Common Sense From The Quran?

(See here) an article by Mohammed El-Moctar El-Shinqiti that is published on the English version of the Aljazeera website.

I am rather ill informed as to what type of pieces appear on the Arabic Aljazeera website or over the air waves. However if this type of material appears, I am wondering about what all the fuss is about? Certainly some American outlets are more "one sided", "offensive" and "intolerant" then is Aljazeera.

This article publicizes some things that are contained in the Quran that I would describe as "common sense". Let me quote:
The Quran says: "Let there be no compulsion in religion: truth stands out clear from falsehood" (2:256); "Say (O Muhammad): This is the truth from the Lord of you all. Then whoever wishes, let him believe, and whoever wishes, let him disbelieve" (18:29).

Moreover, Muhammad was told in the Quran that his mission was to teach and preach, not to impose or compel: "remind them, for you are only a reminder. You are not a coercer over them" (88:21-22); "You are not one to overawe them by force. So admonish with the Quran those who fear My Warning!" (50:45).
One critique I have (and this might only be because I am ignorant) is the last quotation. It is my understanding that the Quran is a compilation of the teachings of the Prophet, however this compilation in written form was not accomplished until well after the death of the Prophet. How then did the Prophet receive the message that people were to be admonished by that which was not yet compiled? Certainly the Prophet realized that a non-written, oral only, Quran was subject to being compromised by evil men much as he seemed to feel happened to the teachings of Jesus contained in the New Testament?

Personally, I have been exposed to enough beautiful quotations and common sense "truth" coming from the Quran to be motivated to get my hands on an English translation and do some reading on my own. If nothing else, it might help me to better understand my Moslem brethren (I define "brethren" very narrowly, however this "narrow" definition might include a sizable fragment, or even a majority, of Moslems). Of course if I do so, I guess I better watch out for the NSA. One of the "targets" I specifically heard of as being within the sights of the Patriot Act was those who dared to check out a Quran from the local library. Grin.


Blogger Michael said...

The "fuss" as you put it, is that Aljazeera during Gulf War 2 was probably the only large news agency to not fall in line with the PR created by the "coalition of the willing".

Showing what was actually happening to Iraqis on the ground didn't paint a very favourable picture of the invasion / occupation.

Aljazeera is not a "terrorist" news network. Sure, it has its biases but it's still a lot better than (e.g.) Fox News... ;-)

Read this this interview. They aren't exactly pulling their punches.

Michael Tam

5/29/2006 07:03:00 PM  
Blogger Little David said...

I guess I am just not very critical, since I do not really see a problem with Fox either.

When I view the news on TV I tend to bounce around and get as many views/opinions as possible. I have not noticed anything coming from Fox that I would describe as objectionable. I think the supposed "difference" of Fox's reporting is more hype then substance.

When I am on the road, my favorite radio network is NPR (National Public Radio) who's coverage of issues grinds others into the dust.

The BBC does a pretty good job of covering international news from a non-American centered viewpoint.

5/30/2006 11:40:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home