't a Quranic idea. Everyone practices self-defense. And the ISIS belief about the caliphate has no Shia-Islamic basis.

Islamic scripture's definition of "defense" is not a common definition. For example, if Islamic conquerors take land by force, and their defeated enemies do not submit to Islam, then those defeated enemies are said to be "attacking" Islam, and so Muslims are allowed to "defend" themselves. This is bad faith word play.

As for how Shia interpret calls for a caliphate, it's good to know that Shia interpretations are different than Sunni interpretations. But from an outsider's perspective, we have to worry about what Sunnis believe and how they act. As I understand it, ISIS declares themselves to be Sunnis. So clearly it's important in the world to understand the correlation between what they believe and how they behave.
 
Are you arguing that when Muslims claim their book is perfect, unalterable and timeless, that they don't mean its advice will be true forever?

They believe its advice will always be true. That doesn't necessarily mean interpretations of its advice must remain fixed and unchanging, which seems to be how you want to interpret the claim.

For staunch conservatives, they would tend to apply a 'letter of the law' approach which would be very rigid with minimal change.

Another approach would be 'spirit of the law', in which adaptation to an changing environment would be the norm.

As we've discussed in the past, I'm not all that interested in scholarly interpretations of scripture. This is not a value judgment. Perhaps there are useful things to learn from such scholarship, but for the most part it seems less important than what's happening in the world today.

It's not a scholarly text, and if you want to understand what is happening today, it can often be a good idea to understand the past as this is the foundation of what happens today.

If you went back to the start of WW2, you wouldn't try to understand 'what is happening in the world today' without recourse to WW1.

What I'm interested in is how scripture impacts what people believe and how they behave.

Which is what the book is about.

So when Muslims claim their book to be perfect, unalterable, and timeless, I do them the courtesy of taking them at their word. And if they are deliberately using misleading meanings for common words, then those bad faith claims are on them.

Timeless relates to the text, but not necessarily interpretations of the text.
Perfect relates to the text, but not necessarily human understanding of the text.
Unalterable relates to the text, but not necessarily interpretations of the text.
 
Top