>>570463 >reading the Qur'an I'd say "studying the Qur'an". It's a very complex book, which is incredibly difficult to understand without deep linguistic and theological study. I've stopped reading the translations, I'd rather study Arabic and study the Qur'an as I go.
>>570492 It served it's purpose when I was trying to restore my relationship with God in general. Christian, but when I brought a Qur'an to see what it was about it helped me out and I still read it somewhat frequently.
As a Muslim, I'm very much against these kinds of interpretations of the Qur'an as I feel it risks encouraging materialism of the worst kind and making Islam fit into the paradigms of guys like Descartes and Kant, as opposed to the paradigms of al-Ghazali, Ibn Sina or even Ibn Rushd
The traditional Islamic view of the universe, not to try to trivialize it, is much more similar to something like the Neoplatonic view of a layered metaphysical universe. The idea that angels are beings who can be "scientifically studied," is positively absurd since these are supposed to be beings who are more part of the Intelligible or Pneumatic worlds than the strictly material worlds. It's one step from such a position to saying things like the angels are aliens riding around in flying saucers because that sounds more "scientific". Most attempts to project modern scientific miracles is based on false understandings of modern science itself by people who really don't have a lot of training in that field but just want to make it sound more "scientific" in the superficial sense because they suffer from a massive inferiority complex or confusion of thought that makes them fearful of Westerners calling them primitive or superstitious or want to pretend "WE WUZ SCIENTIFIC KINGZ N SHIEET UNTIL THOSE DIRTY WHITE EUROPEANS STOLE OUR SCIENCE!", or pure conjecture by Muslims with scientific background who really are little more than Deists in their own thinking.
>>570538 >As a Muslim, I'm very much against these kinds of interpretations of the Qur'an as I feel it risks encouraging materialism of the worst kind and making Islam fit into the paradigms of guys like Descartes and Kant I understand, akhi, but you have to say that it makes sense. God included many things in the Qur'an to impress disbelievers, and I believe that these certain scientific revelations are intended for our age; and thus pivotal in the engagement of modern people.
I completely understand, but we're told to iqra - read. I'm not advocating the entire conversion of Islamic thought, but I believe that some aspects must be entertained. We have nothing to fear, for Al-Kitab is designed to withstand it.
Most of the "scientific miracles" involve people shoehorning poetic language describing then-contemporary knowledge to meet actual modern scientific understanding. Stuff lIke the description of a fetus developing says very little in terms of specifics and nothing contemporary doctors woukd not have known, but it is propped up as a "scientific miracle" anyway.
It's a shame you probably don't read Danish, the language is amazing. The book starts by looking at Abraham, and basically despairing at the implications of the story when relating it to faith, duty, morality and absolute truth.
If you read any Kierkegaard, read Fear and Trembling.
>>570728 >you'd think it would specify which Christians they were talking about But it did. That class of Christian did not have a special Arabic name, so that class of Christian was simply described as they were. Even in English, a term for that class of Christian "Collyridianism", is an obscure term. Similarly, the Qur'an usually refers to Trinitarian Christians by description, not by using a special term to distinguish them from non-Trinitarians.
>And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden?-- (5:116) Pickthall trans.
Keeping in mind that the Qur'an doesn't TECHNICALLY address the trinity as such but rather addresses polytheism in general whether this falls under the category of trinitarianism or not and of course considering that the Qur'an is most often addressing an audience that is mostly of pagan background, why should this verse necessarily be taken to mean that the Qur'an is saying that the "trinity" is comprised of Jesus and Mary? The fact is this verse can be applicable in a variety of contexts all at the same time:
If it is addressing a particular understanding of the trinity in Arabia at the time, it would be equally applicable to pagan notions of divinity, as the worship of Mary as a goddess was not uncommon among the pagan Arabs, who usually included Jesus, Mary and other Biblical figures in their pantheon of gods. If is addressing particular pagan traditions, then it would be applicable to any present or even potential Christian theology that was regarded as also guilty of elevating Mary's status to that which would be considered a violation of God's oneness and transcendence, ie making her a goddess. The Qur'an also accuses the Christians and Jews of taking their rabbis and priests "lords beside Allah"
>They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One Allah. There is no Allah save Him. Be He Glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)! --(9:31) Pickthall trans.
Sydney H. Griffith, professor of Early Christian Studies at the Catholic University of America, in his book "The Bible in Arabic" has pointed out that rather than the Qur'an being ignorant of Christian doctrines, it demonstrates a very deep knowledge of wider Christian debate, particularly in its Aramaic speaking contexts and that the Qur'an can be seen as another voice in these debates, addressing particular issues of concern to the main Eastern Churches of the time. He draws attention to a few key verses:
>They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no Allah save the One Allah. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve. --5:73 Pickthall
>And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. --4:157 Pickthall
Griffith points out that both these verses are slightly different expressions of what was being said in Syriac and Eastern Christian communities at the same time. with regards to 5:73 he says on page 34:
>The historically troublesome term for commentators of both ancient and modern in the passage quoted above from surat al-Ma'idah 73 is the phrase thalith thalathatin, 'one of three', sometime translated as 'third of three'. Scholars have not heretofore recognized it as reflecting an epithet of Jesu the Messiah, common in mainstream Christian Syriac homilectic texts in the adjectival form tlithaya, meaning 'one of three' 'treble' 'trine, and referring to Jesus the Son of God as 'one of three' in the Trinity, and as typologically characterized by 'three' on account of having spent three hours on the cross and three days in the tomb, just as Jonah spent three days in the belly of the whale.
>>571013 Griffith then refers the reader to his essay "Syriacisms in the Arabic Qur'an: Who were those who said Allah is the third of three according to al-Maidah 73?"
with regards to 4:157, Griffith draws attention to similar statements being uttered by Syriac speaking Christians as well. On the issue of 5:116, Griffith rejects the beliefs of other scholars that this is some reference to an obscure sect (which he doesn't necessarily the deny the possibility of existing in the Arabian peninsula) but that instead, in true Qur'anic fashion, it is addressing a wider Christian controversy on page 35:
>Rhetorically speaking, the verse cannot reasonably be taken as evidence that the Qur'an supposes that Mary, the mother of Jesus is a member of the Christian Trinity. Rather, God's question to Jesus puts in high releif what the Qur'an thereby hghlights as being, from its point, the absurd corollary of the Christian belief that Jesus is the Son of God, namely that Mary his mother must therefore also somehow be divine. The passage in fact recalls the then current theological controversy dividing the largely Syriac/Aramaic-speaking, Jacobit and Nestorian Christians in the Qur'an's own milieu over the propriety and the veracity of the Marian title theotokos, 'Mother of God'. Nestorian Christians rejected the title for much the same reason as does the Qur'an in this verse; it would logically to claim too much for Jesus' human mother. The Jacobites, to the contrary, supported the propriety and orthodoxy of this title for Mary because in their view it protects the Nicene affirmation of the full divinity of Jesus of Nazareth as the consubstantial (homoousios) Son of God the Father. This matter was at the heart of the long drawn out, church dividing Christological controversies that troubled Christians of the sixth and seventh centuries. And here, as elsewhere, the Qur'an seems very an courant with precisely these matters.
>>570455 yeah, but then it also does stuff like "the Earth is suspended on the back of a turtle which is on top of a mountain made of ruby which is held up by angels which is in the nostril of a fish in an ocean larger than everything forever and all of it is created by Allah"
It's metaphors and social mores of a millenia and a half ago. The only legit reason to convert to any religion is the metaphors speak to you.
>>570455 I am Muslim and I find most of these scientific miracle ideas hard to take. It seems to me that the people that favor them are people that typically don't read or take inspiration from the Quran and like to cement their faith with anything. They should obviously not look for the sensational.
For most of the period of Islam, people have had access to strong faith without these ideas and that these ideas are so new makes me also suspicious. I do believe that the Quran would never contradict a scientific fact but the main problem with these ideas is that nobody can ever predict something about science from the Quran before it is empirically discovered.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.