UNC 0, Ignorance 1

The BBQ Pit
61

DMC, all you did was provide links to the texts of those books. Not an explanation of the context.
No, you actually don’t have to do more. I’d much rather one form one’s own opinion than listen to someone who has an obvious bias, as did your cite.

So if I read the books I’ll have a complete understanding of the context of every verse? cool. And you know this because… you’ve read both books?.. and that means you know the context of the koran’s verses, which is my question.

BTW, it’s not MY [s]ite. I needed to find those verses and that was the first site that came up on the search.
"The Bible would have you kill someone who works on a Saturday"

really? what verse?
"You’ll have to ask them if you want specifics,"

Ah, yes, that’s what I’m after because apparently even those that have read the koran don’t know the context of the verses I found on that web site. So, as I was saying, you have to do more than just read the books.

So, I “don’t have to do more” but I’ll “have to ask them”.

62

In the early 80s, I took a Judiasm course at UNC where we read the Septugenent (sorry about the spelling) and other works. There was not converting going on, just dissecting the text and understanding its meanings, as well as the Judiac traditions of disputation and debate.

It’s a shame, but another episode in the university’s continuing decline. A few years back, they denied tenure to two teachers who were renowned for their ability to teach. Trouble was, they were not so good at publishing. They did some, but obviously, engaging the minds of the students and conveying knowledge was not something the university held in high esteem.

UNC is amazingly good at trying to tap my wallet, however, with multiple mailings throughout the year, and calls from the foundation asking for donations. Fat chance they’ll see a dime of my money anymore.

63

But notice that UNC didn’t require every incoming student to take the course or read the work.

64

You missed my point, RTF, along with a lot of other people on this thread. Of course learning about religion is a good thing. I believe that was the very argument used when it was declared illegal to post the Ten Commandments in classrooms.(U.S. Supreme Court, Stone v. Graham 1980) But it wasn’t good enough then to justify it for a Christian text; why should it be good enough to justify teaching about Islam?
Again I say: this argument would not even be taking place if UNC had required all incoming freshmen to read the Bible and discuss it. Non-Christians galore would be outraged, and have plenty of support. Well, if non-Muslim students object to reading aobut Islam, how is that any different? It’s a fine line between teaching and proselityzing, and it is the students who decide where that line is, not the school, or anyone else.
UNC’s backing down on the issue telegraphs their belief that if some students decided to sue over the issue, the school would lose. In effect, the students have the power to refuse to hear anything about any religion if they object to it. It’s that way with any religion at any public school.

Reading this thread I am seeing a strong anti-Christian bias coming from some people. (I hesitate to use the word “bigotry,” but it certainly occurred to me.) I might point out that neither the OP nor anyone else has produced a shred of evidence the specific students who objected to reading about Islam were practicing Christians. Apparently, because UNC is “Christian dominated” then anyone who objects to learning about Islam is a “small-minded fundie.” :rolleyes:

65

DoubleDarren, I don’t remember if it addresses the specific quotes you’ve pulled out, but you might want to take a look at some threads from last fall:

Ask the Muslim Guy
Ask the Muslim Guy, Part Deux

I’m sure I remember that they talk generally about some of the “violent” passages of the Qu’ran, as well as a lot of other Muslim beliefs.

They were remarkably informative and interesting threads.

66

While learning about other religions is a good idea, the fact that this is a required reading and they are just now getting around to addressing religious objections to such is disturbing. By assigning this reading selection, the university is creating an environment where students are forced to dialogue about another faith where the opportunity to in turn share their own faith with others in this dialogue may be severely constricted.

67

If you’re going to make analogy, make a proper one. “A book about Islam” is not equivalent to “the Bible” any more than “a book by C.S. Lewis” is equivalent to “the Koran.”

Actually, moron, if you had read the OP’s link, you would discover that:

So, yes, it was a conservative Christian activist group who was searching for a plaintiff among the student body (just like they always accuse the ACLU of doing, as it happens) so that they could sue UNC. If you’re going to accuse people of bigotry, Lizard, you’d better make sure your ducks are in a row, doncha think?

68

I told you to find your own understanding in the text. Is that a problem?

You may or may not have a complete understanding, but you’ll have your understanding. Scholars can’t even agree on the meaning of Catcher in the Rye, and you expect them to agree on ancient translated texts?

Aside from reading parts of both books sporadically through the years, I have read the Bible three times and the Qur’an once, cover to cover, just as one reads a novel (which is what they are to me). I’m not sure what your point is, since this only allows me to form my own understanding, which could possibly be just as biased as your source. For you to truly satisfy your curiosity as to what something means, you either have to come to your own conclusion or have the author tell you their intent. Since the latter isn’t possible with these texts, my recommendation stands that you read them yourself. As an example, I find Song of Solomon to be a very sexual love letter (and quite a good one at that), while others believe it’s about the relationship between Man and God.

I gave you the tools you needed, now it’s up to you to make a determination, much like UNC would have done, had they stuck to their guns.

I never said it was your site, I said it was your cite, which it was.

Assuming the resurrection was on a Sunday, hence Easter Sunday, Matthew 28:1 demonstrates that the sabbath falls on Saturday, and Mark 16:1-2 backs it up. As for the killing, Numbers 15:32-36 and Exodus 31:14-15 are good places to start. Even if you don’t interpret the sabbath = Saturday the same way as some do, that would only change which day one carries the Uzi into the mall, which is not something that most folks would find very “Christian.”

Folks who read the Qur’an are actually quite aware of the context of those verses. With that said, they will possibly disagree on interpretation.

69

DMC, well then we do have a problems don’t we? If it is up to anyone to fashion their own context and make up their own interpretations of the koran then the militant muslims who believe these verses give them the green light to kill are no less wrong than the muslims that say is doesn’t.
Exodus 31:14-15 and Numbers 15:32-36 are to be taken only in the context of the people in the wilderness (children of Moses/Israel story), that time and place and those people of that tribe (sort of what I’m trying to get out of the koran). In fact Numbers does a better job of illustrating this than Exodus, but you get the picture… I’m looking for the context of the koran. What I understand so far is that there is some “future battle” when it will be okay to kill non-muslims, but I have yet for anyone to explain the context of the sura’s verses.

70

umm… that should read “more wrong”

71

In their minds, this is the case. That doesn’t make it right, any more than Bubba with a gun unloading on the workers at the local wilderness mall on a Saturday.

While those verses are an account of the Exodus, I didn’t find it stated anywhere that these rules are to be disregarded once the journey is over.

For every Qur’an passage that makes you :smack:, there’s probably one just as bad in the Bible, which was the point of my first post in this thread. Since I think anyone who takes either book literally hasn’t done much homework, I’m hardly a good source for sect-specific interpretation.

72

"In their minds, this is the case. That doesn’t make it right…"

Well, who are we to say they are wrong? An interpretation is an interpretation, both are equal.

"I didn’t find it stated anywhere that these rules are to be disregarded once the journey is over"

Neither did it specifically say that it was only for the children of Israel… that’s why a serious study of context is so important.

Still, where is the explanation of the context of the koran? If we’re to go with the future battle then who, what, where, why, when? Why is the koran so much harder to explain?

73

Darren-do you fucking MIND? Quit hijacking this thread and start your own to bitch about the Qur’an, or just SHUT UP ALREADY!!!

74

Guinastyia, no I don’t mind discussing the reason some students may find a book objectionable. If you haven’t been able to keep up, that’s what’s hip now.

You don’t need to get angry. BTW, you wouldn’t be able to translate the verses into context would you?

75

Also Guin, if you look back up the thread, you’ll notice I asked: “What kind of a book is it? I mean, it could be pro islam, anti islam or a book that studies the text of the kuran.”

This may have a lot to do with who is actually ‘ignorant’ as in the title. And it is a very important factor that was ignored.

You, on the other hand, said something about the little college you went to and your high school, nothing really deep on the subject, you’d have to admit.

The book these kids are supposed to read may or may not be “pro-islam” or avoid the though parts of the koran, but we don’t know that do we?

76

I think Double Darren’s hijack of this thread perfectly illustrates the need for this sort of course at places like UNC. If maybe ODU had one that DD could take…?

I picked it up loud and clear; it seems to me that your grasp of Establishment Clause issues is the problem here.

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, posting the Big Ten in classrooms had a purpose besides just educating people about what Jews and Christians believe? You think that there just might have been a rather strong subtext of “this is what you should be believing” ? That’s what you call “establishment of religion”. Or what the Supremes do, at least.

Now you could study the Ten Commandments in all sorts of ways in a public-school classroom that wouldn’t raise any Establishment Clause issues. One key thing is a critical context, rather than a proselytizing one, or a laying-down-the-law one. You could compare the Ten Commandments and other OT laws with the Code of Hammurabi and other contemporaneous law codes, for instance. As long as the teacher wasn’t plugging the Ten Commandments as the best of the bunch, everything would be fine.

Hopefully, I’ve just explained that. If the course, and text, analyze Islam rather than proselytize for it, then everything’s cool with respect to the Establishment clause, just as it would be for a similar analysis of the OT Law.

I think pldennison has already nailed this one.

“Proselytizing is in the eye of the beholder”? I don’t think so.

I bet I could come up with a good set of guidelines to distinguish between one and the other. But I won’t bother, because I would expect that the Supremes have spoken to that in their decisions regarding religion and the schools.

What a nerfball. Sheesh.

It telegraphs nothing of the sort. It might demonstrate that, in the heart of the Bible Belt, the UNC admin was worried about seeing budget cuts next year if they stuck to their guns.

Maybe students should emulate the evangelical Christian tactic of declaring ‘secular humanism’ to be a religion, and declare everything from Shakespeare to algebra to be religions. (I mean, algebra requires you to believe in unknowns! How can you get more religious than that? :D) Then they won’t have to study anything, because it’ll all be a different religion. :rolleyes:

No, seriously, that’s baloney, hogwash, tripe, and bullshit. If your high school had decided that all the students should take a World Religions course that discussed Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Taoism, and a few others plus atheism, all on equal terms, then you would have had zero right to refuse to participate. Why? Because there would not have been an Establishment Clause issue anywhere in sight. Nor would there have been a Free Exercise issue, because you really don’t have the right not to hear about other religions in a factual and analytical sense.

You have the right not to be proselytized to. But that’s different.

Am I one of them? I just gotta know!! :smiley:

77

I just completely freaked out and couldn’t read anymore of this thread. Forgive me if someone else has already gone over this, but…

You have got to be fucking kidding me. You think this happened because this was a SOUTHERN school? You think you escaped such parochialism by moving away? Or to California?

California, the font of tolerance for difference?

I’ve been all over and I’m here to tell you that you can go anywhere in the fifty states and throw a rock and have a damn good chance of hitting a fucking moronic bigoted narrow-minded asshole. They don’t all hang out below the Mason Dixon line.

You can go West. You can go North. It doesn’t matter. And anyone who believes that the SOUTH holds the monopoly on small-mindedness is kidding themselves. And the real sad thing is that it’s not just wet-behind-the-ears small town kids who have these deficiencies.

78

Hmmm, RTFirefly, seems to me that if the kids asked the question of what “kind” of study will this book bring about, meaning what kind of book is it (ie. written by OBL himself, or a mind of the more academic type) then they are farther along then you are.

Maybe you aren’t too familiar with UNC’s choice of what is academic and what is not. Or maybe the UNC students are more familiar than you, who knows.

I suppose the kids should be like you and ask no questions, just take what’s given… uh, forced on them.

79

Ze point, DD, vas dat if ODU offered such a course, it would be an appropriate place to ask such questions.

Or you could just (a) learn how this board works, and (b) start a new thread of your own in which to ask these questions. (Ask all you want, in the appropriate forum/thread/manner.)

The thread was about whether such a course has a place in a public college’s curriculum, and whether it can/should require that everyone take such a course.

It wasn’t about the details of the content of the course, nor was it about particular debates that might arise in the resulting classroom discussions or late-night bull sessions.

To jump from the thread topic, to one such possible debate arising in/from such a course, is a big enough jump that it’s called a hijack if it winds up playing a prominent role in the thread from then on. Hijacking debate threads is generally considered bad manners here, even ones in the Pit.

80

In the interest of getting Double Darren’s persistent hijack about violence in the Qur’an out of the hair of everybody who’s trying to talk about reading requirements at UNC, I’ll try to contribute a little of the historical/theological context that he seems to be unwilling to go look for on his own. (I have also filled in the sura numbers that his source omitted or got wrong.)

*When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters (non-Muslims) wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent (convert) and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful. Sura 9:5 *

Context: Observance of time-limited peace treaties with members of non-Muslim groups at war with Muslims. If the treaty expires and is not renewed, Muslims are permitted to resume hostilities. Cf. sura 9:12–13: “If they violate their oaths after pledging to keep their covenants, and attack your religion, you may fight the leaders of paganism - you are no longer bound by your covenant with them - that they may refrain. Would you not fight people who violated their treaties, tried to banish the messenger, and they are the ones who started the war in the first place?”

*Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate. Sura 9:73 *

Context: This section is mostly about the sin of hypocrisy in those who promised to be submissive to God and broke their promises. The verb translated as “make war on” in your quote is translated as “strive against” in the translations I’ve seen, and I have seen no support for the interpretation that it should be read as a literal encouragement to physical violence.

*“Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. God does not guide the wrongdoers.” [5:51] *

Context: Alliance with opposing non-Muslim groups in civil strife for the sake of political expediency is discouraged, as clarified in the next sura: “You will see those who harbor doubt in their hearts hasten to join them, saying, ‘We fear lest we may be defeated.’ May GOD bring victory, or a command from Him, that causes them to regret their secret thoughts.” In other words, Muslims are expected to stick together in open support of their faith and not to compromise for political reasons.

*Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe neither in Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His apostle have forbidden and do not embrace the true faith until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued. Sura 9:29 *

Context: Non-Muslims had to pay an extra tax in a Muslim kingdom, and could be compelled by the state to do so if they resisted complying. Religious discrimination, sure, but hardly the license for mass slaughter that you seem to be trying to infer.

*Fight for the sake of Allah those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. Allah does not love the aggressors. [2:190] *

What the heck are you objecting to in this? Unless you’re demanding a profession of total pacifism under all circumstances, what’s wrong with an injunction not to hurt people who aren’t hurting you?

*Kill them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. But do not fight them within the precincts of the Holy Mosque unless they attack you there; Sura 2:[191] *

Context: Another slanted translation. The ones I’ve seen say “You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder. Do not fight them at the Sacred Masjid, unless they attack you therein. If they attack you, you may kill them.” In other words, you are allowed to retaliate against aggressors.

Larger context: Remember that for much of Muhammad’s life there was open hostility, and sometimes actual violent conflict, between the converts to his reformist monotheistic movement and members of the existing established religion (esp. the Ka’ba cult in Mecca), which he openly criticized. All of the conflicts in his own lifetime were with peoples of the Saudi peninsula, some groups of whom were converts to Judaism (which has at some periods in history been more active in proselytizing/conversion than modern Jewish practice approves of) and some to Christianity. Remarks in the Qur’an about idolaters, Jews, and Christians can’t be understood in ignorance of the historical context of political conflict.

There, Darren, does that help? If you still have questions about the exact meaning of the above passages, I can read Classical Arabic and am willing to go dig up the original text and some of the traditional exegeses in order to give a better sense of it. But you will sure as hell have to take it to a new thread if you want me to do that kind of work for you.