Does Qur'anism have it right?

[Woodrow LI]

Overall, this seems an excellent approach. Supplementation, without granting a game of Telephone the authority of divine edict.

That said...


A point of clarity, please: you are instructed to pray 7 (random example number) verses, but not given the words?

My apologies, I don't mean to slight your English, but I have to translate too, and I'm having great difficulty with the syntax here.

The Qur'an tells us we are to pray.
It does no tell us:
How often
the times
How we should pray

That comes from the Ahadith

 

[Storm]

the wisdom of the text of the Quran is and must be inquestionable, supreme, insuperable for anyone who claims to be at all a Muslim.

Well, yes. The greater jihad is often described as submission, but as I uunderstand it, this is a truly unfortunate word. The 'submission' is not cowering before something bigger and scarier that demands fearful complicity.

To put it into terms more familiar to you, freely chosen obedience is the discipline they employ to rid themselves of monkey mind and human failing, that God might flood the emptied mind with grace instead. The Qur'an is what they are called to obey.

This is, of course, an outsider's understanding. I hope to give no offense. It's a very alien path to me, but I am not without admiration.

Granted, I am an atheist and I hold no particular reverence towards the Quran. Still, it seems to me that it is simply not possible for God to create humans with the capability for judgement and discernment to them expect us to surrender them to the words of a sacred text

I get it. Your 'it' as well as theirs. Mine is different from all'a y'all.

What is a sincere religious person to do when the duty of the heart and the demand of the Book appear to conflict?

It is clear to me that no Book can over-rule religious duty.

There is that. And it ties in to my earlier point about corruption for personal or political gain.

I truly wonder if I am misjudging Quranism and more generally Muslims here. I am open to being corrected.

Insofar as you attempt to understand their faith from your own perspective instead of on its own terms, I think you are.

I don't say that your criticisms are without merit, but I've long believed that all criticisms of religion and even philosophy lack standing when they come from someone who fails to grasp the internal logic of the system in question.

 

[Woodrow LI]

How about God?


For Muslims, perhaps, and I respect that.

Not for "people who believe in God." Between neopaganism and the "indigenous" religions of North America alone, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of religions that see no need for texts at all.


That seems like a much better argument for ignoring what people tell you (even if they do write it down) and going straight to the source, no?


Have you read the Bible? Slavery, genocide, virulent misogyny?

Texts have their place, but given how easily they're twisted to support evil, that's a promise you can't keep.

Imagine a world without no Scripture. Without a Qur'an to abuse, do you think ISIL or the Taliban would even exist as a serious threat?

I don't mean to say that as a statement on Islam itself or the Qur'an as it is for genuinely faithful Muslims, but current events do illustrate the point all too well. No text is so holy that it cannot be corrupted to the service of evil. Sadly, the very faith Muslims place in the Qur'an leaves it uniquely vulnerable to this abuse. It's a terrible sacrilege, but denying the reality of it does no good.


Go with God.

The most destructive wars in History had no religious basis:
American Civil war
Spanish Civil War
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam

Virtually ever violent act in the USA is done without religious motivation

 

[Storm]

The Qur'an tells us we are to pray.
It does no tell us:
How often
the times
How we should pray

That comes from the Ahadith

Thank you.

From the outside, it seems quite obvious that that's a strong indication that prayer should be heartfelt, not scripted. Why is this not considered/ rejected?

 

[Storm]

The most destructive wars in History had no religious basis:
American Civil war
Spanish Civil War
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam

Virtually ever violent act in the USA is done without religious motivation

Now, as far as that goes, you're preaching to the choir. Even the Crusades weren't quite so simple as "they pray wrong, let's go kill 'em," and the current horrors in the Middle East are vastly more complex, and far from unilateral aggression.

My point was not that faith or holy texts themselves create conflict. I respect them all, though not as divine edict.

Rather, they are far too easily exploited to justify and exacerbate conflicts that would have happened anyway, and actually impede resolution once that happens. For this reason, I reject your claim that adherence to Scripture is all that's needed for peace.

 

[Woodrow LI]

Thank you.

From the outside, it seems quite obvious that that's a strong indication that prayer should be heartfelt, not scripted. Why is this not considered/ rejected?

There is a bit of misunderstanding as 2 words are translated to the English word Prayer

Salat--Which is our formal required prayer done 5 times daily. It is basically a religious ritual and not an individuals personal prayers

Du'a-This comes closer to the Christian concept of prayer.

Du'a are our personal words to Allaah(swt) we say them when we desire and in our own words and thoughts. Many probably most Muslims do Du'a almost constantly. Many of us try to make every word, thought or deed we do is done to Glority, Praise or Thank Allaah(swt). Our Du'a are very Personal and between us and Allaah(swt) with no intermeiaries

 

[Woodrow LI]

Now, as far as that goes, you're preaching to the choir. Even the Crusades weren't quite so simple as "they pray wrong, let's go kill 'em," and the current horrors in the Middle East are vastly more complex, and far from unilateral aggression.

My point was not that faith or holy texts themselves create conflict. I respect them all, though not as divine edict.

Rather, they are far too easily exploited to justify and exacerbate conflicts that would have happened anyway, and actually impede resolution once that happens. For this reason, I reject your claim that adherence to Scripture is all that's needed for peace.

LOL
We seem to be misunderstanding each other.

I was attempting to point out violence will still occur if religion did not exist.

 

[Storm]

I wonder why people has to either group themselves, group others or assume others are grouping them? A group called the righteous? Well, if you dont fall into that you are unrighteous. It is to me an ill-taught conception.

You call yourself "you are the guidance for the righteous"? Then you are not for me because I dont fall into the category of righteous. I dont and I wont. That position seems more self serving to me and state I it as a matter of fact, not offensively.

When a person goes for an interview, he applies for a position trying to show that there is no doubt he is capable. Then he goes to prove that he is capable. If he does not prove the same, then you can make a judgement. Otherwise, its denial at the inception without inspection.

When the book says there is not doubt that this book is for the righteous it means it. If it says "I doubt this book is a guidance for the righteous" it makes no sense, and I can see that you have placed the book in a place where its either fail or fail.

The Quran is the only book that calls itself a book. No other scripture I studied does that. A righteous book can only be taken by honest people. The dishonest will not anyway. I believe you are honest, so I urge you not to think like that.

If the book said that this is a book guiding those who are Arabs or Asian then that's a problem. Your analysis to me is false.

And I wonder what this innovation you are talking about. There have been innovations since time immemorial. The Islamic contention or rather the Quranic contention is that Islam or peace and submission is the system that existed from creation. I think you believe Islam to have been born in Arabia, but the Quran says otherwise. So if there were any innovations in Islamic tradition it would have been going on for years I cant count. This idea of innovations and Islamic traditions that you talk of are very shallow in understanding.

Peace.

Well, bear in mind that the man chiding you for mentioning righteous people entered 'Bodhisattva' for his custom title. I wouldn't give it much credence.

 

[Storm]

There is a bit of misunderstanding as 2 words are translated to the English word Prayer

Salat--Which is our formal required prayer done 5 times daily. It is basically a religious ritual and not an individuals personal prayers

Du'a-This comes closer to the Christian concept of prayer.

Du'a are our personal words to Allaah(swt) we say them when we desire and in our own words and thoughts. Many probably most Muslims do Du'a almost constantly. Many of us try to make every word, thought or deed we do is done to Glority, Praise or Thank Allaah(swt). Our Du'a are very Personal and between us and Allaah(swt) with no intermeiaries

Oh, I see. That answers that, thank you.

As a side note for everyone, I suspect my brand new dunce of a smartphone is jumbling the order of new posts as I try to respond. Apologies for any resulting confusion.

 

[Storm]

LOL
We seem to be misunderstanding each other.

I was attempting to point out violence will still occur if religion did not exist.

Uncontested. In fact, I frequently make the same point.

I mean only to add that, blasphemous though it may be (and really, blasphemy isn't near strong enough a word), there have always been and will always be those who are eager to twist holy wisdom and corrupt the faith of the uneducated to serve evil. In the Middle East, you have ISIL and the Taliban slaughtering their own people. While the American government is strong enough to prevent wholesale slaughter, the Westboro Baptists desecrating funerals, and the more rabid elements of the Christian Right (is neither) are gradually being seen as the "American Taliban."

I do maintain that it's the very reverence placed in the holy texts that allows this phenomenon. Which is not to say that I don't think you should discard them. But I will suggest that "reason and faith are the shoes on your feet; you'll go further with both than just one." (Quoth Straczynski ) God gave us minds as well as souls. Shall we insult our Creator by refusing the gift? Faith is one thing, but we have the ability to weigh what we are told against the call of grace, to discern the difference between human and divine commands, and choose accordingly - even if the human claims the authority of Scripture.

That capacity and the moral obligation to use it are one and the same. I believe that's what Luis meant by religious duty in conflict with holy texts. Correct me if I'm wrong, Luis.

 

[Woodrow LI]

Uncontested. In fact, I frequently make the same point.

I mean only to add that, blasphemous though it may be (and really, blasphemy isn't near strong enough a word), there have always been and will always be those who are eager to twist holy wisdom and corrupt the faith of the uneducated to serve evil. In the Middle East, you have ISIL and the Taliban slaughtering their own people. While the American government is strong enough to prevent wholesale slaughter, the Westboro Baptists desecrating funerals, and the more rabid elements of the Christian Right (is neither) are gradually being seen as the "American Taliban."

I do maintain that it's the very reverence placed in the holy texts that allows this phenomenon. Which is not to say that I don't think you should discard them. But I will suggest that "reason and faith are the shoes on your feet; you'll go further with both than just one." (Quoth Straczynski ) God gave us minds as well as souls. Shall we insult our Creator by refusing the gift? Faith is one thing, but we have the ability to weigh what we are told against the call of grace, to discern the difference between human and divine commands, and choose accordingly - even if the human claims the authority of Scripture.

That capacity and the moral obligation to use it are one and the same. I believe that's what Luis meant by religious duty in conflict with holy texts. Correct me if I'm wrong, Luis.

It is very complex. But basically I believe it is actually a conflict over land and mineral rights by conflicting Tribe/Cultures.
While they are all Muslim most seem to place more value and loyalty to being Iranian, Arab, Punjab, Pushtu etc.
I believe it is mostly non-Muslims that see it as being religious motivated.

 

[Storm]

It is very complex. But basically I believe it is actually a conflict over land and mineral rights by conflicting Tribe/Cultures.
While they are all Muslim most seem to place more value and loyalty to being Iranian, Arab, Punjab, Pushtu etc.
I believe it is mostly non-Muslims that see it as being religious motivated.

Well, the long and sordid history of interference from Western powers can't be discounted, particularly the haphazard creation of "nations" by the British and American covert ops in the Cold War. The Soviets did their share, but the Taliban got their footing when we armed them to repel the Godless commies. Smh.

Are you as amused as I am by who made which point?

EDIT: >erk< I seem to have confused you with Smart_Guy, who said he was from Saudi Arabia.

It's still amusing, just not quite as funny....

 

[Woodrow LI]

Well, the long and sordid history of interference from Western powers can't be discounted, particularly the haphazard creation of "nations" by the British and American covert ops in the Cold War. The Soviets did their share, but the Taliban got their footing when we armed them to repel the Godless commies. Smh.

Are you as amused as I am by who made which point?

EDIT: >erk< I seem to have confused you with Smart_Guy, who said he was from Saudi Arabia.

It's still amusing, just not quite as funny....

One big error we made in "creating" Nations, we did so in a region that had no concept or need of such.
There was considerable sharing of land that existed between cities. Many people were nomadic and followed tradional routes as the seasons changed. The sudden development of boundries rapidly ended this life style and essentially left people homeless in regions not prepared for permanent residents.

Sort of my discovering that when a product has the label of "New E-Z Open Package" it means I wont be able to open it.

It has never been wise to change something that functioned for a long time.

As to the last question, I am too old to be surprised by anything

 

[Storm]

One big error we made in "creating" Nations, we did so in a region that had no concept or need of such.
There was considerable sharing of land that existed between cities. Many people were nomadic and followed tradional routes as the seasons changed. The sudden development of boundries rapidly ended this life style and essentially left people homeless in regions not prepared for permanent residents.

Sort of my discovering that when a product has the label of "New E-Z Open Package" it means I wont be able to open it.

It has never been wise to change something that functioned for a long time.

As to the last question, I am too old to be surprised by anything

I never said I was surprised. Just a touch amused.

 

[Woodrow LI]

I never said I was surprised. Just a touch amused.

Being a Grouchy old goat, I have forgotten what amused means. I'd be very surprised if something amused me

 

[Smart_Guy]

Overall, this seems an excellent approach. Supplementation, without granting a game of Telephone the authority of divine edict.

That said...

A point of clarity, please: you are instructed to pray 7 (random example number) verses, but not given the words?

My apologies, I don't mean to slight your English, but I have to translate too, and I'm having great difficulty with the syntax here.

Since Woodrow took the lead in answering on my behalf (with my utmost appreciation), I'll excuse myself so things don't get complicated.

And no worries bro, whither it is about English or anything else, check my signature below

 

[Storm]

Doesn't show up on my phone.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Doesn't show up on my phone.

So much for "smart" in "smartphone", eh?

Here it is:

Blame/criticize/attack me, I don't mind. I promise I'll think and reflect about it instead of firing back blindly. Just please try to be fair.
- Smart Guy

Previously know as "Smart_Guy" (gatcha!)

Ignore that last silly line please

 

[Storm]

So much for "smart" in "smartphone", eh?

Here it is:

Blame/criticize/attack me, I don't mind. I promise I'll think and reflect about it instead of firing back blindly. Just please try to be fair.
- Smart Guy

Previously know as "Smart_Guy" (gatcha!)

Ignore that last silly line please

Yeah, I've taken to calling it my duncephone.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Yeah, I've taken to calling it my duncephone.

Better than stupidphone