5 ms·

If you'd like to read how they are misinterpreting islam, here is the longer version in the book : http://www.amazon.com/No-god-but-God-Evolution/dp/1400062136

If you'd like to read how they are misinterpreting islam, here is the longer version in the book : http://www.amazon.com/No-god-but-God-Evolution/dp/1400062136 http://www.amazon.com/No-god-but-God-Evolution/dp/1400062136 the gist is, They are interpreting things literally without any history and context of what a verse of Quran meant and revealed for, one would argue that should have been fine, but it isn't because it reduces islam to their interpretation. Arabic is a very diverse language, with tens of meanings for a word (often contradictory) and which one you pick and choose depends upon what type of a person you are, if you are a hate mongering terrorist, you would find those meanings to justify your terror like isis is doing, if you are a peace loving feminist, you would find plenty to justify that (using the same verses). This would mean that their interpretation would depend alot on their socio economic status, the kind of society they live in, the world view they have etc. People often judge islam by the norms of 6th century arabia, Islam has a evolutionary process in place called ijtihad, which the intolerant people don't seem to use. But if you would have to judge islam, you would have to either assume yourself to be in 6th century to see why they were relevant at that time, or to remove them so to understand the general direction islam gives.

dpark 11y ago
> If you'd like to read how they are misinterpreting islam ... They are interpreting things literally That is an odd definition of "misinterpreting". Biblical literalists are generally not accused of "misinterpreting" the Christian Bible. They are commonly accused of being antiquated, crazy, or dumb, but it's hard to accuse someone of "misinterpreting" something because they follow its literal meaning. It similarly seems incorrect to say ISIS is "misinterpreting Islam" by reading the Koran literally. It may not be the popular interpretation, and it may not be a pleasant interpretation, but that doesn't mean it's an incorrect interpretation. Christian groups like to accuse each other of misinterpreting the Bible. Church of Christ members say that Catholics have misinterpreted the organization of the church. Catholics say that Baptists have misinterpreted the apocalypse. Etc. These accusations in reality say very little about the validity of the accused's interpretations, and merely serve as a way for the accuser's to assert the correctness of their own interpretations. "Your interpretation of the Bible is wrong" has no more validity than "Your choice of religion is wrong" in general.
- lliamander 11y ago
  > but it's hard to accuse someone of "misinterpreting" something because they follow its literal meaning. Not so hard actually. A correct interpretation of a work is to discern what the author actually intended to communicate. If I say to a coworker "a meteor is about to strike earth, wiping out all life unless we do something about it" and the listener interprets what I say to be a metaphor (perhaps they think that I am trying to say simply that the project we are working on is in danger of falling apart) they may or may not be correct. If I work at an accounting firm, the statement is probably metaphorical; if I work at NASA, probably not. In any case, determining the meaning of a text depends upon the genre, and to understand that you need context. The main issue that most Christian traditions have with literalists is that they try to interpret the texts without any of the original context, or without any acknowledgement that the Bible is an anthology of different books written by different authors for different purposes. >It similarly seems incorrect to say ISIS is "misinterpreting Islam" by reading the Koran literally. It may not be the popular interpretation, and it may not be a pleasant interpretation, but that doesn't mean it's an incorrect interpretation. You're right, it may be a correct interpretation. Understanding the correct interpretation of Islamic texts is important for those deciding how to approach the spread of violent Islamic teachings. Should it be left to Islamic religious leaders who can leverage Islamic texts to spread a more peaceful (and accurate) teaching, or should the focus be to discredit Islam from the outside? > "Your interpretation of the Bible is wrong" has no more validity than "Your choice of religion is wrong" in general. Any given religious text was written by a human being to convey a set of ideas an claims. It is no less valid to talk about a correct interpretation of religious texts than it is to talk about the correct interpretation of any other text.
  - dpark 11y ago
    > Should it be left to Islamic religious leaders who can leverage Islamic texts to spread a more peaceful (and accurate) teaching, or should the focus be to discredit Islam from the outside? Here you are attempting to equate accuracy with peacefulness, with nothing given to support that link. To be clear, I don't have a strong opinion on whether Islam is a peaceful religion or not. I have not done enough research to be confident in that sort of claim. I do, however, find it disingenuous to claim that the ISIS interpretation is wrong when the only support given for that claim is that it differs from some other muslims' interpretations. > It is no less valid to talk about a correct interpretation of religious texts than it is to talk about the correct interpretation of any other text. Sure, it's reasonable and valid to say "Here's a thing ISIS believes about Islam. Here is the context around that thing. And here is the reason ISIS is wrong." That's not what's happening here, though. This is more like "Here's a thing ISIS believes. I promise you that there is some context that makes them wrong. See, other Muslims agree that ISIS is wrong."

dpark 11y ago

> If you'd like to read how they are misinterpreting islam ... They are interpreting things literally That is an odd definition of "misinterpreting". Biblical literalists are generally not accused of "misinterpreting" the Christian Bible. They are commonly accused of being antiquated, crazy, or dumb, but it's hard to accuse someone of "misinterpreting" something because they follow its literal meaning. It similarly seems incorrect to say ISIS is "misinterpreting Islam" by reading the Koran literally. It may not be the popular interpretation, and it may not be a pleasant interpretation, but that doesn't mean it's an incorrect interpretation. Christian groups like to accuse each other of misinterpreting the Bible. Church of Christ members say that Catholics have misinterpreted the organization of the church. Catholics say that Baptists have misinterpreted the apocalypse. Etc. These accusations in reality say very little about the validity of the accused's interpretations, and merely serve as a way for the accuser's to assert the correctness of their own interpretations. "Your interpretation of the Bible is wrong" has no more validity than "Your choice of religion is wrong" in general.

lliamander 11y ago
> but it's hard to accuse someone of "misinterpreting" something because they follow its literal meaning. Not so hard actually. A correct interpretation of a work is to discern what the author actually intended to communicate. If I say to a coworker "a meteor is about to strike earth, wiping out all life unless we do something about it" and the listener interprets what I say to be a metaphor (perhaps they think that I am trying to say simply that the project we are working on is in danger of falling apart) they may or may not be correct. If I work at an accounting firm, the statement is probably metaphorical; if I work at NASA, probably not. In any case, determining the meaning of a text depends upon the genre, and to understand that you need context. The main issue that most Christian traditions have with literalists is that they try to interpret the texts without any of the original context, or without any acknowledgement that the Bible is an anthology of different books written by different authors for different purposes. >It similarly seems incorrect to say ISIS is "misinterpreting Islam" by reading the Koran literally. It may not be the popular interpretation, and it may not be a pleasant interpretation, but that doesn't mean it's an incorrect interpretation. You're right, it may be a correct interpretation. Understanding the correct interpretation of Islamic texts is important for those deciding how to approach the spread of violent Islamic teachings. Should it be left to Islamic religious leaders who can leverage Islamic texts to spread a more peaceful (and accurate) teaching, or should the focus be to discredit Islam from the outside? > "Your interpretation of the Bible is wrong" has no more validity than "Your choice of religion is wrong" in general. Any given religious text was written by a human being to convey a set of ideas an claims. It is no less valid to talk about a correct interpretation of religious texts than it is to talk about the correct interpretation of any other text.
- dpark 11y ago
  > Should it be left to Islamic religious leaders who can leverage Islamic texts to spread a more peaceful (and accurate) teaching, or should the focus be to discredit Islam from the outside? Here you are attempting to equate accuracy with peacefulness, with nothing given to support that link. To be clear, I don't have a strong opinion on whether Islam is a peaceful religion or not. I have not done enough research to be confident in that sort of claim. I do, however, find it disingenuous to claim that the ISIS interpretation is wrong when the only support given for that claim is that it differs from some other muslims' interpretations. > It is no less valid to talk about a correct interpretation of religious texts than it is to talk about the correct interpretation of any other text. Sure, it's reasonable and valid to say "Here's a thing ISIS believes about Islam. Here is the context around that thing. And here is the reason ISIS is wrong." That's not what's happening here, though. This is more like "Here's a thing ISIS believes. I promise you that there is some context that makes them wrong. See, other Muslims agree that ISIS is wrong."