Multiple Interpretations Of Verses Of The Quran Resulting In ConfusionPosted by Sohail Kouser on April 21, 2021 at 1:47 pm
When Quranic verses are open to interpretations then doesn’t it open the door of misuse of verses intentionally or unintentionally which has been happening in history and ofcourse now. As a result of which the common man is confused because every scholar claims to know the “correct” meaning . Had it been an academic debate it would have been harmless but “misrepresention” of verses of Quran have had extremely harmful consequences for humankind.
My question is why has God kept the door open to interpretation of verses resulting in extreme sufferings for humankind , for example slavery which is even now justified by well known scholars who openly say on mainstream TV in Pak that incase of a war with India there will be an auction of slave girls in market.
April 21, 2021 at 2:02 pm
We will point out the fallacy of their argument with ours and that is the only responsibility we have. If someone causes ‘Fasad’ on earth based on their wrong interpretation of Quran, then state has all the power and authority to get rid of that.
April 21, 2021 at 2:24 pm
If the state has the authority of imposing its “correct” interpretation it will be doing so with its own so called class of “darbari molvis” as in case of saudi or iran so basically a theocratic state where there will be no place for dissent , doesn’t look a very forward looking progressive concept
We would have expect a better mechanism from God for His intended correct interpretations of His verses because states can and often do interpret verses for vested interests.
April 21, 2021 at 3:32 pm
Every mechanism chosen by God is bound by the same inherent limitations that we humans possess. Transmission of message through words is the most effective way of communication, but at the same time, the same words are bound to be interpreted by humans, no matter the message, whether it be an interpretation of a word itself, that interpretation is also bound to be understood by the very humans through the same process. And which in result, always runs the risk of being misinterpreted by some humans. But at the same time, there will be many correcting that wrong interpretation. To maintain the scheme of test and trial, God couldn’t have chosen a supernatural process to communicate His message to every human, that would’ve made the whole scheme of creation redundant. That is why, at the same time, we humans are not required to stretch beyond our capacity to understand the message through supernatural means. We are only required to do so within the same bounds of being a human. If a country implements wrong interpretation of religion, there are many criticizing their interpretation through their arguments. And at a human level, implementation of religion is is not the ultimate objective of religion, rather it is the ‘Tazkiya’ (purity) that is required to be achieved at a human level. With this objective is mind, every human will be judged accordingly.
May 28, 2021 at 9:06 am
Indulge me, please.
“And Allah wants to lighten for you (your difficulties), and mankind was created weak” 4:28.
“Allah intends for you ease and does not intend hardship for you” 2:185
“Allah does not intend to make difficulty for you” 5:6
“He has chosen you and has not placed upon you in the religion any difficulty” 22:78
It’s prudent not to invoke Sunnah and Ahadith to reiterate what the Qur’ān is saying, otherwise, the list will be too long.
There is ONE God, ONE prophet who taught us ONE book about ONE message. Over time, singularity became plurality (monotheism to polytheism). Hence deterioration! The singular book became multiple versions of the book (Torah, Zaboor, Injeel, Quran). Hence deterioration! The singular message became multiple messages (multiplicity of religions). Hence deterioration!
“A toilsome reading as I ever undertook, wearisome confused jumble,” Thomas Carlyle, the person who considered Prophet Muhammad, a hero, once said. Us, Muslims couldn’t figure out the coherence/singularity and hence settled with multiplicity and labeled it “diversity” to glorify it.
Is diversity in the message really a blessing and beauty? Is incoherence (or limited coherence) really diversity! Did multiplicity not create extremists and terrorists and pacifists and Sufis, and atheists who say, why did God make it so difficult to understand. Aren’t we created weak?
One thing I must say, it wasn’t God but humankind who made it difficult. We still promote hardship in religion and abhor ease and actually criticize appropriateness as if it was laziness. We misappropriate ease as laziness.
Remember lesson 1: Receptive thinking. Understand what is being said.
Lesson 2: Critical thinking. Analyze what is being said.
If we have a rebuttal, it should prove the reverse is true, in principle, i.e. multiplicity is better than singularity.
Once we realize that plurality is the handiwork of a singularity, we can begin to understand the human obsession with a unified field theory.
Plurality only exists because of the expression of the singularity’s ability and creation. A singular artist creates several paintings, a singular musician produces several symphonies are fitting examples of the former philosophy.
We have been trying to combine the four fundamental forces of nature into one and despite our efforts, gravitational force resists the amalgamation. The hunger is for that ONE force that defines all, the Numero-Uno of the universe.
We also find this in polytheism where plural Gods have a Supreme God.
We also find this in humans, where they want to be the one, the most this or the most that, a manifestation in the comics would be “conquer the universe”, to be the most powerful ONE.
The ONE is always desirable.
The Farahi approach is an attempt to reconcile plurality to the minimum. If Qur’ān is coherent and self-explanatory then many factions cease to exist and will amalgamate into a limited number of interpretations. This is contrary to the popular image that this approach yearns to divide us even further. Qur’ān’s coherence gives it self-reliance and independence from many external sources. We cannot eliminate all the sources since we need them to understand some of the mysteries that are embedded in history and the Qur’ān.
By depending on Qur’ān’s coherence, we can filter out the importations from personal or popular or political perspectives.
There is another amalgamation witnessed by history, i.e. 7 qira’at. They were amalgamated from 20 to 7. The question arises then why not amalgamate everything to 1, when we did manage to reconcile “20” qira’at. Imagine what would have happened if we hadn’t reduced them to 7, and what would have happened if we had got it down to 1.
Farahi approach also makes it easy to dialogue with non-Muslims, as it filters out the most controversial and problematic interpretations. There are less dangerous rapids to surmount.
Stay blessed, always