What's new

The New Islam

But it was written in the Qu'ran in the 7th century.

Muslims didn't know it. That's what I'm trying to tell you. It was part of the code in the Qu'ran. It was not known to anyone.

Assuming that the translation, even though recently 'discovered', is perhaps accurate in some dialect of Arabic....

What about all the other scientifically inaccurate statements in the book?
 
Thats not my point, my point is the following:

1. God wants to micromanage my marriage, by giving shady advice that might mean wife-beating. If you want marriage counselling, read a book on it. A couple of verses is hardly enough to explain the complexity of a relationship.

It's pretty clear in my opinion. Don't beat your wife. If she's wrong, leave her, if she comes right, take her back and don't beat her. How do you translate it?

2. The verse implies that men are superior to women, which is totally innacurate.


Too much Bollywood. Men are stronger than women. That is what the verse says. Men have been given more strength. You deny this, I suppose?

3. It implies that women have to obey the husband, failing which, the husband may beat his wife,

I have proved to you in verses from Qu'ran and Hadith that if a man beats a wife, it exceeds his permitted limits. Yet you still say that in the Qu'ran it says it is acceptable to beat your wife. You are simply picking and choosing what you want to read, and ignoring anything that disproves your biases. I could quote much worse from the Bhadgavita about women washing men's feet, and being lower than dogs, if you like.

4. God cares about my relationship with my wife, but doesn't seem to care if I am born with 2 limbs instead of 4. (God works in mysterious ways?)

It's very simple. You are given a choice of how to act with your wife. You can follow what is prescribed, or you don't have to. If you are given some sort of hereditary disease, then this even is part of freedom of choice, since you choose your marriage partner, and therefore any hereditary consequences.

But why give different people different destinies, and then why send all non-believers to hell? Are Gandhi, Teresa, Ackbar, Martin Luther King, Galileo, Da Vinci all in hell?

Why was the universe created? Noone knows, just as noone knows the answers to all your questions. I personally don't believe all Muslims will go to heaven and all non Muslims to hell. I think it's based on something within, but I don't know the criterion myself.
 
It's pretty clear in my opinion. Don't beat your wife. If she's wrong, leave her, if she comes right, take her back and don't beat her. How do you translate it?

Well, in one translation it says beat her, in another, it says leave her. So which one should i follow?

You would say that in the modern world, wife beating is not allowed, so the second one.

You are claiming the quran to be infallible, isn't it. In that case, why do we have to look outside the quran towards society, in order to decide which translation is correct?

Too much Bollywood. Men are stronger than women. That is what the verse says. Men have been given more strength. You deny this, I suppose?

If quran is a book of generalizations, then the verse is fine.

However, if it is a book of science, and a book written by god, then this statement is completely false.
Are most women physically weaker than men? Yes. Are all of them physically weaker? Of course not.

Why don't you try beating up a female wrestler?
Or perhaps, how bout a Scandinavian woman fighting a Chinese guy?

Also, that is just one translation, in another one, it says that men are superior to women:

PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

I have proved to you in verses from Qu'ran and Hadith that if a man beats a wife, it exceeds his permitted limits. Yet you still say that in the Qu'ran it says it is acceptable to beat your wife. You are simply picking and choosing what you want to read, and ignoring anything that disproves your biases. I could quote much worse from the Bhadgavita about women washing men's feet, and being lower than dogs, if you like.

Sorry, you didn't. People can choose whichever translation they want, depending on their whims.

I never claimed the Bhagvad Gita to be infallible and a book of eternal truths. However, you are, so you need to justify it.

It's very simple. You are given a choice of how to act with your wife. You can follow what is prescribed, or you don't have to. If you are given some sort of hereditary disease, then this even is part of freedom of choice, since you choose your marriage partner, and therefore any hereditary consequences.

:what: Sorry, you are not making any sense. How does having a hereditary disease imply freedom of choice?
This isn't about the freedom of the father, but that of the son. Why should the son suffer the ignorance of his father?

The best explanation I've heard for this is "god is beyond our understanding" or somthing similar.

Why was the universe created? Noone knows, just as noone knows the answers to all your questions. I personally don't believe all Muslims will go to heaven and all non Muslims to hell. I think it's based on something within, but I don't know the criterion myself.

Well, the quran seems to think that hell is exactly the place non-believers go to.

I'm glad you admit that you don't know everything. Sadly, religious people normally claim to know everything, which always betrays a self-righteousness that is harmful for all.
 
Such as what?

Like the verse that says that man was created from a clot of blood, or the one which says that the earth is flat etc. etc.

Dude, you have to understand that archaic texts have a tendency to be liberally interpreted to suit any agenda.
I have read many such claims, saying that the Greek texts discovered everything in advance, or hindu texts were scientifically accurate, but the facts are that the people who research these claims mostly tend to twist words and interpret to suit their agenda.
 
I think we are running dangerously off-topic. And the credit/at least part of it will go to me.

But I think we should understand the root of our problems. It is the Infallibility of the Quran and the difficulties that we have to face in interpreting the book.

The Quran was 'revealed' over a period of almost 20 years and it borrows heavily from the Scrolls of Abraham, Torah, Gospel etc. The book that we call Quran today was compiled a solid 18 years after the death of Mohammad.

One of the greatest Muslim scholars - Al-Biruni himself has conceded that the Quran has nothing whatsoever to do with science. But our geniuses have to insist and we even have a thread claiming something about Quran and science proudly pinned up at the top of this forum. I'd be glad if half the Muslims here understood what was written in the last two sentences and seek remedy. But who will dare to speak something negative about the Quran eh ?

Don't you see the problem?

As regards the ethics - there is no doubt that the Quran was the best when it was revealed but humans have moved on in the last 1400 years and to even think that women are in anyway inferior to men is quite intolerable. The relevance has been lost.

To think that it was God who sanctioned beating wives in the 7th century and somehow foresaw its meaning to be altered into 'leaving' in the 21st is such dishonesty. Men were medieval 1400 years ago and it appears God follows men. It only gives credence to my premise that it is men who invent God.
 
Well, in one translation it says beat her, in another, it says leave her. So which one should i follow?

You would say that in the modern world, wife beating is not allowed, so the second one.

You are claiming the quran to be infallible, isn't it. In that case, why do we have to look outside the quran towards society, in order to decide which translation is correct?

How do I know why we do? If we do, we do. But perhaps there are some things that are given freedom of choice to choose to allow for different cultures to mix within Islam. Personally I think it's pretty clear. It says that any form of wifebeating that leads to injury is an excess of the limit, and therefore wifebeating as we are talking about is banned. So in the verse you quote, it actually means leave imo.

If quran is a book of generalizations, then the verse is fine.

However, if it is a book of science, and a book written by god, then this statement is completely false.
Are most women physically weaker than men? Yes. Are all of them physically weaker? Of course not.

Why don't you try beating up a female wrestler?
Or perhaps, how bout a Scandinavian woman fighting a Chinese guy?

OH PLEASE! DUHH

In that translation where does it say that ALL men are physicially superior to women? It says men have been given more strength than women. This is TRUE for almost 90% of cases. It is not some politically correct statement that is being made.

Also, that is just one translation, in another one, it says that men are superior to women:

PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

I read this, as men are in charge of women, because men are stronger physically and also because that is the commonly accepted way. Do you want your wife to take care of you and provide you with physical security? All the verse is saying is that a man should do this. What I read is that the Muslim man should support the Muslim woman financially, and therefore the man should be made to excel the woman for this purpose of making money. Whether it's true or not, and there's no proof of either, depends on what you believe. Women may excel men in other areas too.

Here's the translation by some others:

"Men are the protectors and maintainers ( Qawama ) of women, because Allah has given each preference overthe other, and because they support “them from their means”


I don't see anything wrong in this from a gender equality pov. Giving each preference over the other is to make women superior in some ways to men, and men superior to women in some ways. This sounds more accurate to me since there's many verses that stress equality in the Qu'ran, so this should follow.

Sorry, you didn't. People can choose whichever translation they want, depending on their whims.

I never claimed the Bhagvad Gita to be infallible and a book of eternal truths. However, you are, so you need to justify it.

Well, I did prove it. You just refuse to accept it. I'll quote it again

Pickthall
When ye have divorced women, and they have reached their term, then retain them in kindness or release them in kindness. Retain them not to their hurt so that ye transgress (the limits). He who doeth that hath wronged his soul.
Surah Al-Baqarah: Translation and Commentary on The Holy Qur-an: by Dr. Zohurul Hoque

Shakir
And when you divorce women and they reach their prescribed time, then either retain them in good fellowship or set them free with liberality, and do not retain them for injury, so that you exceed the limits, and whoever does this, he indeed is unjust to his own soul
Surah Al-Baqarah: Translation and Commentary on The Holy Qur-an: by Dr. Zohurul Hoque

It clearly states that injuring a wife "exceeds the limits" in this verse, so as "beating" in this context means to injure someone, obviously wife-beating is an excess of the limit.

If one were to interpret the Qu'ran logically, the verse you quote cannot mean beat, it can only mean leave (or beat lightly so not to cause injury - which is NOT wife-beating, since this causes injury in the discussion we're having). Don't you think that if wife-beating is outlawed in one verse, by logical deduction, wife beating would not be made acceptable in the other verse? Think about it.

:what: Sorry, you are not making any sense. How does having a hereditary disease imply freedom of choice?
This isn't about the freedom of the father, but that of the son. Why should the son suffer the ignorance of his father?

The best explanation I've heard for this is "god is beyond our understanding" or somthing similar.

The son, the daughter is a product of the father and mother. The mistakes, or ignorance (religious people may call it crimes) of the father and mother can lead to such hereditary diseases coming out in the children. It is freedom of choice of the parents that causes this (together with ignorance).

Well, the quran seems to think that hell is exactly the place non-believers go to.

I'm glad you admit that you don't know everything. Sadly, religious people normally claim to know everything, which always betrays a self-righteousness that is harmful for all.

Just like you're claiming to know everything, oddly enough :)
 
Like the verse that says that man was created from a clot of blood, or the one which says that the earth is flat etc. etc.

Well, the vessels do clot a bit more during pregnancy. It says the earth is egg-shaped afaik. It depends on how you translate a particular word.

Dude, you have to understand that archaic texts have a tendency to be liberally interpreted to suit any agenda.

I agree, so?

I have read many such claims, saying that the Greek texts discovered everything in advance, or hindu texts were scientifically accurate, but the facts are that the people who research these claims mostly tend to twist words and interpret to suit their agenda.

Go and check some of the old Qu'rans, they're the same as today. They've even been carbon dated afaik.
 
The very second line "...her Muslim faith, it was haram -- forbidden -- to dabble in movies..." makes the article pretty un-read-worthy.
 
By Robert Pigott
Religious affairs correspondent, BBC News


Turkey is preparing to publish a document that represents a revolutionary reinterpretation of Islam - and a controversial and radical modernisation of the religion.

The country's powerful Department of Religious Affairs has commissioned a team of theologians at Ankara University to carry out a fundamental revision of the Hadith, the second most sacred text in Islam after the Koran.

The Hadith is a collection of thousands of sayings reputed to come from the Prophet Muhammad.

As such, it is the principal guide for Muslims in interpreting the Koran and the source of the vast majority of Islamic law, or Sharia.


This is kind of akin to the Christian Reformation. Not exactly the same, but... it's changing the theological foundations of [the] religion

But the Turkish state has come to see the Hadith as having an often negative influence on a society it is in a hurry to modernise, and believes it responsible for obscuring the original values of Islam.

It says that a significant number of the sayings were never uttered by Muhammad, and even some that were need now to be reinterpreted.

'Reformation'

Commentators say the very theology of Islam is being reinterpreted in order to effect a radical renewal of the religion.

Its supporters say the spirit of logic and reason inherent in Islam at its foundation 1,400 years ago are being rediscovered. Some believe it could represent the beginning of a reformation in the religion.


Some messages ban women from travelling without their husband's permission... But this isn't a religious ban. It came about because it simply wasn't safe for a woman to travel alone


Turkish officials have been reticent about the revision of the Hadith until now, aware of the controversy it is likely to cause among traditionalist Muslims, but they have spoken to the BBC about the project, and their ambitious aims for it.

The forensic examination of the Hadiths has taken place in Ankara University's School of Theology.

An adviser to the project, Felix Koerner, says some of the sayings - also known individually as "hadiths" - can be shown to have been invented hundreds of years after the Prophet Muhammad died, to serve the purposes of contemporary society.

"Unfortunately you can even justify through alleged hadiths, the Muslim - or pseudo-Muslim - practice of female genital mutilation," he says.

"You can find messages which say 'that is what the Prophet ordered us to do'. But you can show historically how they came into being, as influences from other cultures, that were then projected onto Islamic tradition."

The argument is that Islamic tradition has been gradually hijacked by various - often conservative - cultures, seeking to use the religion for various forms of social control.

Leaders of the Hadith project say successive generations have embellished the text, attributing their political aims to the Prophet Muhammad himself.

Revolutionary

Turkey is intent on sweeping away that "cultural baggage" and returning to a form of Islam it claims accords with its original values and those of the Prophet.


But this is where the revolutionary nature of the work becomes apparent. Even some sayings accepted as being genuinely spoken by Muhammad have been altered and reinterpreted.

Prof Mehmet Gormez, a senior official in the Department of Religious Affairs and an expert on the Hadith, gives a telling example.

"There are some messages that ban women from travelling for three days or more without their husband's permission and they are genuine.

"But this isn't a religious ban. It came about because in the Prophet's time it simply wasn't safe for a woman to travel alone like that. But as time has passed, people have made permanent what was only supposed to be a temporary ban for safety reasons."

The project justifies such bold interference in the 1,400-year-old content of the Hadith by rigorous academic research.

Prof Gormez points out that in another speech, the Prophet said "he longed for the day when a woman might travel long distances alone".

So, he argues, it is clear what the Prophet's goal was.



Yet, until now, the ban has remained in the text, and helps to restrict the free movement of some Muslim women to this day.


There's also violence against women within families, including sexual harassment... This does not exist in Islam... we have to explain that to them
Hulya Koc, a "vaize"

As part of its aggressive programme of renewal, Turkey has given theological training to 450 women, and appointed them as senior imams called "vaizes".

They have been given the task of explaining the original spirit of Islam to remote communities in Turkey's vast interior.

One of the women, Hulya Koc, looked out over a sea of headscarves at a town meeting in central Turkey and told the women of the equality, justice and human rights guaranteed by an accurate interpretation of the Koran - one guided and confirmed by the revised Hadith.

She says that, at the moment, Islam is being widely used to justify the violent suppression of women.

"There are honour killings," she explains.

"We hear that some women are being killed when they marry the wrong person or run away with someone they love.

"There's also violence against women within families, including sexual harassment by uncles and others. This does not exist in Islam... we have to explain that to them."

'New Islam'

According to Fadi Hakura, an expert on Turkey from Chatham House in London, Turkey is doing nothing less than recreating Islam - changing it from a religion whose rules must be obeyed, to one designed to serve the needs of people in a modern secular democracy.

He says that to achieve it, the state is fashioning a new Islam.

"This is kind of akin to the Christian Reformation," he says.

"Not exactly the same, but if you think, it's changing the theological foundations of [the] religion. "

Fadi Hakura believes that until now secularist Turkey has been intent on creating a new politics for Islam.

Now, he says, "they are trying to fashion a new Islam."

Significantly, the "Ankara School" of theologians working on the new Hadith have been using Western critical techniques and philosophy.

They have also taken an even bolder step - rejecting a long-established rule of Muslim scholars that later (and often more conservative) texts override earlier ones.

"You have to see them as a whole," says Fadi Hakura.

"You can't say, for example, that the verses of violence override the verses of peace. This is used a lot in the Middle East, this kind of ideology.

"I cannot impress enough how fundamental [this change] is."
BBC NEWS | Europe | Turkey in radical revision of Islamic texts

Got it for you Salim ;)
 
Can this be called Ijtihad?

Will it ever be accepted by Moslems the world over?

I have my serious doubts.
 
Hi,

Salim, Only one muslim nation needs to accept it---doesn't matter if the other don't---in time they will follow through.

Men like to control other men as well as women. Muslim men are no different. Al Biruni was just another muslim---if today, Agnostic Muslim or Salim or Mastan Khan have written a book on slamic jurisprudence and the interpretation of the hadith, it would have as much value as any other writer 500 years from today, if that book was discovered from the ruins of a building destroyed by a nuclear holocast which incidently happened right after the publication of that book. People would say---hey agno had this wonderful meaning about this hadith and Salim was so thoughtful when it came to crime and punishment---but this guy Mastan Khan---what was he smoking at that time:mod:

Take for example 'sood' ("usury") interest---muslims have not been able to interpret the meaning of this word---they have banged their heads against the walls but they have fallen short---the only way to understand is to understand the loan practises of 1400 years ago of the arab money lenders---without having an understanding of those loans, how can anyone talk about interest being haram---was that interest simple interest or was rate charged fell within the range of usury---was the interest rate amortised or was it simple interest or was interest charged on top of interest principal as well---there is so much gray area.

Turkey has every right to do what it is doing---sadly---since the destruction of muslim empires by Chengiz Khan in the 12th century---there has never been any fulltime effort carried out by the learned muslim people of each period in any century to remove any confusion about the belief. They all go back to the iterpretations of 8 centuries ago---there has been such a long time of inactivity in between.
 
Turkey is doing no such thing as 'revising' ahadees , what they are doing is re-classifyng them. ( although I think there is no need for doing so )

Turkey Classifying Not Revising Hadith - IslamOnline.net - News

From the above link:
"Make no mistake, we are not after modifying or revising the Hadith," Mehmet Gormez, deputy director of the religious affairs authority Diyanet and supervisor of the project, told IslamOnline.net in a phone interview.

"What we are actually doing is re-classifying, re-categorizing the Hadith and translating it into Turkish, no more no less."

More so what ever they are doing pertains ONLY to the ahadess and NOT to the Holy Quran , which is the ultimate truth that no one can change or modify or revise or alter in any way or form.

This is the miracle of the Holy Quran that it will remain unchanged till the end of time , Allah Almighty Himself is the Guardian of each and every verse and no mortal can change it.

As far as ahadess are concerend , people like Imam Bukhari went to great lenghts to veirfy the 'riwayat' ( or sayings ) of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) but still some ahadess are what is called 'zaeef' , to say that ahadess are not 'authentic' is not respectable , just like using the word 'Jihadi' is disrespectful , I persoanlly find it very offensive since the word 'Jihad' apears in the Holy Quran and making it 'Jihadi' is actaully (Nauzobillah) twisting the words of Allah!

So, 'zaeef' is the respectable way to say that some ahadees cannot be fully taced back to the Prophet hence these are classified as 'zaeef'.

Turkey is doing something similar , they arnt altering anything and as the Director himself put it "No Muslim in the right mind would dare delete any hadith or tamper with the Prophet's heritage"
 
a little sigh of relief there, i thought they were going to reinterpret islam to fit their needs.
 

Back
Top Bottom