4 ms·

The only laypeople who use the Koran and Hadiths as sources for direct personal understanding of Islam are literalist Salafist/Wahhabist types including ISIS a

by ern 11y ago

The only laypeople who use the Koran and Hadiths as sources for direct personal understanding of Islam are literalist Salafist/Wahhabist types including ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Islamic exegesis, which has led to the day to day fiqh that governs religious life for the vast majority of Moslems is a very complex field that has evolved over more than a 1000 years and takes years of study to master and is not as straightforward as you are portraying it. The "CTRL-F...gotcha!" approach that you seem to be advocating would be regarded as absurd not only by Moslems, but by anyone who has to deal with the interpretation of complex texts. A layperson with no knowledge of Arabic and lacking the toolkit for understanding is not going to get very far in understanding Islam using Hadiths and the Koran, and you'd be doubly disadvantaged using an English translation. An analogy would be the average American citizen, unschooled in law, being asked to derive the Miranda Warning from the Bill of Rights, or providing a reasoned opinion about the scope of the Interstate Commerce clause. Sure, it's great from a Civics perspective to read the Constitution, but if interpreting it was straightforward we'd be able to shutter the Supreme Court.

acqq 11y ago
> The only laypeople who use the Koran and Hadiths as sources for direct personal understanding of Islam are literalist Salafist/Wahhabist types including ISIS and Al-Qaeda. And Saudi Arabia which finances with billions (?) of dollars the religious education of Muslims around the world? Even in the Muslim religious education in the countries which don't use Sharia the first thing the kids learn is to differentiate themselves from unbelievers. Then even as the layperson you can easily count how many statements there are in the holy book in which the Unbelievers are "liers" and will be "painfully punished" for which is "fire" etc. It's not written in parables or anything it's completely and plainly explicit. Ditto for the practices of stoning, beheading in Sunnah etc. The layperson doesn't have to practice Islam, or know their religious discussions to get the rough idea of the content.
- ern 11y ago
  Billions may be overstating it, but you do have a point, Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of that movement and does promote the literalist approach, along with its Gulf neigbours. However, it wouldn't surprise me if Moslem countries carefully watch their madrasah syllabi to make sure that Saudi influence does not infiltrate. In the case of France, as the article points out, Islamically ignorant, disaffected Moslem youths are easy pickings for Salafists. Edit: as for the rest you are again ignoring the context in which then verses were revealed, and their practical interpretation.
  - acqq 11y ago
    > it wouldn't surprise me if Moslem countries carefully watch their madrasah syllabi to make sure that Saudi influence does not infiltrate. But you don't know. As I speak a few languages, I was able to check the instructions on one local language and I was able to see that among all the content that is supposed to be less fundamentally oriented there is this nice "kids, now we will learn who is unbeliever, think about those who you know who aren't Muslim" etc. Then you can actually check what the religious text tell about the unbelievers. > ignoring the context in which then verses were revealed, and their practical interpretation Sunnah is the context and they are even searchable online. So please don't scare people from reading Quran. They will surely understand more than when they don't even attempt to see what's inside. They can also search for the context and interpretations elsewhere, even Wikipedia has some: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Muhammad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Muhammad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Campaigns_led_by_Muhammad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Campaigns_led_by_Muha... Interpretations abound: http://mercyprophet.org/mul/node/1640 http://mercyprophet.org/mul/node/1640 "Those who ridicule Prophet Muhammad and defame his life and message drive people away from virtue and deprive the world from stability and tranquility. These people are condemned and threatened by the Qur’an. Allah says in His Glrious Book, : {The ones who prefer the worldly life over the Hereafter and avert [people] from the way of Allah, seeking to make it (seem) deviant. Those are in extreme error.} [chapter of Abraham, 14:3]" I actually want to be free to "ridicule" that self-claimed "prophet": I don't believe in him. He was only a mortal, and he was not more connected to God than Joseph Smith. And Joseph Smith was a fraud too, even if the guy who believes in him almost became president of US. And gods are just a human invention anyway. Imaginary beings who as the messages stumble to give "Guide us to the straight path The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians)" but never even a single scientific hint for anything, like, why wouldn't any "God" leave the message in his holy texts "you don't understand now, but once later you'll see that the light has always the same speed." The humanity discovered it around a century ago. Imagine that this simple words were in some holy text. Wouldn't it simply prove that the imaginary beings called by us gods even exist? The major problem with Islam is that I'd be dead after saying former sentences in front of most of the "submitted" (which is the meaning of the word "Muslim"). It's true that I'd be dead for the same words in Europe of Middle Ages, but that only proves that we know what we know today because we dared to stop being the "believers" or the "submitted."
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

by ern 11y ago

acqq 11y ago

> The only laypeople who use the Koran and Hadiths as sources for direct personal understanding of Islam are literalist Salafist/Wahhabist types including ISIS and Al-Qaeda. And Saudi Arabia which finances with billions (?) of dollars the religious education of Muslims around the world? Even in the Muslim religious education in the countries which don't use Sharia the first thing the kids learn is to differentiate themselves from unbelievers. Then even as the layperson you can easily count how many statements there are in the holy book in which the Unbelievers are "liers" and will be "painfully punished" for which is "fire" etc. It's not written in parables or anything it's completely and plainly explicit. Ditto for the practices of stoning, beheading in Sunnah etc. The layperson doesn't have to practice Islam, or know their religious discussions to get the rough idea of the content.

ern 11y ago
Billions may be overstating it, but you do have a point, Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of that movement and does promote the literalist approach, along with its Gulf neigbours. However, it wouldn't surprise me if Moslem countries carefully watch their madrasah syllabi to make sure that Saudi influence does not infiltrate. In the case of France, as the article points out, Islamically ignorant, disaffected Moslem youths are easy pickings for Salafists. Edit: as for the rest you are again ignoring the context in which then verses were revealed, and their practical interpretation.
- acqq 11y ago
  > it wouldn't surprise me if Moslem countries carefully watch their madrasah syllabi to make sure that Saudi influence does not infiltrate. But you don't know. As I speak a few languages, I was able to check the instructions on one local language and I was able to see that among all the content that is supposed to be less fundamentally oriented there is this nice "kids, now we will learn who is unbeliever, think about those who you know who aren't Muslim" etc. Then you can actually check what the religious text tell about the unbelievers. > ignoring the context in which then verses were revealed, and their practical interpretation Sunnah is the context and they are even searchable online. So please don't scare people from reading Quran. They will surely understand more than when they don't even attempt to see what's inside. They can also search for the context and interpretations elsewhere, even Wikipedia has some: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Muhammad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Muhammad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Campaigns_led_by_Muhammad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Campaigns_led_by_Muha... Interpretations abound: http://mercyprophet.org/mul/node/1640 http://mercyprophet.org/mul/node/1640 "Those who ridicule Prophet Muhammad and defame his life and message drive people away from virtue and deprive the world from stability and tranquility. These people are condemned and threatened by the Qur’an. Allah says in His Glrious Book, : {The ones who prefer the worldly life over the Hereafter and avert [people] from the way of Allah, seeking to make it (seem) deviant. Those are in extreme error.} [chapter of Abraham, 14:3]" I actually want to be free to "ridicule" that self-claimed "prophet": I don't believe in him. He was only a mortal, and he was not more connected to God than Joseph Smith. And Joseph Smith was a fraud too, even if the guy who believes in him almost became president of US. And gods are just a human invention anyway. Imaginary beings who as the messages stumble to give "Guide us to the straight path The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians)" but never even a single scientific hint for anything, like, why wouldn't any "God" leave the message in his holy texts "you don't understand now, but once later you'll see that the light has always the same speed." The humanity discovered it around a century ago. Imagine that this simple words were in some holy text. Wouldn't it simply prove that the imaginary beings called by us gods even exist? The major problem with Islam is that I'd be dead after saying former sentences in front of most of the "submitted" (which is the meaning of the word "Muslim"). It's true that I'd be dead for the same words in Europe of Middle Ages, but that only proves that we know what we know today because we dared to stop being the "believers" or the "submitted."
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]