• 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!

Sunni's follow Islam as defined by the Qur'an more than the Shia.

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
You said you just read the Quran as a stand alone text yet in this thread you have talked about a) Muhammad starting in Mecca then going to Medina b) assumed there are such things as Meccan and Medinan surahs c) talked about reading the Quran in 'chronological order' d) discussed Banu Qurayza

For all of these you are dependent on hadith/sirah literature (and often additional exegesis).

So can we agree that it is perfectly clear that you do not read the Quran as a stand alone text?



You claimed that Quranic translation is not influenced by hadith/sirah as "words are words". This is obviously wrong.

Quranic scholars have never been able to agree what many words and phrases mean in Arabic, how can you choose what to translate them to without relying on external information to decide what is correct? (for example the term ummi often translated to 'illiterate' and used to claim Muhammed was illiterate but could mean gentile, or not taught in scripture, etc. Some choose one of these options, some leave the term untranslated

You seem not to realise that translation requires adopting a particular methodology as linguistic features don't just magically replicate in different languages. So it is naive to think "words are words"

When translating what is most important? To preserve meaning (i.e. to preserve sectarian orthodoxy)? to preserve rhyme scheme? to replicate grammatical form? to simplify language and make easy to understand?

So you quote Sahih International. You may have noticed this contains words and phrases in (brackets), which are words that don't appear in the original and are added to clarify according to Sunni Orthodoxy based on hadith/sirah.

The Sahih International translation is an English Language translation of the Quran that has been used by Islam's most conservative adherents.[1] Published by the Publishing House (dar), dar Abul Qasim, Saudi Arabia, it is one of the World's most popular Quran translations.[2]

Translated by three American women, Emily Assami, Mary Kennedy, and Amatullah Bantley,[3] it uses un-archaic language.[4] Notable conventions include rendering the God in Islam as Allah as they believe it is not okay to use the English word.[5]

The translation has been described as biased towards "Sunni orthodoxy", which according to authors, requires words to be inserted in square paranthesis.[6] The translation has become the main version used in English-language propaganda put out by ISIS.[1] It has also been sponsored and promoted by Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi ideology. For these reasons it has been defined as an ultraconservative translation.[7]


This differs from say Arberry, which aims to preserve grammatical form as much as possible making it harder to read and understand. It is a less sectarian translation and does not contain interpolations, however even this relies on hadith/sirah to some extent. He even named the text The Quran Interpreted as he is aware that there is no such thing as a neutral translation.

So do you still claim that translation is not impacted by hadith/sirah as "words are words"?

I can't respond to this level of obfuscation and denial. What's the point? Have a good day.
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
Assalamuwa'alaikum :)

This thread is really about this:-

Most Shi'a Muslims use different books of hadith from those used by other Muslims, who prize the six major hadith collections. In particular, Twelver Shi'a consider many Sunni transmitters of hadith to be unreliable because many of them took the side of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali instead of only Ali (and the rest of Muhammad's family) and the majority of them were narrated through certain personalities that waged war against Ahlul Bayt or sided with their enemies such as Aisha that fought Ali at Jamal, or Muawiya who did so at Siffin. Hussain (grandson of Muhammad and son of Ali ibn Abi Talib) was martyred at the Battle of Karbala. Shia trust traditions transmitted through the Imams, Muhammad's descendants through Fatima Zahra
-wiki-

I have to say, as a convert, I find the position of Shi'a regards hadith untenable.
Islam isn't about "royalty", imo.

Just out of curiosity, what is there about the qur'an that could possibly entice someone to convert to that religion? It boggles my mind.
 

muhammad_isa

Well-Known Member
Just out of curiosity, what is there about the qur'an that could possibly entice someone to convert to that religion? It boggles my mind.

Mmm .. when I first read it I struggled. I come from a protestant background, and the idea of God burning people in fire forever seemed unfathomable. I turned away.

However, Almighty God had a different idea, and I eventually understood it.

Just as Jesus speaks in parables in the Bible, in the Qur'an, we have a similar scenario.

I understand that God does not wrong mankind in the least .. it is we that wrong ourselves.
Heaven and hell are not places, as such .. they are "conditions" .. conditions that we find ourselves in due to neglecting our own souls.
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
Mmm .. when I first read it I struggled. I come from a protestant background, and the idea of God burning people in fire forever seemed unfathomable. I turned away.

However, Almighty God had a different idea, and I eventually understood it.

Just as Jesus speaks in parables in the Bible, in the Qur'an, we have a similar scenario.

Verses like 9:29 and 9:111 are not parables. They are absolute commands. Calling them parables is willful ignorance.

I understand that God does not wrong mankind in the least .. it is we that wrong ourselves.
Heaven and hell are not places, as such .. they are "conditions" .. conditions that we find ourselves in due to neglecting our own souls.

Of course they're said to be real places - a few hundred times. More willful ilgnorance.

All that said, I realize you'll never change your mind, so I'll let you have a last word. Bye.
 
I can't respond to this level of obfuscation and denial. What's the point? Have a good day.

You can't respond to clearly expressed facts that reflect a basic level of understanding of a topic you claim to have studied for decades? That much is clear from the rest of the thread.

Can't say I understand why a non-Muslim would have such a strong desire to insist that a version of the Quran translated by Sunnis and funded and spread by the very Sunni Saudi religious authorities is, in fact, a completely neutral and objective translation uninfluenced in any way by Sunni theology.

(not to mention your emotional attachment to the idea that the orthodox Sunni theological narrative about the origins of Islam is, in fact, objective history)
 

muhammad_isa

Well-Known Member
Verses like 9:29 and 9:111 are not parables. They are absolute commands. Calling them parables is willful ignorance..

This is wandering away from the OP, but 9:29..

Pickthall: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

One needs to take the whole of the text, and not pick out 1 verse.
Yes .. it IS a command.
However, it does not mean that if you are a strong believer you should go and attack everybody. That's absurd !
Other verses say quite the opposite.

The correct context [ if you bother to look ], is one of self-defence.

13 Will ye not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges, and purposed to drive out the messenger and did attack you first? What! Fear ye them? Now Allah hath more right that ye should fear Him, if ye are believers.
14 Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them, and He will heal the breasts of folk who are believers.
15 And He will remove the anger of their hearts. Allah relenteth toward whom He will. Allah is Knower, Wise.
16 Or deemed ye that ye would be left (in peace) when Allah yet knoweth not those of you who strive, choosing for familiar none save Allah and His messenger and the believers? Allah is Informed of what ye do.

-Qur'an - Surah 9-
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
This is wandering away from the OP, but 9:29..

Pickthall: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

One needs to take the whole of the text, and not pick out 1 verse.
Yes .. it IS a command.
However, it does not mean that if you are a strong believer you should go and attack everybody. That's absurd !
Other verses say quite the opposite.

The correct context [ if you bother to look ], is one of self-defence.

13 Will ye not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges, and purposed to drive out the messenger and did attack you first? What! Fear ye them? Now Allah hath more right that ye should fear Him, if ye are believers.
14 Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them, and He will heal the breasts of folk who are believers.
15 And He will remove the anger of their hearts. Allah relenteth toward whom He will. Allah is Knower, Wise.
16 Or deemed ye that ye would be left (in peace) when Allah yet knoweth not those of you who strive, choosing for familiar none save Allah and His messenger and the believers? Allah is Informed of what ye do.

-Qur'an - Surah 9-

I've heard the self defense argument too many times to count. It's utterly bogus. Let's fast forward to 732, and tell me what self defense imperative brought a Muslim army to France (after conquering their way across north Africa).
 

muhammad_isa

Well-Known Member
I've heard the self defense argument too many times to count. It's utterly bogus. Let's fast forward to 732, and tell me what self defense imperative brought a Muslim army to France (after conquering their way across north Africa).

Off-topic

Perhaps start another thread?
..don't rely on me getting involved though.
It looks like one of those "who writes the history" arguments.
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
Off-topic

Perhaps start another thread?
..don't rely on me getting involved though.
It looks like one of those "who writes the history" arguments.

YOU brought it up, Kevin (or whatever your parents named you) - "The correct context [ if you bother to look ], is one of self-defence".
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
Off-topic

Perhaps start another thread?
..don't rely on me getting involved though.
It looks like one of those "who writes the history" arguments.

Now that we've established that you brought it up, please tell me how the creation of a vast empire via the sword was even remotely tied to self defense.
 

muhammad_isa

Well-Known Member
Now that we've established that you brought it up, please tell me how the creation of a vast empire via the sword was even remotely tied to self defense.

I'm replying to you, as I don't wish you to think I'm being rude.
It is not relevant to the topic that you started.

I will say this though..
Muslims and Christians are not all saints.
They are capable of being angry and slaughtering people without God's blessings i.e. without good reason

..but that is obvious, I would have thought.
I don't intend to comment in this thread about any particular battles.
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
I'm replying to you, as I don't wish you to think I'm being rude.
It is not relevant to the topic that you started.

I will say this though..
Muslims and Christians are not all saints.
They are capable of being angry and slaughtering people without God's blessings i.e. without good reason

..but that is obvious, I would have thought.
I don't intend to comment in this thread about any particular battles.

Right, even though you mentioned self defense first, you're not prepared to defend your position. Do you take it back, then?
 
Top