Soren wrote on Mar 12
th, 2010 at 7:34pm:
Karnal,
marvellous hermeneutical discourse. Deft references to the joos, the inventors of hermeneutics, of interpretive conversation, especially with god. Pity that this central, crucial element is forbidden by Islam. There is no conversation with Allan. There is no interpretation. There is no contextual analysis, hermeneutics, dance, unfolding, new horizons, metaphore and uncovering of hidden meaning and all that. There is cold, Arabic literalism, since the Koran is an eternal book, no word or letter to be understood in any way except as Mohammed (is contrued to have) meant it. (the bracketed bit must remain invisible and unthinkable to Muslims, on pain of death).
This is why islam is a parody. It does not understand anything except blind obedience. But mere obedience in religion is to miss the point entirely. In military matters, it is a first principle. In religion, it is not. Islam misses the point entirely. If it has any 'spiritual' meaning, it is completely unintended.
So the burning shoelaces mean exactly what they say. There is no human action that is not regulated by islam. You are not here to understand, you are here to submit. Understanding and meaning do not come into it. Conscience does not come into it. To ask, 'What do you think it means' is blasphemy in the making.
As I said before, Soren, you're swallowing fundamentalist poison if you believe all this. I thought the Christians invented hermeneutics. Good on the Joos if they did!
All texts require a form of hermeneutics (or a way of interpreting). I believe there are differences between the Sunni and Shi'ite traditions (with the Shi'ites being more inclined to rely on interpretations from Mullahs). However, this doesn't change the fact that the Koran is a mystical book, and not a legal document.
If you talked to any educated Muslim (and there are a few), they'd tell you that there's much to interpret in their faith - or that there's much to wonder about. There is a big strain of Muslim poetry where existential questions are considered. Gibran is just one poet - I don't think
the Prophet, for example, mentions Mohammed, Allah, or any laws at all.
But why care what others do with books? I've watched numerous quacks on Christian TV parody the Bible with their ideas about what Jesus taught. The problem here is the narrow interpretation, not the text itself.
If Hindus all believed that their main text, the
Bhagavad Gita was just about a historical war between the Pandavas and the Kauravas, and that the god Krishna demanded that everyone, like Arjuna, fight and kill their family members, India would be the most warlike nation on earth.
But it's not. The family members are the five senses and the delusion they cause us. We identify so strongly with them, but they are not us, and this identification - these strongly held beliefs, ideals, egotistical, maniacal whims and convictions are, in the end, illusions. It's up to us to fight them - no one else can do it for us.
Likewise, there's a lot in the Koran about fighting, but not necessarily others. It's about fighting forces within yourself. The arrow out of nowhere, the war booty, the cloak of fire.
I don't read Arabic, but I imagine these words contain references to other ideas. To
really interpret, you need to know the language and the cultural references.
But alas, that's something we're a bit ignorant about - wouldn't you say, Soren?