"the notion that historical context should play no role in the interpretation of the Koran -- that what applied to Muhammad's community applies to all Muslim communities for all time -- is simply an untenable position in every sense.''
That reminded me of our talk about the psalms and all the interpretations that can be derived from them. I saw the connection because Alter only used the historical context as notes and in interpreting the translation, but that allows for whoever to read it then to interpret it in their own way. And I would think that most people don't take the psalms literally to apply them to their own time; I don't think there's too much sword fighting still going on. But I think Aslan is making a similar point. I haven't read the book, but I'm going off of this review. One sentence states how Islam has been reinterpreted over the years, "Over the 14 centuries that followed Muhammad's 22 years of revelation, Muslim kings and scholars distorted its tenets to serve their own narrow interests, and then cast these accretions in stone." When the highest people in society interpret something a certain way, I would assume it's a little hard for everyone else to go against that. So then you get people who believe that they're supposed to act a certain way, when that's not really what their religion is saying at all. I think the Psalms have in a sense wiped the slate clean of all previous interpretations and brought it back to the beginning, for it not to be interpreted based on previous biases. I think that is a problem with religion, that people get so set into an interpretation or view, that they don't want to change. And even though the times change, the social environment changes, people are reluctant to alter their beliefs.
I wouldnt say it is problematic for people to remain set on one particular religous view. without this...would there even be any religion?..what would life be like?....This makes me think of our class discussion on wednesday. We were asked to think of those who are so into there religion that they become hostile to the rest of the world, and those who may be religous but are still open to new ideas. This is an interesting topic!
ReplyDeleteI don't know if I'd call being stuck on one religion inherently problematic, I just think it is quite silly. I mean, look at all the different denominations of Christianity all using the same Bible (okay, different translations, but overall the message is usually pretty similar) to justify all of these different interpretations. I guess I just don't see HOW someone in today's day and age could invest themselves so heavily in one specific religious view when there are so many similarities between so many different religions.
ReplyDeleteI think it has to do more with how people apply religion to their lives. I see Ollie's point that sticking with a particular doctrine is part of what makes religion a cohesive part of society. However, in the words of an old friend of mine, "the Bible does not come with an elastic clause-" and taking everything it perscribes to be truth, regardless of historical context, is not such a good idea. It makes more sense to look for the broader and more stable themes behind such a text than the more nitpicky details.
ReplyDelete