question re islam

[sedonaman]

He is right, since the revelation of Allah has been conveyed to His messenger in the arabic language, the Arabic Qur’an is what we believe to be the Literal word of God, a translation of it in any given language, be it in english is all it is, a ‘translation of the word of God’ and not the ‘Word of God’ in the literal sense of the term.

So what’s the difference? Aren’t the concepts what count? Sounds like this “Word of Allah” claim is a “well,-you-just-don’t-understand-Arabic” escape hatch of last resort, fabricated to dismiss criticisms of Islam.

A translation of the Qur’an is the human effort to convey the words of God in another language and it can’t be equate with the actual words of God as revealled in the arabic language.

You can believe anything you want, but now you have run into a problem. If there are concepts in Arabic that cannot be expressed other languages, it is virtually impossible for someone to learn Arabic if it cannot be translated into the only one he does know. Therefore, I submit that because most of the world’s Muslims don’t speak Arabic, they don’t know what they believe because, “Learning Arabic will be an advantage as there is a big difference between reading the translations of the Qur’an and the original text in Arabic.”

This is one of the problems with fundamentalist religions. They take scriptures literally. Here’s a for-instance: Genesis Chapter 1 tells us that on the first day, God created light. But God did not create the sun, moon, and stars until the fourth day. So where did the light on the first day come from before the creation of the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day? A literalist interpretation cannot produce an answer.

Then there is the question of which Arabic Qur’an is the “literal word of Allah”, the one in Arabic you buy hot off the presses today or the Yemeni Qur’an?

Another fantastic claim by a Muslim on this forum was that “the Qur’an is not subject to interpretation”. Never mind that’s what the human brain does: it interprets stimuli detected by the senses, and that includes what is read by the eyes.

The only real escape hatch you have out of this dilemma is to admit that Arabic is not such an esoteric language that Islamic concepts, such as dualism and abrogation, whatever their source, cannot be accurately translated into other languages. This goes for the rest of Islam’s foundational texts as well.

 

[sedonaman]

wasnt the Torah revealled in Hebrew ? and wasnt the Gospel revealled in Aramaic ? Indeed, they were. I don’t understand whats the point your trying to make.

The Jews and Christians never claimed that translations of their scriptures were not the word of God. So that’s not a valid comparison.

The point I’m trying to make is that you can’t have it both ways. Either the Arabic of the Qur’an is translatable [in which case there is no need to learn Arabic] or it is not [in which case it can never be learned by the non-native speaker]. Consequently, a non-Arabic speaker will not only not know what really to believe, but he won’t realize that he doesn’t know. Capisce?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Shall we hide the truth because some posters here says that Muslims worship the same God?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly states that Muslims “together with us … adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day” (CCC 841).

When they joined the forum, I am sure that they are here because they want to defend their faith, and also most probably want to tell us that our faith is wrong. We have the truth! The truth must come out. This is what forum is all about.

Agreed. But if we want to attempt to correct the errors of Islam, we should argue specifically against the falsehoods it teaches that jakasaki listed above, not make vague and historically dubious assertions of an unduly ominous nature.

I think you should be aware that the historical record shows that when you are fair to Islam, you are playing with dynamite.

… so that means we should be unfair?

Now you’re not being fair. Every time Islam is debated, the discussion always winds up comparing it with Christianity. The classic is the discussion over Islam’s prescription for violence. This always prompts the response, “There’s violence in the Bible, too.” This is the tu quoque argument. Violence in the Bible is irrelevant to the question of Islam’s teachings. Endless time has been spent on what Islam is, and the only way to find out [IMHO] is to do a statistical analysis, and Warner has provided one for us:…All of Western logic is based upon the law of contradiction – if two things contradict, then at least one of them is false. But Islamic logic is dualistic; two things can contradict each other and both are true. No dualistic system may be measured by one answer. This is the reason that the arguments about what constitutes the “real” Islam go on and on and are never resolved. A single right answer does not exist.
…
For an example of using statistics, look at the question: what is the real jihad, the jihad of inner, spiritual struggle or the jihad of war? Let’s turn to Bukhari (the Hadith) for the answer, as he repeatedly speaks of jihad. In Bukhari 97% of the jihad references are about war and 3% are about the inner struggle. So the statistical answer is that jihad is 97% war and 3% inner struggle. Is jihad war? Yes – 97%. Is jihad inner struggle? Yes – 3%. So if you are writing an article, you can make a case for either. But in truth, almost every argument about Islam can be answered by: all of the above. Both sides of the duality are right.
So, when poster “Murcury” said, he is right; but, in view of Islam’s duality, the question then becomes how much right is he?

Warner continues:Religious Islam is what a Muslim does to avoid Hell and go to Paradise. These are the Five Pillars – prayer, charity to Muslims, pilgrimage to Mecca, fasting, and declaring Mohammed to be the final prophet. But the Trilogy (Koran, Sira, and Hadith) is clear about the doctrine. At least 75% of the Sira (life of Mohammed) is about jihad. About 67% of the Koran written in Mecca is about the unbelievers, or politics. Of the Koran of Medina, 51% is devoted to the unbelievers. About 20% of Bukhari’s Hadith is about jihad and politics. Religion is the smallest part of Islamic foundational texts.

Political Islam’s most famous duality is the division of the world into believers, dar al Islam, and unbelievers, dar al harb [lit. “house of war”. This is why wherever you have Islam, you will have war.]. The largest part of the Trilogy relates to treatment of the unbelievers, kafirs. Even Hell is political. There are 146 references to Hell in the Koran. Only 6% of those in Hell are there for moral failings – murder, theft, etc. The other 94% of the reasons for being in Hell are for the intellectual sin of disagreeing with Mohammed, a political crime. [This is the “treason” that poster “Murcury” mentioned.] Hence, Islamic Hell is a political prison for those who speak against Islam.
Another concept worth mentioning here is the idea that Islam is peaceful and that it fights only “defensive” wars. To understand why, you have to understand where Muslims are coming from. Islam’s destiny [they believe] is to rule the world, and anything standing in the way of that goal is waging “offensive” war against it, therefore, any Muslim response is “defensive”. In fact, the mere existence of an unbeliever is an “offense” against Islam

Thank you for the information. I do appreciate your specificity and have learned from your explanation.

Like what? Where did you get this idea? Muslim posters here have said in the past that Allah’s nature cannot be known; only his will can be known.

Islam certainly considers God to be omnipotent, omniscient, pure spirit, etc. The old Catholic Encyclopedia article on “Muhammad and Muhammadanism” states, “The doctrines of Islam concerning God — His unity and Divine attributes — are essentially those of the Bible.”

I don’t think anyone has said that everything in Islam is bad, but the most common problem causing confusion in these discussions is that some do not, will not, and cannot distinguish between Islam and Muslims. One poster in another thread responded to a criticism of Islam with the statement, “I don’t hate Muslims.” Another common mistake some make is, “I know some nice Muslims, therefore Islam is good.”

Good point, I admit. Still, I maintain that Islam is partially true and partially false; partially good and partially bad; partially/potentially benevolent and partially/potentially destructive.

 

[sedonaman]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly states that Muslims “together with us … adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day” (CCC 841).

Perhaps this needs a closer consideration. There was a time in ancient Egypt when they worshiped what they considered the one God, Ra, the sun god. Were they worshiping the same God we do?

… Still, I maintain that Islam is partially true and partially false; partially good and partially bad; partially/potentially benevolent and partially/potentially destructive.

Well, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Perhaps a statistical study should be made on these attributes and an on-balance determination made.

 

[Inishfree]

I agree, Fone Bone.

I have even heard a Catholic priest say during mass. “Don’t be surprised when you get to Heaven and you are standing next to a Muslim and Jew. Heaven isn’t a Christian’s only club.”

Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in the same and one true God.

 

[sedonaman]

Sedonaman, I don’t think you’re being fair to Islam.
…

…it is instructive and sobering to consider a case study of a well-known American seminary, to see how sharply different ideas about Christian outreach and dialogue with Islam have played out over time.

Hartford Seminary in Connecticut, one of America’s oldest theological schools, was founded in 1834 by Calvinists who left Yale College to found a new institution of Christian learning. In the early decades of the twentieth century Hartford was a leading institution in the evangelization of Muslims.
…

In 1973, Hartford created the Duncan Black Macdonald Center for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations. Its mission is to nurture Christian-Muslim understanding. In 1998, the center hired Ingrid Mattson, a Canadian-born convert to Islam with a doctorate in Islamic studies from the University of Chicago, to direct the chaplaincy program. Mattson is also the first female president of the Islamic Society of North America. In 2000 an Islamic chaplaincy program was launched at Hartford to train Muslims for chaplaincy roles in the American military. The number of students taking the Islamic chaplaincy training has steadily increased since then.

Today, Muslims make up 35 percent of the student body at Hartford Seminary, an institution which a few generations ago was training Christians to evangelize Muslims.

The case of Hartford Seminary shows how the laudable desire to understand Islam and Muslims has brought a Calvinist foundation with a strong missionary emphasis to the point of using its resources to train and equip Muslims to strengthen other Muslims in their faith.

Barnabas Fund Response to the Yale Center for Faith and Culture Statement: (“Loving God and Neighbor Together”…)
January 24, 2008
barnabasfund.org/news/archives/text.php?ID_news_items=381

 

[Inishfree]

Perhaps this needs a closer consideration. There was a time in ancient Egypt when they worshiped what they considered the one God, Ra, the sun god. Were they worshiping the same God we do?
Well, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Perhaps a statistical study should be made on these attributes and an on-balance determination made.

You are talking about pagan religions and back then, only the Jews believed there was one God. There were no Christians or Muslims during that time in ancient history.

 

[sedonaman]

You are talking about pagan religions and back then, only the Jews believed there was one God. There were no Christians or Muslims during that time in ancient history.

“He [Akhenaten] is especially noted for abandoning traditional Egyptian polytheism and introducing worship centered on the Aten, which is sometimes described as monotheistic or henotheistic.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahkenaten

The existence or non-existence of Christians and/or Muslims is irrelevant to what those ancient Egyptians believed. The key question is whether or not Allah = God, and to answer that, IMHO, you would have to compare/contrast their respective natures.

 

[dzheremi]

Sedonaman is on fire here! Go, man, go!

As I’ve been saying for what feels like centuries: There is nothing in Islam that is laudable that is not already present to a greater degree in a foundational way in Christianity. Being “fair” to Islam (what is this about, anyway? Islam is not a person, and furthermore if we’re going to use that language, why is it not necessary that Islam be fair to us, Christians, according to our ideas of what fairness is? Why not call for that, if you are all about “fairness”?) must never, ever involve losing our focus on the very certain truths of Christianity (which is to say, ALL OF CHRISTIANITY) in favor of praising Christ-deniers for whatever half-truths their wrong religion may have, which they constantly use to their advantage in duping the inclusophilic types in Christianity who blindly embrace Islamic “truth” as per that descending staircase, CCC 841…

 

[jakasaki]

I agree, Fone Bone.

I have even heard a Catholic priest say during mass. “Don’t be surprised when you get to Heaven and you are standing next to a Muslim and Jew. Heaven isn’t a Christian’s only club.”

Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in the same and one true God.

Whoa there…!!! Hold on a cotton picking minute…!!!

The muslim paradise/heaven is way too different than what Our Lord Jesus Chirst said…

Jesus didn’t say that there will be “rivers of wine flowing” through heaven

And food galore… to fast on…

And and a men will have “virgin” women who will please them

And that everything will be silk and gold and reclining seats/couches…

What the muslim paradise/heaven is - IS NOT WHAT JESUS SPOKE ABOUT…!!!

 

[Inishfree]

Sorry, I don’t know what Islam teaches about Heaven. I was only saying what I had heard at a mass. It was right after 9/11. Perhaps the visiting priest was trying to make a point of not being fearful of Muslims and not viewing all of them as terrrorist.

 

[LtTony]

If I’m not mistaken, Pakistani law is based off of British law.

The constitution
By its constitution, the official name of Pakistan is the “Islamic Republic of Pakistan.” More than 96% of Pakistan’s 167 million citizens (2008) are Muslims.[1] Among countries with a Muslim majority, Pakistan has the strictest anti-blasphemy laws. The first purpose of those laws is to protect Islamic authority. By the constitution (Article 2), Islam is the state religion. By the constitution’s Article 31, it is the country’s duty to foster the Islamic way of life. By Article 33, it is the country’s duty to discourage parochial, racial, tribal, sectarian, and provincial prejudices among the citizens.[2]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Pakistan

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Pakistan

 

[LtTony]

The Holy Qur’an says in Chapter 9: verse 28

.يَأيُّهَا الَّذِينَ ءامَنُوا إِنَّمَا الْمُشْرِكُونَ نَجَسٌ فَلَا يَقْرَبُوا الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ بَعْدَ عَامِهِمْ هَذَا
O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque.

The only place where people belonging to a faith other than Islam are not allowed to go is in Mecca, anywhere else, people do have the right to go, visit and live in and they have also the freedoom to worship and practice their faith as they wish. For instance, you’ll find a lot of christian communities and jewish communities in the ‘‘Islamic countries’’ that have been there, on these countries soil, for more than a millenium. Iraq had one of the biggest christian community, Libanon, Syria, Yemen … Morocco had one of the biggest jewish community before the creation of Israel etc. etc.

Yes, “had.” Emphasis on the past tense.

A little study reveals that non-muslims have been persecuted out of muslim majority societies.

Re: George Bernard Shaw

en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Bernard_Shaw

idlethink.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/being-an-unforgivably-protracted-debunking-of-george-bernard-shaws-views-of-islam/

Yet, with all these negative imagery hoisted upon Islam it continues to surpass all other religions in its growth.

Another internet myth. Studies have shown Islam is basically growing no faster than other religions. The increased number of muslims is due to higher burthrate.

Part of what is lost in a translation, it’s not the message, but the Miracle and it is difficult to convey the Literacy gems of the Quran in another language.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Perhaps this needs a closer consideration. There was a time in ancient Egypt when they worshiped what they considered the one God, Ra, the sun god. Were they worshiping the same God we do?

But there’s a very clear difference, sedonaman: despite its falsehoods, Islam grew out of the Abrahamic tradition, and when Muslims pray and worship, they’re intending to direct their prayers and worship exclusively to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, however inadequately they may understand certain things about Him.

That Muslims worship the same God we do is little more than a tautology.

There is nothing in Islam that is laudable that is not already present to a greater degree in a foundational way in Christianity.

True, but that doesn’t make them any less laudable. Truth is truth wherever it is found.

what is this about, anyway? Islam is not a person

Intellectual accuracy and precision applies not just to persons. In any discussion or debate, distorting or even failing to do justice to one’s opponent’s views is not a good thing. So really, the concept of being “fair” in a discussion or debate is quite clear and self-evidently necessary.

must never, ever involve losing our focus on the very certain truths of Christianity (which is to say, ALL OF CHRISTIANITY) in favor of praising Christ-deniers for whatever half-truths their wrong religion may have

I agree. Even a right theology and philosophy of God combined with decent ethics - both of which Islam has - is fruitless without a way to connect the two: namely, through the salvific action and teaching of the God-Man, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world.

Not for nothing did John Paul II call Islam “a religion without redemption.” That wasn’t bashing, just a clear statement of what they lack: Jesus, alone in whom each of us can come to heaven, to eternal union with God.

We need to be clear and precise on all counts. On a rhetorical level alone, I vehemently reject both to demonizing and whitewashing Islam. Let’s be honest: there are things about Islam that are wonderful, and there are things about it that are troubling and problematic, both theologically and culturally.

the inclusophilic types in Christianity who blindly embrace Islamic “truth” as per that descending staircase, CCC 841…

You really ought not to have any issue with CCC 841. As I observed above - and as Marduk so patiently tried to explain in another thread - there’s really nothing controversial or even non-tautological about it. It doesn’t endorse any falsehood in Islam. It simply paraphrases in its own way the basic fact that Muslims intend to pray to and worship exclusively the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Whatever errors they may believe about Him, it just so happens that that Being is in fact the One True God.

 

[dzheremi]

True, but that doesn’t make them any less laudable. Truth is truth wherever it is found.

Yes, but not in isolation! You give Islam the rope it will very much use to hang us all by presenting it as you do. It is not entirely bad, but just the same it is not just “less good”/clear/true or what have you. It is actually quite wrong at its base.

Intellectual accuracy and precision applies not just to persons. In any discussion or debate, distorting or even failing to do justice to one’s opponent’s views is not a good thing. So really, the concept of being “fair” in a discussion or debate is quite clear and self-evidently necessary.

My question was not “why should we be fair to Islam”, but rather “what does being fair to Islam mean” and “why the heck are CHRISTIANS going on about being fair to Islam when Islam’s standard of fairness precludes any sort of equal standing between us, even intellectually”. This mania for fairness and inclusiveness is not reciprocated at all with regard to Islam, as has been evidenced even here on CAF in many, many past instances in which a fair and loving Muslim has some sort of breakdown when Christians or others refuse to endorse the Islamic myth of tolerance and Muhammad-ordained pluralism and equality, and resorts to the same nastiness that is at the base of Islam-rest of the world relations as a result of Islam’s own central precepts (as opposed to any particular Muslim or community). Outside of intellectual discussions, of course, is when things get really ugly…

You really ought not to have any issue with CCC 841. As I observed above - and as Marduk so patiently tried to explain in another thread - there’s really nothing controversial or even non-tautological about it. It doesn’t endorse any falsehood in Islam. It simply paraphrases in its own way the basic fact that Muslims intend to pray to and worship exclusively the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Whatever errors they may believe about Him, it just so happens that that Being is in fact the One True God.

I strongly disagree with this, as you might suspect. As no one in any thread in which it has surfaced has been able to pin down exactly what CCC 841 means, I can only conclude that it is a meaningless statement put in to placate a certain ideology that exists in the RCC. I think that ideology is wrong, no matter who embraces it.

 

[Abu_Toshiba]

So what’s the difference?

Is it all the same to your eyes, the actual ‘Word of God’ as revealled to His prophets, in Its original language, the actual speech of God with the very same words He used and a translation of it ? Is an english translation of the Bible considered the literal and infaillible ‘Word of God’ too ?

Aren’t the concepts what count?

If so, then what are the Quranic concepts you fail to understand ?
An english translation should not be considered the infalliable ‘Word of God’. my reasons for this is that very slight changes would have to be made in translations to account for idioms in both languages and that a lot of what the writers originally ment is lost in translation and the vast culture differences. I do not hold that any of these changes or ideas lost in translation affect any major doctrine.

Sounds like this “Word of Allah” claim is a “well,-you-just-don’t-understand-Arabic” escape hatch of last resort, fabricated to dismiss criticisms of Islam.

Where and by who was this ‘Word of Allah’ claim used as a “well,-you-just-don’t-understand-Arabic” escape hatch of last resort, fabricated to dismiss criticisms of Islam ?

You can believe anything you want, but now you have run into a problem. If there are concepts in Arabic that cannot be expressed other languages, it is virtually impossible for someone to learn Arabic if it cannot be translated into the only one he does know. Therefore, I submit that because most of the world’s Muslims don’t speak Arabic, they don’t know what they believe because, “Learning Arabic will be an advantage as there is a big difference between reading the translations of the Qur’an and the original text in Arabic.”

I can believe anything I want, really ?, oh thank you dear. then I insist that a translation of the Quran (which is the human effort to convey the words of God in different words ) can’t be equated with the actual word of God as revealled to His prophets (in the actual language it was). this belief is not a matter of convenience, but rather a matter of being consistent with logic. How can you equate the work of your Creator with that of any given creation ? is Perfection and Imperfection equal ? Is the All-Knowing and one who possess little knowledge equal ? are the words of God and the words of man equal ?

Which is it ? the islamic concepts (you’re reffering to) that cannot be expressed in other languages ?

now, let me give you an exemple of why a ‘‘Translation of the Word of God’’ can’t be equated witht the actual ‘‘Word of God’’. there isn’t much ambiguity in "thou shalt not kill’’ for exemple, even though many significant things are lost in a translation, you still get the ‘message’, the ‘concept’, the ‘doctrine’ . Now, you might be aware that there are biblical translations that say ‘murder’, and others say ‘kill’. (KJV for instance) most say ‘thou shalt not murder’. Forbidding killing out of nowhere with no clear target would mean not to kill ANYTHING, including food (which must be killed if we are to survive). Murder, on the other hand, refers to either unlawful or unjust killing. See, this is exactly what I’m saying. Now someone can come and say ‘‘Hey ! you’re trying to use one small passage as justification for killing people! You’re on the road to creating a whole new doctrine of war in the name of the Lord’’ and that ‘‘To do so would be invalid for a number of reasons, one of which is the accuracy lost in translation’’. so I ask you which word conveys better the intended meaning of the original text ? is it the word ‘‘Kill’’ or ‘‘Murder’’ ? Wouldnt you agree that one would have to go to the original text in order to give us the correct answer ?

This is one of the problems with fundamentalist religions. They take scriptures literally. Here’s a for-instance: Genesis Chapter 1 tells us that on the first day, God created light. But God did not create the sun, moon, and stars until the fourth day. So where did the light on the first day come from before the creation of the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day? A literalist interpretation cannot produce an answer.

I guess Christianity is part of these ‘Fundamentalist religions’ you’re speaking of ?

 

[Abu_Toshiba]

Then there is the question of which Arabic Qur’an is the “literal word of Allah”, the one in Arabic you buy hot off the presses today or the Yemeni Qur’an?

One thing that ought to be kept in mind regarding the preservation of the Qur’an is that it was done more through memory then through writing. There was and is great wisdom in this. We see that in the case of earlier Prophets whose teachings were not committed to memory were lost. Some times the invaders destroyed the manuscripts and sometimes the scribes intentionally or unintentionally made mistakes. So to avoid the same to happen to the Qur’an more emphasis was laid on its memorization though it was put into writing as well.
Therefore we read in Sahih Muslim that Allah Almighty said to the Holy Prophet (PBUH):
وَأَنْزَلْتُ عَلَيْكَ كِتَابًا لَا يَغْسِلُهُ الْمَاءُ
“I sent the Book to you which cannot be washed away by water.” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 5109) This meant that Qur’an will not be preserved only on scrolls but through some other medium as well.
There is only one Arabic Qur’an, I’m from Canada and the one we have here is the same as the one you’ll find in Yemen, I can record for you any given Ayah (verse) from the Qur’an and send you in any part of the world, be it in Malaysia, Bresil or China so you can doubletchek it with any given random muslim layman you come across in the street or in the Masjid and ask him to recite to you the exact same portion, and he’ll give you the exact same Ayah (verse) as I.

Now, let me turn the tables, can the same be said about the Bible ?

I had fun tought reading the article, but they really should think about changing the script. If you wish, we can go trought the examination of the article in depth, don’t shy away !

Another fantastic claim by a Muslim on this forum was that “the Qur’an is not subject to interpretation”. Never mind that’s what the human brain does: it interprets stimuli detected by the senses, and that includes what is read by the eyes.

“Have they not considered the Quran? If it was from other than God, surely they would find in it many inconsistencies,”
(the Noble Qur’an 4:82)

but in no way does it force you to force your (own) interpretations on others this is what the brother was trying to say by ‘‘the Qur’an is not subject to interpretation’’ … you can’t just come up with an interpretation of your ownn and force it on others, teach it to others etc. since you might be leading them astray (either willingly or unwillingly). There is a difference in attitude between those who study the Quran and those who assault the Quran. A sincere questioner has open-mindedly accepted the challenge of the verse 4:82. But most often the missionary both attacks and distorts the Quran, while pretending to be reasonable. This opponent is not interested in the proper understanding of any given verse.

Muslim scholars have laid down certain basic conditions for sound ‘Interpretation / explanation’. Any tafsîr (exegesis of the Qur’ân), which disregards these principles must be viewed with great caution, if not rejected altogether. The most important among these conditions are the following:

The mufassir (the one who gives the tafsir) must:
-Be sound in belief ('aqîda).
-Well-grounded in the knowledge of Arabic and its rules as a language.
-Well-grounded in other sciences that are connected with the study of the Qur’ân (e.g. 'ilm al-riwâya).
-Have the ability for precise comprehension.
-Abstain from the use of mere opinion.
-Begin the tafsîr of the Qur’ân with the Qur’ân.
-Seek guidance from the words and explanations of the Prophet.
-Refer to the reports from the sahâba (the Compagnions of the prophet).
-Consider the reports from the tâbicûn (the early Followers).
-Consult the opinions of other eminent scholars.

The only real escape hatch you have out of this dilemma is to admit that Arabic is not such an esoteric language that Islamic concepts, such as dualism and abrogation, whatever their source, cannot be accurately translated into other languages. This goes for the rest of Islam’s foundational texts as well.

We maintain that a ‘Translation of the Word of God’ is NOT equal to the actual ‘Word of God’ for the unpteen time. as for ‘untranslatable’ Islamic concepts, what are you talking about ? the very fact that you do indeed have a bit of understanding regarding Islamic concepts and that we are discussing them right here and now, shows the fallacy of your assertions.

 

[Abu_Toshiba]

The Jews and Christians never claimed that translations of their scriptures were not the word of God. So that’s not a valid comparison.

The Holy Qur’an was revealed in Arabic. Of all books, the semantic and linguistic characteristics of the Qur’an are so intimately bound into the original sounds of the Arabic that it is utterly beyond “translation” in any ordinary sense. It can only be “rendered” into another language in order to give a mere impression of its most obvious level of meaning. Jews believe the same of the Torah in Hebrew. It can be rendered into another language but never truly translated. The Hebrew itself is sacred. In Islam, the Arabic Koran is sacred - the very speech of God.

as said, it is the Jewish belief that “the Torah cannot be fully translated” for similar reasons as ours. They hold to the idea that in every translation there is interpretation. There is no translation that will not change the initial meaning of the original text. For this reason, many believe it is even forbidden to translate the Torah, we’re not even speaking about equatting a ‘‘translation of the Torah’’ to the actual ‘‘Torah’’ (as revealled in its original language).

and here is an excerpt of what a Christian says about the Bible and the task of translating it, the original title of this article I came across is ‘‘On the World Wide Effort of Translating the Un-translatable’’ , and it says :

‘‘All translations and exegesis are in fact ‘models’ of Scriptures, just like the many cosmological interpretations that mankind has come up with over the centuries are models of the cosmos. Up to the present day no cosmological model has been devised that is fully consistent with all observations, and the same goes for Scriptures. So far no translation or exegetical system has been able to fully cover the essence of the Text.’’

So how can you even dare putting on the same scale; the very ‘Word of God’ and a ‘Translation of it’ ?

The point I’m trying to make is that you can’t have it both ways. Either the Arabic of the Qur’an is translatable [in which case there is no need to learn Arabic] or it is not [in which case it can never be learned by the non-native speaker]. Consequently, a non-Arabic speaker will not only not know what really to believe, but he won’t realize that he doesn’t know. Capisce?

Untranslatability is a property of a text, or of any utterance, in one language, for which no equivalent text or utterance can be found in another language when translated. Translations of the Qur’an are regarded as interpretations in languages other than Arabic. Eventhough translating the Qur’an has been a difficult concept, both theologically and linguistically, The Qur’an has been translated into most languages. Translations into other languages are the work of humans and so no longer possess the uniquely sacred character of the Arabic original. Since these translations subtly change the meaning, they are often called “interpretations.” For instance, Pickthall called his translation ‘‘The Meaning of the Glorious Koran’’ rather than simply ‘‘The Koran’’. As I told you earlier, if you are looking for an English Qur’an, then here it is : www.quran.com . you have over 5 different english translations if you are so meticulous about the understanding of what a given Quranic verse actually says. I as a non-arabic Muslim, I grew up reading a ‘Translation of the Qur’an’ in the french language to understand its Message, and then I went to arabic schools and now Al-Hamdoulillah, I read and understand arabic and memorised good portions of the Qur’an. Ultimately, of course, the Muslim should try to discover the original and not allow himself to be lost in a maze of translations and interpretations.

Wassalam Alaikum
Son of Adam

 

[Inishfree]

Abu,

I would like to thank you for your posts. I have learned much from them.

I am a Catholic and do respect non-christian religions. I have friends who are of different, wonderful ethnic groups. Same for religions. This has helped me with my own spiritual path. Bringing me much closer to God.

Peace be upon you.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Yes, but not in isolation! You give Islam the rope it will very much use to hang us all by presenting it as you do. It is not entirely bad, but just the same it is not just “less good”/clear/true or what have you. It is actually quite wrong at its base.

What is the “base” of Islam?

My view is that it is essentially what you get when you unleash the simplistic forces of rationalism on the Judeo-Christian tradition, wiping from it completely every trace of mystery and real transcendence: they’ve preserved the most rationally accessible parts of Judaic monotheism but eliminated the Christian mysteries that most do justice to the inexhaustibility of the divine and even of human life: the Trinity, the Incarnation, Christ’s death and resurrection, etc.

That is highly troubling and problematic, don’t get me wrong. But I don’t think it’s the base that’s corrupt, because its base is ultimately founded upon the most critically important part of the Jewish contribution to world civilization: the total otherness of God, His transcendence over all creation, something no other religion that didn’t stem from Judaism or at least be influenced by it has ever arrived at.

Obviously you disagree. I’m genuinely curious: what do you think the base of Islam is?

My question was not “why should we be fair to Islam”, but rather “what does being fair to Islam mean” and “why the heck are CHRISTIANS going on about being fair to Islam when Islam’s standard of fairness precludes any sort of equal standing between us, even intellectually”. This mania for fairness and inclusiveness is not reciprocated at all with regard to Islam, as has been evidenced even here on CAF in many, many past instances in which a fair and loving Muslim has some sort of breakdown when Christians or others refuse to endorse the Islamic myth of tolerance and Muhammad-ordained pluralism and equality, and resorts to the same nastiness that is at the base of Islam-rest of the world relations as a result of Islam’s own central precepts (as opposed to any particular Muslim or community).

I’m deeply suspicious of the notion that “Islam’s standard of fairness precludes any sort of equal standing between us, even intellectually,” because I’ve encountered too many Muslims in these discussions who do want equal intellectual footing.

How irritating is it when anti-Catholic apologists refuse correction when Catholics try to correct their erroneous impressions of what the Church professes to believe? If Muslims freak out about this, it’s probably because they experience similar frustration when told, “No, you actually want to subjugate all of us, it’s part of what you believe.”

I’ve watched arguments unfold on multiple online forums. It often turns into a citation contest: both sides fling Qur’an quotes - or quotes from other Islamic documents - at each other, and I’ve seen some really nasty stuff from Islamic sources, and some remarkably tolerant ones.

So I don’t buy the notion that Islam is intrinsically unfair to non-Muslims any more than I buy the equally ridiculous notion that at its heart it is fair to non-Muslims.

As I said above, their ethics are generally pretty sound. But to have no real means for redemption… that almost certainly affects the way Islam operates in the real world negatively.

I strongly disagree with this, as you might suspect. As no one in any thread in which it has surfaced has been able to pin down exactly what CCC 841 means, I can only conclude that it is a meaningless statement put in to placate a certain ideology that exists in the RCC.

No one needs to pin it down for you. Its meaning is self-evidently clear; you just don’t like it, though I can’t understand why. Let’s look at it:

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

So tell me, dzheremi, what is so unclear about the clause, “together with us they adore the one, merciful God”? As I said above, it’s almost nothing more than a tautology. The God that Abraham knew and worshiped is the One True God. Muslims consciously and intentionally direct their prayers and worship toward the God that Abraham knew and worshiped. Therefore they “adore the one, merciful God,” the truth of which in no way implies an approval of the falsehoods and errors of the Islamic faith.