The Koran and Violence
Cannot find the source of this image, would love to credit them
I read half the Koran in the Dubai airport. Not to edify myself per se, just had a massive amount of time to kill. I was looking through the Magrudy’s bookstore trying to find something to help me understand A-rabs, and like them more. A lot of books, but I figured I might as well go to the source. The Koran is certainly very powerful. The first part is rather defensive, but then it gets into the meat of what’s what. I can’t say inshallah anymore without a certain fear of God It is actually very very good, I would guess that the original Arabic is sublime. I read it with a bias, actually a few. Actually, there’s a lot to go through, so I’ll just focus on the Koran and violence here.
I should make clear that I think the Koran is a very a positive thing. It has a strong emphasis on a life beyond this material one, which is easy to forget. Just reading it made my life a little easier in that I could have faith in something bigger than the small problems of this world.
Fair in the eyes of men is the love of things they covet: women and sons; heaped-up hoards of gold and silver; horses branded for blood and excellence; and wealth of cattle and well-tilled land. Such are the possessions of this world’s life; but in nearness to God is the best of the goals to return to. (3:14)
which I would update as,
Fair in the eyes of men is the love of things they covet: women and sons; heaped-up hoards of capital; cars branded for blood and excellence; and wealth of oil and land. Such are the possessions of this world’s life; but in nearness to God is the best of the goals to return to.
I feel like it’s easy to go crazy chasing material success in this world, and ultimately unrewarding. Or, ultimately punishing as the Koran would have it.
If any do wish for the transitory things of this life, We readily grant them – such things as We will, to such persons as We will: in the end have We provided Hell for them: they will burn therein, disgraced and rejected. (17:18)
As far as I can tell the Koran is very clear about Heaven and Hell, and the End Times and Judgement Day. Besides that, it’s very rich metaphorically with the emphasis on Angels (who are the ‘We’ quoted here, I think) and Jinns, which are a brother race it seems. The Jinns were created from flame, while we were created from clay. I’d be interested to learn more about them. The general tone of the Koran seems to come from the time that it was delivered. Mohammed faced some stiff opposition from local Arabs, to the point that they attacked him. Christians and Jews that one thought would be receptive weren’t, and they’re criticized in the Koran too. Especially in the early Surahs there is a strong emphasis on belief, and the threat of non-belief – especially polytheism.
After those Surahs it gets into the instructional stories of other prophets – Abraham, Noah, Moses, Jesus, etc. It seems to be build on these examples to place Muhammed and the Koran on this continuum. It is only after this buildup – the consequences of disbelief – that they start to get into the real teachings. I would say that it’s an effective method. The Koran says that time after time people have rejected their prophets and the signs, and those populations have either been destroyed or will face reckoning in the hereafter. As such, it’s not much different from the Old or the New Testament.
Loosely, the Koran does seem to support War. In fact, Muhammed was a formidable warrior who unified much of Arabia under the sword. The early Surahs, especially ‘The Spoils of War’ (8) and ‘The Repentance’ (9) are focused on the self-defence of a religion in a hostile environment. Specifically the military victories of Islam. Repeatedly it says that Islam is worth fighting for, notably in the section ‘Believers Permitted to Fight’
To those against whom war is made, permission is given to fight because they are wronged; – and verily, God is Most Powerful for their aid; – They are those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right, for no cause except that they say, “Our Lord is God” (22:39)
Those who leave their homes in the cause of God, and are then slain or die, – on them will God bestow verily a goodly provision (22:58)
War and violence is accepted, but seemingly only in self-defense. There is, however, pretty severe admonition for misusing or appropriated the Koran in any way for false causes. I’d say, from my brief reading, that the Koran is assertive, aggressive, and tells the story of a powerful and vengeful God. It is very clear on hell for Heretics and non-believers, and paint a picture of a world and hereafter of suffering – with blissful escape in submission to God. I don’t think this is necessarily bad. Religion has to address suffering in some form, and in a turbulent world I think it makes sense to acknowledge that -
There is not a population but We shall destroy it before the Day of Judgement or punish it with a dreadful Penalty: that is written in the eternal record. (17:58)
In this way the Koran acknowledges human suffering and offers a way out. I think that’s an important job of Religion, a kind of ‘break glass in case of fire thing’. I mainly look to faith when things fall apart, and I need something that speaks to that condition. That is, I don’t want to hear that everything is OK or that God is going to give me everything I want. By the time I open the book that’s probably not the case. In a turbulent world where war is a reality, the Koran speaks to that. In that sense, I don’t think it’s negative at all, it offers a positive solution. After the tsunami people kept asking ‘how could God do this?’, or ‘doesn’t this prove that God doesn’t exist? and I wanted to slap them. People seem to treat God like a candy shop, here to give people whatever they want. The God I felt in the Koran was much more harsh (like reality) but incredibly powerful and warm once you submit to and love him. As per Islam, which means submission.
The Mahavamsa (a history of Sri Lanka) is full of conflicts between generals and kings. Usually, the more bloodthirsty and unscrupulous would win. Our current (elected) ruler Mahinda Rajapaksa has had his own general conflicts, namely with one Sarath Fonseka. In the old days Fonseka would have staged a coup, as in literally try to cut of Mahinda’s head, and Mahinda would – if that failed – tie him to four elephants and split his parts asunder. Can’t do that shit anymore. Instead Fonseka ran for office and lost and Mahinda tossed him in jail.
Today on the 
Janith has updated 
This is highly dubious. Miss Travel is a travel/social networking site that connects ‘Generous’ and ‘Attractive’ travelers. To, like, travel together, I guess. It all seems a bit like arranged prostitution and trafficking. This is part of a broader online trend to connect rich men to younger, attractive women. Sites like 
I have a copy of the Quoran but never quite got down to reading it, but i’ll probably take a look at it this evening. Religion tends to breed hypocracy bc most religions (to be more correct their interpretations) don’t take reality into account. Lying is generally frowned upon, as is violence and a bunch of other stuff that humans just tend to do. But sometimes you need to fight back, you need to be untruthful (in order to not hurt someone or something), and i think its really good that the Quoran bites the bullet and accepts that (at least some of it).
The Quoran also has an interesting take on women, it’s not quite what i expected it to be. Unfortunately some interpretations seem to have misunderstood it.
Agreed. Both the Koran and the Old Testament contain stuff that are difficult to swallow. From what few excerpts I’ve read, I’d say there’s a little more to the violence advocacy than self defense, but the important thing is not to judge people from another era by the standards of our own.
I guess some of the things that we say, think and accept will sound as horrible to those in the future as some of the things in the Koran and the Old Testament sound to us.
I found it a very realistic approach to God, man, relationships, the world and the hereafter! It all seems down to being practical, so simple really. I have more faith in this realistic God and practical way of life, does that not make me one of the believers?
I think we can safely say that each of the Big Three Mosaic religions has a similar orientation towards violence–yes, you can do it in God’s name; yes, you can do it in self-defense; yes, God is not pleased with the non-believers, especially the polytheists, so go convert/subdue (!!) them first. This of course speaks to their all having come from the same part of the world, a place where life really was materially harsh and historically violent, filled with rapacious tribes, competing vengeful deities, and extremes of environment. There was a lot to fight over.
I’m a little shaken, Grato, by your interest in a “realistic approach to God.” To me there can be no realistic approach to God, or if there is, it will necessarily be an approach I don’t want to take. Life is not, I think, “simple.” There are some moral precepts which are, but so much more that is not. I look for something of the sublime in religion; something that takes me beyond the ‘harsh realities’ of the world. It’s perhaps an opiate-of-the-masses approach, but as a Jew I’ve never been taught to believe in an immanent and jolly Heaven, so I find transcendence to be deeply impelling in this life, thus strongly anti-narcotic.
(Side note: without being a chauvinist about it, I find it deeply sad that Christianity and Islam ‘inherited’ or developed such watered-down versions of the Jewish conception of salvation. Early Judaism posited the future coming of the Messiah, after which the pious dead would be resurrected and all would live in a glorious Kingdom of God; mediaeval and modern Jews often believe(d) something more along mystical lines (in a strong parallel to Mahayanist Buddhism), wherein the universe and its contents are to be perfected at a future time, which requires the diligent work of all beings. Anyway, next-door Heaven of today’s Christians and Muslims, being judged at death according to your personal life, is sort of petty to me. Can you begin to imagine the bureaucracy? See Albert Brooks’ film “Defending Your Life.”)
Indi, unlike you I don’t turn to faith when things fall apart, though it is very useful at those times. The God-as-candy-shop image is one I like, but I’d expand it to include the idea of “fairness.” It’s a terrible irony that religions which acknowledge (nay, promise) suffering-in-life are still called upon to account for colossal unfairnesses. I feel like religious people should, you know, look back at Exhibit A; you got told up-front that shit would go down, you know?
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how it is/can be possible to “be” several theoretically exclusive religions. For example, I believe that there is no God but God, and Muhammad is (God’s) prophet, but not that he was the last one. I also believe that Jesus was a prophet, and in the rightness of what he taught, but not that he was the Son of God. I also believe that there is a destroying/creating force in the world, which I can conceptualize as Shiva. I won’t say what I “believe” about Buddhism because a good Buddhist doesn’t believe anything, according to my (devout) yoga teacher. And so on — really I should become Bah’ai; even that’s too narrow. Judaism is the culture and religious lenses I was born into; I was also born into Catholicism and that too is appealing but so institutionally corrupt as to be unpalatable.
Then again, I said above that ‘palatability’ (practicalism, realism) is not a good yardstick for faith. Well, like all good theological arguments, I’ve come full circle and found that I can easily undermine my own point. Thus: life is not simple.
Reb, my friend,
Be thankful you can count yourself who want to live the life examined. I am. I solved my search in the following manner. Maybe I can help you. I am not telling you to reach my conclusion. Just letting you know I was once where you are and refused to bury my head.
Life IS simple. First you have to you ask a few questions and search your heart and elsewhere for the answers. Try to suspend your cultural bias as best you can. I solved the problem this way: Is there some THING beyond man? Yes. (If there is no Supreme Being, some ultimate essence that we are all emanations of, then life is utterly absurd and ANYTHING goes. If you can get away with it, do it!!!) Which of the religions represents this thing? Christianity unencumbered by the Pope or his ilk (with all due respect to Catholicism.). Nothing complex here: live by the 10 Commandments and love your fellow man. Do not seek revenge (i.e., “Turn the other cheek.”) I coudn’t follow Islam. After studying it, I decided it is a patently man-made religion. I studied Hinduism, Bhuddism (sp?), Taoism et al., but rejected them for a variety of reasons. Judaism would be my second choice. In fact, I am contemplating becoming a Christian Jew, as I believe that Christ was a practicing Jew. That I don’t understand the mind of God or why innocent lives are taken by floods or thugs or what happened to the soul of the baby who died from a snake bite 2,000 years ago in the Amazonian jungle is no longer the stumbling it once was. I don’t have to know how my body digests food to enjoy eating pizza and take nourishment from it. Finally, if I could relieve myself of the utter awe I feel in contemplating love of a child, the beauty of the natural world, the wonder-full incomprehensibility of the immensity of the universe…if I could relieve myself of these feelings, then I could be an objectivist and believe that humans are the same as a rock, just a lot more chemically complex. But mind cannot arise from matter alone. I state that with as much certainty as I can state anything.
A late response…
Jesus never that getting into Heaven was based on good or bad things you do in this life. It’s based on belief in Him. It’s all grace…unconditional. Jesus died and rose from the dead to give believers a place in Heaven.
No other religion teaches that. They all say it’s about the good you do down here. That’s why you are so uncertain of the truth. Everything we do on earth is based on the reward system. Jesus changed all that…and that’s why they killed Him…they did’n't like His of FREE slavation.
Curt
I read something in the Koran on monday about how no one but God can judge who is a believer and who is a non believer. before i subject it to my own interpretation i’ll get you the exact wording (translated of course)
Hard knocks in lfe teach you that simplicity is indeed a virtue. Each to his own I guess: As they say in qur’an: Lakum deenakum wali udeen
excuse my ignorance but what language is the Koran written in cos there sure seem to be a lot of ppl on the blog able to read it :)
hmmm… contrary to what your yoga teacher told you Reb, me thinks a person who accepts the buddhist philosophy does believe certain things… such as, what one does has consequences, one has the ability to mould his own destiny, there’s life after death and most fundamental of all, that there is no almighty god/creator !!…
it must be written in arabic…but translations are wonderful things :) heh i agree with centroid, its a bit odd to not believe in anything, such a person would be the ultimate sceptic, even more so than Descartes who at least believed in the cogito.
I have always wanted to know this – and dont mean to offend anyone but why do Buddhists worships statues of lord Buddha? – Are they meant to pray to him (ie – worship him as a deity) Can anybody enlighten me about this – what are Buddha’s teaching regarding this? Met a british buddhist about an hour ago who claims that there is no need to worship a statue to be a practicing Buddhist and that it is more of a ritual. Is this correct?
The reason that any images of Prophet Mohammed is banned is to prevent people worshipping him and not God – because they would.
ddm – Wasnt Descartes a devout Catholic and considered to be a candidate for sainthood? So even though throughout his life he rejected religious authority – in death he was revered as a quasi-religious figure. Maybe proving that human nature is more inclined towards blind faith rather than hyperbolic doubt. However i may be completely wrong about this as my memory of the pre-Locke, Hume, Kant philosophers is a bit hazy (and so is my recollection of the excellent Sophie’s World)
all that worshipping buddhits statues thing is not wat ur MEANT to do… but i think some ppl feel pious and holy doing it so they do :)
Hey, i think statues can’t go out of human life. I don’t mean to offend anyone. But you see, it is difficult for human mind limited in its capacity to capture god in its abstractness. Human mind needs pictures, words, people. And that’s why you have scriptures, statues and prophets.
A simple example is, kids learning alphabets. You need to tell them that ‘A’ stands for apple, ‘B’ stands for bat. One cannot tell them ABCD directly without any means of representations. Infact, the representaions can’t be abstract too, let alone their being absent. So, you can’t teach kids A for aspiration and B for benevolence.
Similarly, to our limited minds, representations in physical forms are necessary. And that’ s why some religions create statues, while others start worshipping a building, or the leader of that religion (Hope you get the idea). Nothing wrong in this. It is very natural.
rayray – I’m not sure of his religious inclinations but he did believe in God bc as far as i recall he felt that if he couldn’t believe in God he didn’t have much justification in believing anything else. These french buggers..i tell you..
Buddhist statue worship is just a ritual along with pirith and poojas and what not. There’s little or nothing connecting any of those with Buddhist philosophy. (though many times ppl have tried to convince me of the vibrations of pirith and how thats good for you..i however have my doubts). Agree with Mark’s take on idols.
just like with most religions, buddhism, and i think islam too, has a a really large ambigious grey area. there’s that trnasition from what buddha taught, to what humans over hundreds of years have concocted that make it difficult to really cream out the essence of it anymore. hence the worshipping of statues, the stories of sin and good, and heaven and hell. i think it’s all been created to make the common man fear it and even understand its supremity a little better. its like with the greeks, the people were ignorant, so everything was a little exaggerated and they wouldnt know the difference. but its so easy to get lost in these little things, and forget what the philosphy is really about. and a philosophy is all buddhism is, a way of life. not really a religion. because buddha was not supernatural, or superhuman, and essentially, he achieved a state of mind that any man can achieve. only, it takes you to be totally detached from material things.
savi : the quoran is originally in arabic, but there are loads of translations. many english ones too.
Reb’s yoga teacher is correct. In buddhism everything is in a state of impermanence. That is, everything is in the process of arising and decaying only the current moment exists. One cannot objectively perceive something because at the next moment it’s changed. This includes atoms, the universe, the individual, our thoughts etc. The mind itself is a sensor because of its ability to sense thoughts that arise and decay. The I (aka Ego) is not real. However, achieving the state of nirvana enables one to perceive the current moment and the path to this is through Buddha’s teachings. It is up to you to follow that path, should you choose to do so.
ddm – In many ways it is the exact opposite of Descartes (hmmm ….. reminds of ….never the twain shall meet).
SpectroidCentral – The concept of god is not important since the Beginning ( and the End for that matter ) do not concern buddhism. The only reason god(s) come up is in
the discourse / debates with other religions. It’s brought up only as a challenge to buddhism.
Rather than going on about this it’s a lot easier to link it to this discussion at theacademic.org. Keep reading the whole thread as it gets better towards the end.
ray ray: as far as i know, buddha never asked anyone to worship his statue, his remains once he passes away or even himself… but the concept of statue worshipping might have arisen due to several reasons… we cannot for get that buddhism was born and bred in India.. hence later on the ritualistic aspect of buddhism was heavily inflenced by hinduism… this is one reason.. the other is that after buddha passed away the monks who wanted to keep the philosophy alive must have found that it is necessary to create a sense of awe towards him, in order to create a certain mindset within devotees before they could be taught of the philosophy… this would have been a substitute for buddha’s apparent charisma and personality… i guess later on even people who did not follow buddism in blind faith, chose to worship statues as a means of showing respect to someone whom they believe achieved a state of mind greater than themselves…
ivap: the concept of almighty god (or actually the lack of one) is indeed important in buddhism… one should realize that buddhism came up in an environment where the belief in higher beings who controlled most of what happens on this world was very prominent.. this is a notion that had been part of human thinking for thousands of years before buddha and continues to date.. in bringing out his philosophy buddha directly challenged this line of thinking….
i think buddhism has evolved into sort of “different stokes for different folks” kinda situation.. where peaople who have a broad enough mind to see through all the bullshit can directly study the philosophy an d choose to accept it or not… and not leaving behind the others, it usues various ritualistic means to “keep the faith” and slowly drip in the philosophy bit by bit….
SpectroidCentral – Agreed, however AFAIK, the concept of god(s) is not relevant in Buddha’s doctrine on bringing about an end to suffering. Wikepedia also has a brief description on this at God in Buddhism
SpectriodCentral – i think you hit on a key point there when you pointed out the influence on Hinduism on Buddhism. I think that how religion (any religion) is practised in Sri Lanka has alot to do with cultural influences. For instance, the ‘thali’ or necklace is a feature of the Muslim wedding but is in fact a Hindu custom and nothing to do with Islam. The dowry system in Islam is called Mahr where the MAN gifts the WOMAN a sum of money. However, some (but not all) Muslims practice the Hindu custom of dowry.The Koran is very specific about money gifted to the bride and not the other way around.
Practice of the same religion will vary across the world due to cultural specifics. Unfortunately practicing a religion has become a very pick and mix thing for most people – eg – I know alot of Muslim who will drink alcohol but balk at eating pork although they are both forbidden. Bearing in mind there are no degrees of ‘forbidden-ness’ i am going to assume for the purpose of this argument that they are both seen as being as bad as each other. But it is far more acceptable AMONG muslims for a muslim to have a drink but if he scoffs a bacon and egg roll from Green Cabin he may as well be joining the queue for hell.
My theory – and its only a theory – is that its EASIER not to eat pork because there are so many meat substitutes. However, there are no legal substitutes for alcohol so it is tolerated more.
I feel i have to stress that this is merely an observation and not an attack on how people practice their religions. i know alot of Buddhists who eat meat but not on Poya days and alot of Methodists who drink but not during Lent and i appreciate that whilst this is something they shouldnt be doing anyway (according to their chosen religion) at least they are making an effort to observe it when they can.
So what i am saying is that whilst human beings recognise that spiritual faith is valuable, modern day lifestyles make the ritualistic practice of religions difficult. Does this mean that they are redundant? ie – if you believe in God and lead a good life committing no harm to anyone and generally being a good guy, is it really necessary for you to pray five times a day?
Or is that discipline of sticking to something still important?
This is a large part of what I mean when I talk about being born into Judaism. Technically I’m both Jewish and Catholic (Judaism goes through the mother’s line and Catholicism through the father, so there you have me) but since I was about 11 I ‘felt’ more Jewish than Catholic. There’s a lot of reaons for that–first among them that Judaism is very concerned with the nation and the tribe, and if you’re in you’re IN, whereas Catholicism is a little more Katy-bar-the-door.
I do not, however, believe that ritual is obsolete or redundant. I have the same frustration as others (above) with Buddhism that sees mal puja as the height of spiritual practice. However I think most adherents don’t see it that way; Protestant Buddhism is sickening to me mainly through its ugly political mutations. The ‘rules’ of things like halal are easily described as both historically situated and along certain lines of theory. Don’t know as much about that but in the kosher laws it’s clear that the scriptures say to clean everything well and eat only things that are unlikely to make you sick–no cows that died naturally (they might be ill), no predatory animals (have more diseases), clean everything well…
So then, maybe, it doesn’t make sense to follow these rules when we can be sure that the pig was healthy, the lobster alive until you threw it in the pot. There’s a whole other theory that the ethic of the rules demands more stringent reinterpretation–there’s a whole school of Jewish vegetarianism. I am a sometime vegan, and think it’s ultimately the way to go, partially for spiritual reasons.
I do, however, think it’s silly to switch off-and-on with your dietary practice!
indi – you changes seem to have lost one of my comments to SpectroidCentral
dude… calling me ‘SpectriodCentral’ is like calling you ‘yar yar’.. heh heh..
apologies…
I too have read about 200 pages of the Koran. It took me about two years to finish the Bible, (sitting on the can, I might add). I don’t personally think God minds where I read his word. I find Muhammed very interesting, he truly was one of histories great common men. I wish I could have known him. I also find it interesting that he wrote that Jesus was indeed the son of God, and that Mary, was his virgin Mother. He certainly doesn’t believe that he IS God, in fact he instructs his followers many, many times to kill those who put Gods with God.
Why?
You even mention the Sura which tells us that all infidels will surely suffer eternal damation, and firey Hell, so why do they have to kill us, and make that happen sooner than later? Isn’t the world big enough to allow us to go to Hell in good time?
I found the Koran, so far, to be very materialistic. Alot of time is spent explaining how and why material things need to be divided up just so, amoungst your many wives, for example. When you get to Heaven, you’ll want for nothing. Many visual descriptions of Heaven are provided for us, like candy being dangled in front of a child, if he/she behaved just so. I personally find the Bible less focused on these issues, and more on being a better person, a better neighbor, Father, Son, Husband, and Brother, for example. Not focusing on why I can’t associate with those people, or why I need to kill those people, and how stupid are those people, they are going to hell for sure. The Bible only describes Heaven two or perhaps three times, in one Sura alone there were at least that many times he talks of a Garden with a river, and shade trees, yada, yada, yada. Why?
Muhhamed believed Jesus was a great man, and Jesus said, “He amoung you without sin cast the first stone”. The point is no man is without sin, so trying to be perfect is simply impossible. He also said it is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into Heaven. Did anyone else notice that Muhhamed “borrows” that exact phrase, without giving Jesus credit, who said it hundreds of years before he repeated Gaberial’s(sp) words.
I am not trying to be an expert, or anything, I started reading the Koran to attempt to gain an understanding of the people who feel they have to kill me, and my family, simply because I believe that Jesus can do things that they don’t. Why make it more complicated than that? I’m not finished yet, but I have many Muslim freinds, and look forward to hopefully healthy debates. So far, all I get are polite put offs, like unless you read the Korna in Arabic, then you haven’t really read it, or when Muhammed says that Jesus was the son of God, that he really didn’t mean to say it that way, or vague arguements like that.
The best writing on these subjects I have seen so far is the Dec. 1999 article in National Geographic, “Abraham, the Father of Three Faiths”. I suggest that many of you on this web site would really enjoy that time you spend on those words. The man who wrote them was not a man of God, but had very good insights, like we really all beleive in the same God, and we are fighting and often dying over tiny differences. As for me, I am a Christian who is simply trying to improve himself, and those who I encounter.
May God bless you all.
The Koran does indeed talk about the virgin birth but very clearly states that Jesus was not the son of God. It goes on to say that Muslims are the true followers of Christ and that Christ’s message has been misinterpreted by practicing Christians today who commit blasphemy when they say Jesus was the son of God or indeed God himself. Christ’s true message will be clear to all on Judgement Day. I paraphrase of course but will try and look up the exact Sura.
The Bible has stood up to the harshest critisisms and in my opinion has stood the test of time. But bear in mind that compared to Christianity, Islam is a very new religion and is at the point now where Christianity was a thousand years ago. ie ‘Kill an infidel and go to heaven’.
Thomas Friedman has an interesting quote in his A Poverty of Dignity and a Wealth of Rage
As far as I read that’s pretty much how it goes. They’re all people of the book, but Islam is Windows XP compared to the Win 98 of Christianity and Jewish DOS.
Nice analogy and true – but aren’t all religions essentially suggesting that their paths up the mountain is the best way to get there although we are all aiming to get to the same peak?
There is a bit in the Koran that says ‘People of the Book – your brothers are as our brothers, your mothers are as our mothers…..and we are all as one before God.’
This is all pretty interesting to me as i am currently looking for suitable Sura’s in the vein of tolerance and equality from the Koran to be read out at my Muslim wedding to a Christian Minister’s son.
I do think that Islam should be subject to this sort of questioning and critisism becos if it is, as i believe, able to stand up to it, that will be evident under cross examination. I have no problem personally with anyone wanting to question the Koran and Islam because i think its necessary to find out for yourself instead of blindly following. However, i know alot of people get offended by this and one innocent inquiry can lead to a ‘jihad on you’ response.
The fact is that the Christian West is mostly educated or at least literate whilst the Muslim world is not and therefore does not have access to the Koran in the same way. For example, the meaning of the word Sharia (Islamic Law) means flowing water, suggesting that the law will adapt as water does to any vessel or at least flow along with the times. yet the men who administer it seem intent on making it as like concrete as possible. maybe they should change the name to reflect its true state today
A real question: is that true? Is “the Christian West is mostly educated or at least literate whilst the Muslim world is not” accurate?
I don’t know, and my knee-jerk reaction is that you’re probably wrong. If the “Christian West” is the USA and Western Europe, sure, though there are poor illiterate people in those places. If you’re including the Christian world of South America and Africa, then not at all. The clash of civilizations (viz.) the media keep bleating about is focused between Arab separatist militants, and their non-Arab (but mostly brown) and white Western Christian (governments/powers). I don’t think anyone is talking enough about the race issues here.
But the literacy and education thing, that’s arguably wrong. Muslim culture prizes education much more than Christian culture does; it may not be a broad/liberal education but the respect for schooling is there. The fact that many Sri Lankan Muslims speak three or four languages decently (Sinhala Tamil English and Arabic) is not surprising given their economic position here but also a sign of the great emphasis placed on education in their families and communities. Sinhalese and Tamils also have great regard for education, it’s true, and far outpace the lazybutts of the States. (Given a decent system in which to be schooled, we’d be fine.)
Anyway, I don’t think you can just blatantly claim Muslims are more illiterate than Christians.
Many muslims are taught to read and write arabic so they can recite from the Koran – this does not mean they understand the language or can understand for themselves what the Koran in arabic says. What good is there is being able to recite the entire Koran but not understand a word it says? When i mean illiterate that is what i mean. i should have admittedly expanded on this to avoid confusion. The fact remains that the Bible is far more accesible to the masses – perhaps becos it is printed in so many languages. I am aware that the Koran is translated as well but it is not taught in the same way.
Spanish speaking south americans have read their bible in spanish, christians in ghana read their bible in fanti or twi for example, but i bet that any koran possessed by a tamil speaking muslim family in beruwela will be in arabic and not tamil. ditto for muslims in nigeria, indonesia, pakistan or bangladesh or chechnya
There is no denying the value placed on education in Islam or in the ancient Arabic culture which was at one point the scientific and mathematical centre of the world. The reality is that within Muslim culture, modern education, especially for girls, is not prized. This varies obviously from country to country depending on this internal cultural influences.
The Koran has so much sense in it and Islam is so practical as a way of life that it is heartbreaking that so many muslims will never actually read it. Recite it sure, but read and understand it for themselves?
I have enjoyed this web site’s banter, thus far. I think my understanding of the Koran is forming better for having reviewed these posts. I have read twice now in the Koran about the devine conception of Jesus in the Koran, how the virgin Mary became with child, with God making this happen, thus the son of God. This naturally, does not automatically mean that Jesus IS God, just the SON of God. At least that’s my take, not my belief, I might add.
If your a student of logic, and if your up on your Gospel, (the first 4 books of the New Testement), then you will find literally dozens of times when Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man, I think I counted once over a hundred times this was done. So how about this one, if A equals B, and B equals C, then A equals C….right? Then if the Bible is right, then God IS man, or at least mankind as a collective, rather than some all powerful dude sitting on a throne, in some cloudy paradise. Again, not my belief, but an interesting study. Or at least I have always thought so.
Finally, I have yet to find alot of comfort in the Koran, I still have about half the book to go, but when I have real problems in my life, I have always found some wisdom and comfort, without fail in Psalms, or in Proverbs. Always, and in so many other places in the Bible, where God is there, with me to help me over the tough spots. So far, I have yet to find this kind of solace in the Koran…..I’m sure I’m too critical, or just haven’t been too careful as to mentally record those things to which I refer, but the thought has crossed my mind that the Koran is just a bit harder on the reader, than the Bible, which almost draws me to it, in difficult times espically. I wish every Muslim would read the Gospel, at least once before condeming us……..If wishes were horses, beggers might ride!
Hello,
well I feel a little shy to post something here because you’ve all been writing so deep and meaningful things but I just wanted to say – before I read this I never thought of myself as racist, on the contrary I thought I was open to every religion and culture but after reading your, for lack of a better name, blog I realized I’d been secretly harboring some kind of not hate but confusion towards the Koran but I read your conclusion and I was moved, I’m even recommending this site for my friend to read. Well any way yeah…haha *^^* I guess….thanks???
I have done my best in the past with the english translation, transliteration and my undestanding of the Arabic language and diction. So it’s not so bad after all .. There are tranlations in many languages. Now wheater the Arabic translations are of lesser quality, I will not argue with that , but as long as Islam Spreads the
World wide understanding will greatly increase…In- Sha allah.
Hey, I am glad someone is reading the quran, it does not hurt to do so. I have read some translation of quran.
By the way, the reason, that many muslim read the quran in it’s original language and recite, is to not lose it’s original meaning. The power in reading it in the language it was revealed in is far greater than the translation. Trust me ask any scholar that studied arabic, they dont have to be muslim. Other reason is in translation some of the meaning is lost, or the essence of it is not wholely carried.
I can tanslate one scripture in for example in english and come out with different meaning. Some word’s are conveyed differently when translated.
Thanks everybody I am new.
Hey Brian,
I am very interested on where in the Quran it is written that Muhammed says that Jesus is the son of God.
Can you please tell me the passage (book and verse)
Thank you,
God bless you
Well, there is a difference in the Koran and the Old Testament: God in the old testament told the Jews to, mind my slang here, NOT force people to convert, which is what Islam does, and actively promotes. He told the Jews to treat Aliens with kindness(unless of cource they did something bad, like theft, rape, or murdor), and even then, the aliens were to be under the law of their country, not the Mosiac Law.
You right upto an extent as kuran is old testament i.e. before JESUS was born on earth and was crucified for our suffering the bible was too harsh which is similar to kuran which muslim follow but don’t accept but they are true to what ever they follow.