Challenge: Should the Koran be taken literally or NOT?

[A Spirit Runs Through It]

Quran, as far as I have read, only allows killing in self defense. I do not see that as particularly violent.

Self-defense is a dangerous policy, in my opinion. Ultimately it permits leaders to wage war with dubious justifications.

Give the Devil an inch, he shall take a mile.

Are you saying Christians are strictly forbidden to defend themselves? If somebody breaks into your house and tries to kill your wife and children, you are forbidden from fighting and resisting that guy?

Yes. Christians are forbidden to defend themselves with violence. Such is the example of Christ. But if my home was invaded and my family threatened, I would probably defend them, using violence — which is natural. I know that God would forgive me, though, considering my nature and my regret over the affair.

 

[stvdv]

Yes. Christians are forbidden to defend themselves with violence. Such is the example of Christ. But if my home was invaded and my family threatened, I would probably defend them, using violence — which is natural. I know that God would forgive me, though, considering my nature and my regret over the affair.

To defend or not would be a good one to put in the "vows" when one marries IMO.
[I am "dead" serious here]

 

[sayak83]

Self-defense is a dangerous policy, in my opinion. Ultimately it permits leaders to wage war with dubious justifications.

Give the Devil an inch, he shall take a mile.


Yes. Christians are forbidden to defend themselves with violence. Such is the example of Christ. But if my home was invaded and my family threatened, I would probably defend them, using violence — which is natural. I know that God would forgive me, though, considering my nature and my regret over the affair.

That's very hypocritical of the Christian God.

In Hinduism self defense is always allowed. Its ones duty to protect ones life and those whom one loves. Using violence as a last resort to do this duty in case of aggression is not only allowed, but not doing this is considered immoral. So I will have to consider the Christian dictum of forbidding this as immoral, and hypocritical as its being allowed by the back door of forgiveness after the fact.

 

[A Spirit Runs Through It]

That's very hypocritical of the Christian God.

Jesus is the Christian God. Where is the hypocrisy in his life and teachings?

In Hinduism self defense is always allowed. Its ones duty to protect ones life and those whom one loves. Using violence as a last resort to do this duty in case of aggression is not only allowed, but not doing this is considered immoral. So I will have to consider the Christian dictum of forbidding this as immoral, and hypocritical as its being allowed by the back door of forgiveness after the fact.

Just look at nuclear proliferation as an example. When one nation took up the bomb, another followed; and yet another, and another, etc. Why? Because it was pragmatic. And where that pragmatism will take us, humankind can only assume. Christianity is not about pragmatic solutions, but rather, about ideal solutions. Acting pragmatically will not change the world for the better, in the long term; but acting idealistically will. Christ was not just mindful of the present, but also of the future. He was also mindful that not everyone can live up to the ideal — hence, forgiveness.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The Quran Sura 3:7 answers the poll question.

It is He who has sent down the Book to you. Some of its verses are clear and precise in meaning they are the basis of the Book while others are allegorical.

The correct answer according to the Quran itself is ‘both’ literal and allegorical are applicable which was not included in the poll.

 

[stvdv]

The Quran Sura 3:7 answers the poll question.

It is He who has sent down the Book to you. Some of its verses are clear and precise in meaning they are the basis of the Book while others are allegorical.

The correct answer according to the Quran itself is ‘both’ literal and allegorical are applicable which was not included in the poll.

Useful Sura you mentioned ... but I come to a different conclusion

The Koran (as a whole) should be taken literal ... ONLY if all verses are meant to be taken literal
Because not all verses are meant to be taken literal ("Quran Sura 3:7")
The Koran (as a whole) should NOT be taken literal ... would be the correct answer to the poll

I am very surprised that not 1 single Muslim could answer this simple question (I even kind of gave it away in the OP)
I am very happy that at least 14 of the 15 non-Muslims answered this simple question correctly

So it's safe to conclude IMHO that a Muslim should never again say to a non-Muslim
"Non Muslims should not talk about Koran, for they do not know Arabic or whatever excuse"

 

[loverofhumanity]

Useful Sura you mentioned ... but I come to a different conclusion

The Koran (as a whole) should be taken literal ... ONLY if all verses are meant to be taken literal
Because not all verses are meant to be taken literal ("Quran Sura 3:7")
The Koran (as a whole) should NOT be taken literal ... would be the correct answer to the poll

I am very surprised that not 1 single Muslim could answer this simple question (I even kind of gave it away in the OP)
I am very happy that at least 14 of the 15 non-Muslims answered this simple question correctly

So it's safe to conclude IMHO that a Muslim should never again say to a non-Muslim
"Non Muslims should not talk about Koran, for they do not know Arabic or whatever excuse"

The main problem though with English translations is that English often cannot contain all the meanings intended so translators must choose an ‘interpretation’. So often, for a proper appreciation of the meaning of a verse, multiple translations, I have found, need to be consulted.

One example is some translations say not to make friends with Christians but the true meaning is not to make political or moral allies of them, in other words association and friendship is permitted but not affiliation. But poor translations do not reflect this intended meaning so some who are against Islam will use the bad translations in order to create hatred between Christians and Muslims.

So it is important not to just rely on one translation alone.

 

[stvdv]

challenge-should-the-koran-be-taken-literally-or-not

The correct answer according to the Quran itself is ‘both’ literal and allegorical are applicable which was not included in the poll.

The Koran (as a whole) should be taken literal ... ONLY if all verses are meant to be taken literal
Because not all verses are meant to be taken literal ("Quran Sura 3:7")
The Koran (as a whole) should NOT be taken literal ... would be the correct answer to the poll

The main problem though with English translations is that English often cannot contain all the meanings intended so translators must choose an ‘interpretation’. So often, for a proper appreciation of the meaning of a verse, multiple translations, I have found, need to be consulted.

One example is some translations say not to make friends with Christians but the true meaning is not to make political or moral allies of them, in other words association and friendship is permitted but not affiliation. But poor translations do not reflect this intended meaning so some who are against Islam will use the bad translations in order to create hatred between Christians and Muslims.

So it is important not to just rely on one translation alone.

Your reply to my words have nothing to do with what I said
You said that my poll lacked the correct answer. That was wrong, as I explained

Instead of saying "you are right, I missed your point"
You totally ignored my explanation, starting about something else
That is not proper communication (not acknowledging you falsely corrected me)

 

[loverofhumanity]

challenge-should-the-koran-be-taken-literally-or-not





Your reply to my words have nothing to do with what I said
You said that my poll lacked the correct answer. That was wrong, as I explained

Instead of saying "you are right, I missed your point"
You totally ignored my explanation, starting about something else
That is not proper communication (not acknowledging you falsely corrected me)

I’m sorry and apologise for missing the point. I tend to do that sometimes. It’s calked ‘human imperfection’. Again sincerest apologies.

 

[stvdv]

I’m sorry and apologise for missing the point. I tend to do that sometimes. It’s calked ‘human imperfection’. Again sincerest apologies.

Thanks. And I also have this "human imperfection". Now I pointed it out to you, God will place me on the other side next time, so I can practice it also

 

[loverofhumanity]

Thanks. And I also have this "human imperfection". Now I pointed it out to you, God will place me on the other side next time, so I can practice it also

It’s not a matter of being right but a matter of doing the right thing and I felt that your friendship was more important to me than my ego. So I ate humble pie. It didn’t taste that bad after all.

 

[stvdv]

It’s not a matter of being right but a matter of doing the right thing and I felt that your friendship was more important to me than my ego. So I ate humble pie. It didn’t taste that bad after all.

Thanks a lot. That is also what I meant by "God will put me in the position to practice this". Like you say "doing right" is what counts. Maybe "doing right" is what is really meant by "being right"

 

[stvdv]

I felt that your friendship was more important to me

I just came about a wonderful copy of the Koran. I think you like this one very much. Reading the very first page made my day "anyone who..."

http://www.quranalone.com/media/quran-english.pdf

 

[Wasp]

Yes. Christians are forbidden to defend themselves with violence. Such is the example of Christ. But if my home was invaded and my family threatened, I would probably defend them, using violence — which is natural. I know that God would forgive me, though, considering my nature and my regret over the affair.

So you would have to break the laws of your God for your selfish wish to stay alive and not watch your family members suffer? It's not logical. Parhaps you are taking the words of your Jesus too literally.

The Koran (as a whole) should be taken literal ... ONLY if all verses are meant to be taken literal
Because not all verses are meant to be taken literal ("Quran Sura 3:7")
The Koran (as a whole) should NOT be taken literal ... would be the correct answer to the poll

Since the poll doesnt say "as a whole" that is incorrect. "The Qur'an should NOT be taken literal" is of course false. No believer would ever think that.

One example is some translations say not to make friends with Christians but the true meaning is not to make political or moral allies of them, in other words association and friendship is permitted but not affiliation. But poor translations do not reflect this intended meaning so some who are against Islam will use the bad translations in order to create hatred between Christians and Muslims.

Except that at times Muslims have been called to not make friendships with Jews. So it is very accurate still in its correct context.

 

[stvdv]

Since the poll doesnt say "as a whole" that is incorrect

Poll question: Should the Koran be taken literally or NOT?

This is quite simple ... Koran is a book with over 6000 verses
So "The Koran" in the question implies "all verses"
So my additional "as a whole" is not "incorrect"

The question was not "Should this specific Koran verse be taken literally or NOT?"

 

[Wasp]

Poll question: Should the Koran be taken literally or NOT?

This is quite simple ... Koran is a book with over 6000 verses
So "The Koran" in the question implies "all verses"
So my additional "as a whole" is not "incorrect"

The question was not "Should this specific Koran verse be taken literally or NOT?"

No, it isn't incorrect. But it is missing from the poll question. So your poll question is incorrect - senseless. Which is why no one who understands the Qur'an would be able to answer the poll.

 

[stvdv]

No, it isn't incorrect. But it is missing from the poll question. So your poll question is incorrect - senseless. Which is why no one who understands the Qur'an would be able to answer the poll.

I disagree. The poll question is very simple "Should the Koran be taken literally or NOT?"
The answer is NO, the Koran should not be taken literally.

Some Koran verses can be taken literally, others not (Koran 3:07)
The poll was not about "some Koran verses"
It was about the "Koran" (meaning in it's totality)

So especially the Muslims, knowing the Koran,
Could have easily answered this question

 

[Wasp]

I disagree. The poll question is very simple "Should the Koran be taken literally or NOT?"
The answer is NO, the Koran should not be taken literally.

Some Koran verses can be taken literally, others not (Koran 3:07)
The poll was not about "some Koran verses"
It was about the "Koran" (meaning in it's totality)

So especially the Muslims, knowing the Koran,
Could have easily answered this question

If the Qur'an shouldn't be taken literally because some verse shouldn't be taken literally then we might as well say it should be taken literally because some verses should be taken literally.

To say "the Qur'an should not be taken literally" is just wrong.

 

[Pastek]

I didn't answer the poll because it's not clear. There's many parables in the Quran
There's verses who were just for a specific time/event for exemple during a conflict.

 

[stvdv]

If the Qur'an shouldn't be taken literally because some verse shouldn't be taken literally then we might as well say it should be taken literally because some verses should be taken literally.

To say "the Qur'an should not be taken literally" is just wrong.

I disagree. It has to do with math and logic. Something is "The Truth" if there are no exceptions to it. You can't turn it around.
Has to do with "1" and "0" and the difference between "OR", "AND", "NOR", "NAND" logic