Two questions about the Koran

[Boojatta]

1. If people don't know what it means, then how do they know that it's true?

2. If people know what it means, then what do they need imams for?

[ret5hd]

1. replace imams w/ pastor/rabbi/etc...couldnt you say the same of any religion?

[Boojatta]

2. In other religions, a religious authority can claim to be receiving divine inspiration.

If the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was the final messenger of God, then no imam alive today is both receiving messages from God and transmitting those messages to others.

[Fredda Weinberg]

3. It's a matter of interpretation, not receiving the divine word directly n/t

[uberllama42]

4. Well of course they know it's true

It's the party line, the received wisdom of the in-group. Regardless of its content it has to be true. Evidence doesn't enter into it. It's a matter of faith.

[Igel]

5. Eh.

1. You assume it "has a meaning" if the words don't combine compositionally and unequivocally in just one way. Lots of texts "have meanings" (i.e., meanings are imputed to them) even though the vocabulary or grammar are obscure, and even if it's patently clear that the words and grammar have changed so that a modern reader/listener infers a different meaning from a listener would have in the past.

Just look at how lots of people read the less archaic language in the KJV.

2. You've actually hit an important point. In the past, Xians relied on preachers for understanding of their scriptures. There were schisms, but they were generally fewer and geographically limited, sometimes political in nature; they relied on one authority coming up with an alternative view, and often enough everybody in the local parish was stuck with that view. They "knew" only as much about their religion as (a) in-family cultural transmission tells them, and (b) their religious teacher tells them.

Now look at when Xianity fragmented. It was precisely at the time that literacy and learning became more widespread among people without a vested interest in supporting the clerics, and they felt free to act on their reading.

Islam's splits were usually political or relied on leaders. But in the last 100 years some local traditional splits (see (a)) have received increased theological justification because everybody's an expert in determining what the Qur'an means. Moreover, lots of lone-wolf interpretations have sprung up, some of the lone wolves being imams and some just being regular non-preachers, undermining the authority of other imams. More Muslims are able to read and decide things for themselves, and feel empowered to decide things for themselves.

As I argued with a former friend years ago, most (not all) of the more shocking re-readings of the Xian scriptures have resulted in pacificist movements. Such is what you get out of a naive reading of the NT. Most (not all) of the more shocking re-readings of the "Muslim scriptures" have resulted in movements that are not pacificist. Such is what you get out of a naive reading.