Today was the next episode of 'Humphreys in search of God' which kicked off our big question debate. It is probably the most controversial episode in the series.
John H questioned an Islamic leader on how he could find God through Islam. You can hear it by clicking on the BBC news link on the right and choosing Radio and then Listen Again.
I could not hope to summarise all the points but one stuck in my mind. He asked, in effect, 'How could I possibly join a religion whose scriptures advocate stoning to death and chopping off limbs for misdemeanors'. The answer was that modern Muslims should debate these commands to see if they are still relevant. To which John replied, in effect, 'But I thought you told me that the Koran was the Word of God?'. The reply was, in effect, that the bits relating to personal morality should be taken literally but other bits could be interpreted as being suitable for the times when they were written. I found this point very confusing.
It was accepted in the radio discussion that Muslims are more likely to take offence than any other religion at criticism of their faith, so I need to state clearly that, as a Buddhist, I am tolerant of all other faiths and that our discussion of this programme is in no way meant to cause offence to Islam.
It is understandable if you did not wish to comment on these issues, but in my view this conflicts with the principle of free speech which we hold dear in this country.
Bruv
5 comments:
From all that I hear, and not knowing much about the detail, I get the impression that the Koran is taken too literally and has not been interpreted in the light of the way we live now. My perception is that women have not been accorded equal status in the past. I do not know if this is changing now.
I have to be honest too and admit that I've also never studied the Koran. But I have listened to people who have and from what I've heard much of it is based on very similar teachings to those of the core Christian values -love, truth, one god.
And as guidelines go, these seem like pretty good ones.
The issue seems to come from the literal interpretation of words that were written down many years ago. Attributed to the Prophet certainly but I don't think (and I may be wrong here) actually written by him. -much like the new testament of Christian tradition.
My sister is a evangelist Christian and her husband can occasionally be quite dogmatic about the 'literal' wording -particularly in the old testament.
I see this as a reliance on a 'higher authority' rather than individuals taking the opportunity to define for themselves their own understanding.
Kind of like the difference between data, knowledge and wisdom.
Jon
As a light-hearted comment on Born Again Christians, I once had the good fortune to be preached at by one of them. He told me that they'd added up the generations since Adam and had worked out that the Earth was 8 thousand years old. When I said how do you account for the dinosaurs, he said they were all wiped out in the Flood. I said 'What about the aquatic dinosaurs?'.....
You could try that one on the brother-in-law ;-)
:)
had that discussion. aparently they were placed there (the fossisws bones that is) by god to test our faith.
..oh yes, and radio carbon dating has been proved by science to be flawed and unreliable!
...you can't argue with pure faith.
..that was fossils, not fossiws...
Post a Comment