re: #22 Sergey Romanov

But can we agree that if one doesn’t accept the precepts of Judaism in regard to the origin of the Oral Law, for such a person these Torah passage will justifiably look misogynistic?

I think what Ludwig means—Ludwig, please correct me if I’m wrong—is that if one tries to take verses from the Torah devoid of the accompanying Judaic oral law/tradition, then what one has can no longer really be considered the Torah, since it is by its very nature a Judaic religious text.

We have the same thing Ludwig mentioned with regard to how to do things: The Qur’an says you have to pray, but doesn’t tell you exactly how to do it. It says you have to perform Hajj, but doesn’t describe all the rituals or state of mind you should be in. There are a bunch of other examples, but I’m sure you get the point.

Ditto for understanding the meaning. I can read a surah of the Qur’an, but if I don’t understand its context and don’t understand the intended meaning of the words (which can be different when used in the Qur’an, which is written in Classical “Fusha” Arabic), then I’m bound to make incorrect assumptions. This is especially true if I’m reading an English interpretation. The English tafsir (Qur’anic commentary) I have is comprised of no less than 9 volumes. And since the tafsir is itself a translation, I have to study Arabic as well. Then there’s the hadith and the sunnah & sirah that make up the rest. And let’s not forget the spiritual aspect of Sufism, which has always been a part of Islam (and which the Wahhabi/Salafi types would have everyone believe is another “innovation”).

It would be sort of like the laymen trying to interpret the Constitution on their own, divorced from all context, amendments, and SCOTUS interpretations—i.e. it would quickly turn into a free-for-all where everyone is making up his or her own interpretation based on half-assed understanding & personal (or group) agenda rather than the original intent.

(Gawd, this place keep sucking me back in! Must. Get. Back. To. Work.)