@Palmyrene
You don't get to choose what's relevant to my claim.
Your claim is anyone can randomly interpret the text however they like.
Both the texts you quoted refute this claim.
Except you took them out of context. In the context of the article, the author is basically defending the following section from the book he and I have quoted. Since you ignored, I'll quote it again:
They're not out of context.
If you wish, we can bring a third party to judge.
Your text accepts that there are straight forward clear cut language in the Quran that doesn't have a high degree of interpretation as well as other parts where there is lucid language that allows a high degree of interpretation.
And also accepts the fact that the Quran doesn't tolerate people missing with it.
I don't care about "Anarcho-Islam" nor is it the subject of the discussion.
And the part you boldened also says the he has to re-interpret parts of the Quran, then he states that some parts have very clear language that doesn't open much door for re-interpretation and how the Quran doesn't tolerate it.
They're not out of context, you're just trying real hard to dance around the facts.
Also he constructs his own form of ijtihad which definitely is not what your position is nor does it agree with yours.
I don't care what he calls his form nor is it relevant, he states very clearly what it is based on and it's still abiding by the same principles as all other methods of interpretations, I mentioned those rules before.
"re-interpreting" the secondary basis, as your guy wants, does nothing to change the reality. The foundation is shitty therefore everything built on it is going to be shitty as well. You can reinterpret it 10 billion times a day, it wont change the radical and extreme nature of the foundations when applied.
Simulatenously you've read the bottom but ignored the top.
As expected, now here we go for the next 10 pages where you'll repeatedly claim I didn't read it Ad nauseam.
Who makes his own ijtihad and thinks the Koran can be interpreted as being against states and capitalism.
Soooo "devout".
He says the Quran is filled with 1000s of lies.
Since the belief in Islam is that the Quran is the word of god, then he's calling God a liar there.
That could get hem killed in any Muslim majority country.
And would definitely earn him the title of an infidel.
It is cherry picking. You ignore his entire argument.
The argument made in the previous text fits exactly in the framework I'm running with, why would I need to quote every sentence of it when it effectively just encourages people to interpret more often, all under the exact same rules I already stated that are being used for interpretation in Fiqh.
I simply bolded the parts for you to see that the text supports my argument, not yours.
If you can't understand that, then I doubt you're really understanding the texts you're citing.
Even this last one, he talks a whole lot about the so called "anarcho-Islam", doesn't really talk about what method of interpretation he plans to use, but does reference the clarity of a good portion of the Quran in terms of rules which means he understands those don't have much room for interpretation, and understands the limits placed in the Quran on interpretation, which is what I've been saying all along so I bolded those parts for you to see them.
Seriously, bother reading your own citations.
The line between tasting and drinking is high.
Yea, actually it is. When you're old enough to drink, you'll know why.
Also the Brimingham Quran manuscript is earlier and is identical to the current Quran.
No it's not. Even the wiki page you cited says there are differences in the arrangement and strucutre. And it also mentions that this is just a few pages, not the whole thing.
It's not identical.
Then explain the Brimingham manuscript.
1- Only a few pages.
2- Not Identical.
(Hint: Read your source)
Also, funny how you just ignored the hadith by Omar and Aisha how even they, who lived in those times, say large parts of the Quran were deleted.
How do you know it's all of them? Just because you don't know about stone tablets other than the ones digitized doesn't mean they don't exist.
Because these initiatives are global and work to preserve human history in its entirety. It's not an individual effort.
2. No they don't. The tensions arise due to perceiving the different sects as the "other". The actual disputes aren't theological at all.
They perceive them as the other because of theological differences.
They are definitely not independent. They are tied in some way.
Then say how they're connected? Go on.
No it doesn't. You took it out of context again.
These empty claims start showing.
I copy pasted the entire part you quoted, if I took it out of context, then you took it out of context because it was your quote.
First off, the first part you bolded was about non-Chinese analysts giving their opinion that China is no longer MList. That doesn't matter because what matters is what the CCP claims it is. You're incredibly dense for not understanding this.
If you read the two parts bolded, they confirm each other you know. or the entire paragraph.
The party claims they're taking a modern view of Marxism while non-Chinese experts say they're abandoning orthodox views of marxism.
Hmmm. It's almost as if Orthodox and modern are the opposite of each other; Ooh, wait, they are.
Secondly, the actual structure of China is not communist or Marxist-Leninist at all and if you trust what China says about itself then I've lost my faith in you. State capitalism isn't communist and the wikipedia article itself says that state capitalism was common before communism and that accussing countries of state capitalism is common in leftists because state capitalism, unsurprisingly, isn't communist.
Turns out an ideology called state capitalism isn't communist. Who knew?
1- No Lefty "accuses" countries of state capitalism. Right wingers, on the other hand, do because in state capitalism, the state takes over the means of production as demonstrated.
Which is why it is part of communism and most Communist schools of thought consider it the final stage before the full abolishment of capitalism.
No that's Marxist Leninism. State capitalism is when the state controls or runs some private enterprises but the state itself does not own the means of production.
State-owned enterprises and means of production.
EDIT:
What Quran is this supposed to be?
That's Abd el Malek's Quran. It's the last version for Sunni Islam, which your modern Quran comes from.
And even then, some changes have been made since then.