Hey people,

As I was reading through the selection from Abdullah Saeed's The Qur'an- An Introduction, I was shocked/intrigued to learn about the tradition-based exegesis of Islam.  I grew up with the mindset that religion and religious texts were always up for interpretation, and that they were what you made of them.  Even with what we have been learning so far in this class, it seemed that personal interpretation of texts was encouraged, and that interpretation would only give you a better understanding of what you are trying to figure out.  Yet in traditional Islam, "He who interprets the Qur'an according to his opinions should have his place prepared in the fire of hell," and that "He who says something concerning the Qur'an according to his opinion [even if it] is correct has erred" (Saeed 179).  I had to re-read these statements because I always thought that it is encouraged to challenge what is not clear, for it is this that eventually leads to enlightenment.

This is a perfect example of "blind faith," because traditionalists are encouraged to simply read and believe everything in the Qur'an.  I think religion is more than just memorizing and blindly believing in something only because you are told to.  The meaning of what is taught in a religion should be understood and conceptualized instead.  This level of realization, however, can only be reached if you constantly question and dispute what doesn't make sense.  In both Hinduism and Buddhism, there is a certain level of required faith, but both religions coax individual interpretation.  Followers learn and grasp different ideas at different paces.  Even in modern times, believers challenge the thoughts of those who established the faiths, not to oppose them, but instead to achieve a greater personal understanding and awareness.  Interpretation is a key aspect in the development of belief.

Comment if you'd like!