Bill argues that the snippets from the Qur'an that he linked to prove how bad Islam is, because the Qur'an has to be "taken literally", and there is no such thing as "interpretation" of the Qur'an. But the issue is not nearly as simple or black and white as the Islamophobic websites he cribs from make it out to be.
Take, for instance, the centuries-old tradition of
tafsir, the many exegetical works that explain, interpret, and comment on the Qur'an (
tafsir comes from the word
fassara, which means to explain or interpret - someone who comments on the Qur'an in a
tafsir is called a
mufassir).
Or the distinction made between
tafsir, which is used to explain the "outer" or
zahir meaning of the Qur'an, and
ta'wil, which explains the "inner" or hidden (
batin) meaning of the Qur'an. Especially since Sufis and Shia sects like the Isma'ilis make quite a bit of this distinction and believe that the
obvious interpretation of the Qur'an is often not the
correct interpretation.
And then there's the method of interpretation favored by scholars like the 13th-century Ibn Arabi, who argued that
every possible linguistic interpretation of the Qur'an is correct (albeit not necessarily
equally correct).
Complicating things is the fact that the Qur'an itself says that some of the verses contained with in it are
mukham (or "clear"), while others are
mutashabih (or "ambiguous").
This results in things like the varying interpretations of, to take an example I've actually pointed out in this very thread, 2:190-194.
Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression. The prohibited month for the prohibited month,- and so for all things prohibited,- there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, Transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.
Yusuf Ali, whose translation I quote above, in his
tafsir interprets the above verses to mean that Muslims are commanded to fight
only if they are attacked and/or prevented from exercising their faith.
Asad says the same thing, specifically noting that unless Muslims are attacked, they're not allowed to fight against even states where Muslims live but that are ruled by non-Muslims, as long as Muslims living in those countries can worship unmolested.
In the 15th century
tafsir of "the two Jalals" (so named because it was written by Jalal al-Din al-Maḥalli and his student Jalal al-Din al-Suyuṭi), the admonition not to be aggressors is said to have been abrogated, and unbelievers should be slain and expelled unless they convert to Islam. However, they also specifically describe this in the context of the idolators in and around Mecca who had originally expelled Muhammad and the early Muslims.
Tabataba'i in his
tafsir makes this context an explicit and essential part of his interpretation of those verses, saying that they are specifically and solely about permission to fight the Qurayshi idolators in Mecca, and since there
aren't any Qurayshi idolators in Mecca any more, those verses (while still technically in force) are irrelevant and inapplicable today.
And finally, Maududi interprets those verses in a much broader way, saying that while individuals don't have to convert to Islam, the fighting should continue until "political domination and legal sovereignty of unbelievers is eradicated" - ie, non-Muslims don't have to become Muslims, but they aren't allowed to be in charge of the state.
So...which of these interpretations is the "literal" meaning of those verses, Bill? And if "interpretation" isn't allowed, why do all the above differ so much from each other, and in some cases are almost diametrically opposed interpretations of the exact same passages of the Qur'an?
