Then I misunderstood. It didn't look like you were comparing scholarly comments (note that we're not interested in translation here, but commentary.)

The link you provided.. look back at it. Who is the creator of the second translation?

eh... They're groups not persons? Al Islam in this case, or am I missing something?

You need to get your information from a Muslim scholar. Otherwise you're dealing in horseshit.

You need to get your information from a Muslim scholar. Otherwise you're dealing in horseshit. — Mongrel

That's not what Muslim friends tell me and seems a bit weird a claim from a non-Muslim to begin with. Can we not read and think for ourselves? Don't scholars make mistakes? Can't scholars disagree? The interpretation I favour is of edip yuksel who is a reformist and the Al Islam interpretation is based on the teachings of mirza ghulam ahmad. I'm sure jihadists don't think highly of either.

That's not what Muslim friends tell me and seems a bit weird a claim from a non-Muslim to begin with. — Benkei

What sect does your Muslim friend belong to?

Can we not read and think for ourselves? — Benkei

A Protestant is bound to act as his or her own priest. You just pick that Bible up and start interpreting as the Holy Ghost brings it to you.

Muslims are not Protestants. Sunnis put a halt to interpretation in the 10th Century.

The interpretation I favour is of edip yuksel who is a reformist and the Al Islam interpretation is based on the teachings of mirza ghulam ahmad — Benkei

Are you a Muslim?

My friend doesn't belong to a particular sect but like (many?) other progressive Muslims believes the historical, patriarchal interpretations controlled by male clergy are not necessarily correct and the Qur'an can be interpreted individually.

I'm not Muslim by the way but have been visiting an Arabic-Dutch family for over 20 years now. I know a bit from spending time with them. The father obviously doesn't agree with his daughters. :D

mirza ghulam ahmad. I'm sure jihadists don't think highly of either. — Benkei

Neither do most Muslims. You just referenced the founder of the Ahmadiyya sect. Most Muslims do not consider the Ahmadis to be true Muslims, and it is illegal to be one in many Islamic countries.

I appreciate your good intentions, but you aren't accurately representing Islam. A word that ran through my readings was ijtihad. It means to struggle with oneself. It's the word the real reformist Muslims will one day use to describe their reopening of interpretation. That hasn't happened yet.

I appreciate your good intentions, but you aren't accurately representing Islam. — Mongrel

That's fine. I think that's a bit the point that there isn't an accurate representation to be had just like it isn't possible for the Bible.

Neither do most Muslims. You just referenced the founder of the Ahmadiyya sect. Most Muslims do not consider the Ahmadis to be true Muslims, and it is illegal to be one in many Islamic countries. — Thorongil

I'm sure it is but that's neither here nor there. Even in the more mainstream interpretation of "to hit" for daraba there's a ton of discussion how, ranging from a metaphorical hit with a "scarf" to an actual hit. Then there's another ton on when that's supposed to happen and a third ton about in reply to what.

EDIT: Personally I think it's such a contentious verse for Muslims because like any other person their moral instincts already balk at the idea of hitting another person. Much as how Christianity struggles with violence the most contested and discussed passages in the Bible are those on violence.

Nobody is making a huge study :, yeah but how should I love my neighbours? I suspect the Muslim equivalents are hardly discussed either.

That's fine. I think that's a bit the point that there isn't an accurate representation to be had just like it isn't possible for the Bible. — Benkei

Obviously no Muslim could say there is no accurate representation of Islam. You're treating it like a cute little exhibit in a museum. It's a living worldview that's been through mangling and future shock. The father of your Muslim friends feels sadness when he looks at his daughters because he knows he's watching his heritage die. Loss and defeat.

The meaning of this verse is unequivocal.

Obviously no Muslim could say there is no accurate representation of Islam. You're treating it like a cute little exhibit in a museum. It's a living worldview that's been through mangling and future shock. The father of your Muslim friends feels sadness when he looks at his daughters because he knows he's watching his heritage die. Loss and defeat. — Mongrel

I'm treating it as any other text : generic words superimposed over a world so complex it defies comprehensive understanding. The idea a book can be the answer or guide to every eventuality we may encounter only illustrates a lack of imagination.

Even if interpretation was complete in Muhammad and collectively with his Companions then everything after that is just more fallible humans. Assuming the veracity of the Qur'an, its true meaning was lost and shall remain lost.

Edit: I don't like any religion by the way and think the institutionalisation of religious experiences is the worst social construct invented so far. It is and should always have been a personal experience of the divine.

only for people with an agenda.

It is the translation of a verse in the Koran, which unequivocally says that disobedient wives are to be beaten. So, what 'agenda' do you think that linking to that verse is serving? What do you think my 'agenda' is?

You said it was unequivocal. It isn't. Hence it's only unequivocal to some. In this case you in order to reinforce a point some people don't share.

Precisely. I think that if a person has an inner struggle with that kind of racism, rational examination of the question can become impossible. Anytime the issue comes up, a reflexive "I'M NOT RACIST!" will appear. Maybe clothed in more sophisticated language. — Mongrel

I see. Then it is a good thing that you have such an illuminating beacon into the heart of men. Perhaps you prowl the streets of your hometown with a lantern in the manner of Diogenes, looking for a truly non-racist man, only to search in vain. How sad.

I don't like any religion by the way and think the institutionalisation of religious experiences is the worst social construct invented so far. It is and should always have been a personal experience of the divine. — Benkei

You're a Protestant at heart.

Point taken.

I don't like any religion by the way and think the institutionalisation of religious experiences is the worst social construct invented so far. It is and should always have been a personal experience of the divine. — Benkei

Without Christianity's institutionalization in Western society, Western civilization would never have gotten off of its feet. Even more generally speaking, without religious institutions, you wouldn't here and now be taking advantage of the many privileges that supposedly the "worst social construct ever created" has thus ensured, such as guaranteed healthcare, working and high quality infrastructure, a consistently safe public environment, the list goes on (which includes beer, mind you.)

Whether you like it or not, religion's importance to the world shouldn't be so quickly cast aside; nor should it be white washed as if all faiths boil down to tyranny, like radical Islam in this day and age. Regardless, humanity has relied upon religion since the very beginning, as we still do. The only question, in the end, is whether it is better to scrap the beauties found in Christianity, Buddhism, etc., or move on to worshiping modernity's new religions, such as transhumanism and relativist Atheism.

I, however, would much rather keep what we already have that's good in religion over delving deeper into the ugly, secularized, post-God cultism that religion seems to be heading toward.

Without Christianity's institutionalization in Western society, Western civilization would never have gotten off of its feet. — Heister Eggcart

This claim is often made by Christian apologists, but never credibly substantiated. The arguments made for it are usually circular - eg all the scientists were Christians, or literacy was centred in the Church - therefore without Christianity there would have been no scientists and little literacy.

It also doesn't gel with the observation that Chinese civilisation was more advanced than in the West until at least the late medieval period.

I fully agree with Benkei's observation that religion can be a wonderful thing at a personal level, but terrible things happen when it becomes institutionalised.

I'd go further and say that it is desirable for there to be some way for people to form spiritual communities to share their experiences and help one another. But I've yet to figure out how that can be done without power structures arising and the inevitable corruption that comes with that.

Sometimes I think the Quakers might have it figured out, but I'm not even sure about that. No doubt somebody will be able to come up with an anecdote of terrible abuse of power within Quakerism.

This claim is often made by Christian apologists, but never credibly substantiated. The arguments made for it are usually circular - eg all the scientists were Christians, or literacy was centred in the Church - therefore without Christianity there would have been no scientists and little literacy. — andrewk

I've not read this idiocy, but I'll take your word for it. There are plenty of stupid Christians out there.

It also doesn't gel with the observation that Chinese civilisation was more advanced than in the West until at least the late medieval period. — andrewk

I was critiquing Christianity's importance in Western civilization. I never denied, say, Hinduism or Buddhism's central importance in Eastern civilization.

I fully agree with Benkei's observation that religion can be a wonderful thing at a personal level, but terrible things happen when it becomes institutionalised. — andrewk

Why? If you say that religion can be a "wonderful" thing on a personal level, you must also admit that institutionalized religion can (and has been) also a "wonderful" thing.

I'd go further and say that it is desirable for there to be some way for people to form spiritual communities to share their experiences and help one another. But I've yet to figure out how that can be done without power structures arising and the inevitable corruption that comes with that. — andrewk

Well, golly gee...

Sometimes I think the Quakers might have it figured out, but I'm not even sure about that. No doubt somebody will be able to come up with an anecdote of terrible abuse of power within Quakerism. — andrewk

Their baskets are too beautiful, so I guess they must be abusing the arts, arts that wouldn't have come about without... [ERROR: INFLUENCE NOT FOUND]

This claim is often made by Christian apologists, but never credibly substantiated. The arguments made for it are usually circular - eg all the scientists were Christians, or literacy was centred in the Church - therefore without Christianity there would have been no scientists and little literacy. — andrewk

I was given a book by David Bentley Hart, for Christmas, about five years back, which documents the claim very convincingly in my opinion - Atheist Delusions, it was called. It was about the massive impact of the Christian creed on Western culture - the fundamental importance of 'the person' (to which you constantly appeal, without seeming to understand its religious rationale), the beginning of the education and hospital systems, the origin of modern science, and much else besides.

So again, as far as you're concerned, only 'the individual' is real, and only 'what individuals believe' has any significance. But this is not actually something which Islam teaches! Never mind, though, you will fight for their right NOT to believe it, because that is what you believe.

I imagine that one of the things that must have been attractive about Islam as it grew was its emphasis on unification.

Malcolm X on Islam

If you say that religion can be a "wonderful" thing on a personal level, you must also admit that institutionalized religion can (and has been) also a "wonderful" thing. — Heister Eggcart

Why?

You read a book that convinced you of something that you already wanted to believe. How does that amount to an argument that is relevant to anybody else?

It would be good if you can point to where I said 'only the individual is real'. I'll be very surprised if I said it. I suspect this is just another case of careless reading leading to imputing beliefs to others that they do not hold..

How does that [book] amount to an argument that is relevant to anybody else? — andrewk

It is an historical account, based on a considerable body of fact. But, of course, as it is written by a Christian, then it might amount to an account you don't want to believe - so your point cuts both ways.

It would be good if you can point to where I said 'only the individual is real'. — andrewk

Sure:

I have repeatedly said that the idea of 'Islam' as an entity or agent with which one can converse and do deals, is a chimera. It is individuals, not labels, that can be, and are needed as, partners in our liberal, social-democratic society. Forget the label and focus on the individuals and their beliefs — andrewk

As I've said so many times before, what matters is what people actually believe, not what beliefs we project on them based on a label. — andrewk

I think much of the public controversy about this topic arises from that word 'authentic'. It is typically assumed, without examination, that there is such a thing as 'authentic Islam'. There is no apparent reason to believe there is any such thing, just as there is no such thing as authentic Christianity or authentic Buddhism. Adherents of a particular sect, who have dogmatic tendencies, will insist that their sect's version of the relevant religion is the only authentic one, but very few people outside the sect believe them. — andrewk

I'm not saying that this is a bad thing but it's worth critical examination. You're advocating liberal individualism, because that is the culture you're reflecting. Nothing the matter with it, but what is behind it? What are the philosophical principles that underlie it?

The principle of individual rights is attributable to the Christian West, where 'freedom of conscience', 'freedom of association', and so on. Of course it is true that many such reforms were fought tooth and nail by religious conservatives, but the reformers themselves were also Christian.

I would sacrifice my life for your right to ignore my claims. — Mongrel

Should we expect any action on this offer in the near future?

Because religion at its heart is a communal construct, an institution. In all honesty, I'd argue that religion is most likely inherently institutional to begin with. Spirituality isn't always, however, which I think is what some here are trying to distinguish?

Fair enough. It looks like you and I are using different meanings of 'religion' - one personal and the other communal. Since countless threads on here and elsewhere have debated that meaning without reaching a consensus, I guess there's no point in trying to bridge that gap right now.