Here is from our good friend Wikipedia:

"Soon after converting, Yusuf moved to England, Spain, and eventually Al Ain in the United Arab Emirates to pursue serious study of Islam.[21] There he primarily studied Arabic and also served as a muezzin of a local mosque. There he was introduced to Mauritanian scholars and began more serious study of various Islamic disciplines including Maliki fiqh. This eventually led him to travel to Mauritania itself in order to study directly with the renowned scholar and sage of the land, Sidi Muhammad ould Fahfu al-Massumi, more famously known as Murabit al-Hajj.[22] During his intermittent stays there, Yusuf both lived and studied directly with Murabit al-Hajj.[23]

I think it's deliciously, exquisitely ironic that you discounted all old-country scholars as influenced by culture, and yet your darling Yusuf had to go to Mauritania - the only country in the world where slavery is practiced more or less openly - to study Islam in more depth. Funny, innit?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We were talking about calling scholars. Scholars are not likely to practice Islam in countries where law contradicts the Quran and justifies it as Islamic.

Hamza Yusuf Hanson did not speak any Arabic. I assume he wanted to learn Arabic from someone living there, and wanted easier access to historical data and information.

Laws of every single country contradict the Quran. So you've just basically discounted every single country and scholar in the world because no country's laws match the Quran exactly.

Yusuf didn't go to the Arabs to learn Arabic. He went to them to learn his Islam. So to me, it's exquisitely ironic that you discount Arab country scholars as biased when your own favorite boy had to go to them to learn his religion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Islam is actually an amazing religion. I love the fact that I can believe in all prophets Adam through Moses and then Jesus and finally Muhammad. I love the concept of oneness in God. I love that I can have a deeply personal relationship with God in five daily prayers, each of them taking just five minutes. I love that it requires I pay charity. Polygamy is not encouraged but it was practiced and Islam permits it. Same is true for slavery but both in the strictest of situations and not to abuse power. If you read Islamic history, studied tafsir, and spoke to scholars, they would show you proof of Islam's mercy. But if you don't care to learn, then its fine too. To each his own, right?

It's not about me caring to learn. It's about there being nothing to learn beyond what you can see. Islam is like any other religion. It has lovely bits and less than lovely bits. As a Muslim, you are required to see it all as lovely, and the institution of scholars is there to support you in this belief. You, as a Muslim, are under obligation to see it as perfect, and assume that good explanations exist for the unlovely bits. I, luckily for me, am not.

Unlike you, I am under no obligation to see it as lovely, or assume that good reasons exists for what seems unlovely. So when I read something that appears on its face unfair, ugly, or cruel, then unlike you, I am free to accept that it really IS unfair, ugly and cruel, and no scholar in the world can spin it to make it look like roses. I'm sure scholars would show me proof of Islam's mercy - but they would, wouldn't they? They are not motivated by objectivity. They are motivated by the desire to cast the religion in the best possible light. That's the job. If you spoke to actual historians, they would show you proof of Islam's mercy as well as Islam's cruelty. Islam is like any other religion, and Muslims are like any other people. They and their religion don't have any particular claim to moral perfection.

If you love things about it, that's great, as a Muslim I'm sure it comes handy for you. But that's just you. If other people don't see the beauty in it, it's not because they aren't willing to learn. It's because to them, it simply is not beautiful, and no amount of scholarly airtime will make it so.

To avoid confusion-

Scholars should be honest if the sharia of their country contradict the Quran.

Not going to start 50 more pages on yet another tangent. However, I knew you'd ask this!

I do not think that to be a scholar, one needs to live in an islamic state where law does not contradict the Quran. The Sharia may be inaccurate but the scholar himself might not have had a hand in creating it. Do you think Islam would reject a scholar despite the fact that he had no say in creating an erroneous Sharia? Of course not.

So that should answer your question about scholars in the US too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We were talking about calling scholars. Scholars are not likely to practice Islam in countries where law contradicts the Quran and justifies it as Islamic.

Hamza Yusuf Hanson did not speak any Arabic. I assume he wanted to learn Arabic from someone living there, and wanted easier access to historical data and information.

What does the bolded part mean? It implies that to be a scholar of Islam you must practice Islam. I am Catholic and fully accept scholars of Catholicism do not necessarily need to be practicing Catholics or even Catholic. The quality of their scholarship is what matters, not their personal faith.

Also, there is some picking and choosing here: True Islamic scholars can only be in countries where the law doesn't contradict the Quran. If they are in other countries they are not true scholars. Does US law contradict the Quran? Many would say yes. Does that make Islamic scholars here not truly scholars?

What countries do you believe have laws that don't contradict the Quran? In many Arab countries only civil status laws are based on the Quran. Does the fact that the other laws are not based on the Quran make them countries where a true Islamic scholar would not practice?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arab countries and those that have languages with a lot of Arabic words in them like Farsi would teach the Quran in Arabic because it isn't such a stretch. The PP was asserting tha case is different in populous Muslim countries like Malaysia and Indonesia and questioned whether children are taught to actually read the Quran in Arabic or simply to memorize it as opera singers memorizes the words of songs in languages they don't understand.

For centuries, Roman Catholics attend services in Latin, a language the vast majority didn't understand but could say the responses in. But they were taught their religion--the basic principles and readings from the Bible--in their native language. Latin is a very beautiful language, but no one would contend that to understand the mass one needed to know Latin--translations were considered more than sufficient.

Im going to have to point out that Farsi and Arabic are not similar languages at all. Farsi is a Indo-European language as is English. Arabic is a Semitic language. There is nothing similar about the two languages.

I specifically stated languages with a lot of Arabic words in them, not Semitic languages. Farsi is one of these. Even though Farsi is not Semitic it can be a relatively easy language for Arabic speakers to learn to read--the grammar is not very complicated and a very large percentage of the words are Arabic so it's pretty easy to get up to speed quickly.

I haven't gone the other way, but as so many Persian words are Arabic (and the script is very similar), it would be much easier for a Farsi speaker to learn Arabic than a Malaysian or an Indonesian.

I speak/write Farsi and do not understand any Arabic.

Large percentage of Farsi are Arabic words? No. My DH is Iranian. He said not true. Some words. Not a lot.

Here is the article I used citing 40% of everyday literary words in Farsi are Arabic loan words. it is from the University of Chicago.

http://nelc.uchicago.edu/sites/nelc.uchicago.edu/files/Perry2002%20ArabElements-EIr.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We were talking about calling scholars. Scholars are not likely to practice Islam in countries where law contradicts the Quran and justifies it as Islamic.

Hamza Yusuf Hanson did not speak any Arabic. I assume he wanted to learn Arabic from someone living there, and wanted easier access to historical data and information.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arab countries and those that have languages with a lot of Arabic words in them like Farsi would teach the Quran in Arabic because it isn't such a stretch. The PP was asserting tha case is different in populous Muslim countries like Malaysia and Indonesia and questioned whether children are taught to actually read the Quran in Arabic or simply to memorize it as opera singers memorizes the words of songs in languages they don't understand.

For centuries, Roman Catholics attend services in Latin, a language the vast majority didn't understand but could say the responses in. But they were taught their religion--the basic principles and readings from the Bible--in their native language. Latin is a very beautiful language, but no one would contend that to understand the mass one needed to know Latin--translations were considered more than sufficient.

Im going to have to point out that Farsi and Arabic are not similar languages at all. Farsi is a Indo-European language as is English. Arabic is a Semitic language. There is nothing similar about the two languages.

I specifically stated languages with a lot of Arabic words in them, not Semitic languages. Farsi is one of these. Even though Farsi is not Semitic it can be a relatively easy language for Arabic speakers to learn to read--the grammar is not very complicated and a very large percentage of the words are Arabic so it's pretty easy to get up to speed quickly.

I haven't gone the other way, but as so many Persian words are Arabic (and the script is very similar), it would be much easier for a Farsi speaker to learn Arabic than a Malaysian or an Indonesian.

I speak/write Farsi and do not understand any Arabic.

Large percentage of Farsi are Arabic words? No. My DH is Iranian. He said not true. Some words. Not a lot.

Anonymous wrote:Arab countries and those that have languages with a lot of Arabic words in them like Farsi would teach the Quran in Arabic because it isn't such a stretch. The PP was asserting tha case is different in populous Muslim countries like Malaysia and Indonesia and questioned whether children are taught to actually read the Quran in Arabic or simply to memorize it as opera singers memorizes the words of songs in languages they don't understand.

For centuries, Roman Catholics attend services in Latin, a language the vast majority didn't understand but could say the responses in. But they were taught their religion--the basic principles and readings from the Bible--in their native language. Latin is a very beautiful language, but no one would contend that to understand the mass one needed to know Latin--translations were considered more than sufficient.

My former imam in the Seattle area was Indonesian. There is a fairly large Indonesian population there and they had their own islamic school. The children were taught Quranic Arabic. Meanings of some suras were taught. If I recall, he learned to read in Indonesia and they learned Quranic Arabic too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am a product of Islamic school. I have family still living in several Muslim countries. Trust me. Almost all children learn Quran in Arabic, in the language it was revealed. And I have said this multiple times, they do learn the meaning of some suras, just not all suras because the Quran is hundreds of pages long. Devout Muslims continue to learn throughout their life. They take tafsir classes or study hadith. There are some who don't. But they should. Allah/God expects it.

And all you have to do to conclude this argument is to admit that children who learn Quran in Arabic do not in fact get any closer to the linguistic command of 7th century Arabic - that magical, unattainable skill God wants everyone to have.

Hmmmm...I learned the meaning of some suras as a child. My siblings and parents did also. My nephew attends a full time Islamic school here and he is learning the meaning of some suras also. So why do you want me to lie to you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am a product of Islamic school. I have family still living in several Muslim countries. Trust me. Almost all children learn Quran in Arabic, in the language it was revealed. And I have said this multiple times, they do learn the meaning of some suras, just not all suras because the Quran is hundreds of pages long. Devout Muslims continue to learn throughout their life. They take tafsir classes or study hadith. There are some who don't. But they should. Allah/God expects it.

I thought you thought all hadith is trash? Other than the secret collection under lock and key in Saudi Arabia, yet-unreleased to the world?

I don't believe that an omnipotent, merciful god would make his revelation available exclusively in a language most of his followers don't understand, and then insist that this is the only way it can be understood "properly". This doesn't make any sense. That's just Arab marketing.

Before we engage on this subject of hadith, please find where I said "All hadith is trash." It is believed Islam came to the region where it was needed most. Its okay if you don't believe. I think everybody got that by now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arab countries and those that have languages with a lot of Arabic words in them like Farsi would teach the Quran in Arabic because it isn't such a stretch. The PP was asserting tha case is different in populous Muslim countries like Malaysia and Indonesia and questioned whether children are taught to actually read the Quran in Arabic or simply to memorize it as opera singers memorizes the words of songs in languages they don't understand.

For centuries, Roman Catholics attend services in Latin, a language the vast majority didn't understand but could say the responses in. But they were taught their religion--the basic principles and readings from the Bible--in their native language. Latin is a very beautiful language, but no one would contend that to understand the mass one needed to know Latin--translations were considered more than sufficient.

Im going to have to point out that Farsi and Arabic are not similar languages at all. Farsi is a Indo-European language as is English. Arabic is a Semitic language. There is nothing similar about the two languages.

I specifically stated languages with a lot of Arabic words in them, not Semitic languages. Farsi is one of these. Even though Farsi is not Semitic it can be a relatively easy language for Arabic speakers to learn to read--the grammar is not very complicated and a very large percentage of the words are Arabic so it's pretty easy to get up to speed quickly.

I haven't gone the other way, but as so many Persian words are Arabic (and the script is very similar), it would be much easier for a Farsi speaker to learn Arabic than a Malaysian or an Indonesian.

I speak/write Farsi and do not understand any Arabic.

You do know a lot of Arabic words though because they are used extensively in Farsi. According to something I found on the internet just now (sorry can't do better at this hour), over 50% of the words used in 14th century Sufi verse are Arabic loan words. For the fiction of Bozorg Alavi, who wrote in the 1950's, it is over 45%. This same article estimates that 8,000 of the 20,000 words, or 40%, of an everyday literary vocabulary are Arabic loan words.

Oops. "Illiteracy."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We are back at this again. It is very simple. I am very sorry thats not the case for you. I will try to explain.

I am a product of Islamic school. I have family still living in several Muslim countries. Trust me. Almost all children learn Quran in Arabic, in the language it was revealed. And I have said this multiple times, they do learn the meaning of some suras, just not all suras because the Quran is hundreds of pages long. Devout Muslims continue to learn throughout their life. They take tafsir classes or study hadith. There are some who don't. But they should. Allah/God expects it.

So going back to the illiteracy theme, if one is illiterate one cannot be a devout Muslim? That rules out two-thirds of Afghanistan--try telling that to the Taliban.

I have known a number of devout illiterate Muslims and really question the elitist premise that that only those who take tafisr classes or study hadith can be devout. God does not expect it--or he would have made his revelations some place where the illiteracy rate was above 1 percent (my admittedly unscholarly estimate of literacy in seventh century Arabia).

Can you find where I said illiterate Muslims may not be devout Muslims?

Literacy does not preclude faith or iman. Islam is a belief system and adherence to proper conduct. If one lives thousands of miles from the local literacy teacher, would Islam say that person may not love Allah/God? What if a person lives in poverty and there are no schools where they live, does that mean Allah/God rejects their devotion? Of course not! It is understood that the Muslim must try hard to learn to read Quranic Arabic, but if extenuating circumstances can not permit it, Allah/God is merciful.