Thanks a lot Eilonnwy and padraic for your comments.
Eilonnwy , that is exactly the point on which I had many arguments with the theists, particularly the islamic apologists. A favourite argument of the so called "moderate" muslims is the "wrong interpretation" of koran. The Koran is a 100% pure and innocent book and only the wrong and evil interpretations of it by the terrorists is responsible for all the problems.
My argument is, if some has to be interpreted, then it is inherently ambiguous. And any interpretation of an ambiguous entity cannot be tagged right or wrong from an absolute point of view. Who will attest that the "right" interpretation of the moderates? I studied the other interpretation, the so called "wrong" interpretation of koran by the terrorists. They are as logical as the "moderate" side, with quotes from appropriate passages from the book, making a convincing case in favor of eliminating the infidels and establishing a pan-Islamic empire around the world. Since both sides are as logical, in no way we can chose either as a "better" or correct interpretation. Interpretation is not the problem, problem is the ambiguous source. And this is true for all the religion in the world. What can you expect from 2k-3k years old scriptures and scrolls anyway? When you do cherry picking, it automatically implies that most of them is unpalatable or rotten.
padraic, since you are interested in Indian history, do judge MK Gandhi from a neutral pov. He is perhaps the only person ever in history who consciously, with meticulous measure of every step and elimination(not killing) of every other rival, manufactured himself into an international icon. No doubt the brightest among the Indian politicians, he was easily the greatest ever "politically correct" individual.
Eilonnwy , that is exactly the point on which I had many arguments with the theists, particularly the islamic apologists. A favourite argument of the so called "moderate" muslims is the "wrong interpretation" of koran. The Koran is a 100% pure and innocent book and only the wrong and evil interpretations of it by the terrorists is responsible for all the problems.
My argument is, if some has to be interpreted, then it is inherently ambiguous. And any interpretation of an ambiguous entity cannot be tagged right or wrong from an absolute point of view. Who will attest that the "right" interpretation of the moderates? I studied the other interpretation, the so called "wrong" interpretation of koran by the terrorists. They are as logical as the "moderate" side, with quotes from appropriate passages from the book, making a convincing case in favor of eliminating the infidels and establishing a pan-Islamic empire around the world. Since both sides are as logical, in no way we can chose either as a "better" or correct interpretation. Interpretation is not the problem, problem is the ambiguous source. And this is true for all the religion in the world. What can you expect from 2k-3k years old scriptures and scrolls anyway? When you do cherry picking, it automatically implies that most of them is unpalatable or rotten.
padraic, since you are interested in Indian history, do judge MK Gandhi from a neutral pov. He is perhaps the only person ever in history who consciously, with meticulous measure of every step and elimination(not killing) of every other rival, manufactured himself into an international icon. No doubt the brightest among the Indian politicians, he was easily the greatest ever "politically correct" individual.
