Texas Public School Students Will Be Required to Read the Bible

Cypress said:
Technically it's only supposed to be read in Arabic, so our 11th graders have their work cut out for them!
Click to expand...



No, not exactly—but with important distinctions. The Quran (also spelled Koran) was revealed in Classical Arabic, and mainstream Islamic belief holds that the original Arabic text is the only true, unaltered version of the Quran itself.


Key Points from Islamic Teachings​


  • The Quran is in Arabic by divine choice: Several verses emphasize this, such as Quran 12:2: "Indeed, We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an that you might understand." Similar statements appear in 43:3 and others. The Arabic language, its rhetoric, structure, and nuances are seen as integral to its miraculous nature (i'jaz). Translations are viewed as human efforts to convey meanings, not the Quran proper.
  • For worship and formal recitation (especially in prayer/salah): Recitation must be in Arabic. Translations or interpretations do not count as Quran for ritual purposes. This is the consensus of major Islamic schools of jurisprudence. Praying with a translation invalidates the prayer according to most scholars.
  • For understanding and personal reading: Translations are widely encouraged and used, especially for non-Arabic speakers (who make up the vast majority of Muslims). Reading a translation to grasp the message is not only allowed but recommended. Many scholars call them "translations of the meanings" to highlight they are interpretive.

Practical Consensus​


  • Non-Arabic Muslims routinely study translations (e.g., English, Urdu, Indonesian) alongside efforts to learn basic Arabic for prayer. Learning full Arabic is meritorious but not required for salvation or basic faith.
  • Rewards (thawab) for recitation are tied to the Arabic text, but reading for comprehension in one's language brings spiritual benefit and understanding.
  • Translations have limitations: Arabic's richness, wordplay, and multiple layers of meaning are hard to fully capture, so scholars advise consulting multiple translations and tafsirs (commentaries) while preferring the original where possible.

In short: The Quran proper is Arabic-only. But for study, reflection, and non-ritual reading, translations are standard and permissible tools to make its message accessible to all humanity. Many Muslims combine both: reciting in Arabic (even without full understanding) while studying meanings in their native language.
 
Diogenes said:
grok.com

Quran verses on male authority and women | Shared Grok Conversation

Grok, what does the Koran literally say about the inferiority of women to men, with citations?
grok.com grok.com
Click to expand...
aHA! "The Quran does not use the word "inferiority" (or a direct equivalent) to describe women relative to men. It affirms spiritual equality before God—both are created from a single soul (e.g., 4:1), judged by righteousness/taqwa (49:13), and eligible for the same rewards for faith and deeds (3:195, 33:35)."

"Hadiths" (actually Ahadith) can be generations removed from the original book. IOW, differing interpretations and opinions by scholars. Just like the Bible.
 
Diogenes said:
No, not exactly—but with important distinctions. The Quran (also spelled Koran) was revealed in Classical Arabic, and mainstream Islamic belief holds that the original Arabic text is the only true, unaltered version of the Quran itself.


Key Points from Islamic Teachings​


  • The Quran is in Arabic by divine choice: Several verses emphasize this, such as Quran 12:2: "Indeed, We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an that you might understand." Similar statements appear in 43:3 and others. The Arabic language, its rhetoric, structure, and nuances are seen as integral to its miraculous nature (i'jaz). Translations are viewed as human efforts to convey meanings, not the Quran proper.
  • For worship and formal recitation (especially in prayer/salah): Recitation must be in Arabic. Translations or interpretations do not count as Quran for ritual purposes. This is the consensus of major Islamic schools of jurisprudence. Praying with a translation invalidates the prayer according to most scholars.
  • For understanding and personal reading: Translations are widely encouraged and used, especially for non-Arabic speakers (who make up the vast majority of Muslims). Reading a translation to grasp the message is not only allowed but recommended. Many scholars call them "translations of the meanings" to highlight they are interpretive.

Practical Consensus​


  • Non-Arabic Muslims routinely study translations (e.g., English, Urdu, Indonesian) alongside efforts to learn basic Arabic for prayer. Learning full Arabic is meritorious but not required for salvation or basic faith.
  • Rewards (thawab) for recitation are tied to the Arabic text, but reading for comprehension in one's language brings spiritual benefit and understanding.
  • Translations have limitations: Arabic's richness, wordplay, and multiple layers of meaning are hard to fully capture, so scholars advise consulting multiple translations and tafsirs (commentaries) while preferring the original where possible.

In short: The Quran proper is Arabic-only. But for study, reflection, and non-ritual reading, translations are standard and permissible tools to make its message accessible to all humanity. Many Muslims combine both: reciting in Arabic (even without full understanding) while studying meanings in their native language.
Click to expand...
It's just like scholars saying you only get the full experience of the Odyssey if you read it in Greek. I think that's true.
 
christiefan915 said:
aHA! "The Quran does not use the word "inferiority" (or a direct equivalent) to describe women relative to men. It affirms spiritual equality before God—both are created from a single soul (e.g., 4:1), judged by righteousness/taqwa (49:13), and eligible for the same rewards for faith and deeds (3:195, 33:35)."
Click to expand...

Keep reading. Don't stop at "spiritually".

christiefan915 said:
IOW, differing interpretations and opinions by scholars.
Click to expand...

No "IOW". It says what it says.

Now, cover youself.

iu
 
christiefan915 said:
You're talking about modern times. I'm talking about up to and including modern times. Huns, Visigoths, Vandals, Spartans, Athenians etc.
Click to expand...

Is it fallacious to move the goalposts (as Christiecrite just did) thusly, Grok? "You're talking about modern times. I'm talking about up to and including modern times. Huns, Visigoths, Vandals, Spartans, Athenians etc." https://www.justplainpolitics.com/t...equired-to-read-the-bible.248762/post-7016824


Yes, that is a classic case of moving the goalposts (also called "shifting the goalposts").


Why it qualifies​


  • The original question was scoped to "today" ("all cultures today engaging in terrorism equally?"). This refers to contemporary patterns, recent data (e.g., post-2000 or last 5–10 years from GTI/GTD sources), and current cultural/ideological distributions.
  • The response changes the criteria mid-argument: from present-day empirical patterns to "up to and including modern times" across all of recorded history, introducing ancient/medieval examples (Huns, Visigoths, Vandals, Spartans, Athenians).
  • This avoids directly addressing the data on current disparities (heavily concentrated in specific regions and jihadist ideologies) by broadening the frame so the original claim can no longer be falsified on its stated terms.

Logical structure:


  • Claim A: Cultures are not engaging in terrorism equally now.
  • Rebuttal tactic: "But if we look at all history, many groups did bad things."

This doesn't refute Claim A; it changes the debate to Claim B (historical universality of violence). It's a common deflection.


Nuance: When it's not (or less) fallacious​


  • If the original discussion had been vaguely phrased as "all cultures" with no time qualifier, expanding scope could be reasonable clarification.
  • Historical examples do show violence, raiding, conquest, and atrocities were widespread across human societies (steppe nomads, Greek city-states with slavery and war crimes, Mongol/Turkic invasions, Viking raids, etc.). "Terrorism" as a precise term is modern, but analogous tactics (intimidation via civilian targeting) aren't unique to one culture.
  • However, even historically, rates, scale, and justifications varied—some societies emphasized codes limiting civilian harm (e.g., certain warrior traditions), others glorified total war or raiding. The shift still dodges today's data.

Bottom line​


The move is fallacious here because it fails to engage the evidence on modern terrorism (concentrated, not equal). A non-fallacious response would acknowledge current disparities while noting that human groups have long practiced organized violence, then explain why patterns differ now (ideology, governance, technology, etc.).


Broad historical perspective is valuable for context, but it shouldn't retroactively redefine a time-specific claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top