Roane
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2020
- Messages
- 2,372
I personally think the issue with translations of the Quran is that they are done by academics who almost want to highlight their academia than get over the message.Ok its fair enough if you havn't watched the video I was commenting on. I guess in that context my points didn't come across. I did use the Quran, because I was commenting on a video with a Islamic Scholar building his argument on the Quran. And when discussing the Islam, I'd kind of have to refer to the Quran. And yes I did read the translation and put my impression across, because I actually find it quite easy read compared to so many other religious scriptures out there.
I didn't find it enjoyable, but I don't find it challenging to understand what is meant and I can look up commentaries if I want to. If it were meant to be understood by people who were far less educated than we are today, I believe most people can get the gist of it if they put some effort into it. I know that Muslims don't believe that Jesus was the son of God or God incarnate and I completely agree that you are free to believe in and practice whatever religion you want, I know that Jews and Christians are referred to the people of the book.
I'm not sure what you mean by the science argument. Science is a extremely broad field. If you find a flaw with abiogenesis, you are more than welcome to take up that debate with a specialist in the field. We know quite a bit how life evolved, but I find the origin of life mysterious myself and I'm not sure we will ever find out in my lifetime. But the thing with applying the scientific method to say Islam(same applies to I think all religions), is that it makes claims that can't be falsified so essentially you in up with a debate that doesn't really lead anywhere or anything resembling proof.
I have to admit you lost me with the whole God and rock thing. I'm not sure whether you were trying to introduce me to the nature of a paradox.
Incidentally this is why for the Quran to be the Quran it has to fulfill certain criteria and why the classical scholars wouldn't call a translation the Quran but simply a translation. This is one of the finer points that a lot of muslims, today, are unaware of.
The Quran in classical arabic is quite simple to understand. So for example the smallness of something will be compared to an ant, not molecule or atom for simplicity to get the message across that it's small. Considering Arabs were mainly illiterate at that stage, and people like my mum even today (due to where they grew up and conditions in their childhood). So to her molecule mena's nothing whereas ant does.
Anyway I digress. My initial point and my examples earlier were a to highlight that people will look into science a lot more to argue a point but seem not to do the same with religion.
The reason I keep mentioning the conditions attached to LA is that religion, or Islam, absolutely tells you to find proof before accepting it. So in your words it's actually "an extremely broad field" if people were prepared to look into it instead of just focussing on the headlines.