I watched a programme last night on Channel 4 which asked the question “How Do You Know God Exists?” The key figures interviewed were the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Westminster Vincent Nichols, Muslim theologian Tariq Ramadan, Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks and Hindu Sadhu Paramtattvadas.
In general the programme was a bit of a damp squid with some wishy washy answers.
The presenter pointed out that they were unable to interview the head of Islam in the UK as there was none so it interviewed a man named Tariq Ramadan. On his web site, (http://www.tariqramadan.com/spip.php?lang=en ) this man describes himself as . . . . Professor Tariq Ramadan holds MA in Philosophy and French literature and PhD in Arabic and Islamic Studies from the University of Geneva. In Cairo, Egypt he received one-on-one intensive training in classic Islamic scholarship from Al-Azhar University scholars.
On several occasions he explained away aspect of the Qu’ran as not to be taken literally as it was written at a time and to be understood by 7th Century Arabs. For example when he asked about the description of heaven and hell he said, for example, that the heavenly rewards promised in the Qu’ran were a description of the types of rewards that a 7th century Arab would expect and that it wasn’t to be taken literally. That all makes sense to me, I have said similar thing many times on this forum. The question is, do you agree; do you agree that the words of the Qu’ran need not be taken literally and if the words of the Qu’ran need not be taken literally as they were aimed at 7thC Arabs, does it not follow that the sunnah was the ways, practices and customs of 7thC Arabs which might not be appropriate in the 21stC?
3:7 He it is who has bestowed upon thee from on high this divine writ, containing messages that are clear in and by themselves - and these are the essence of the divine writ- as well as others that are allegorical. Now those whose hearts are given to swerving from the truth go after that part of the divine writ which has been expressed in allegory, seeking out [what is bound to create] confusion, and seeking [to arrive at] its final meaning [in an arbitrary manner]; but none save God knows its final meaning. Hence, those who are deeply rooted in knowledge say: "We believe in it; the whole [of the divine writ] is from our Sustainer - albeit none takes this to heart save those who are endowed with insight.
__________________________
that which is literal is literal.. that which is allegorical is allegorical .. but you need to be deeply rooted in knowledge as the Quran tells us as to not render the explanation of your choosing, else you end up being one of those (with deviant intentions) also as the verse suggests...
that being said, The Quran is for every century, and not open to re-interpretation.. it is a done deal!
all the best
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
I agree with Sister Skye. There may be parts of the Qur'an that are allegorical or more metaphorical in nature (such as the verse discussing the thread and determining the fast in Ramadan), but there are also many verses that are literal (ie, the punishments in hell and the rewards in heaven).
I don't see how a Muslim could say that the Qur'an really only applies to 7th century Arabs...it is a timeless Book that will continue to be relevant for all nations at all points in time.
I haven't seen the program, but if Tariq Ramadan really said that the Qur'an can be re-interpreted by every new generation (correct me if I misunderstood his point of view), then this is wrong. If this were the case, then Islam would have changed many times over the last 1400 years. Thank God it has not.
^^ what I meant by re-interpretation is the secularization of it.. not that we can't look into it for meaning.. in other word it is transcendent and not specific to 7th c as some will have you believe...
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
the qur'an is open to interpretation since there is no official interpretation. but one has to be knowledgeable of many things before doing it.
I think by re-interpretation we're referring to the notion that we can come up with something that goes against what Prophet Muhammad taught (ie, as Thinker suggests, re-interpreting the Sunnah), believing that parts of the Qur'an only applied to 7th century Arabs. Of course there are differences of opinion on many aspects of the Qur'an, but these have always existed.
For example, some modernists and critics of the Abrahamic faiths say that the reason for prohibiting pork was because it was not safe to keep it in those hot, desert environments.. They say that since we have refrigerators today, it's OK to eat it. Re-interpreting those verses in the Qur'an that prohibited pork to be no longer relevant today is not acceptable. God gave us a law, and we're obliged to stick to it, even if we don't fully understand the reason behind it.
Anyways, that's how I understood it, but like I said, I haven't seen the program so it's tough to judge Tariq Ramadan's statement in a vacuum.
syke nailed it - The quran itself shows that there are literal and non literal verses.
peace
Do you think the pious don't sin?
They merely:
Veiled themselves and didn't flaunt it
Sought forgiveness and didn't persist
Took ownership of it and don't justify it
And acted with excellence after they had erred - Ibn al-Qayyim
that which is literal is literal.. that which is allegorical is allegorical .. but you need to be deeply rooted in knowledge as the Quran tells us as to not render the explanation of your choosing, else you end up being one of those (with deviant intentions) also as the verse suggests...
that being said, The Quran is for every century, and not open to re-interpretation.. it is a done deal!
OK, literal and allegorical – we could ponder on the question of why God, knowing the confusion it would bring, would want to include the allegorical but by the bye. . . . . certain obvious questions follow:
1. How do we identify what is literal from what is allegorical?
2. If no ‘no one knows its [the allegorical] hidden meanings except Allah’ surely it must be ignored because you can not know what it means?
3. Next, ‘albeit none takes this to heart save those who are endowed with insight’ or Ali’s translation – ‘and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding’ . . . it is not clear whether this line refers to the literal or the allegorical or both.
4. ‘Men of understanding’ – I presume these are the ‘scholars’ that are constantly spoken of – is Tariq Ramadan not a scholar?
salam
the quran is the book of @llah and so its meaning is also from @llah so interprting as we like according to our desires is totally wrong . Yes times do change but the meaning of the quran doesnt change and never will even if ppl will try to hijack and force their views onto the quran yeh its a free country but not a free quran !
Perhaps that would be the case if seeking knowledge in Islam was only so for a select few Illuminati.. but it is in fact mandatory on every Muslim..
OK, literal and allegorical – we could ponder on the question of why God, knowing the confusion it would bring, would want to include the allegorical but by the bye. . . . . certain obvious questions follow:
I don't see any confusion given that 85% are in consensus .. minor variations hardly constitute 'confusion'
1. How do we identify what is literal from what is allegorical?
You'll have to read the verse or ask if you personally don't know..
2. If no ‘no one knows its [the allegorical] hidden meanings except Allah’ surely it must be ignored because you can not know what it means?
No, it can't be ignored, for that is the article of faith and that is what separates the believers from the non..
from the second chapter:
Alif. Lam. Mim.
2 THIS DIVINE WRIT - let there be no doubt about it - is [meant to be] a guidance for all the God-conscious
3 who believe in [the existence of] that which is beyond the reach of human perception, and are constant in prayer, and spend on others out of what We provide for them as sustenance;
3. Next, ‘albeit none takes this to heart save those who are endowed with insight’ or Ali’s translation – ‘and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding’ . . . it is not clear whether this line refers to the literal or the allegorical or both.
Both.
4. ‘Men of understanding’ – I presume these are the ‘scholars’ that are constantly spoken of – is Tariq Ramadan not a scholar?
Scholars (men and women) to use the masculine in Arabic doesn't necessarily exclude the feminine (but I digress) I don't know who Tariq Ramadan is.. his name sounds suspicious .. nonetheless, if his opinion is shared by sunni scholars and he has graduated from an institution that produces scholars then he is.. otherwise he isn't...
can't become an architect and presume that it would also make you a scholar on marine biology...
your in depth expertise is usually limited to your area of scholarship.. that is not denote that you are ignorant of other areas, it just means you are not a specialist in said field.. common things are common sense to all.. people seek specialists because there is something they know, that isn't common to the rest..
hope that clarifies it?
all the best
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
عن تميم بن أوس الداري أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: قال الدين النصيحة ثلاثا قلنا لمن يا رسول الله قال لله ولكتابه ولرسوله ولأئمة المسلمين وعامتهم - رواه مسلم
The following line from Wikipedia about Tariq shows where he stands:
In general he believes in the need to continue to reinterpret the Qur'an in order to correctly understand Islamic philosophy.
Mr. Tariq, what you really want to say is that you want to reinterpret the Qur'an because you are ashamed of your religion. Freaking modernist and these guys, who want to change the religion, are called scholars. They make me
عن تميم بن أوس الداري أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: قال الدين النصيحة ثلاثا قلنا لمن يا رسول الله قال لله ولكتابه ولرسوله ولأئمة المسلمين وعامتهم - رواه مسلم
The following line from Wikipedia about Tariq shows where he stands:
In general he believes in the need to continue to reinterpret the Qur'an in order to correctly understand Islamic philosophy.
Mr. Tariq, what you really want to say is that you want to reinterpret the Qur'an because you are ashamed of your religion. Freaking modernist and these guys, who want to change the religion, are called scholars. They make me
simple case of secularizing Islam as was done with the others
they only fool themselves by taking charlatans for scholars and forcing the terms on the rest of us.. Islam will be preserved by God's will insha'Allah..
61:8] Their intention is to extinguish Allah's Light (by blowing) with their mouths: but Allah will complete (the revelation of) His Light, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it).
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
^yeh, maybe scholar in general meaning of the word but he is definitely not an Islamic scholar, which what Thinker originally thought or was trying to put forward as (I think)
عن تميم بن أوس الداري أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: قال الدين النصيحة ثلاثا قلنا لمن يا رسول الله قال لله ولكتابه ولرسوله ولأئمة المسلمين وعامتهم - رواه مسلم
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks