Context and the Qur'an.

[stevecanuck]

"You took that out of context!" is a frequent complaint made when a verse is quoted from the Qur'an. Okay, but so what? Every word in the Qur'an was revealed by Mohamed between 610 and 632 CE, and is associated with whatever was happening at the time. Therefore, every verse has situational context, but is knowing that context necessary in understanding the message a verse was meant to convey?

It's worth noting that historical context was not a factor to the compilers of the Qur'an, because they put it together without any consideration for chronology. For example, surah 2 is actually the 87th revealed and 12 years into Islam's evolution. If it didn't matter to the compilers, why should it matter to the reader?

The bottom line is that the Qur'an says what it says. Many verses, although stated for a specific reason, are worded in such a way as to make a statement of fact or to issue a general, on-going command. Verse 39:27 explains it nicely, "And indeed We have put forth for men, in this Quran every kind of similitude in order that they may remember".

For example, verse 9:111 was revealed in late 630 after Mohamed had taken an army north to Tabuk in a failed attempt to battle, and thereby start a war with, the Byzantines. As usual, the Arab Bedouin tribes (Hypocrites) had refused to join Mohamed's army, and the Qur'an was taking them to task for the umpteenth time for their reluctance to see blood spilled (especially their own). Verse 9:111 was part of that dressing down. It says, "Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain". I fail to see how God telling Muslims they have to fight to get into Heaven needs to be set up by a history lesson.

 

[Rival]

If one's scripture is so easy to understand I would barely class it as scripture. It should be able to be studied for a lifetime and still teach one new things.

 

[stevecanuck]

If one's scripture is so easy to understand I would barely class it as scripture. It should be able to be studied for a lifetime and still teach one new things.

Why? The whole point of "God" trying to communicate with his insignificant little creations is to tell them what he expects of them.

 

[Rival]

Why? The whole point of "God" trying to communicate with his insignificant little creations is to tell them what he expects of them.

Sure, but surely one would like to go above and beyond that. And seeing as it's meant to be the very word of God, it should be saturated with meaning and ripe for lifelong study.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If one's scripture is so easy to understand I would barely class it as scripture. It should be able to be studied for a lifetime and still teach one new things.

That's why I like the Dao De Ching. It's passage is actually very simple, nothing at all to understand what is there. But it goes significantly deeper than that as it each passage is offers bits that are to be slowly chewed and digested.

"You took that out of context!" is a frequent complaint made when a verse is quoted from the Qur'an. Okay, but so what? Every word in the Qur'an was revealed by Mohamed between 610 and 632 CE, and is associated with whatever was happening at the time. Therefore, every verse has situational context, but is knowing that context necessary in understanding the message a verse was meant to convey?

It's worth noting that historical context was not a factor to the compilers of the Qur'an, because they put it together without any consideration for chronology. For example, surah 2 is actually the 87th revealed and 12 years into Islam's evolution. If it didn't matter to the compilers, why should it matter to the reader?

The bottom line is that the Qur'an says what it says. Many verses, although stated for a specific reason, are worded in such a way as to make a statement of fact or to issue a general, on-going command. Verse 39:27 explains it nicely, "And indeed We have put forth for men, in this Quran every kind of similitude in order that they may remember".

For example, verse 9:111 was revealed in late 630 after Mohamed had taken an army north to Tabuk in a failed attempt to battle, and thereby start a war with, the Byzantines. As usual, the Arab Bedouin tribes (Hypocrites) had refused to join Mohamed's army, and the Qur'an was taking them to task for the umpteenth time for their reluctance to see blood spilled (especially their own). Verse 9:111 was part of that dressing down. It says, "Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain". I fail to see how God telling Muslims they have to fight to get into Heaven needs to be set up by a history lesson.

That sort of thinking is highly problematic for American Evangelicism, as they developed the idea of a "plain reading" for the Bible. They want to believe what the Bible says is what the Bible says and take it at face value, but this had lead to some very embarrassing facets such as widespread liberalism, a very poor understanding of Judaism, a basically nonexistent understanding of the cultural nuances behind what is being said, and also will not acknowledge typos or mistranslated in the English Bible (very typically they use KJV) as such and instead believe the Bible is entirely inerrant. This has lead to a very bad theology that is frightening at times some of them will view the Holocaust as Jehovah punishing the Jews, because, as they said to me, "just look at what he did to them in the Old Testament for their disobedience."
And with the Quran, indeed, some do take it out of context per what it says at face value (especially the ones about war when they do not cite a passage or two before that gives stipulations). But I have to assume this idea of a "plain reading" would be equally problematic. And, of course, it's all a matter of perspective anyways. When someone says a "real Muslim wouldn't do this," well, yeah, obviously they would because they did and they believe they are justified per the Sword passages. But they too tend to take it at face value and run with that.

 

[Link]

The Quran is very easy to understand but the sorcery upon it makes it difficult.

 

[stevecanuck]

The Quran is very easy to understand but the sorcery upon it makes it difficult.

I don't know what that means.

 

[stevecanuck]

That's why I like the Dao De Ching. It's passage is actually very simple, nothing at all to understand what is there. But it goes significantly deeper than that as it each passage is offers bits that are to be slowly chewed and digested.

That sort of thinking is highly problematic for American Evangelicism, as they developed the idea of a "plain reading" for the Bible. They want to believe what the Bible says is what the Bible says and take it at face value, but this had lead to some very embarrassing facets such as widespread liberalism, a very poor understanding of Judaism, a basically nonexistent understanding of the cultural nuances behind what is being said, and also will not acknowledge typos or mistranslated in the English Bible (very typically they use KJV) as such and instead believe the Bible is entirely inerrant. This has lead to a very bad theology that is frightening at times some of them will view the Holocaust as Jehovah punishing the Jews, because, as they said to me, "just look at what he did to them in the Old Testament for their disobedience."
And with the Quran, indeed, some do take it out of context per what it says at face value (especially the ones about war when they do not cite a passage or two before that gives stipulations). But I have to assume this idea of a "plain reading" would be equally problematic. And, of course, it's all a matter of perspective anyways. When someone says a "real Muslim wouldn't do this," well, yeah, obviously they would because they did and they believe they are justified per the Sword passages. But they too tend to take it at face value and run with that.

Can you please explain how the sword passages that tell Muslims to fight unbelievers is not justification to fight unbelievers?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Can you please explain how the sword passages that tell Muslims to fight unbelievers is not justification to fight unbelievers?

There's actually some stipulations in the Quran such as formally declaring war and offering peace if the enemy cone to Islam, along with being obligated to teach them. Those they fight against are supposed to be aggressors, certain people are actually off limits.
BUT. It's that "aggressor" part that is very problematic, because to those making war and killing people it's always justified because in their eyes they are acting against an aggressor, all stipulations and other conditions have been met. Then they can proceed with the "kill them wherever you find them" part.

 

[stevecanuck]

There's actually some stipulations in the Quran such as formally declaring war

That does not mitigate the fact that unbelievers are being attacked for nothing more than being unbelievers.

and offering peace if the enemy cone to Islam,

Of course. That's the whole point of making war on them (you've just summarized verse 9:29).

along with being obligated to teach them.

You're talking about forcing people to accept Islam against their wishes, and then trying to make it sound noble and generous. Sorry, but that's absurd.

Those they fight against are supposed to be aggressors, certain people are actually off limits.

Let's skip ahead to the creation of the Islamic Empire. Neither the Byzantines nor the Persians aggressed against the Muslims. Nor did the Berbers, the Spanish, the French, the Hindus, etc., etc.

BUT. It's that "aggressor" part that is very problematic, because to those making war and killing people it's always justified because in their eyes they are acting against an aggressor, all stipulations and other conditions have been met. Then they can proceed with the "kill them wherever you find them" part.

Not accepting an "invitation to islam" is all it takes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That does not mitigate the fact that unbelievers are being attacked for nothing more than being unbelievers.

If you didn't do such a crap job at hacking up an argument (or whatever you did), you wouldn't have given this response.

and then trying to make it sound noble and generous.

Again, trying to isolate certain parts of my post will do you no good.

Not accepting an "invitation to islam" is all it takes.

No, they are actually supposed to be aggressors, and there is no compulsion of religion per the Quran. It basically makes it clear you can't force someone to convert.
You'd know this stuff if you gave the Koran any halfhearted reading and research. But instead it looks like you want to turn posts into snippets to take them out on context so you can hear your own voice.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Can you please explain how the sword passages that tell Muslims to fight unbelievers is not justification to fight unbelievers?

Fighting unbelievers does not mean to kill them, but to "fight" them with wisdom and understanding of Allah, and all that happens from within each muslims heart (in my understanding)
Understanding the spiritual aspect of the teaching is the hard part, to just read the quran from cover to cover is not the difficult part.

 

[sayak83]

Can you please explain how the sword passages that tell Muslims to fight unbelievers is not justification to fight unbelievers?

Because there are stringent guidelines of when a war is just... defensive wars against repeated aggressors. Unless one is going to be a pacifist come what may, why wouldn't there be a stipulation on when a war of self defense just? Just because fanatical groups consider some ridiculous excuses for terrorism as just cause, does not make it just cause according to Quran.

 

[Left Coast]

Can you please explain how the sword passages that tell Muslims to fight unbelievers is not justification to fight unbelievers?

They are clearly not justification to fight any and every unbeliever regardless of circumstance, because Muslims stretching all the way back to Muhammad himself have not attempted to fight any and everyone they passed on the street who is an unbeliever. So either a) literally every Muslim all the way back to the dude who wrote those verses isn't interpreting those verses right, or b) they are not universal commands justifying war against all unbelievers.

Which do you think it is?

 

[stvdv]

Why? The whole point of "God" trying to communicate with his insignificant little creations is to tell them what he expects of them.

IF that were "the whole point..."
THEN it would've happened

It doesn't happen that way
So there must be another "whole point"

 

[Augustus]

Every word in the Qur'an was revealed by Mohamed between 610 and 632 CE, and is associated with whatever was happening at the time. Therefore, every verse has situational context, but is knowing that context necessary in understanding the message a verse was meant to convey?

The degree to which the "historical context" represents an actual factual event is often very dubious. It's really just an expansion of Islamic theology.

It seems as if much of the "historical context" (Hadith/Sirah) emerged after the Quran was written as specifically as a tool to help interpret the Quran.

So yes, traditional Islamic scholarship suggests the context is necessary (arguably so much so that they had to invent one).

And even for Quranist Muslims who reject hadith/sirah, you don't interpret the verse rank literally and independent of other other verses, but as part of a broader, cohesive textual understanding.

Neither the Byzantines nor the Persians aggressed against the Muslims.

The peaceful Roman and Persian Empires, just minding their own business, not saying boo to a goose. The strong took from the weak, that was the way of the world. The Romans and the Persians has been doing this for centuries.

Was probably pretty similar to what happened in the Western Roman Empire prior to its collapse.

Rome relied increasingly on tribes to secure its borders. This had the impact of uniting tribes under common leadership, and making them more organised militarily. Either Rome stops paying them, or they decide they don't fancy being the hired help any more and attack their 'masters'.

Whether these tribes are Goths or Arabs, the effects were pretty similar. Islam is likely to be as much a consequence of this than a cause.

 

[exchemist]

"You took that out of context!" is a frequent complaint made when a verse is quoted from the Qur'an. Okay, but so what? Every word in the Qur'an was revealed by Mohamed between 610 and 632 CE, and is associated with whatever was happening at the time. Therefore, every verse has situational context, but is knowing that context necessary in understanding the message a verse was meant to convey?

It's worth noting that historical context was not a factor to the compilers of the Qur'an, because they put it together without any consideration for chronology. For example, surah 2 is actually the 87th revealed and 12 years into Islam's evolution. If it didn't matter to the compilers, why should it matter to the reader?

The bottom line is that the Qur'an says what it says. Many verses, although stated for a specific reason, are worded in such a way as to make a statement of fact or to issue a general, on-going command. Verse 39:27 explains it nicely, "And indeed We have put forth for men, in this Quran every kind of similitude in order that they may remember".

For example, verse 9:111 was revealed in late 630 after Mohamed had taken an army north to Tabuk in a failed attempt to battle, and thereby start a war with, the Byzantines. As usual, the Arab Bedouin tribes (Hypocrites) had refused to join Mohamed's army, and the Qur'an was taking them to task for the umpteenth time for their reluctance to see blood spilled (especially their own). Verse 9:111 was part of that dressing down. It says, "Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain". I fail to see how God telling Muslims they have to fight to get into Heaven needs to be set up by a history lesson.

The same goes for the Christian and Jewish bibles, though, and for just about anything written a long time ago in a different culture. In fact it is also even true of much that is written today, especially anything with any subtlety or nuance. Only a fool takes snatches of text out of context and tries to give them meaning, in isolation.

 

[Link]

This book my help you as far as war and fighting is concerned:

Jihad, The Holy War of Islam and Its Legitimacy in the Quran | Al-Islam.org

 

[stevecanuck]

If you didn't do such a crap job at hacking up an argument (or whatever you did), you wouldn't have given this response.

Again, trying to isolate certain parts of my post will do you no good.

No, they are actually supposed to be aggressors, and there is no compulsion of religion per the Quran. It basically makes it clear you can't force someone to convert.
You'd know this stuff if you gave the Koran any halfhearted reading and research. But instead it looks like you want to turn posts into snippets to take them out on context so you can hear your own voice.

I was addressing your points one at a time. What's wrong with that?

You have strayed off topic. This thread is about context, not justification.

 

[Link]

I was addressing your points one at a time. What's wrong with that?

You have strayed off topic. This thread is about context, not justification.

Context and justification are related as far as this topic goes, I linked a book though I have some disagreement with it, over all it's on point to your queries.