In response to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/5007

The "taken out of context" is a cliche defense and is the only defense
offered in support of the controversial verses. It is a subjective
expression that can be conveniently suited to defend any verse. It is a
"one expression, fits all" type of defense. The need for, or the mention
of a context undermines both the claim that the holy book is of divine
origin and that it is a perfect guide book for mankind. The unacceptable
nature of some of the scriptural quotes can not be diluted by any
"context", because no human context can justify such a quote if the
quotes are supposedly attributable to divine and sublime source. Such
attempt to dilute by citing context is understandable for human quotes,
since human quotes are imperfect, prone to misinterpretation and poor
phrasing. Sayings of divine origin on the other hand should be far too
perfect and ideal to need a context provided by humans to explain it
and make it appear reasonable.

The fact that the verses of the scriptures NEED a human context
to avoid being interpreted negatively betrays the claim of its putative
divine origin. A divine verse should not need a context made up by
HUMANS. That would be a contradiction. A divine verse should itself
provide such context, if needed. All the attempts by humans to explain a
verse with a context relegates this entire exercize as BY HUMANS, OF
HUMANS sort of affair. Only human quotes (less than perfect) do need
human contexts. A divine quote by its very requirement of perfection
should not be dependent on a human interpretor and should not have
been left up to humans to interpret it and find a context using their own
judgements (which may not be correct). Besides that would raise a dispute
of authenticity between various interpreters. No human interpreter is
divinely approved/appointed as the authentic one anyway.

Moreover, the advice on reading the Tafseer(contextual interpretation)
for proper understanding when reading verses of Quran , is contradictory
to the messages of Qur'an itself . Qur'an (i.e God) clearly says in three
suras (44:58, 54:17,54:22) that Qur'an was made easy to understand by
God for human. It also asserts that Quran is the best explanation of the
truth in verse 25:33. A book that is claimed tobe (a) A perfect
self-contained guide, (b) easy to read, (c) The best explanation of truth
and most importantly (d) of divine origin, cannot by any stretch of
logic need the help of a supplementary book of context written by
human for its proper interpretation.

Finally if "out of context" defense is applied to the verses then
unethical practices in history can be explained away with this
clause. Widow burning in Hiunduism can also be explained away by the
proper context of the the then prevailing Hindu society (As is indeed
explained by some contemporary Hindu Apologists). So can caste system
(It is even more ingeniously and commonly defended by apologists with
the context clause). Slavery in US can also be explained away by the
context clause wuite convincingly. Many more expamples can be given
to rationalize all evil practices of the past and present. If current human
standards of ethics are applied to these controversial verses of
scriptures none would satisfy the requirements of political correctness.
We don't accept politically incorrect statements by humans today (Racial
supremacist remarks, threats, sexist remarks etc), no matter how much
context is provided and no matter how convicning they are. So why not the
verses that clearly violate political correctness criteria. And to think
that these are supposed to be timeless perfect guide for humanity. These
verses can at best be considered to reflect the socio-cultural reality of
past society. In that sense they can qualify as historical anecdotes of
the social tradiction and practoces of a certain society in by gone times,
not as enduring guideline for human conducts which it is claimed to be
by apologists. A context can only serve to "explain" a past
practice, not "justify" it. And this explantion by a context can only
apply to human quotes and actions.

Now on to some specifics comments:


First
>generation. It was asked of fathers to educate their
>daughters even more than their sons. Or just educate
>them, see Sura 39:9.

This seriously undermines the credibility of the poster. It
seems that wrong evidence was being used to validate
a desired conclusion The verse 39:9 does not refer to
educating daughters at all. Here is the verse by three
noted translators:

VERSE 39.009
YUSUFALI: Is one who worships devoutly during the hour of the
night prostrating himself or standing (in adoration), who takes heed
of the Hereafter, and who places his hope in the Mercy of his Lord -
(like one who does not)? Say: "Are those equal, those who know
and those who do not know? It is those who are endued with
understanding that receive admonition.

PICKTHAL: Is he who payeth adoration in the watches of the night,
prostrate and standing, bewaring of the Hereafter and hoping for the
mercy of his Lord, (to be accounted equal with a disbeliever)? Say
(unto them, O Muhammad): Are those who know equal with those
who know not? But only men of understanding will pay heed.

SHAKIR: What! he who is obedient during hours of the night,
prostrating himself and standing, takes care of the hereafter and
hopes for the mercy of his Lord! Say: Are those who know and those
who do not know alike? Only the men of understanding are mindful.

Next:
>They were allowed to work even. Wasn't the Prophet's
>wife his employer?

That was before Quran was revealed and Islam was established.
No example can be given in a post Islam/Quran period.

Next:
>1. A woman has a right to ask for a divorce. Sura 4:128

That verse refers to an "amicable settlement" not a unilateral
divorce by wife. A settlement implies mutual consent. An abusive
husband may not consent to a divorce. What then? No verse in
Quran unequivocally asserts woman's right to divorce her husband.


I will end here so as not to belabour the point although more issue
could be raised in the message posted. Thanks

Aparthib