Merkel Is Getting Me All Hot And Bothered

[Rhyfelwyr]

All it takes is to pick up the Koran.... Sura 5:51 states: "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust." There's plenty more, but I think this is enough.

To be fair there are also verses where they call Jews and Christians "people of the book". Muhammad after all was just the final prophet and Judaism and Christianity were seen as part of that chain of revelation.

I could also quite easily pick verses out of the New Testament where they would appear to be badmouthing Jews.

[rvg]

To be fair there are also verses where they call Jews and Christians "people of the book". Muhammad after all was just the final prophet and Judaism and Christianity were seen as part of that chain of revelation. I could also quite easily pick verses out of the New Testament where they would appear to be badmouthing Jews.

There's a big difference though: New Testament is not the direct word of God. Koran is supposed to be. Furthermore, this is a very blunt statement, it leaves little room for interpretation. It's not mere badmouthing, but a direct call to keep them at arm's length.

[Hax]

You've gone out of the field of historical research and into Qur'anic exegesis. This is not my field of specialty nor interest, but in essence, you've started interpreting the Qur'an according to your own perception rather than basing it on previous exegesis provided by Muslim specialists on the subject.

What I find particularly problematic is that you're applying the same logic as radical Islamists by cherry-picking what verses support your particular interpretation of the religion rather than taking the entire Qur'an at face value. Of course there are Qur'anic verses that say horrible things about Jews and Christians, there's no denying that, suggesting that they play a large role in the day-to-day lives of Muslims is factually incorrect. The general Islamic explanation is that these verses refer to very specific historical moments and have little to no value in their lives today.

it leaves little room for interpretation.

There's an entire field within Islamic jurisprudence aimed at interpretation that we call Kalam.


What you're doing right now is telling Muslims how their religion should be interpreted, even if they themselves don't agree with it. Whenever it comes to Islam, the No True Scotsman fallacy is constantly applied. It's really unfair.

I wouldn't go as far as calling it "good relations", it was more like a prolonged ceasefire

Whatever. Call it whatever you want to, but historical investigations point out that politics between the Byzantines and Arab caliphates (particularly the Fatimids) was generally quite good.

All it takes is to pick up the Koran....

Up until 1962 the Roman Catholic Church held the point of view that every Jew in existence was personally responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. This was amended during the Second Vatican Council, but you can't possibly say that merely the fact that Islam was formed from an alien culture (which is really dependent on how you define it) immediately makes it hostile to say Jews and Christians, especially when Roman Catholic dogma contained serious anti-Jewish sentiments up until the 20th century.

[rvg]

The general Islamic explanation is that these verses refer to very specific historical moments and have little to no value in their lives today.

How can one say that about the Word of God? If one takes Islam seriously, then every word in the Koran is divine. Not divinely inspired, not divinely suggested, divine. Christians can take liberties with the Bible because the only proven Word of God is in the Ten Commandments. That's it. ...Bush to Moses...Bush to Moses. Incoming divine transmission in 3, 2, 1...
Koran lacks that kind of flexibility, which is imho responsible for a lot of problems with modern Islam.

[Viking]

Any text, any form of communication must be interpreted, it does not matter whether it is "divine" or not. Otherwise you have contact with the author, it is nigh on impossible to prove that your interpretation is the correct one. It's a paradox of any religious text, particularly as society and technology changes.

[Hax]

How can one say that about the Word of God? If one takes Islam seriously, then every word in the Koran is divine.

By focus on the intention rather than the literal meaning?

Koran lacks that kind of flexibility, which is imho responsible for a lot of problems with modern Islam.

You're still applying your own interpretation on what the Qur'an is and what it says, rather than to look at different interpretations. In other words, you're telling us what the Qur'an is rather than saying it's what you think it is.

By the way, this is part of the old discussion of the Mu‘tazilites who believed in a created Qur'an in the tenth century. There's also contemporary discussion about this issue. You're kind of taking the position of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Hanbal here by denying any kind of flexibility in Qur'anic interpretation.

[rvg]

By focus on the intention rather than the literal meaning?

And what would the intention of that verse be, in your opinion?

You're still applying your own interpretation on what the Qur'an is and what it says, rather than to look at different interpretations. In other words, you're telling us what the Qur'an is rather than saying it's what you think it is.

Fair enough, it's my personal opinion. What's yours?

By the way, this is part of the old discussion of the Mu‘tazilites who believed in a created Qur'an in the tenth century. There's also contemporary discussion about this issue. You're kind of taking the position of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Hanbal here by denying any kind of flexibility in Qur'anic interpretation.

I just go from how Koran came to be: Archangel Gabriel telling it to Mohammed verse by verse. Isn't that correct?