So it's not actually a commend for Muslims, but a reflection on what happened in the past?

Quote:


It is indeed for us, it is a reflection on how previous nations went astray and how we should not stray like them, by excessive questioning that leads to hardship. It is probably worthwhile reading the story that this relates to, when the slaughtering of the calf was ordained for the Children of Israel.

And when Moses said unto his people: Lo! Allah commandeth you that ye sacrifice a cow, they said: Dost thou make game of us? He answered: Allah forbid that I should be among the foolish!
They said: Pray for us unto thy Lord that He make clear to us what (cow) she is. (Moses) answered: Lo! He saith, Verily she is a cow neither with calf nor immature; (she is) between the two conditions; so do that which ye are commanded
They said: Pray for us unto thy Lord that He make clear to us of what colour she is. (Moses) answered: Lo! He saith: Verily she is a yellow cow. Bright is her colour, gladdening beholders.
They said: Pray for us unto thy Lord that He make clear to us what (cow) she is. Lo! cows are much alike to us; and Lo! if Allah wills, we may be led aright.
(Moses) answered: Lo! He saith: Verily she is a cow unyoked; she plougheth not the soil nor watereth the tilth; whole and without mark. They said: Now thou bringest the truth. So they sacrificed her, though almost they did not. (Surah al-Baqarah 2:67-71)

This is the kind of incessant questioning that it refers to, which causes trouble and hardship in people's religion. Although obviously you assumed it to be don't ask "Is Islam true", "Is the Qur'an the word of God" etc.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 11^th, 2008 at 7:46pm:




I really, honestly do not wish to personally offend you, Abu rashid, on account of what you believe,  so please stop reading now.

This is but one example of the unbelievable naivite of muslims. Mohammed says that he is the last prophet of god, offers up the revelations as they become necessary for his purposes, and the early muslims sit around, nodding. The Koran is so obviously not divine even in its inspirations that I find it simply unbelievable that people actually take it to be unaltered word of god. If they do, I am frightened. The jews and Christians at leats have the sense of proportion and humility to say that their texts are inspired. But to claim with a straight face that the above text is the best that god can come up with is just astonishing.

The Koran is not quite Finnigan's Wake but, by god, it's up there with it!

Quote:


The most common name used for the deity in the Bible is actually 'elohim', not yahweh (which is probably just a contraction of the pronoun for 'him' anyway). Elohim is the plural of elah, which is cognate with Arabic ilah from which Allah is produced by merely adding the definite article. So perhaps the early Hebrews would've had a slightly different dialectal accent in the way in which they would've pronounced the word, but it would've been almost exactly the same as Allah. Besides, we simply don't know how they pronounced a lot of their language, but we know it most likely wasn't as modern Israelis do (with the Euro-Ashkenazi accent).

Quote:


If you're referring to the content, then this is a story from the time of the Children of Israel. It's just being recounted, and it's amazing how much information is conveyed in such a few passages. If you're referring to the poetic quality of it, then it's well known the Qur'an is perhaps the most beautiful book of all time in it's own language. Translations depend upon the translators ability to transpose that beauty into a new language. Most translators of the Qur'an so far have been fearful to take poetic license and do much more than just a literal word for word translation, out of fear of changing the meaning of the pure word of God, and I do not blame them. I guarantee you if you look at a word for word literal translation of the Bible, you'd probably feel the same way (if you're actually being objective here). I've studied the Bible with Hebrew concordances and the writing style is very similar, due to them both being in Semitic languages. A lot of concepts conveyed with few words, due to the way Semitic languages can be used. But in the translations into English, a lot of extra words are added in to make it sound more comfortable in English. Personally I just think you're being picky, no doubt as an attempt to attack Islam from yet another angle, it's irrelevant, as the Qur'an has won many English speaking hearts, even if it's beauty isn't fully conveyed into the English language as of yet.

Just to give you an example, using one of my favourite Bible verses:
     

English	Hebrew
How	איכה 'eykoh
can you say,	אמר 'amar
'We are wise,	חכם chakam
And the law	תורה towrah
of the LORD	יהוה Yĕhovah
is with us'? But behold,	הנה hinneh
the lying	שקר sheqer
pen	עט `et
of the scribes	ספר capher
Has made	עשה `asah
it into a lie.	שקר sheqer

Now see how many English words are used for each Hebrew word? That's adding stuff in, to make it sound a lot more English and a lot more comprehensible to *you*. If I were to just translate it word for word, as the Qur'an generally is, it wouldn't sound anywhere near as natural, in fact you'd probably just think to yourself "What is this nonsense?" (If you're actually objective on this issue, and not just trying to use any excuse to take a dig at Islam).

I will give you a word for word literal translation:

Where! you say we're wise for God's torah (the law). Behold the lying pen of the scribes made it a lie.

Now that is just one small example, but I'm sure you can appreciate the fact that just because something hasn't been translated the best, doesn't mean it is not a great book. Also consider that when the Bible was translated, most English speakers were Christians, so the best literary minds would've been employed to translate it. When the Qur'an has been translated so far, it's either been by foreigners who've learnt English as a second language (bad way to translate) or by Englishmen who've embraced Islam, but might not necessarily be the best person for the job of translating. Perhaps in a few more decades when a lot more English speakers become Muslims, then we'll see if better translations begin to appear

Can you at least understand my confusion as to why this leading scholar would explain a command not to look into aspects of the Koran which people find troubling by comparing this investigation to asking trivial questions? I am not asking you to take my word over that of a trusted scholar. If anything I am asking you to place your own reasoning above it.

Quote:

So what does it refer to then? Doesn't this take us even further away from the yellow cow example? Doesn't it contradict what you were saying about Islam commanding people to seek knowledge? If unstated, isn't it more likely to refer to questions of doctrine than say, science?