Pak Tea House » Islam, Justice, Pakistan, Society, Women » Islamic Laws and Women:Why Reinterpretation is Needed
Islamic Laws and Women:Why Reinterpretation is Needed
This is an intelligently argued article sent to us by Miss Kiran Rizvi. She rightly argues that laws are eventually an outcome of the peculiar circumstances of the prevalent time period. Therefore laws have to be judged in the context of those circumstances. This way of looking at the laws also makes it essential to rethink the current interpretation which is rooted in those times. Miss Kiran’s argument is that the spirit of Islam itself provides justification for reinterpretation of the laws, particularly those which pertain to women.
by Kiran Rizvi
Contrary to the popular belief Islam neither favors nor victimizes women. What I mean by this is that Islam doesn’t go out of its way to hurt or protect women because of their special status in the society. The current interpretation of Islamic laws is more consistent with the circumstances and laws prevalent in the 7th century Arabia. Therefore it affords the same treatment of compassion to ALL members of the society which are disadvantaged, such as slaves, orphans, women and seniors. However no special treatment is given to women outside the general category of the ‘disadvantaged’.
Feminists believe that Islamic laws are barbaric and demeaning to women. They site divorce laws, rape laws, bearing witness, wife-beating, unfair distribution of property and lack of autonomy to make decisions etc. to make their case. They are correct and incorrect at the same time. Islamic laws are a combination of tribal laws as they existed (and were well accepted in the society at the time) and some modifications brought out by Islam to steer these laws in favor of those who ended up holding the short end of the stick. It is not the “Islamic” portion of the tribal laws that is barbaric, but the “tribal” portion of the Islamic law! And yes, it is very hard to distinguish one from the other.
Islamists, on the other hand try to prove that Islam is partial to women. They argue that Islam mandates men to earn, relieving women of this burden; lets women keep their wealth but use their husband’s wealth at will; gives exalted status to mothers; discourages divorces; prohibits female infanticide; gives right to own property and other such concessions as afforded by women in an ideal Islamic society. These examples are of Islamic ‘guidelines’ and not the ‘laws’, and therefore up for interpretation. The problem we have is that because Islam appears to “endorse” the tribal laws, Islamists feel they have to defend the tribal laws in the name of Islam.
So why does Islam ‘endorse’ tribal laws? Well it doesn’t really endorse or reject these laws, it inherits them. Islam was not born in a cultural vacuum. Everything about Islam reflects the culture, beliefs and practices of 7th century Arabia. Back when humans were a commodity, slavery was common, and survival of the fittest was the word on the dunes (as there were no streets in towns.) Laws that were created to regulate such a society will, of course, appear harsh, barbaric and demeaning to societies that have evolved (for better or for worse) and are quite different from the tribal societies of 7th century Arabia.
Take the example of slavery. Just because Islam did not outright prohibit slavery in all shapes and forms, doesn’t mean it endorses it either! Had Islam banned slavery outright, there would be a civil war among tribes (as in America, a thousand years later) because the society built on the concept of slavery would cease to function. What Islam realizes is that WHATEVER laws society has to keep it functional, should be IMPROVED so that they are as humane as possible without dismantling the fabric of society. If slaves are needed to keep the plantations, well, at least they should be treated humanely, fed well and given a fair chance to freedom by paying for themselves etc.
Similarly just because Islam asks men to take care of women, make their decisions for them and keep them under strict surveillance (the grounds for wife-beating), may not mean that Islam endorses total control of men over women. It can be argued that such guidelines were to ensure the well-being of women in the society they lived in. In a tribal society, women needed men and men needed the tribe to protect them. This hierarchy of protection ensured the safety of every member of the society. A man without a tribe was as unprotected as a woman without a man. The tribal council, judiciary and financial matters were settled by men, if women didn’t have a male representative they were cheated out of their rights. Women existed in the society in association with a male figure. Therefore women who had no male family members had to marry to keep their protection.
Widows, therefore, were encouraged to re-marry and young girls were married off in a hurry to powerful males, to guarantee their future protection. However, in today’s society the concept of protection has changed from that of 7th century Arabia. Governments are required to protect all citizens regardless of their gender or age. There are no grounds for men controlling the will and property of women. The argument would be that Islam did not mean to subdue women; it only meant to protect them. And all these changes can be brought without labeling them as ‘un-Islamic’. Women should be able to make their own decisions, travel alone, live alone and should be able to exist in the society without having any male associations. If a woman does not feel safe travelling without a man, then the debate should be on how to make it safer for her, rather than how to find a suitable man to accompany her on her journey!
Arguing for literal interpretation and practice of Islam is as flawed as arguing that keeping slaves is required by Islam. Can one argue that one needs to keep slaves, so they can be freed to atone for one’s sins? Obviously no one will buy this reverse logic in this day and age. Why do we, then, buy the reverse logic that women need to be controlled by men because they are incapable of taking care of themselves? Obviously it is not the lack of faith in their capability but the makeup of the society that lead Islam to set the guidelines that it did, back in the 7thcentury. Quran explicitly says that two women constitute as one witness in the matters of financial agreements. Is it to give women at least SOME say, who otherwise wouldn’t have ANY right to bear witness in such matters, or to demean the female intellect? The decision is ours. By upholding the literal laws of Quran, we would be confirming that the level of awareness, education, morality, sense of justice and rational decision making of the entire Muslim Ummah has not improved in 1500 years. All of these being the very goal of Islam!!!!
By giving us examples on how to slowly introduce the concept of justice and fair dealing in the tribal laws of Arabia, Islam has not given us rigid laws, but a golden principle. The true spirit of Islam, therefore, is not to follow the ISLAMIC LAWS written by the letter, but to improve the existing laws of each society along the ISLAMIC PRINCIPLES of justice.
126 Responses to "Islamic Laws and Women:Why Reinterpretation is Needed"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- tajender
said Fingolfin
kayasth are illegetimate off spring... - tajender said Fingolfin
kaysth are not bania.they are not tra...
- RajTOO
said Fingolfin,
tajender knows nothing. He just copy p... - Fingolfin
said Tajender
you poor soul Amitabh is not a Brahmin... - tajender said ahem,truth is this that,
Corruption dents India...
- tajender said It is the mainstay of islam. Islam was, is and alw...
- ahem
said to raj
Quote:
"He was ok till some muslims c... - RajTOO said I don't think posters here should make tajender in...
- ahem said In the cauldron of Pakistan everything gets cooked...
- ahem said Muslims are unwilling to accept that their god (or...
While Islam freed the women from the shackles 1400 years ago, it is time for the Muslim men to free the women from their egotistical, macho chains or control.
@Dastagir
Shabaash !! Let’s clone millions of Dastagirs
@ rationalist (July 29, 2010 at 6:48 pm)
Your unending debate reminds me of Tennyson’s line:
“But I go on forever.”
“It is well known that the winner gets to write history and so the myth of mistreatment of women and burying of daughters alive in aj-jaheliyyah somehow became an established fact.”
have you any real justification for not excepting what’s recorded in the history books and the Quran? or you just don’t want to except anything because of your prejudice so you discredit the historians.
“…when I recognize that I and others around me are being fooled or misused or intimidated”
I don’t think you have recognized that you are being fooled by your own intellect and by the mullahs representation of islamic teachings..
“I recognize that I and others around me are being fooled or misused or intimidated. Denial by choice is what Pakistan does in order to save its face when terror strikes.”
Current clergy in power does do those things. Agreed. But this clergy of ours is by no means a standard of Quranic teaching no matter how much they claim they are or how much you use their actions to criticize Islam. Pakistanis are in denial over the hold mullahs have over them. Agreed. We are trying to bring them out of it.
@ bin ismail
Your unending debate reminds me of Tennyson’s line:
“But I go on forever.”
Bin ismail cannot overcome his islam-pasand rut.
to skarlok
Much good in muslim behaviour is from non-islamic sources. But muslims are forbidden from giving credit to where credit is due. “Everything good comes from islam and islam only and non-islam alone is the source of everything bad” – this indoctrination is imbibed by every muslim child. This causes muslim intellect to become dishonest and stunted.
Many intelligent and wise non-muslim and non-arab men and women have written better (but not perfect or final) books of knowledge and guidance than this arabic one. Muslims remain in their mental imprisonment and become a nuisance so long they do not or cannot acknowledge this truth openly. It is not just the “current clergy”. It’s the big mass of muslims who are even more guilty of this manipulation and self-comforting dishonesty.
Tell me ”rationalist”, are you a proponent of Socratic reason embodied in the Socratic method, or more incline towards Aristotelian logic and reason. Or perhaps a fan of Platonic reason? Are you more fascinated by empiricism, nominalism or philosophical realism?
What about Cartesian rationalism and indeed the Kantian elaboration of human reason? Let us not forget Spinoza aswell. One also has to ask what is your epistemic framework?
As to justice, are you more a supporter of Rawlsian justice, or have been won over by communitarian critiques in the works of MacIntyre and Sandel?
Let us hope you are a serious, ”rationalist”, and hope that you just do not cite ”reason”, and hide your appalling prejudice and stereotyping behind the cloak of reason.
Very often I find that those who blow their own trumpet, shouting from the roof tops ”reason, reason, reason”, are actually just peddling some superficial reductionist nonsense.
Very often I find that self proclaimed ”rationalists” cannot last two minutes when confronted with serious questions pertaining to rationalism and its epistemic and ontological problematics.
Very often I find that people like you with your sort of rhetoric are totally at sea when asked for some serious and substantial discussions on the nature of human rationality (which they so proudly wear on their sleeves but have no clue about).
@rationalist
1. “…..A non-arab god would talk to me in my own mother-tongue…..”
Assuming this “non-arab god” was Chinese who chose to reveal his last book in Chinese, and assuming that Chinese is not your mother-tongue, you would have confronted the same predicament.
If, for instance God wanted to give guidance to the entire human race, there could be two ways of doing this:
a. God speaks to each and every single human being in the individual’s mother tongue, and thus convey His message to all humans simultaneously.
b. God speaks to Humanity through a messenger, a messenger who will dutifully convey the message to humanity.
If the first option is adopted, who would play the role of the Interpreter of the Law, in case of differences emerging among the six billion simultaneous recipients of the Divinely revealed Law? Who would demonstrate through his own conduct, how to act upon the law? Who would establish through his practice that the revealed Law is indeed practicable?
The purpose of having a prophet, who would obviously speak in his own language, is not confined to conveying a certain message from God. A prophet serves as a guide, judge, interpreter, spiritual father-figure, model and hub of spiritual enlightenment for his age. He manifests, through his own conduct, the attributes of God.
2. “…..confusions and conflicts due to this arabic book and relgion in the real world of today…..”
The confusions and conflicts are on account of the mullahs, not the Book itself.
3. “…..Denial by choice is what Pakistan does in order to save its face when terror strikes…..”
Just as the US does not represent the creed and conduct of the Christ, Israel does not reflect the creed and conduct of Moses, Sri Lankans are not a manifestation of Buddha, India does not represent the creed and conduct of Krishna, similarly Pakistan does not represent Islam.
4. “…..Fooling, misusing or intimidating human beings is especially bad when done in the name of a god…..”
Very true.
5. “…..Bin ismail cannot overcome his islam-pasand rut…..”
That’s because I find Islam perfectly rational.
@ Dastagir (July 29, 2010 at 1:36 pm)
A lot indeed, has to be said and done to promote education among Muslim women. To begin with they have to be emancipated from the maulvi / madrassa education system. Only following that will they be able to absorb both religious and secular knowledge – not otherwise.
Regarding purdah too, I would like to point out that as long as the purdah of a woman is by her free choice and of her own volition and as long as her concept and form of purdah does not bar her from being a useful member of the society and as long as she does not look down upon those who do not share her views, purdah is perfectly fine and can indeed contribute to a woman’s self-discipline.
As for gold, the clutches of gold are far less malignant for Muslim women than those of the mullah.
Regards.
”’A rationalist is one who is sincere and honest and accepts his own limitations also”
Rubbish, you are conflating moral theory and virtue with epistemological issues. A rationalist can be sincere and honesty but so can other human beings who hold different philosophical positions.
”A rationalist is not a perfect human being or claims to be one.”
Again you are inserting moral homilies when I asked specifically epistemic questions.
”A rationalist is non-violent by choice and honest by compulsion.”
More baloney, pacifism is not a logical extension of rationalism at all. Many liberal theorists argue that war is necessary and hence have extended on the Abrahamic ideas of ”Just war theory”.
I have never read a more confused and jumbled up series of words which purport to be a series of coherent statements. I asked specific epistemic questions, and you started sermonizing.
Face it, you do not have a clue about what rationalism entails and what the numerous philosophical issues and positions are. You simply hide behind the label ”rationalist”, using it as a stick when really you do not have the foggiest about the multiple discussions and issues in the many diverse debates to do with human rationality, which stretch across many disciplnes from the argumentations of ”public and civic” reason in politics to social epistemology.
You confuse issues of moral philosophy with epistemology and cannot tell the difference between several competing social narratives which interlock with the concept of human rationality. You claim
You homogenize and monopolise human reason ignoring the essentially heterogenous nature of human reason, the many dilemmas and questions about rationality and that religious persons can also be rationalists in the sense they value human reason as a fundamental source of knowledge.
There are multiple narratives of human rationality, Socratic, metaphysical, Cartesian etc. etc. But you seem to reify ”rationalism”.
I propose an extremely minimal and humble defintion of rationalism which does not wish to circumvent debate, and that is that rationalism is simply ”any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification”. In this case religious people too can be rationalists.
After all ”ratio” the latin root of rationalism means simply ”reason”. Ratio is reason, hence its fairly open ended, diverse philosophical position with a myriad of competing schools of thought.
To simply reduce rationalism as ”anti-religious” and quiet crudely and bizarrely to pacifism and other vague conceptions of ”honesty” (confusing ethics with epistemology) is quiet excruciatingly naive.
Quiet a confused mind you have there ”rationalist”, conflating basic issues……..
”Rationalist” your crass and crude superficial assertions are appaling and boggling to anyone with a modicum of common sense. You make grand statements dripping with prejudice and bigotry, yet do not care to digress on your thinking whilst clinging onto vague homilies and bare assertions.
I say you are more of an intellectual xenophobe
Tell me what is that made you so vigorously ”rationalist” and made you decline empiricism?
You said that rationalism is this:
”It is not about being encyclopedic”
Well its not about presenting a series of bare assertions either, and being hopelessly confused within your own structures of knowledge……
You say don’t play with words. Are you joking? The categories and schools of thought I cited denote serious concrete philosophical positions which have a history and thought behind them. Engage with that rather than complaining…..
@ rationalist (July 31, 2010 at 7:50 pm)
1. “…..If there is only one god then there is no question of inconsistency in what he says how often to how many. No person has to act as interpreter or exemplary for another…..”
There is indeed no inconsistency in what the One God says. It is because of inherent inconsistencies
in individual abilities of humans to correctly comprehend a revealed message, that an interpreter is needed. A prophet also plays the role of an exemplar. He acts upon Divine guidance in the best way possible, thus setting the perfect example for others, and also inspiring others by his conduct.
2. “…..what after the prophet dies? …..”
Prophets are succeeded by their successors, who carry on their mission. Then there are saints and men of God who also continue the work of the prophet, after him.
Finally, it is to be borne in mind, that this life is essentially a test. Man’s sincerity in his search for the truth and his commitment to following it, once found, constitutes part of this test.
We can sit and argue about what it means to be a rationalist, but I believe that it is more interesting (and easier) to define irrational thinking or behavior.
For instance, believing in the ability of a virgin to give birth or of a person to teleport from Mecca to Jerusalem are indicative of irrational thinking. Note how Islam inherited this story of the virgin birth from Christianity, which in turn adopted this story from Pagan beliefs. A rational person could argue that Jesus’s greateness would not be diminished had he not been born to a virgin. An irrational person on the other hand cannot argue against the divinity of the holy books even though it is clear that the act of a virgin homosapien giving birth violates basic natural laws.
Irrational people can always come up with explanations to satisfy their irrational beliefs. Sticking with the virgin birth example, Justin Martyr, the second-century Christian “Father of the Church” understood how problematic the story was given that several Pagan Gods were also born to virgins. So he claimed that the Devil, who knowing that Christ would subsequently be born of a virgin counterfeited the miracle before it took place to challenge Jesus’s authenticity. To me this sounds like a rubbish explanation, but to billions of faithful Christians (and Muslims) it is an acceptable explanation.
In my humble opinion it is hard to be rational when you believe that some text is the word of God. I do not claim to be rational at all times, but at least I have the capacity of changing my opinion on a subject if presented with sufficient evidence.
if you keep hating Prophet Mohammed., it will lead you to a way… and you are entitled to your freedom to hate… but hate with some reason ! Hatred without “Reason” is pathetic… and deplorable., not to use stronger language.
Mohammed in its essense is nothing but MOHABBAT. It is the Code… the route.. the pathway.. You surrender your ego… the drop loses its existence in the ocean… only to find his true self and full potential. It is not swapping FREEDOMS. It is exploration.. and a larger evolution… As Ghalib says : “Ishrat-e-qatraa hai., Dariyaa mein fanaa ho jaana”.. and at that level., at that macro-level., one’s vision is widened… and one begins to look at things from a higher enlightened dispassionate and detached plane.
Rationalist : You argue in a childish, hawkish manner. I have crossed the stage of “scoring points and clapping”. That is High School level.
Hate Islam., and Hate Prophet Mohammed., but with some reason… after reading., thinking, contemplating. Read RSS literature, for sure., but read the other side of the story too. For a moment., halt., and ponder., and reflect.
Remember : Hate is a consuming passion and destroys its practitioner (in the long term). Prophet Mohammed was sent to this world to inculcate a sense of BALANCE and MODERATION (The Middle Path) in MAN… the HUMAN RACE… The Creation… cuz Middle Path… (no excess on either side) is the hallmark of man. Most difficult to achieve… Its not easy to form a Muslim World-view. You have to slog for years… read thousands of books… It doesnt come on SMS scholarship… or by reading blogs… or spicy (chatpata) RSS yellow-rag journalism.
You have a long way to go., before you develop a rationalistic “rationale”.
Show some compassion to a fellow-human.. a fellow sister… Radhaben Modi.. who had been wronged by her husband Narendra Damodardas Modi.. who used and abused her for 3 yrs… and left her literally on the streets. Radhaben is working as an Ayah in a School near Ahmedabad. Isnt she worthy of your attention and compassion ? Show some concern.. and reflect on Radhaben’s plight !
(Rationalist : I read pakistani newspapers and similar pro-islamic propaganda everyday. That is how I inform myself of islam in reality, in practice, islam’s real performance and results !).
Ah.. that explains everything !!! So your scholarship base is newspapers.. blogs.. You are still at that level. Hmmn. And thru this route, you try to inform yourself of “islam in reality”.. in practice… and you measure its real performance… and also publish its results (give your expert judgement). You mistake Muslim behaviour (individual behavior) for Islam…. which is a message… for ALL MANKIND including you… only you are shutting the window of intellect (its your choice); out of arrogance. You know in the heart of heart… God’s message resonates in the heart and the soul… but there is a stumbling block. That is your ego. It will encourage you to abuse God… abuse Prophets… abuse Divine Books.. quote out of context… abuse religion… and question God’s word… and ways !
You have to differentiate between Islam.. the IDEA.. the thought… and Muslims…. who unfortunately today… in 2010.. do not follow Islam at all. Then who follows Islam ? If you ask me… i will tell you.. and let me tell you.. If you want to understand the HEART OF ISLAM.. (if you want to go beyond 2+2 theology.. scoring points in debate.. making potshots)… i suggest you read 20-25 books by Harvard Emirtius Scholar., Late. ANNEMARIE SCHIMMEL (d. 2002/4). Read Schimmel… the books… and then you need not come to write a comment. You will answer your own questions. A new window will open. A new world will open. You will realise your own limitation(s)., and the vastness of the canvas in question. Come out of ignorance into light. Islam is as much yours… as it is mine.. but you are refusing the sunlight.. cuz you say.. .well.. X Y Z accepted it.. and i dont see any LIGHT on their faces. If there is not the light (NOOR) on their faces., its not the fault of Islam. It is the human fault.. flaw.. limitation.. of the recipient. But will you refuse God’s bounty and favour.. simply because those who took it (earlier) are not successful in this world ? You have to judge Islam… by reading about Islam.. yourself. No one will do it for you (outsourcing). It is an inward journey. You have to find it yourself. Ramakrishna Paramahansa observed Islam for 4 months every year. Take that route. Wanna ride to Belur Math ?
Little knowledge is indeed dangerous. Go for original texts.. solid scholarships.. not rag-tag chat-masala literature. This needs time.. years.. but its worth it. You find yourself.. Its a gamble.. Like to take it., fine. Its your choice.
@ rationalist (August 1, 2010 at 6:10 pm)
“….. You muslims have invented this trick of equating criticism with hatred and thus try to silence the critic through vilification and intimidation.this trick works on those who are timid or less intelligent…..”
The “less intelligent” do indeed falter in distinguishing between criticism and disrespect. One does not necessarily have to be disrespectful to personages held in respect by the other side, merely to prove that criticism is being made. Any sustainable discussion and meaningful dialogue would require an expression of respect for those, who are held in respect by the other. It is intelligent to be respectful.
@Rabbit
Your comments are symptomatic of those who see religion and science competing for the same ends but this is a fallacy. See the work of I Barbour, Keith Ward and other philosophers who argue that epistemologically at the very basic level of the structures of knowledge, the methodology science and religion are different disciplnes with different approaches to very different ends.
If I can also add that religious language is highly symbolic and due to its intense connection with spirituality and mysticism its enigmatic and aswell. Mysticism by no means is a dangerous activity, even Russell an ardent atheistic philosopher admitted the virtues of the mystic experience in his tract ”Mysticism and logic and other essays”.
Religious experience starts off with, aims at different premises, means and ends.
The fallacy starts when individuals take the essentially dynamic, symbolic and metaphorical nature of religious language literally. Literalism however as I have shown in my previous posts is regarded as heretical by many mainstream religious traditions and has only become widespread in the 19th and 20th centuries. Why this indeed happened is a separate issue and fascinating debate in its own right.
Kuran is incomprehensible. No use wasting time on that. Kuranic language is faulty/ambiguous. No need to waste time on that old language either.
Islam is already 1400 years old and hence must be judged by its actual results. And these results are shabby, to say the least.
The god of islam himself is an abusive god. So also his supreme agent and book. This I know from how muslims behave and what performance they bring forth. All other criteria are humbug so that human beings can be manipulated and misused.
Reading newspapers published by muslims is the only reliable source of knowledge about real islam. There is a lot of islam-glorification in them – but one learns to see through it.
I am a rationalist, but somehow I think the idea of kaliyuga as propounded by the hindu brahmans is valid. In kaliyuga lies will win over truth, violence over peace, arrogance over humility – and that explains islam’s victories and triumphant expansionism, imperialism, absolutism etc. neatly.
@rationalist (August 2, 2010 at 8:16 pm)
It was rather amusing to note that while on one hand you state, “…..Islam is already 1400 years old…..”, you claim on the other, “…..the idea of kaliyuga as propounded by the hindu brahmans is valid…..”.
I’m sure you’re aware of the age of Hinduism. The idea of “kaliyuga” should approximately be 5000 years old.
@ rabbit
“An irrational person on the other hand cannot argue against the divinity of the holy books even though it is clear that the act of a virgin homosapien giving birth violates basic natural laws.”
Of course, you must be a multiple nobel prize winning scientist since you have discovered ALL the “basic” natural laws that exist.
@rationalist
“Kuran is incomprehensible. No use wasting time on that. Kuranic language is faulty/ambiguous. No need to waste time on that old language either.”
It may be to the “less intelligent”, I agree.
“Reading newspapers published by muslims is the only reliable source of knowledge about real islam. There is a lot of islam-glorification in them – but one learns to see through it.”
I think you should learn to see through your own prejudice if newspapers is the “only reliable source of knowledge” that you have
“I am a rationalist, but somehow I think the idea of kaliyuga as propounded by the hindu brahmans is valid. In kaliyuga lies will win over truth, violence over peace, arrogance over humility.”
Well lets see if your arrogance wins over humility. Also, this belief of yours may make your rationality doubtful.
“Now, notwithstanding the assertion in the Koran itself (in Suras 16:103 and 26:195) that the Prophet had proclaimed the Koranic message in “clear Arabic speech”, all Arab, as well as all non-Arab commentators on the Koran have since time immemorial racked their brains over the interpretation of this language. Generations of renowned Koranic scholars have devoted their lives to the meritorious exercise of clarifying the text of the Koran grammatically and semantically, word for word. In spite of all these efforts one would not be far from the truth if one were to estimate the proportion of the Koran that is still considered unexplained today at about a quarter of the text.”
This is Christophe Luxenberg, in “The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran”.
He renders Sura 19:97 as
“We have translated it (the Koran or the Scripture) into your language so that you may proclaim it to the god-fearing…”
He then writes:
“With this linguistically clear and sober statement the Koran gives us an unambiguous indication of the language it acknowledges as the language of the Scriptures and which is essential for its conception of itself. With this language, which it for the first time calls “Arabic”, the Koran surely did not intend that language whose norms were established two hundred years later in part by non-Arab grammarians no longer capable of properly understanding the Koranic language. This is the reason for the present attempt to decipher the previous mystery of this language by means of that language, the key to which the Koran delivers us in its clear reference to the original, unadulterated Syro-Aramaic term “Qeryan”.
@ NSA (August 3, 2010 at 7:28 am)
Take any script, whether Divine or human, and assign the task of its translation to a hundred separate translators. You will get a hundred separate translations. Then interpret each translation and you will get an even higher number of interpretations. This is not a phenomenon unique to the Quran.
if every one has its own perception there where is Qur’an ?
[...] This is an intelligently argued article sent to us by Miss Kiran Rizvi. She rightly argues that laws are eventually an outcome of the peculiar circumstances of the prevalent time period. Therefore laws have to be judged in the context of those circumstances. This way of looking at the laws also makes it essential to rethink the current interpretation which is rooted in those times. Miss Kiran's argument is that the spirit of Islam itself provid … Read More [...]