From: johnson@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Islamic stories...
Date: 27 Aug 92 03:58:31 GMT
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, UW-Madison

In article <l9nl03INNg6p@pollux.usc.edu> aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed  
Abd-Allah) writes:
> In article <BtKpJq.35M@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu  
(Robert Weiss) writes:
> >
> >	Pulling out my local Qur'an:
> 
> I'm glad you posted: it gives me an opportunity to really start a good 
> discussion now.  First: who wrote the translation you used?

     I (Arthur Johnson) am using Dawood's translation. I assume that you  
are using Asad's translation.
 
> >	God never commands us to do a shameful thing (7:28; 6:131)
> >	God commands people to sin in order to rightly destroy them 
> >	(17:16)
 
     [good recommendation to Robert on quoting the Koran deleted]
 
> Verse [7:28] is speaking on the mentality of some people who sin:
> 
> 	[7:28]
> 	When they do anything that is shameful, they say:
> 	"We found our fathers doing so" and "Allah commanded
> 	us thus".  Say (O Prophet): "Nay, Allah never
> 	commands what is shameful: Do you attribute to Allah
> 	something of which you have no knowledge?"

     My [Dawood] translation of verse 7:28 reads as follows:

          [7:28]
          When they commit an indecent act, they say: 'This is
          what our fathers used to do. God enjoined it.' Say:
          'God does not enjoin what is indecent. Would you tell
          of God what you know not?'

     It's clear that this refers to the mentality of some people who sin,  
as you say. Specifically, I think it is directed at unbelievers, judging  
from the last sentence of verse 7:27: "We have made the devils guardians  
over the unbelievers."
 
> I don't know what your [Robert's] translation is talking about in   
>[6:131]; it
> is very clearly wrong.  It does not speak of the same subject as [7:28].
> [6:131] states that God does not destroy any community for its evils
> until it has been warned.
> 
> 	[6:131]
> 	For they Lord would not destroy a community for its 
> 	wrongdoing so long as its people are unwarned (or ignorant).

     My [Dawood] translation reads thusly:

          [6:131]
          Nor would your Lord destroy the nations without 
          just cause and due warning.

     The two are totally unrelated. I can't figure out why he thought
that the two are connected. Maybe a typo?
      
> By paraphrasing [17:16] AND ignoring the verses preceding it you add
> to the translator's mistranslation: a double mistake.  You have conjured
> a "contradiction" between your own words, but not with the words of the
> Qur'an.  [17:16] discusses the circumstances leading up to a community's
> punishment from God for its evils.
> 
> 	[17:15]
> 	Whoever chooses to follow the right path follows it
> 	but for his own good; and whoever goes astray goes but
> 	astray to his own detriment: and no bearer of burdens
> 	(of responsibility) can bear the burden of another.
> 	Moreover, We would never chastise (a sinning community)
> 	unless We had sent a messenger (to warn them).
> 	[17:16]
> 	When We decide to destroy a community We (first) send
> 	a command (to mend their ways) to those among them
> 	who are given the good things of this life and yet 
> 	transgress, until the word is proved true against them
> 	(with no excuse): then We destroy them entirely.
> 
> So these two verses speak of the Mercy of God: punishment is not
> inflicted until a messenger is sent first, and if things "look
> hopeless", a final warning is sent to the 'haves' in the 
> society (who are presumably the leaders, unlike the 'have-nots'), and
> only if this final warning has no effect does punishment come.

     My [Dawood] translation of verses 17:15-16 reads:

          [17:15]
          He that seeks guidance shall be guided to his
          own advantage, but he that errs shall err at 
          his own peril. No soul shall bear another's
          burden. Nor do We punish a nation until We have
          sent forth an apostle to forewarn them.
          [17:16]
          When We resolve to destroy a city, We first give
          warning to those of its people who live in comfort.
          If they persist in sin, judgement is irrevocably
          passed, and We raze that city to the ground.

     Ah, now I understand. I think that Robert meant to include verse  
6:131 with verse 17:16. So, his example should have been:

     God never commands us to do a shameful thing (7:28)
     God commands people to sin in order to rightly destroy them (6:131,
     17:16)

     Presumably, the sin that God allegedly commands people to do here is  
to attack and destroy a persistently sinful city and its inhabitants, i.e.  
to commit mass murder. Robert is alleging that, since mass murder is a  
"shameful" or "indecent" act, it is contradictory to claim that God never  
commands us to do a shameful thing, while at the same time God is  
commanding people to commit mass murder for the purpose of executing God's  
judgement upon a sinful city. Technically, Robert is wrong. Technically,  
there is no contradiction here, because verses 6:131 and 17:16 say nothing  
about the method by which God destroys sinful cities, i.e. if God destroys  
all sinful cities solely by means of natural disasters, then God has not  
commanded anyone to do a shameful or indecent thing. This does bring to  
mind the interesting question of whether God can suspend the rules,  
however. If God decides to use people A as an instrument to bring about  
the destruction of people B (who are persisting in sinful behavior), and  
thus commands people A to kill all of people B, has God contradicted  
Himself by commanding people A to perform a "shameful/indecent" act (of  
killing), or does such an act, which normally would be considered  
"shameful/indecent", become honorable provided it is sanctioned by God?  
Putting it another way, is moral law absolute or relative (situational) in  
the Koran?
  
> 
> >	8 days in Creation (41:9-12)
> >	6 days in cretaion (10:3, 11:7, 7:54)
> 
> With this paraphrase, you commit an outright lie, if I may be so blunt.  
> I hate to use such strong language, but you should have quoted the
> entire passage instead of paraphrasing.  NOWHERE in [41:9-12] is a
> figure of '8 days' given.  I leave it to you to present your claim.
> I do not have the time to enter the entire Qur'an into Newsnet: please
> give your quotes from now on.  And find an honest translation, written
> by a Muslim - believe me, this is not asking for too much.

     My translation of verses 41:9-12 reads:

          [41:9-12]
          Say: 'Do you indeed disbelieve in Him who created
          the earth in two days? And do you make other gods
          his equals? The Lord of the Universe is He.'
          He set upon the earth mountains towering high above
          it. He pronounced his blessing upon it, and in four
          days provided it with sustenance for all alike. Then,
          turning to the sky, which was but a cloud of vapor,
          He said to it and to the earth: 'Come forward
          both, willingly or perforce.'
          'We will come willingly,' they answered. In two 
          days He formed the sky into seven heavens, and to
          each heaven he assigned its task. We decked the
          lowest heaven with brilliant stars and guardian
          comets. Such is the design of the Mighty One, the
          All-knowing.

     If it took two days to create the earth, plus four days to provide  
the earth with sustenance for everything, plus two days to form the sky,  
that's a total of eight days. No lie here.

     The other three verses read as follows:

          [10:3]
          The unbelievers say: 'This man [Muhammed] is a
          skilled  enchanter.' Yet your Lord is God, who
          in six days created the heavens and the earth
          and then ascended His throne, ordaining all things.

          [11:7]
          Throned above the waters, He made the heavens and
          the earth in six days, to find out which of you
          shall best acquit himself.

          [7:54]
          Your Lord is God, who created the heavens and the
          earth in six days and then ascended his throne.

     There does appear to be a contradiction here. So which is it, six  
days or eight days?

> >	Commands people to wait one year in order to remarry after the 
> >	death of a spouse (2:240)
> >	Wait for only 4 months and 10 days (2:234)
>  
> Either your translator has made an even worse mistake, or you have
> misread something.  Either way, your paraphrase is wrong.
> 
> 	[2:240]
> 	Those of you who die and leave widows behind should
> 	bequeath for their widows a year's maintenance and
> 	residence.  But if they leave (the residence), there is
> 	no sin in whatever they do with themselves so long as
> 	as it is lawful.  And God is Almighty, Wise.
> 
> I won't bother addressing your 'contradiction': it's more interesting
> to discuss the truth.  Here, God has told men to plan for leaving
> behind a safeguard for their widows should they die, so as not to cause
> them any economic hardship - and this includes a place to live, not an
> unreasonable thing really.  However, the widow is free to leave if
> she wishes.

     In my translation [Dawood], the verse reads as follows:

          [2:240]
          You shall bequeath your widows a year's maintenance
          without causing them to leave their homes; but if
          they leave of their own accord, no blame shall be
          attached to you for any course they may deem fit
          to pursue. God is almighty and wise.

     Straightforward. Men should leave a one-year safeguard for their  
widows should they [the men] die, but the woman is free to terminate the  
financial arrangement at any time during the one-year period.
 
> Before addressing [2:234], let me mention the general topic of verses
> [2:232] and [2:233] - I refuse to waste my time and lose my job for the
> hastiness of someone else's misquotation so that I have to type in tons
> to correct his or her mistakes.  [2:232] and [2:233] are prolonged 
> orders regarding BABIES and marriage.
> 
> 	[2:234]
> 	And if any of you die and leave widows behind, they shall
> 	wait by themselves for four months and ten days.  When they
> 	have fulfilled this term, there is no sin in whatever they
> 	do with themselves so long as it is lawful.  And Allah
> 	is aware of all that you do.
> 
> Is it obvious?  The widows should wait this long for any pregnancy to
> show before REMARRYING - hence "by themselves."  Is this unreasonable -
> especially in light of the fact that her deceased husband has left her
> enough resources to survive for a year (and how long is pregnancy)?

     My translation gives verse [2:234] as follows:

          [2:234]
          Widows shall wait, keeping themselves apart from men,
          for four months and ten days after their husband's
          death. When they have reached the end of their waiting
          period, it shall be no offense for you to let them
          do whatever they choose for themselves, provided that
          it is decent. God is cognizant of all your actions.

     I don't think that there's any contradiction between 2:240 and 2:234.  
Verse 2:240 deals with financial matters wrt widows, and verse 2:234 deals  
with sexual relations wrt widows. The verses are talking about different  
subjects. Just to avoid some possible confusion, the word "you" in my  
translation of both these verses refers to believers (Muslims). Since  
presumably the widow is a Muslim, she is the one who commits no sin by  
either terminating the financial arrangement, or doing whatever she  
(decently) desires in terms of a new sexual relationship after fulfilling  
the "waiting period".
 
> >	God said Muhammad not to marry any other woman (33:52)
> >	God told Muhammad to marry any one he wanted or liked (33:50)
> 
> When I saw how long these two verses were, I nearly fainted...  Your
> translator and yourself are again guilty of mistranslation,  
misquotation,
> and thus wrong.
> 
> 	The beginning of [33:50]
> 	O Prophet, We have made lawful to you your wives to
> 	whom you have paid their dower...
> 
> 	The beginning of [33:52]
> 	It is not lawful to you (O Prophet) to (marry more) 
> 	women after this...
> 
> Where's the contradiction?  [33:50] speaks of the wives of the Prophet.
> [33:52] speaks of other women.  In this case, I don't think your  
translator
> made a mistake: I find it hard to believe he doesn't know the difference
> between the Arabic words for 'wives' and 'women'.  Perhaps you misread 
> something.

     My translation gives these three verses as follows:

          [33:50]
          Prophet, we have made lawful to you the wives to
          whom you have granted dowries and the slave-girls
          whom God has given to you as booty; the daughters
          of your paternal and maternal uncles and of your
          paternal and maternal aunts who fled with you; and
          any believing woman who gives herself to the Prophet
          and whom the Prophet wishes to take in marriage. 
          This privilege is yours alone, being granted to no
          other believer. We well know the duties We have
          imposed on the faithful concerning their wives and
          slave-girls. We grant you this privilege so that
          noone may blame you. God is forgiving and merciful.
          [33:51]
          You may put off any of your wives you please and take
          to your bed any of them you please. Nor is it 
          unlawful for you to receive any of those whom you
          have temporarily set aside. That is more proper, 
          so that they may be contented and not vexed, and
          may all be pleased with what you have given them.
          God knows what is in your [the believers] hearts.
          He is all-knowing and gracious.
          [33:52]
          It shall be unlawful for you [Muhammed] to take more
          wives or to change your present wives for other
          women, though their beauty please you, except
          where slave-girls are concerned. God takes
          cognizance of all things.

     Again, I don't think that there is a contradiction here. Muhammed  
had, at this time, nine wives, plus slave-girls, which is five more than  
the number of wives allowed to a Muslim. Muhammed appears to have been  
given a special dispensation, allowing him to keep the number of wives  
that he then had, as well as permitting him to marry any Muslim woman that  
he was currently betrothed to, but forbidding him from taking any more  
wives beyond those betrothed to him. Slave-girls, apparently, were a  
totally different issue, however. Rank has its privileges. :-)

> > [confusing "example" about love and war deleted]

     I'll stop now. Of the first four examples presented by Robert as  
Koranic contradictions, I believe that only one of them holds up: the one  
about an 8-day creation vs. a 6-day creation. The other three do not  
appear to be contradictions (I try to be an honest non-Muslim. :-) )
> 
> Ahmed A. Abd-Allah

Arthur Johnson
johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu

"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me" -- the Jesus Prayer

"Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us" -- the Trisagon
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism