🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@farooqkz

So this part:

> Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those with him are stern against the deniers, merciful to one another; you see them kneeling, prostrating, seeking grace from Allah and good pleasure; their marks are on their faces from the effect of prostration.

(One small correction, Allah here should be God, as you are translating to english and God is the english word for Allah)

I see many interpretations here, and I dont myself pick any particular one... lets break it apart

> Muhamed is the messenger of god

this part could have many interpritations, though most musslims would take it to mean he is a prophet from god delivering a new religion. I myself might take it to mean any numberof alternative things, for example I might take it to mean he takes messages to god, rather than the other direction. Lotsof potential interpritations for this.

> and those with him are stern against the deniers, merciful to one another

Again lots of room here for different meanings... What does "with him" mean, a literal interptiation would mean people standing around him, could also mean other messengers of god, or it could mean his followers.

Sterm against deniers can also have a lot of interpritation.. deniers of what? stern in what way? etc

Every part has tons of things it could mean, and it isnt obvious to everyone since there is so much difference in interpretations.

@otso

It touches on some examples, yea.

@farooqkz

@pieist

I dont think there is any truth to that at all. Religion no more makes good people do evil things than it meaks evil people good.

@admitsWrongIfProven

@farooqkz

I just gave your seven interpretations to your statement of "you will kill infedels" for examples... not one of them is some version that "lacks" interpretations, that statement doesnt even make sense.

@otso

@farooqkz

There is **always** interpritation...thats how reading anything works.. you read the words, interprit the meaning. Books dont have brains, they cant interprit themselves.

You are just using it as a cop-out.. you are claiming your interpritation is **the** interpritation, as if there was no element of you in that process.. but thats not hte case.. you are the one who reads the words and takes it to mean a specific thing, you cant avoid it.

@otso

@farooqkz No im not talking about changing the content of the book by adding words to it.. I am talking about what a person thinks is meant by the text in its current form.

Lets break apart the example. Lets say somewhereint he quran it said "You will kill infidels".. well lots of interpritations for that ... 1) One might think the "you" in this case doesnt refer to the reader but was something being said to someone in the context of the story 2) Infidels may be interprited as something other than "nonbeleiver" 3) They may feel other parts of the text further clarify the meaning and change it, for example at a later point it may say killing is wrong 4) People may feel these were gods instructions for people at a point in the past but was never intended by god to apply to people in the modern day. 5) it may not be seen a commandment at all 7) Perhaps they dont feel the Quran is infallable and the people who wrote it were flawed and made mistakes 7) Someone may feel the language has changed since the book was written and some of the meaning is lost.

@otso

All that to point out a spelling typo? Ok thanks.

@farooqkz

@otso

Yup thats the definition.. your point?

@farooqkz

@farooqkz The Quran cant command you to do anything. It is a book. Only your interpritation of the book will "command" you to do anything. A book has no meaning until it is interprited.

@farooqkz Well if you havent read the whole thing that might limit you a bit.. But i think our discussion is generic enough that it might not matter all that much.

@farooqkz I think thats a bit of a cop out.. WE have both read it, we both understand it. Scalres are irrelevant at this point.

@adamcr Another important point is if you migrate to a radicalized server that blocks a huge portion of the fediverse you may get stuck there. You cant migrate out to blocked servers so you get "locked in"... make sure the block list is puiblic and you dont feel it is excessive.

@Corfiot

No one is asking you to discuss it.. but nothing i said is "made up" .. this is the standard interpritation by scholars, its hardly my idea.

@matrix

@Corfiot

I agree, I cannot fathom your mental gymnastics on this.

My guess is you are refering to organized religion, and specifically the organization part and not the religion itself at all.

You have three levels

1) Religious Canon (the texts themselves)
2) Religion (The texts coupled with a specific interpritation)
3) Organized religion (A group of people that practice and enforce a specific interpritation)

@matrix

@Corfiot

> i tried to reply and it said the post i replied to was deleted and the reply was lost. i'll summarize: religions are not a combo of beliefs and interpretation. Religions are only beliefs (traditions included).

I never said religion was a comonation of beleif and interpritation. I said it was a combination of Canon text and ones interpritation of it.

Religions can **not** be a belief or even have a beleif. You need to be a thinking human to beleive anything, a book doesnt have a beleif, nor does an interpritation have a beleif.

What you mean is that you must **beleive** the religion (specifically the interpritation and choice of canon) in order to be considered a member of that religion. But it is the person who has the belief that makes him a member, the religion doesnt, and cant, beleive anything, it isnt a person.

> You are injecting the interpretation layer to justify your exclusive individual responsibility argument retroactively.

I am doing nothing of the sort, without interpritation then there is no difference between a catholosism and the protestant religion. Their only difference is how they interprit the same canon. Without the interpritation aspect the only thing a religion has left are the texts.

> A religion can be judged on its tenets, no exceptions.

A religion doesnt have tenants, its members do, and not always the same tenants. You cant judge a religion on something it doesnt have.

@matrix

@Corfiot

No Iam not saying either...

Religions do exist. A religion is any set of canon texts/stories and some interpritation attached to them. That combonation exists and is very real. But interpritations dont have feelings or thoughts and dont make commandments. You as a follower may, however, draw conclusions from the interpritation and thus act a certain way as a result of that. But that is a choice of the follower, no one commanded him to it.

And no religions cant have "any sort of beleif"... again they arent people, they dont beleive anything themselves. However you as a reader of the religion may choose to have beleifs as a result of your interpritation.

@matrix

@Corfiot

Nope, not in and of itself... I need to choose what it means and how I interprit it. I may, if i were a christian, think the old testamant is no longer valid due to jesus creating new rules (very common among christians), I may think the gematria meaning of the text implies something different than the plain words indicate. I may take it as a rule. I may take it as something that applied only to Moses and the jews and not to all people...

How I interprit the meaning, and then what I choose to do with that interpritation depends on if it is a commandment or not. The words existing on a page do not command anyone to do anything on their own unless theperson reading it interprits it as such.

@matrix