lpetrich

I wonder if anyone here has bothered to read the Koran. And if so, what translation would you recommend? I prefer straightforward modern English.

I recall someone who read it and concluded that much of it was not much better than

Believe! Believe! Believe! Believe! Believe! Believe!

Also, you people may enjoy a chuckle or two at the prophet Mohammed's miracles.

And I've been thinking of possible alternative titles for my Islamic-revisionism thread. Like

Did Mohammed Exist?
Islam: An Arabized Judeo-Xian Sect?
Islam: Born Arab or Turned Arab?
Mecca: Islam's Hometown Or Adopted Home?

Amie

Hi lpetrich
I've read it while I was taking a religions of the world class. Oddly enough It is only considered authoritative in its original Arabic. (and I dont read, speak or write in Arabic) Translations of the Koran are not regarded as "inspired" which seems rather odd to me..

I do like many of the doctrinal messages and the mystical expressions of sublime beauty. Also many of the stories parallel events from Jewish and Christian traditions since Islam was influenced by those faith. I think there is more continuity than not between Abrahamic religions...
I think their 5 pillars of faith are pretty cool if not taken to extremes. Although the fasting during Ramadan would make me cranky and the ritual of praying 5 times a day would become rather redundant...
I'd be a sucky muslim

Infinity Lover

Cheer up, you make an excelent Amie. I just happen to really like those.

emotional

That's a control tactic. Muslim apologists usually respond to Qur'anic criticism thus: "You're using a translation. In the original Arabic there's nothing to criticise".



Praying 3 times a day is quite enough. You're given a fixed prayer to recite, out of a book, and from my experience, after about 50 times you do that, you start reciting the words like a machine. Most of the people at a synagogue or mosque pray like machines, uttering the words very fast, wanting only to get all this prayer nonsense over and done with.



As a Muslim woman you'd be covered all over your body and you'd be your husband's property.

lpetrich

In fairness to Muslims, they believe that the Classical Arabic version is the only truly legitimate version of the Koran -- all translations are officially commentaries and not the Real Thing.

But it is a convenient way of brushing off critics -- how many people will learn Arabic just so that they can read the Koran?

I think that this poses a problem for the concept of revelation -- why not reveal some message in every language? Or at least provide a guide for translators? And why not do direct-to-consciousness revelation?

Nostalgic Pushhead

Well, their stance makes more sense than the Christian one of saying that imperfect human translations of the original Bible text are as much "The word of God" as the original.

Not that I think the Bible IS the "Word of God", but if it WAS, theres no way the translations could be also.

emotional

This limitation of God to human language is what led to me to disbelieve in written revelation in the first place. Thomas Paine rightly said that written revelation isn't revelation at all, it's just hearsay, and he also pointed out that true divine revelation can't be dressed up in the straitjacket of human language.

Sabine Grant

Hello emotional.. I tend to agree with that statement. A language is not just a form of written or oral expression, it also projects an ethnic identity which differs from one group to the other. For example, idioms reflect the environment and physical reality. Translation of idioms looses those notions. A literal translation of an idiom can lead to misunderstanding the message contained in the idiom.
IMO only scholars who are fluent in ancient hebrew, greek and possibly aramaic can truly grasp the meaning of scriptures in both the Ot and NT.
So I can understand the claim made by islamic scholars.
I have seen differences in the meaning from a French translation to an English or Italian one of the Bible.

Magus55

I agree that translations can be somewhat less accurate than the original. The purpose of translations, isn't necessarily to be perfect, its just to spread the ideas and writings of the originals to the masses. There is no substitute for the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, but not many people can read ancient languages, so we have to settle for the english translations. I used to be able to read and write some hebrew, but its been awhile so all i can do now is say the Hebrew Alphabet. Wish i was fluent in both Hebrew and Greek

Sabine Grant

Shalom Magus!.... Maybe the remedy to avoiding being misled in the understanding of the original text is to read different versions of the scriptures and focus on the meaning, paying attention though to the contradictions that may occur. I try to check scriptures thru 4 different Bibles and in 3 living languages. It is a challenge but it has helped me do more research rather than abide to one particular version.
I found the Living Bible to be helpful in understading the meaning of the message but I like most the NIV to do a word studies. It is amazing how one simple greek word can project so many semantic notions. As a mind twister , look for the word " teleos" which was translated in the book of James in English by the word " perfect" ( KJV) verse 4 chapter 1. there is NO way anyone could project all the semantic value of the greek word teleos via translation. Have fun !