2913

Actually it’s better to listen to the Quran than read it, as that was the way it was intended to be received. And thanks to Microelectronic Silicon Cogitators it’s much easier to find a copy you can read along with while listening to it being read. Honestly everyone should probably listen to a Sura or two just to get a feel for it as part of your general education.

That said, as a student and product of the western world it’s… tough going. The rambling discourse of the Old Testament reads like the pinnacle of concision and narrative by comparison. As Tom Holland said, the Quran has a “distrust of narrative” and that the sense of linearity is “dissolved” in it. Listening to it also takes a lot longer than reading it. He also said, and i like this comparison, that the Quran doesn’t really compare to the bible and is more like the figure of Jesus himself, in that while the Bible may be “inspired” the Quran is literally the word of God made manifest.

The Quran has all sorts of strangeness that probably grates to western sensibilities; many Suras begin with something called the Muqattaʿāt, which is like three Arabic letters that no one knows what they mean. Imagine each book of the bible starting with a random string of numbers. There’s also almost nothing about Muhammad in the Quran and western scholarship has plausibly conjectured that much of what we “think” of as Muhammad is probably a construct of later centuries. There’s only one mention in the Quran about Mecca and that is completely ambiguous in location - it assumes everyone already knows where this is - and in general it’s very hard to place anything in the Quran for certain in time or space.

I actually like the pure Quran more that way, it amplifies the strangeness and star-and-desert beduin reflective mysticism about it. If you approach the Quran forgetting everything you can taste the dust of late-antiquity traders, educated in the Arabian Jewish diaspora which fled to the desert from Yemen, surrounded by a declining Christian empire.

2914

That assumption is totally wrong. They didn’t account for it at all. There’s no way to account for it. They just reported the results.

This is a completely absurd non-sequiter.

“Even if the numbers are inflated by 100%…” is a logically fallacious statement designed to give the appearance of sensibility… but there’s no rational reason to believe that 100% is reasonable.

Suppose I said, “A billion christians want to murder babies.” and you said, “that’s not likely to be true.”
Then I followed up with, “Oh, well even if that number is inflated by 100%, it’s still 500 million Christians who want to murder babies!”

It’s akin to statements made by many islamophobes who say, “Even if only 1% of muslims are terrorists, that’s still a hundred million terrorists!” The reality is that way, way, way less than 1% of muslims are terrorists.

2915

Just so we’re clear, you’re equating what someone says on the internet with published research?

2916

How on Earth would they account for that? If you answer this poll honestly, you might wind up in prison or dead, oh and probably a lot of people you love too. I think you need to step back for a minute and just think about what you’re saying.

2917

But the published research is inherently flawed due to the fairly authoritarian nature of the places in which it was captured.

2918

So because we don’t know how they would accurately poll, the results must be wrong? k.

Citation needed.

2919

Citation: your brain

2920

I honestly thought you were better than that. “This conflict with my world view, so it must be wrong.”

2921

Seriously dude, there is no citation needed.
If you live in an authoritarian regime where espousing certain ideas can lead to imprisonment or death for your family, then that fact is going to suppress those views in any poll.

No citation is needed for this. It’s obvious on its face.

And really, the data itself that you cite supports this, because the poll data differs dramatically based on the country with the poll data.

2922

Jews moved around and often paid for being Jewish by being the goat or outcast. I don’t know much about the Hindu religion but I think it developed alongside other long standing beliefs. Islam is actually the new kid on the block, and while now dominant in the middle east it was in areas controlled by the British or French since WW1.

I think you can say the same thing about the basic tenants of Christianity, however both have developed concepts designed to control women and the culture.

2923

The idea that my opposition to bigotry and defence of human rights makes me a bigot is not insulting, because its so obviously silly, but it does show you havent read what I posted. I invite you to think on that if you care to.

2924

I’m glad you appear to agree with me that globally islam has become part of a reactionary system of control and this is a serious problem.

2925

Every religion is used to oppress and do bad things. That doesn’t mean religion is oppressive and evil. Rather, the people who use it that way are.

The issue myself and I suspect others have with “Islam is ___ in the world” is that it’s both a gross oversimplification and it points the finger of blame at the faith rather than the bad actors, even if unintentionally.

So no, Islam has not become part of a reactionary system of control. Rather, reactionary systems of control are using any and every tool at their disposal, which includes religion. There is no “Islam problem,” it’s rather an issue of evil, twisted people misusing Islam (and Christianity, etc.). Why does this semantic BS matter? (and to be clear, ~IT IS~ semantic BS). Because when phrased the other way around, it feeds the mechanism the evil people are relying upon.

2926

You claimed that the state of modern islam was explained by them being uniquely “dominated by others” in “modern history” (i.e. 1500ish - 2000ish according to wikipedia).

Your claim is factually incorrect, and beyond that you’ve provided no evidence as to why islam should have evolved differently from other religions that were also “dominated by others” in the post WW1 timeframe.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, but it’s really unclear to me:

  • Whether Islam post Ottoman empire genuinely became more reactionary.
  • If this happened, what the primary causes were.

EDIT: When I say “it’s unclear” what I mean is I’d like to find out more, not that I think it’s nonsense.)

2927

Fair point. Feel free to provide your preferred wording. But my point is the main thrust here is to silence anything that might be described as bigotry - there appears to be no interest in talking about the actual problem. And this isn’t a phenomenon isolated to QT3. So people who think there is a problem end up listening to scumbags like Hannity (RERAIL YEAH!)

2928

No. You need to think about what you think they can actually do. Surveys have room for error, but that can only do so much. This is an extreme situation, and no, they’re not going to be able to statistically accommodate that. Just think about it for a minute. How much would you be willing to risk to answer a survey? And you pointed out yourself how the power structures there are terrible and lethal. You can’t have it both ways, you can’t say these countries are run by awful lethal powers but yeah the citizens can trust authority.

2929

Obviously the Ottoman empire, whether it was viewed positively or negatively by Europeans, Arabs and Africans in the regions it dominated, protected Sunni worship throughout a very wide area up until the early 20th century.

2930

Feels like this religious discussion has lasted long enough to deserve its own thread. I’m sure Fox News will have more insanity any moment now that’ll need to be discussed!

2931

Nicely said. And I agree. I have read about the history of Islam and the middle east but I will admit my knowledge of other world religions (and regions) is probably lacking.

And I agree with whoever up thread mentioned the creation of Israel as a catalyst to what has become of the west’s views of middle eastern Islam.

2932

You didn’t read the article. “This conflicts with my worldview so it must be wrong.”

The research is accurate. If you read the article, you’ll find out why.