Be Wary of Racism and Islamophobes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I worked with Afghan refugees and this may be true. But why did you choose to use the Muslim country with one of the worst literacy rates to illustrate what the rest of the 1.6 billion does?

Use Tatarstan or Turkey, Muslim-majority nations with near 100% literacy, and see their children make out any better in 7th century Arabic.

I said most children who learn to read the Quran do so in Quranic Arabic. This morphed into a discussion of how many people can read in Islamic countries and how many people can understand Quranic Arabic. This is why a three page thread on DCUM turns into a fifty page thread. People just go off on tangents.

And another poster countered that the fact these children learn to read the Quran in the Quranic Arabic do little more than reciting, without understanding much of its meaning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I worked with Afghan refugees and this may be true. But why did you choose to use the Muslim country with one of the worst literacy rates to illustrate what the rest of the 1.6 billion does?

Use Tatarstan or Turkey, Muslim-majority nations with near 100% literacy, and see their children make out any better in 7th century Arabic.

PP who used Afghanistan as an example--on purpose. It is the Muslim country with the highest illiteracy rate. Used it to show how absurd it was to claim that all Muslim children can read the Quran. Obviously if you are illiterate you can't read at all, even if you are Muslim.

But isn't it more absurd to use one country as reflective of all Muslim children in world?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even in Arab countries, thee are sizable numbers who couldn't possibly the read the Quran or anything else. One third of Yemen's population is illiterate. Many of those with some degree of literacy would not be able to understand the Arabic of the Quran, just as many of us have a very hard time really understanding the Canterbury Tales in its original version (or even Shakespeare for that matter).

And many Arabic speakers, to add insult to statistics, are not Muslim.

This is true, but some them like my DH actually excelled in recitation of the Koran in school. Christians in government schools are excused from religion, but my DH chose to stay with his friends. One of his Muslim friends told us about how he and his friends harassed the religion teacher by asking all kinds of irreverent questions he couldn't answer.

What country was your DH taught 7th century Arabic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And why call a scholar anyway if things ought to be obvious, and sometimes actually are obvious, if unpalatable?

Did someone here tell you to call a scholar for obvious points? A 48 page thread shows there may be some points that are not so obvious. Besides, scholars studied Islamic history and its more than just a college class,

Actually, the 48-page thread was about you and another Muslim poster committing mental acrobatics to try and prove, against all sense, that the obvious and simple Quranic verses on slavery, polygamy etc. - can somehow be interpreted to mean roses and chocolates, and those who don't believe it, should just call the scholar already. Because a pair of eyes just won't do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Do you think there is a possibility that culture clouds their interpretation? For example, the Quran does not prescribe stoning for adultery, but some Arab states do.

It's just as likely that the American, British or Canadian culture clouds the interpretation of scholars based in these countries. Why is one cloud better than others?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I worked with Afghan refugees and this may be true. But why did you choose to use the Muslim country with one of the worst literacy rates to illustrate what the rest of the 1.6 billion does?

Use Tatarstan or Turkey, Muslim-majority nations with near 100% literacy, and see their children make out any better in 7th century Arabic.

PP who used Afghanistan as an example--on purpose. It is the Muslim country with the highest illiteracy rate. Used it to show how absurd it was to claim that all Muslim children can read the Quran. Obviously if you are illiterate you can't read at all, even if you are Muslim.

But isn't it more absurd to use one country as reflective of all Muslim children in world?

Other countries were mentioned too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I worked with Afghan refugees and this may be true. But why did you choose to use the Muslim country with one of the worst literacy rates to illustrate what the rest of the 1.6 billion does?

Use Tatarstan or Turkey, Muslim-majority nations with near 100% literacy, and see their children make out any better in 7th century Arabic.

I said most children who learn to read the Quran do so in Quranic Arabic. This morphed into a discussion of how many people can read in Islamic countries and how many people can understand Quranic Arabic. This is why a three page thread on DCUM turns into a fifty page thread. People just go off on tangents.

And another poster countered that the fact these children learn to read the Quran in the Quranic Arabic do little more than reciting, without understanding much of its meaning.

She watched a TV show about Indonesian children memorizing and now she understands how Muslim children have been learning to read the Quran all over the world.

This is the way most Muslim children learn to read the Quran, in Arabic. They are taught the meaning of some suras they learn. Not all, of course. Too much for even an adult to know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I worked with Afghan refugees and this may be true. But why did you choose to use the Muslim country with one of the worst literacy rates to illustrate what the rest of the 1.6 billion does?

Use Tatarstan or Turkey, Muslim-majority nations with near 100% literacy, and see their children make out any better in 7th century Arabic.

PP who used Afghanistan as an example--on purpose. It is the Muslim country with the highest illiteracy rate. Used it to show how absurd it was to claim that all Muslim children can read the Quran. Obviously if you are illiterate you can't read at all, even if you are Muslim.

But isn't it more absurd to use one country as reflective of all Muslim children in world?

Other countries were mentioned too.

The point I made was clear and simple. Children who learn to read the Quran learn it in Arabic only. Why is Afghanistan's literacy rate relevant to the what language the Quran is taught in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

She watched a TV show about Indonesian children memorizing and now she understands how Muslim children have been learning to read the Quran all over the world.

This is the way most Muslim children learn to read the Quran, in Arabic. They are taught the meaning of some suras they learn. Not all, of course. Too much for even an adult to know.

Then why claim they learn Quranic Arabic? What is the value in reading and memorizing something without understanding it? Why claim that it leads to superior understanding of the religion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you think there is a possibility that culture clouds their interpretation? For example, the Quran does not prescribe stoning for adultery, but some Arab states do.

It's just as likely that the American, British or Canadian culture clouds the interpretation of scholars based in these countries. Why is one cloud better than others?

If the Arab ones have Sharias that openly contradict the Quran itself, isn't that a valid reason to eliminate them from your call list?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The point I made was clear and simple. Children who learn to read the Quran learn it in Arabic only. Why is Afghanistan's literacy rate relevant to the what language the Quran is taught in?

It wasn't quite as simple, was it? You claimed it is incumbent on every Muslim to learn, understand and read the Quran in the original Arabic, or else their understanding is incomplete. You provided the example of children learning the Quran to support your claim. In light of this, it's highly relevant to point out that most children learning to read the Quran aren't learning the language of 7th century Quranic Arabic. In the majority, they are memorizing verses without understanding the language in which they are written. That's highly relevant for the context of your claim that a Muslim isn't educated until he or she read and understood the Quran in its original form.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

She watched a TV show about Indonesian children memorizing and now she understands how Muslim children have been learning to read the Quran all over the world.

This is the way most Muslim children learn to read the Quran, in Arabic. They are taught the meaning of some suras they learn. Not all, of course. Too much for even an adult to know.

Then why claim they learn Quranic Arabic? What is the value in reading and memorizing something without understanding it? Why claim that it leads to superior understanding of the religion?

They do learn the meaning of some suras. I have said this multiple times. They can not be taught all suras. The Quran is hundreds of pages long. But children learn enough to understand what their faith is about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you think there is a possibility that culture clouds their interpretation? For example, the Quran does not prescribe stoning for adultery, but some Arab states do.

It's just as likely that the American, British or Canadian culture clouds the interpretation of scholars based in these countries. Why is one cloud better than others?

If the Arab ones have Sharias that openly contradict the Quran itself, isn't that a valid reason to eliminate them from your call list?

To eliminate whom? Scholars or countries? What do scholars of a particular country have to do with the version of shariah that country practices?

And if you're so down on the native sons, please explain why is it that Hamza Yusuf felt the need to go to the Arab scholars to learn his Islam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And why call a scholar anyway if things ought to be obvious, and sometimes actually are obvious, if unpalatable?

Did someone here tell you to call a scholar for obvious points? A 48 page thread shows there may be some points that are not so obvious. Besides, scholars studied Islamic history and its more than just a college class,

But if we are speaking of Islamic history, why does one have to consult an Islamic scholar? That implies a scholar of Islam the religion, and in your terms necessarily someone who is Muslim. There are plenty of non-Muslim scholars--professors at places like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton--who specialize in Islamic history.

I suppose you think their religion disqualifies them from being true scholars of Islamic history. Which is like saying someone who is French cannot be a scholar of US history. And yet we still study de Toqueville and some (Americans) think he described and caught the American spirit better than anyone.

I still take umbrage at the contention that a non-Muslim cannot be a scholar of Islam, but would settle for a concession that non-Muslims can be and have been competent and even great scholars of Islamic history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

She watched a TV show about Indonesian children memorizing and now she understands how Muslim children have been learning to read the Quran all over the world.

This is the way most Muslim children learn to read the Quran, in Arabic. They are taught the meaning of some suras they learn. Not all, of course. Too much for even an adult to know.

Then why claim they learn Quranic Arabic? What is the value in reading and memorizing something without understanding it? Why claim that it leads to superior understanding of the religion?

They do learn the meaning of some suras. I have said this multiple times. They can not be taught all suras. The Quran is hundreds of pages long. But children learn enough to understand what their faith is about.

"Learning the meaning" isn't the same as understanding the language. Might as well read the translation. The point - in case it hasn't been painfully clear yet - is that the studies these children undertake do not move them any closer to the linguistic command of 7th century Arabic - that magic skill you said every Muslim should have to understand his faith, or else.