[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
So you’re saying that we sophisticates of the 21st C with our infinitely superior science and understanding of the world are less able to comprehend allegory in its intended state than are the audiences for which it was originally written? Surely not!
[/QUOTE]
That’s exactly what I’m saying. There is no agreement to what the “intended state” is. If there was, we wouldn’t have splinter groups within every major religion.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I generally agree with your point, that these types of religious texts are not always meant to be taken literally, and interpretation is part of understanding them. The problem with your point here is that what you are basically saying is that it is a bad idea to read the Qur’an if you aren’t part of the culture and don’t understand the various interpretations and context.
[/QUOTE]
Not at all. You can take a course. You can read an authorized interpretation (recommended by a local mosque, perhaps) along with it. I just think that in this day and age people are already negatively predisposed to Islam such that they will read it and find there ‘confirmation’ of their worst fears.
I read it years ago as a part of my study of world religons and found nothing scary or threatening in it, but that was at a time when Islam was not in the public eye.
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
Not at all. You can take a course. You can read an authorized interpretation (recommended by a local mosque, perhaps) along with it. I just think that in this day and age people are already negatively predisposed to Islam such that they will read it and find there ‘confirmation’ of their worst fears.
I read it years ago as a part of my study of world religons and found nothing scary or threatening in it, but that was at a time when Islam was not in the public eye.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry to say that not all of us have time right now to take a course! And I don’t think anyone here suggested that no one should delve deeper into understanding interpretation. I think you are selling SDMB posters a little short, to be honest with you, if you think their reactions would be as you describe.
[QUOTE=Musicat]
He argues, with evidence, that although both the Bible and The Quran are full of requirements for believers, and many of those requirements are violent and highly offensive to today’s society, mainstream Christianity/Judiasm has “matured” and moved beyond such nonsense, while mainstream Islam has not.
[/QUOTE]
And here’san article from the Christian Science Monitor that says a reputable poll showed that Americans are much more accepting of attacking civilians than mainstream Muslims are.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
That’s exactly what I’m saying. There is no agreement to what the “intended state” is. If there was, we wouldn’t have splinter groups within every major religion.
[/QUOTE]
But the macro view; the meta view, if you will, is not in the details. The importance of a faith is not whether you cross yourself with two fingers or three, but whether it enjoins you to do good or evil, and all the major religions do teach peace and cooperation. That some individuals have corrupted the message is not the fault of the message. I think that it is people who get too caught up in the details who mire religion and faith in foolish arguments.
Basically, you’ll find what you’re looking for in any scripture. If you look for love, you’ll find it. If you look for hate, you’ll find it. It’s not the text that is the cause of human problems; it’s the humans who read it.
Just keep in mind that the overwhelming minority of Muslims are not violent, have not been blowing themselves up, and are perfectly nice, normal people living their lives like anybody else.
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
But the macro view; the meta view, if you will, is not in the details. The importance of a faith is not whether you cross yourself with two fingers or three, but whether it enjoins you to do good or evil, and all the major religions do teach peace and cooperation. That some individuals have corrupted the message is not the fault of the message. I think that it is people who get too caught up in the details who mire religion and faith in foolish arguments.
Basically, you’ll find what you’re looking for in any scripture. If you look for love, you’ll find it. If you look for hate, you’ll find it. It’s not the text that is the cause of human problems; it’s the humans who read it.
Just keep in mind that the overwhelming minority of Muslims are not violent, have not been blowing themselves up, and are perfectly nice, normal people living their lives like anybody else.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with all of that. Which is why religious texts are worthless in my opinion. People do what they want to do, mostly within the guidelines of secular law; not religious law. The texts are mostly meaningless.
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
Then Harris is an ass, since ‘mainstream Islam’ is not represented by the few hundred loons in Al-Qaeda but by the rest of the one BILLION Muslims on the planet.
This is just the problem I foresee; that people who are ignorant of what ‘mainstream’ Islam teaches will read the Q’ran and think they’re reading a manifesto for violence.
[/quote]
To bolster Harris’ argument that literal interpretation of the Quran is today’s mainstream and not fringe, he points out that bus-blowing-up martyrs are suppoprted and revered by their own families; fatwas (death warrants) against “enemies” of Islam are issued by clerics but rarely criticized by other clerics; and not too many Christian groups have been observed recently flying planes into tall buildings and crowing about it.
Harris argues that modern Christianity (and many other modern religions) readily accepts co-existence with other religions but Islam insists all non-Muslims must be converted or exterminated at all costs, and they are commanded by God to do so without mercy.
[QUOTE=Musicat]
To bolster Harris’ argument that literal interpretation of the Quran is today’s mainstream and not fringe, he points out that bus-blowing-up martyrs are suppoprted and revered by their own families
[/quote]
It’s not the case that it’s ‘mainstream’ and his example of the families of the ‘bus-blowing’up’ terrorists is stupid because they are, again, a tiny proportion of the ONE BILLION MUSLIMS.
Cite the statistics, please.
It was what, twenty guys? Of, again, ONE BILLION MUSLIMS. And might I remind you that a ‘christian’ nation dropped atomic bombs on two cities, killing roughly two hundred thousand people, the vast majority of which were innocent civilians? Which means that Americans killed almost one hundred times as many people as died in the WTC just during that pair of bombings.
It does not. Some radical Muslims interpret the Q’ran that way. Most don’t.
Well, I’m done dickin’ around with the current conversation. Let’s get back to what the OP suggested. To read the Qur’an. How do we start, Monty?
[QUOTE=Musicat]
fatwas (death warrants) against “enemies” of Islam are issued by clerics but rarely criticized by other clerics
[/QUOTE]
The word fatwa does NOT mean “death warrant.” It is a ruling on a point of religious law. That’s definitely one bit of imprtant context that you should keep in mind before embarking on the study of something that you don’t understand.
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
<…snip…>
Basically, you’ll find what you’re looking for in any scripture. If you look for love, you’ll find it. If you look for hate, you’ll find it. It’s not the text that is the cause of human problems; it’s the humans who read it.
Just keep in mind that the overwhelming minority of Muslims are not violent, have not been blowing themselves up, and are perfectly nice, normal people living their lives like anybody else.
[/QUOTE]
See, though; the problem is the text. It’s the text in the Bible and it’s the text in the Quran that is totally inadequate to define proper behaviour and condemn inappropriate behaviour. I totally agree that “you’ll find what you’re looking for in any scripture” (at least those two). And that is precisely the problem. Both are full of ambiguous and contradictory passages. The texts may not cause bad human behaviour, but they are certainly the justification given by those behaving badly.
If the text were straigthforward and unambiguous, one could easily measure human behaviour against such a standard. (“Don’t ever hurt anyone just because of their personal beliefs.” With no other contradictory passage, story, allegory, or anything else less clear than that.) But because Islamic and Biblical texts are so ambiguous and so contradictory, fools, murderers and fundamentalists can find passages supportive of their destructive choices.
If this is the case, how do you explain the widespread support for suicide attacks against civilian targets in defence of Islam all over the Islamic world?
In 2002 over 38,000 people participated in a global study conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The results constituted the first publication of its Global Attitudes Project entitled ‘What the World Thinks in 2002’. The study included the following question, posed only to Muslims.
Here are the results:
Often / Sometimes / Rarely / Never / Don't Know or Refused
Lebanon 48% 25% 9% 12% 6%
Ivory Coast 25% 31% 17% 27%
Nigeria 21% 26% 19% 26% 8%
Pakistan 19% 14% 5% 38% 23%
Jordan 15% 28% 22% 26% 8%
Bangladesh 18% 26% 14% 23% 19%
Senegal 13% 15% 19% 50% 3%
Mali 9% 23% 22% 35% 11%
Uganda 7% 22% 11% 52% 8%
Ghana 5% 25% 14% 43% 12%
Indonesia 5% 22% 16% 54% 3%
Tanzania 4% 14% 14% 56% 12%
Turkey 4% 9% 7% 64% 14%
Uzbekistan 1% 6% 6% 78% 9%
cite (Warning: PDF - go to page 39)
We now live in a world where Muslims have been scientifically polled, with a margin of error ranging from 2-4 percent, on the question of whether or not they support the deliberate murder and maiming of men, women, children, and babies, in defence of Islam. The results are truly hideous. Even if every country had responded 1% rarely justified and 99% never justified, we would still have a problem worth worrying about as we would be talking about over a million avowed supporters of terrorism. As it is, we are talking about hundreds of millions of avowed supporters of terrorism. Also note that Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinian territories were not included in the poll. Had they been, it is safe to say that Lebanon would probably have been relegated to 3rd or 4th position on this ignominious list.
From whence did these respondents acquire the beliefs requisite to bolster such brazen allegience to the principles of terror, if not the Koran? It is my contention that the twin doctrines of martyrdom and Jihad, working ineluctably as gears in some ludricrous instrument of death, are ultimately responsible, and these beliefs originate directly from the Koran and the hadith. The above poll also confirms that these doctrines receive more public support in the Islamic world than is commonly reported.
[QUOTE=Musicat]
Skeptic’s Annotated Quran
Be sure to check out the “cruelty/violence” section. It’ll warm your heart.
[/QUOTE]
I checked out the “women” section also, here’s one:
“Don’t pray if you are drunk, dirty or have touched a woman” :eek:
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
But we’re not talking about the many interpretations. We’re talking about what it actually says. They are two different things, for purposes of this discussion. We’re trying to familiarize ourselves with the document itself.
[/QUOTE]
Then this is not a debate, it’s a reading assignment that would be better suited for Cafe Society, IMHO.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Then this is not a debate, it’s a reading assignment that would be better suited for Cafe Society, IMHO.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe. Monty? Should this be moved or are we actually going to debate what the words mean?
[QUOTE=Eva Luna]
The word fatwa does NOT mean “death warrant.” It is a ruling on a point of religious law. That’s definitely one bit of imprtant context that you should keep in mind before embarking on the study of something that you don’t understand.
[/QUOTE]
I understand quite well, thank you. You are correct about the general definition of a fatwa, but the more striking ones are issued as a death warrant, such as the case of Salman Rushdie:
In contrast, can you point to any such edicts recently issued by the Pope requiring Catholics to murder the author of a novel?
The Enola Gay was piloted by what, less than twenty guys? Of TWO HUNDRED MILLION U.S. CITIZENS. And I fail to see a religious conflict as a major factor in WWII. Was Pearl Harbor attacked to destroy the infidels?
Meanwhile, back at the OP…
I think you will find that it is difficult to discuss any such highly religious text without considering if: It is literal, allegorical, or a combination; it is used to guide moral actions or ignored by the faithful; and if the resulting actions are a factor in the world’s politics. These items cannot be separated as they might for, say, a romance novel. It’s very difficult to treat the Quran as merely an historical record, a pastoral story, just rantings of a deranged prophet, or even a period piece.
a) Count me in. Do we read a specified amount and then discuss, then read the next specified chunk and then discuss, lather rinse repeat? Sounds good to me.
b) Since some folks would obviously prefer to debate whether it does or does not make sense to read the Qu’ran out of context / without the filter & footnotes provided by studying “how it is used”, and still others would like to debate the extent to which Islamic folk tend to be fundamentalist about the Qu’ran: is there any possibility of splitting the book-discussion from the rest of that? I don’t see a successful book discussion happening in the midst of those other debates.
c) Hajj Opal
I see a problem. We’re supposed to read it without interpretation - just to have a look at it. But Muslims hold the Qur’an to only be a Qur’an if it has a standard text, which needs to be in Arabic. Reading an English copy in itself is technically an interpretation.
[QUOTE=AHunter3]
c) Hajj Opal
[/QUOTE]
I think reading the Q’uran is a good idea. It makes AHunter3 post things that make this particular dhimmi almost wet himself laughing.
The introduction says the translation(s) are not in the public domain, thus I need to be careful about quoting it.
Chapter 1 - starts with what seems to me a standard introduction that I am familiar with from Arabian Nights - “in the name of Allah”. Fine. Then it says that Allah is Master of the Day of Judgement, and asks Him to “keep us on the right path”. And then, immediately, right from the get-go, distinguishes Muslims from everyone else. Muhammed asks Allah to not let him go on the path of those who are The Other, the non-believers. So even from the start there is an emphasis on distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims.
There seem to be two kinds of unbelievers - those who never believed in Islam, and those who believed but fell away. (Sort of like the parable of the sower in the Christian Gospels - some never get it, some start well and fall away, and some reach fruition).
So even from the outset, Muhammed is defining himself and Islam in reaction to everything else. The very first chapter seems to be dividing the world into Us and Them.
And the same seems to be for the first thirty verses of the Cow - lots about unbelievers, and much less about believers.
Interesting.
Monty - how big a chunk do you want to tackle at a time?
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=Monty]
Let’s read the Qur’an!
[/QUOTE]
AllOg, ya gotta be fuckin’ kiddin’ me.
WHO WROTE THIS CRAP???!!!*