The Catholic Church is making headway in dialogue since the Regensburg Address, this article deals with the interpretation of "Abrogation" as the dismissal of Divine revelation in the TORAH, and replacement with the Koran.
In conclusion, I add two personal observations, taken from my personal research on the Qur'an.
In the first place, the critical study of the text of the Qur'an leads to an understanding of certain important verses that is completely different from the one developed over the course of the centuries in the Muslim exegetical tradition. I will give a particularly significant example, the verse that is called "of abrogation": "Whatever message we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring one better than it or one like it" (Qur'an 2:106). This verse has always been understood, in the classical exegetical tradition, in the sense that one verse of the Qur'an can abrogate another with which it finds itself in contradiction, and the abrogating verse is obviously supposed to come later than the abrogated one.
But read in its literary context, it becomes absolutely clear that this verse is not talking about the abrogation of the Qur'an by the Qur'an, but of the abrogation of certain verses of the Jewish Torah – and not of the Torah as a whole – by the Qur'an. The question is therefore shifted from the area of Muslim law (what are the Qur'anic norms that are abrogated by others that came later in time?) to the problems relative to relations between Islam and Judaism, and their respective Scriptures. The theory of the abrogation of the Qur'an by itself, developed by the legal experts, fuqahâ, has no foundation in the Qur'an.
In the second place, the tradition of Qur'anic interpretation has always been very distrustful of any reference to previous texts, to a tradition greater than the Qur'an. During the first generations, some commentators on the Qur'an consulted the "Jewish sources," the isrâ'îliyyât, but later these were rejected as suspect, because of the supposed falsification, tahrîf, of the Torah. And besides, as soon as revelation is understood as dictation coming directly from God, any recourse to scriptural antecedents becomes superfluous.
In reality, the current textual study increasingly demonstrates how close the connection is between the Qur'anic text and an extremely rich and variegated cultural context, knowledge of which is seen to be indispensable for understanding all of the semantic subtleties of the Qur'anic text.
end
Michael Cuypers
...by any sense of logic or the laws of non-contradiction, that’s really not possible.
Sadly the opposition has managed to negate those exact standards of debate these days. Nevertheless, a classy and concise job as always Robert. How does it feel to be the standard-bearer of common sense and reason (on this issue at least)?
If what Michel Cuypers argues in the paragraphs quoted above were to be accepted by many Muslims, it might, just might, lead some to decide that naskh, or abrogation, of the milder verses (the so-called Meccan verses) by the later, harsher, verses (the so-called Medinan verses) then at least some , though not all, of the violence and aggression in the Qur'an might be muted. But how many Muslims would do that? And if they did, how long would it take? Two centuries? One century? Fifty years?
We, the world's non-Muslims, don't have time to wait for the world's Muslims to jettison the Sira, and thus the figure of Muhammad as the Perfect Man, and throw out the Hadith (ditto), and the sola scriptura business pushyed by Muslim "reformers" such as young-old Turks Edip Yuksel and Mustafa Akyol, this would still leave the Qur'an. And if the Qur'an itself were now to be read without application of the principle of abrogation, that is so that abrogation were itself to be abrogated, insofar as that principle would no longer apply to verses of the Qur'an, but only to the texts of prior monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity), which is already a given in Islam)it might lead to some, though not much, softening of the message of Islam.
But that is a very unlikely thing to happen.
And there's no time to wait to see if somehow this can pan out, if Michel Cuypers and others can help supply ways out of the dead end of Islamic violence and aggression. And even without abrogation, Jihad remains as a central duty for the Believer, even if that Jihad may more widely be pursued through other means than qitaal.
There's no time to wait. There's not more than a few decades left for the peoples of Western Europe to prevent their countries from being further, catastrophically islamized.
Robert, your answer to the aren't-most-Muslims-peaceful question was very helpful, especially when you said, "...the more Muslims who ignore the Koranic teaching on Islamic jihad and the warfare against unbelievers the better off we all are."
I've heard you say before (I'm paraphrasing) that a Christian style reformation may be precisely what we don't want out of Islam, as that would imply a return to "fundamentals," which with Islam gets us back to jihad. That kind of left me scratching my head on what we can hope for.
It would seem to be that our hope should be what you said, that Muslims ignore teaching on jihad. A tall order indeed... I think another option would be to kill enough jihadist terrorists that jihad starts to look less appealing to them.
Killing those who participate in violent Jihad does nothing about the doctrine that inculcates the necessity for Jihad, which is merely the struggle to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam. Those who are right now conducting Jihad through campaigns of Da'wa, through deployment of the Money Weapon, and through demographic conquest, especially in the countries of Western Europe, are inexorably weakening the legal and political institutions of non-Muslim peoples who have foolishly allowed Muslims to settle deep within, and the social cohesion of such countries, and their freedoms, so taken for granted. There is no way to prevent the doctrine of Jihad from being taken seriously.
There are, however, steps that can be taken, both to halt, and then reverse, the large-scale Muslim presence in Dar al-Harb, the Domain or House of War, the Lands of the Infidels, and ways as well to divide and demoralize the Camp of islam, and immunize many of those non-Muslims most likely to be targets of Da'wa. But not a thing in this line is being done.
Instead we get Iraq.
Instead we get Afghanistan.
Instead we get Pakistan.
I have read your book The Complete Infidel's Guide the Koran..
To all Muhammadan Muslim it is recommend that you read
this book with an OPEN MIND....then you will be able to
read understand more when you read the Al Quran,Islam
and Mohammad...
I have read your book The Complete Infidel's Guide the Koran..
To all Muhammadan Muslim it is recommend that you read
this book with an OPEN MIND....then you will be able to
read understand more when you read the Al Quran,Islam
and Mohammad...
"The theory of the abrogation of the Qur'an by itself, developed by the legal experts, fuqahâ, has no foundation in the Qur'an."
So for centuries and centuries, the Muslim legal experts got it wrong, and it took 1400 years before some Western guy named Michael Cuypers came along to figure out what abrogation really means?
That is the height of provincial neo-colonialist arrogance, and reflects a bizarre misapprehension of the alien nature of Islamic psychology, sociology and culture.
Why do Westerners have to keep trying to fit the Islamic monster into their categories? It won't fit. It never will. It's a beast that stands outside all our categories, and seeks to break them when it can. The best we can do is try to gauge its appetites and movements, the better to protect ourselves from it.
Mr. Spencer, I bought your book and read it. I feelt it was a good primer for Newbies, but I was expecting something more indepth. ie. Something new. Don't get me wrong I loved the book, but I did spot one thing that didn't make a whole lot of sense to me that I would like to share with you.
On page 173-174.
You bring up Islamic cleric Samir Abu Hamza's view on beating women. He's view was Muslim women should
be beat like Muhammad beat women, which was like a tooth brush that you use to brush your teeth. He then goes on to say that you are not allowed to BRUSIE THEM, or make them BLEED.
You then say: "Unfortunately, men have differing ideas about what constitutes a light beating. Sanctioning the beating of women in the first place will inevitably lead to serious violence."
Now what I don't understand is if the Hadeeth doesn't sanction any kind of beating beyond a Tooth-brush
or Handkerchief how can you claim these muslims are following ISLAM? Obviously, Islam does not teach severe punishment. That is the conclusion I came too. I'm not saying a light tap via tooth-brush or Handkerchief is right,
but it is a far cry from saying the Koran and Hadeeth teach demostic abuse. Though, I believe a husband should never put his hands on his wife no matter the reason. I think it would be more proper to say the Koran teaches misogyny and mentally asbuse toward muslim women.
Perhaps, you can clear this up for me, incase I am missing something.
Thanks Mr. Spencer.
Once again, I enjoyed the book. I feel people should know you are one of the most excellent writers out there that I've been following for years. You do infact back up everything said with the islamic evidence. You made everything easy to understand, but again I was expecting a little more from you this time around.
When you are faced with a war based on a failed religion, it would be nice if we would at least state that "Islam is at war with the world." Our opponents are not extremists, radicals or misunderstanders of Islam. They understand Islam all too well, and site it frequently as a "justification" of their sociopathic actions against kuffar nations.
I remember reading Qur'an and thinking that it was a loaded gun pointed at the head of every human being on the planet. I cannot imagine why our current political, business, religious and intellectual leaders do not read the Qur'an and understand that it's followers view the Qur'an as the actual words of Allah. The bellicose and misogynistic prose is therefore NOT to be moderated, ignored or disobeyed.
The author Frank Hebert once wrote that when "religion and politics ride in the same cart, nothing can stand in their way".
But he also noted that "the fall from a high place is sudden and swift".
Now what I don't understand is if the Hadeeth doesn't sanction any kind of beating beyond a Tooth-brush...
Are you kidding?...Look what happens in real life...
The word, lightly is not used in the Quran except in the translation by Yousuf Ali...(lightly) was most likely inserted by Ali on his own...Hilali-Khan uses...'beat them (lightly, if it is useful)'...That also was probably his own idea, which is unclear anyway...The rest of the translations use 'beat, or 'scourge'...without qualifiers...I think it's clear that Islam sanctions wife beating according to scripture...The only person qualified to describe 'a light beating' is the woman on the receiving end...
There is plenty new in the book. I have never discussed in any other book the compilation of the Koran, the Koranic view of Judaism and Christianity, the policy errors that arise from faulty understanding of what is in the Koran, the roots of the Koranic contempt for infidels, and many other topics.
But in any case, you seem to have missed the ahadith that I quoted in which Muhammad strikes Aisha, causing her pain, and not with a toothbrush. That hadith alone, and there are others supporting it also, militate against the apologetic notion that wife abuse is somehow restricted in the hadith.
I see your point, but what i am seeing is that instead of being labelled a racist, for critiscing Islam, in the church, the laity are more aware, and they want answers.
The days of accepting the Catechical instruction about Nostra Aetate, with any trust is over because of Islamist Xenophobia, and many peopel want this defined, see,
I see your point, but what i am seeing is that instead of being labelled a racist, for critiscing Islam, in the church, the laity are more aware, and they want answers.
The days of accepting the Catechical instruction about Nostra Aetate, with any trust is over because of Islamist Xenophobia, and many peopel want this defined, see,
You are correct I did miss Book 004, Number 2127 Mr.Spencer.
My bad.
I also missed the word (lighty)being put into parentheses as duh swami pointed out.
It just gets sort of confusing when islamic scholars say things like wife beating is "barely permissible" in Islam.
I must admit this is a very controverstal verse, but if I'm hearing you and duh swami correctly in Arabic this verse is much worse.
Even the historian Tabari speaks about beating them (but not severely) and treating them like domestic animals(awan).
Al-Tabari, Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir. The History of al-Tabari. Vol.IX: The Last Years of the Prophet. Translated and annotated by Ismail K. Poonawala. State University of NewYork Press, Albany, 1990 (pages 112-114)
Logical and straight forward as always.
Robert
The Catholic Church is making headway in dialogue since the Regensburg Address, this article deals with the interpretation of "Abrogation" as the dismissal of Divine revelation in the TORAH, and replacement with the Koran.
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1339925?eng=y
Michael Cuypers
In conclusion, I add two personal observations, taken from my personal research on the Qur'an.
In the first place, the critical study of the text of the Qur'an leads to an understanding of certain important verses that is completely different from the one developed over the course of the centuries in the Muslim exegetical tradition. I will give a particularly significant example, the verse that is called "of abrogation": "Whatever message we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring one better than it or one like it" (Qur'an 2:106). This verse has always been understood, in the classical exegetical tradition, in the sense that one verse of the Qur'an can abrogate another with which it finds itself in contradiction, and the abrogating verse is obviously supposed to come later than the abrogated one.
But read in its literary context, it becomes absolutely clear that this verse is not talking about the abrogation of the Qur'an by the Qur'an, but of the abrogation of certain verses of the Jewish Torah – and not of the Torah as a whole – by the Qur'an. The question is therefore shifted from the area of Muslim law (what are the Qur'anic norms that are abrogated by others that came later in time?) to the problems relative to relations between Islam and Judaism, and their respective Scriptures. The theory of the abrogation of the Qur'an by itself, developed by the legal experts, fuqahâ, has no foundation in the Qur'an.
In the second place, the tradition of Qur'anic interpretation has always been very distrustful of any reference to previous texts, to a tradition greater than the Qur'an. During the first generations, some commentators on the Qur'an consulted the "Jewish sources," the isrâ'îliyyât, but later these were rejected as suspect, because of the supposed falsification, tahrîf, of the Torah. And besides, as soon as revelation is understood as dictation coming directly from God, any recourse to scriptural antecedents becomes superfluous.
In reality, the current textual study increasingly demonstrates how close the connection is between the Qur'anic text and an extremely rich and variegated cultural context, knowledge of which is seen to be indispensable for understanding all of the semantic subtleties of the Qur'anic text.
end
Michael Cuypers
These texts at Chiesa are well worth the study
Breadwinner
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1340634?eng=y
...by any sense of logic or the laws of non-contradiction, that’s really not possible.
Sadly the opposition has managed to negate those exact standards of debate these days. Nevertheless, a classy and concise job as always Robert. How does it feel to be the standard-bearer of common sense and reason (on this issue at least)?
If what Michel Cuypers argues in the paragraphs quoted above were to be accepted by many Muslims, it might, just might, lead some to decide that naskh, or abrogation, of the milder verses (the so-called Meccan verses) by the later, harsher, verses (the so-called Medinan verses) then at least some , though not all, of the violence and aggression in the Qur'an might be muted. But how many Muslims would do that? And if they did, how long would it take? Two centuries? One century? Fifty years?
We, the world's non-Muslims, don't have time to wait for the world's Muslims to jettison the Sira, and thus the figure of Muhammad as the Perfect Man, and throw out the Hadith (ditto), and the sola scriptura business pushyed by Muslim "reformers" such as young-old Turks Edip Yuksel and Mustafa Akyol, this would still leave the Qur'an. And if the Qur'an itself were now to be read without application of the principle of abrogation, that is so that abrogation were itself to be abrogated, insofar as that principle would no longer apply to verses of the Qur'an, but only to the texts of prior monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity), which is already a given in Islam)it might lead to some, though not much, softening of the message of Islam.
But that is a very unlikely thing to happen.
And there's no time to wait to see if somehow this can pan out, if Michel Cuypers and others can help supply ways out of the dead end of Islamic violence and aggression. And even without abrogation, Jihad remains as a central duty for the Believer, even if that Jihad may more widely be pursued through other means than qitaal.
There's no time to wait. There's not more than a few decades left for the peoples of Western Europe to prevent their countries from being further, catastrophically islamized.
Robert, your answer to the aren't-most-Muslims-peaceful question was very helpful, especially when you said, "...the more Muslims who ignore the Koranic teaching on Islamic jihad and the warfare against unbelievers the better off we all are."
I've heard you say before (I'm paraphrasing) that a Christian style reformation may be precisely what we don't want out of Islam, as that would imply a return to "fundamentals," which with Islam gets us back to jihad. That kind of left me scratching my head on what we can hope for.
It would seem to be that our hope should be what you said, that Muslims ignore teaching on jihad. A tall order indeed... I think another option would be to kill enough jihadist terrorists that jihad starts to look less appealing to them.
Killing those who participate in violent Jihad does nothing about the doctrine that inculcates the necessity for Jihad, which is merely the struggle to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam. Those who are right now conducting Jihad through campaigns of Da'wa, through deployment of the Money Weapon, and through demographic conquest, especially in the countries of Western Europe, are inexorably weakening the legal and political institutions of non-Muslim peoples who have foolishly allowed Muslims to settle deep within, and the social cohesion of such countries, and their freedoms, so taken for granted. There is no way to prevent the doctrine of Jihad from being taken seriously.
There are, however, steps that can be taken, both to halt, and then reverse, the large-scale Muslim presence in Dar al-Harb, the Domain or House of War, the Lands of the Infidels, and ways as well to divide and demoralize the Camp of islam, and immunize many of those non-Muslims most likely to be targets of Da'wa. But not a thing in this line is being done.
Instead we get Iraq.
Instead we get Afghanistan.
Instead we get Pakistan.
Hi Robert
I have read your book The Complete Infidel's Guide the Koran..
To all Muhammadan Muslim it is recommend that you read
this book with an OPEN MIND....then you will be able to
read understand more when you read the Al Quran,Islam
and Mohammad...
Hi Robert
I have read your book The Complete Infidel's Guide the Koran..
To all Muhammadan Muslim it is recommend that you read
this book with an OPEN MIND....then you will be able to
read understand more when you read the Al Quran,Islam
and Mohammad...
"The theory of the abrogation of the Qur'an by itself, developed by the legal experts, fuqahâ, has no foundation in the Qur'an."
So for centuries and centuries, the Muslim legal experts got it wrong, and it took 1400 years before some Western guy named Michael Cuypers came along to figure out what abrogation really means?
That is the height of provincial neo-colonialist arrogance, and reflects a bizarre misapprehension of the alien nature of Islamic psychology, sociology and culture.
Why do Westerners have to keep trying to fit the Islamic monster into their categories? It won't fit. It never will. It's a beast that stands outside all our categories, and seeks to break them when it can. The best we can do is try to gauge its appetites and movements, the better to protect ourselves from it.
Mr. Spencer, I bought your book and read it. I feelt it was a good primer for Newbies, but I was expecting something more indepth. ie. Something new. Don't get me wrong I loved the book, but I did spot one thing that didn't make a whole lot of sense to me that I would like to share with you.
On page 173-174.
You bring up Islamic cleric Samir Abu Hamza's view on beating women. He's view was Muslim women should
be beat like Muhammad beat women, which was like a tooth brush that you use to brush your teeth. He then goes on to say that you are not allowed to BRUSIE THEM, or make them BLEED.
You then say: "Unfortunately, men have differing ideas about what constitutes a light beating. Sanctioning the beating of women in the first place will inevitably lead to serious violence."
Now what I don't understand is if the Hadeeth doesn't sanction any kind of beating beyond a Tooth-brush
or Handkerchief how can you claim these muslims are following ISLAM? Obviously, Islam does not teach severe punishment. That is the conclusion I came too. I'm not saying a light tap via tooth-brush or Handkerchief is right,
but it is a far cry from saying the Koran and Hadeeth teach demostic abuse. Though, I believe a husband should never put his hands on his wife no matter the reason. I think it would be more proper to say the Koran teaches misogyny and mentally asbuse toward muslim women.
Perhaps, you can clear this up for me, incase I am missing something.
Thanks Mr. Spencer.
Once again, I enjoyed the book. I feel people should know you are one of the most excellent writers out there that I've been following for years. You do infact back up everything said with the islamic evidence. You made everything easy to understand, but again I was expecting a little more from you this time around.
Peace.
When you are faced with a war based on a failed religion, it would be nice if we would at least state that "Islam is at war with the world." Our opponents are not extremists, radicals or misunderstanders of Islam. They understand Islam all too well, and site it frequently as a "justification" of their sociopathic actions against kuffar nations.
I remember reading Qur'an and thinking that it was a loaded gun pointed at the head of every human being on the planet. I cannot imagine why our current political, business, religious and intellectual leaders do not read the Qur'an and understand that it's followers view the Qur'an as the actual words of Allah. The bellicose and misogynistic prose is therefore NOT to be moderated, ignored or disobeyed.
The author Frank Hebert once wrote that when "religion and politics ride in the same cart, nothing can stand in their way".
But he also noted that "the fall from a high place is sudden and swift".
Now what I don't understand is if the Hadeeth doesn't sanction any kind of beating beyond a Tooth-brush...
Are you kidding?...Look what happens in real life...
The word, lightly is not used in the Quran except in the translation by Yousuf Ali...(lightly) was most likely inserted by Ali on his own...Hilali-Khan uses...'beat them (lightly, if it is useful)'...That also was probably his own idea, which is unclear anyway...The rest of the translations use 'beat, or 'scourge'...without qualifiers...I think it's clear that Islam sanctions wife beating according to scripture...The only person qualified to describe 'a light beating' is the woman on the receiving end...
proxywar:
There is plenty new in the book. I have never discussed in any other book the compilation of the Koran, the Koranic view of Judaism and Christianity, the policy errors that arise from faulty understanding of what is in the Koran, the roots of the Koranic contempt for infidels, and many other topics.
But in any case, you seem to have missed the ahadith that I quoted in which Muhammad strikes Aisha, causing her pain, and not with a toothbrush. That hadith alone, and there are others supporting it also, militate against the apologetic notion that wife abuse is somehow restricted in the hadith.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Hugh
I see your point, but what i am seeing is that instead of being labelled a racist, for critiscing Islam, in the church, the laity are more aware, and they want answers.
The days of accepting the Catechical instruction about Nostra Aetate, with any trust is over because of Islamist Xenophobia, and many peopel want this defined, see,
http://www.answering-islam.org/Hoaxes/vatican2.html
And simply because the mass of Muslims have endorsed belligerency as a prerequisite of Dawa.
Breadwinner
Hugh
I see your point, but what i am seeing is that instead of being labelled a racist, for critiscing Islam, in the church, the laity are more aware, and they want answers.
The days of accepting the Catechical instruction about Nostra Aetate, with any trust is over because of Islamist Xenophobia, and many peopel want this defined, see,
http://www.answering-islam.org/Hoaxes/vatican2.html
And simply because the mass of Muslims have endorsed belligerency as a prerequisite of Dawa.
Breadwinner
You are correct I did miss Book 004, Number 2127 Mr.Spencer.
My bad.
I also missed the word (lighty)being put into parentheses as duh swami pointed out.
It just gets sort of confusing when islamic scholars say things like wife beating is "barely permissible" in Islam.
I must admit this is a very controverstal verse, but if I'm hearing you and duh swami correctly in Arabic this verse is much worse.
Even the historian Tabari speaks about beating them (but not severely) and treating them like domestic animals(awan).
Al-Tabari, Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir. The History of al-Tabari. Vol.IX: The Last Years of the Prophet. Translated and annotated by Ismail K. Poonawala. State University of NewYork Press, Albany, 1990 (pages 112-114)
I am looking forward to your next book.
Peace.