[kashifzaidi1]

If you'd like to read how they are misinterpreting islam, here is the longer version in the book : http://www.amazon.com/No-god-but-God-Evolution/dp/1400062136

the gist is, They are interpreting things literally without any history and context of what a verse of Quran meant and revealed for, one would argue that should have been fine, but it isn't because it reduces islam to their interpretation.

Arabic is a very diverse language, with tens of meanings for a word (often contradictory) and which one you pick and choose depends upon what type of a person you are, if you are a hate mongering terrorist, you would find those meanings to justify your terror like isis is doing, if you are a peace loving feminist, you would find plenty to justify that (using the same verses). This would mean that their interpretation would depend alot on their socio economic status, the kind of society they live in, the world view they have etc.

People often judge islam by the norms of 6th century arabia, Islam has a evolutionary process in place called ijtihad, which the intolerant people don't seem to use. But if you would have to judge islam, you would have to either assume yourself to be in 6th century to see why they were relevant at that time, or to remove them so to understand the general direction islam gives.

[dpark]

> If you'd like to read how they are misinterpreting islam ... They are interpreting things literally

That is an odd definition of "misinterpreting".

Biblical literalists are generally not accused of "misinterpreting" the Christian Bible. They are commonly accused of being antiquated, crazy, or dumb, but it's hard to accuse someone of "misinterpreting" something because they follow its literal meaning.

It similarly seems incorrect to say ISIS is "misinterpreting Islam" by reading the Koran literally. It may not be the popular interpretation, and it may not be a pleasant interpretation, but that doesn't mean it's an incorrect interpretation.

Christian groups like to accuse each other of misinterpreting the Bible. Church of Christ members say that Catholics have misinterpreted the organization of the church. Catholics say that Baptists have misinterpreted the apocalypse. Etc. These accusations in reality say very little about the validity of the accused's interpretations, and merely serve as a way for the accuser's to assert the correctness of their own interpretations. "Your interpretation of the Bible is wrong" has no more validity than "Your choice of religion is wrong" in general.

[dragonwriter]

> Biblical literalists are generally not accused of "misinterpreting" the Christian Bible.

Yes, they are. Particularly by other Christians.

> but it's hard to accuse someone of "misinterpreting" something because they follow its literal meaning.

No, its quite easy: outside of the context of religion, we see it all the time when people are accused of misinterpreting something by treating either one-off metaphors or colloquial figures of speech as if their meaning was what is suggested by the literal meanings of the individual words. Or when one of many possible literal meaning (words often have more than one nonfigurative meaning) is chosen, despite the fact that the context (possibly very broad context) suggests a different interpretation, whether a different literal interpretation or a nonliteral one.

Its no harder to accuse people of misinterpretation for pursuing a particular literal interpretation when the thing being misinterpreted is a religious text.

[dpark]

> Yes, they are. Particularly by other Christians.

You're making my point for me. Yes, some Christians accuse biblical literalists of misinterpreting the Bible. But Christian groups frequently assert that other Christian groups are wrong for many, many reasons. There's generally little compelling reason to take any of them as "more correct", though. It's just one group arguing that their religion is more correct than someone else's religion. It's not one group interpreting correctly and the other group misinterpreting. It's just two (or more) groups that disagree, and they typically have no sound reason to assert their beliefs over others'.

> No, its quite easy: outside of the context of religion...

Sure, it's easy when you can provide a reason that the literal interpretation is wrong. It's not easy when the reason is just that you don't like the literal interpretation (or it's easy but not valid).

[dragonwriter]

> Sure, it's easy when you can provide a reason that the literal interpretation is wrong.

That's frequently the case with criticism of biblical literalism. While, certainly, the people making the criticism have different interpretations that they prefer as correct (that is, obviously, what it means to say that an interpretation is wrong), and those that care enough about an interpretation to challenge another as incorrect are generally people for whom their preferred interpretation is also an element of the their religious belief and not just a more casual opinion, there are quite specific reasons given for challenges both to specific literal interpretations and to the doctrine of literalism itself (for the latter, the existence of flat-out contradictions within the canon when interpreted literally is one of the more common.)

[dpark]

> That's frequently the case

In my experience that is rarely the case. The reasons given are generally only compelling to others who already hold the same beliefs. If you're arguing against biblical literalism to others who consider the bible to be metaphorical, you will of course be successful. If you're arguing with a biblical literalist, you'll find that they fail to see the logic in your arguments. If you're arguing with a non-Christian, they'll likely just not care, but they might also find your arguments no more convincing than those of the literalist.

> for the latter, the existence of flat-out contradictions within the canon when interpreted literally is one of the more common.

This is only compelling if you start with the axiom that the bible (or whatever text) is correct. If you start with that, and then add contradictions, then the only way to resolve the discrepancy is to say that the bible is metaphorical. If you don't take correctness as an axiom, it's quite reasonable to say that the bible is mostly if not completely literal but that parts of it are simply wrong. It's not a question of correctness of interpretation, then, so much as a question of correctness of the canon.

[dragonwriter]

> This is only compelling if you start with the axiom that the bible (or whatever text) is correct.

Which would perhaps be a serious problem with criticizing biblical literalism with that argument if the literalism being criticized ever failed to included a strong form of inerrantism; since, as a doctrine, Biblical literalism is always tied to strong-form inerrantism (which is the axiom that the Bible is, in every particular, both moral and factual, correct), and subsidiary doctrines on matters of fact and/or morals can only be derived from it through its intersection with inerrantism, it really isn't a problem that challenges to literalism rely on arguments that are valid in the presence of inerrantism.

> If you don't take correctness as an axiom

Without inerrantism, whether something is a correct or incorrect interpretation of the Bible doesn't have any significance. Literalism or not only has any meaning in the context of inerrantism.

[lliamander]

> but it's hard to accuse someone of "misinterpreting" something because they follow its literal meaning.

Not so hard actually. A correct interpretation of a work is to discern what the author actually intended to communicate. If I say to a coworker "a meteor is about to strike earth, wiping out all life unless we do something about it" and the listener interprets what I say to be a metaphor (perhaps they think that I am trying to say simply that the project we are working on is in danger of falling apart) they may or may not be correct. If I work at an accounting firm, the statement is probably metaphorical; if I work at NASA, probably not.

In any case, determining the meaning of a text depends upon the genre, and to understand that you need context. The main issue that most Christian traditions have with literalists is that they try to interpret the texts without any of the original context, or without any acknowledgement that the Bible is an anthology of different books written by different authors for different purposes.

>It similarly seems incorrect to say ISIS is "misinterpreting Islam" by reading the Koran literally. It may not be the popular interpretation, and it may not be a pleasant interpretation, but that doesn't mean it's an incorrect interpretation.

You're right, it may be a correct interpretation. Understanding the correct interpretation of Islamic texts is important for those deciding how to approach the spread of violent Islamic teachings. Should it be left to Islamic religious leaders who can leverage Islamic texts to spread a more peaceful (and accurate) teaching, or should the focus be to discredit Islam from the outside?

> "Your interpretation of the Bible is wrong" has no more validity than "Your choice of religion is wrong" in general.

Any given religious text was written by a human being to convey a set of ideas an claims. It is no less valid to talk about a correct interpretation of religious texts than it is to talk about the correct interpretation of any other text.

[dpark]

> Should it be left to Islamic religious leaders who can leverage Islamic texts to spread a more peaceful (and accurate) teaching, or should the focus be to discredit Islam from the outside?

Here you are attempting to equate accuracy with peacefulness, with nothing given to support that link. To be clear, I don't have a strong opinion on whether Islam is a peaceful religion or not. I have not done enough research to be confident in that sort of claim. I do, however, find it disingenuous to claim that the ISIS interpretation is wrong when the only support given for that claim is that it differs from some other muslims' interpretations.

> It is no less valid to talk about a correct interpretation of religious texts than it is to talk about the correct interpretation of any other text.

Sure, it's reasonable and valid to say "Here's a thing ISIS believes about Islam. Here is the context around that thing. And here is the reason ISIS is wrong." That's not what's happening here, though. This is more like "Here's a thing ISIS believes. I promise you that there is some context that makes them wrong. See, other Muslims agree that ISIS is wrong."

[lliamander]

> Here you are attempting to equate accuracy with peacefulness, with nothing given to support that link.

I made no such equivocation, though I apologize if I was unclear.

My point was that the strategy Western countries should take towards addressing violent Islamic sects depends upon what the correct interpretation of their religious texts is. If the moderates are correct in their interpretation, it would be better to let them convince the radicals because they would have greater common ground, and the "home court advantage" in interpreting their texts.

> I do, however, find it disingenuous to claim that the ISIS interpretation is wrong when the only support given for that claim is that it differs from some other muslims' interpretations.

I completely agree. I also do not know what the correct interpretation is, though it is becoming increasingly clear that I should probably learn.

I think we have been arguing at cross-purposes. I thought you were claiming that "all interpretations are equally valid" or something like that. It seems now that you are arguing that "ISIS's interpretation isn't necessarily invalid just because moderate Muslims say it is". If that is your point, then I agree with you and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

In which case, your reply to the grandparent comment makes more sense. I've done a little bit of studying ancient texts in the original language (with help from classicists and theologians) and while the nuances in these ancient languages allow for multiple levels of meaning, it emphatically does not mean that you can interpret whatever you want into the texts.

[dpark]

> I think we have been arguing at cross-purposes.

It seems that way.

> It seems now that you are arguing that "ISIS's interpretation isn't necessarily invalid just because moderate Muslims say it is".

Essentially, yes. It's hard to say that someone is right in their religious interpretation, based just on how much disagreement there is, but that's not the same as saying all interpretations are equally valid.

If someone claims that Jesus commanded his followers to kill nonbelievers, that's a pretty problematic interpretation of the Bible. On the other hand, if one person says Jesus established the system of popes and another person disagrees, it's really difficult to that one of these interpretations is objectively better, even though the difference in interpretation is pretty significant.

> If that is your point, then I agree with you and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

No apologies necessary. You made a civil response to my comment and (we thought) we disagreed. If only all discussions online were like this. :)

[eric_h]

> the strategy Western countries should take towards addressing violent Islamic sects depends upon what the correct interpretation of their religious texts is

A "correct interpretation" of a book written by a dead author is, in essence, an oxymoron. I would argue that this point is not debatable.

All modern Christian bibles are many generations of interpretation from the original text. I would presume the same to be true of the Quran (though it's a bit younger, so perhaps it's had slightly fewer generations of interpretation than the christian bible).

There is no "correct interpretation" of Shakespeare's works (which are arguably true to their original writing in our current records of them), and they're only 400 years old. How can we possibly presume there is a "correct interpretation" of a text that's ostensibly 1400 years old?

I know I'm late to the party in this thread, but still - "correct interpretation" is just not a thing with literary works, regardless of whom you attribute them to.

[dragonwriter]

> A "correct interpretation" of a book written by a dead author is, in essence, an oxymoron. I would argue that this point is not debatable.

No, its not an oxymoron, any more than "correct interpretation" is always an oxymoron; a living author doesn't even necessarily make it easier to identify the correct interpretation, since individuals are not static, and the author's preferred interpretation at a later time may not reflect their intent when they wrote the text.

[lliamander]

> I know I'm late to the party in this thread, but still - "correct interpretation" is just not a thing with literary works, regardless of whom you attribute them to.

No worries. I'm glad to continue the discussion as I think it is important.

> A "correct interpretation" of a book written by a dead author is, in essence, an oxymoron. I would argue that this point is not debatable.

Let's take the Shakespeare example, as I think it is a good example and less likely to cause strife.

What is the purpose of Romeo and Juliet? Was it written to be a non-fiction historical account of politics in Renaissance Verona, or was it supposed to be a fictional drama meant primarily to entertain its audience?

It seems obvious to me that this question is meaningful, and even has an objectively correct answer. That is, there is a correct interpretation as to the purpose of Romeo and Juliet that we can glean from a combination of the text itself as well as the historical information about the context it was written in - Shakespeare's current vital signs notwithstanding. Wherein lies the oxymoron?

[duaneb]

> Biblical literalists are generally not accused of "misinterpreting" the Christian Bible.

Yes, they are. This has been a discussion for millenia. Many people will definitely consider their interpretation incorrect, or absurd.

[dpark]

Only by other Christians pushing their own interpretations. When Ben Carson says that the world was literally created in 6 days, lots of people say he's crazy, but the only people who say he's misinterpreting the text are people who want to push their own interpretation, generally because they want to push the idea of Christianity being totally copacetic with modern science.

[dragonwriter]

> When Ben Carson says that the world was literally created in 6 days, lots of people say he's crazy, but the only people who say he's misinterpreting the text are people who want to push their own interpretation

Yes, it is trivially true, by definition, that the only people who say that someone has an incorrect interpretation is people who would portray a different interpretation is correct. That's what saying an interpretation is incorrect means.

[dpark]

Obviously, but appealing to others' religious beliefs is hardly a compelling argument when trying to make a claim about correctness or truth. My point is that if you look to secular scholars, they are unlikely to be accusing Ben Carson of interpreting the Bible incorrectly. They might call him an idiot, but they'll call him an idiot for his belief that the Earth was created in 6 days, not because he argues that the Bible says this.

When I said it's "hard to accuse someone of misinterpreting...", I meant that it's hard to accuse them in a convincing or sound manner. Obviously it's easy to accuse anyone of basically anything. You just open your mouth and make the accusation. But to do so convincingly takes effort beyond "I don't like their interpretation so they must be wrong". The literal interpretation actually seems like the default, and any other interpretation demands support.

[duaneb]

Sure. And I think the situation here is analogous.

[dpark]

Okay, but that seems equivalent to saying that ISIS isn't actually wrong in their interpretation, just unpopular. :\

The biblical literalists are not wrong when they say that the Bible tells them that God created Earth in 6 days. That is what it says. The more common "metaphorical interpretation" is more recent than the acceptance as a true origin story.

[duaneb]

I think it's fair to say if you read the bible literally, you're missing out on a lot of what it has to say. Is that the same as misinterpreting that? I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader. :P