Would you delete a copy of the Koran?

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The reason for reading the Koran is the same as the reason for reading the Bible - it gives you an understanding of the societies that base their cultural mores on that particular religious text. Regardless of whether one regards the Bible as having any spiritual meaning, its teaching underpin western society, and the same is true of the Koran and middle Eastern society. You cannot truly understand those societies without a knowledge of the foundation on which they are built.

I'm not sure about the last sentence with regard to various religious texts. Societies reinterpret texts to suit their circumstances - the influence of a text on society seems debatable to me.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I'm not sure about the last sentence with regard to various religious texts. Societies reinterpret texts to suit their circumstances - the influence of a text on society seems debatable to me.

Exactly.

[ellimak]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

I'm not sure I agree with you, if I understand you correctly. You do need context to understand what the writers of the Bible of Quran meant. But it won't tell you what their followers read in them. It seems to me that many Christian beliefs are based on late inventions or wacky "interpretations" of the original texts.

Frankly, if you are a Westerner, there are a lot of things in the Qur'an which simply aren't going to make sense if you don't have some knowledge about pre-Islamic Arabia. For example, you won't have an understanding of the idioms used, you won't understand how the split between Sunni and Shi'a happened, and you won't know the importance of the spoken word to this culture (which is important to understanding how Islam spread and why there are still Qur'an recitation contests to this day). I could go on about these kinds of things for pages and pages.

The point I'm trying to make is, without a context or interpretation (tafsir or tawil, both of which are still relevant to modern practice and belief), a non-Muslim reader is likely to misunderstand and therefore misjudge the tradition. Interpretations don't come from nowhere. In fact, I would say that when it seems a belief is based on a late invention or a wacky interpretation, as you say, it is all the more important to do the work of uncovering its origins through context and exegesis. Of course, all of this would only be interesting to someone who truly wanted to take a good look at Islam and form her opinions fairly.

I am so fed up with all these faux-Islamists and faux-terrorism experts that have come out of the woodwork in the last nine years. If you want to learn about Islam and you want to learn it right, please read the Qur'an and some exegesis and a history of pre-Islamic Arabia, not some book you saw at Borders for $7.99 by a crackpot promising to tell you how 9-11 happened. (I'm not saying anyone here has done this, by the way. I'm just taking the time to unleash a much-needed rant.)

[ellimak]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I'm not sure about the last sentence with regard to various religious texts. Societies reinterpret texts to suit their circumstances - the influence of a text on society seems debatable to me.

Well, people throughout the Muslim world (not just the Middle East, but Africa and Southeast Asia too) recite large chunks of the Qur'an every day. Many Muslims have the entire text memorized by the time they are 10 or 11, if not earlier. I'd say that fact alone demonstrates an extraordinary influence of the text on society.

[astra]

Originally Posted by ellimak

Well, people throughout the Muslim world (not just the Middle East, but Africa and Southeast Asia too) recite large chunks of the Qur'an every day. Many Muslims have the entire text memorized by the time they are 10 or 11, if not earlier. I'd say that fact alone demonstrates an extraordinary influence of the text on society.

Then how do they manage to misinterpret it all the time?

[ellimak]

Originally Posted by astra

Then how do they manage to misinterpret it all the time?

Who is this "they" you're talking about? I don't think I need to get into the whole us/them dichotomy to let you know that this is getting into dangerous territory. Let's not go there.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by astra

Then how do they manage to misinterpret it all the time?

Because interpretation is a matter of interpretation?

Look at all the sub-sub-sub sects of Christianity, and how most of them think that theirs is the one who has things right and all the others are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._denominations

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by ellimak

Frankly, if you are a Westerner, there are a lot of things in the Qur'an which simply aren't going to make sense if you don't have some knowledge about pre-Islamic Arabia. For example, you won't have an understanding of the idioms used, you won't understand how the split between Sunni and Shi'a happened, and you won't know the importance of the spoken word to this culture (which is important to understanding how Islam spread and why there are still Qur'an recitation contests to this day). I could go on about these kinds of things for pages and pages.

Yes, that is a longer and more detailed version of what I said: you need information about the context in order to understand the text. What I doubt is that understanding the text itself will give you much insight into the beliefs of the people whose religion is supposed to be based on that text.

Originally Posted by ellimak

The point I'm trying to make is, without a context or interpretation (tafsir or tawil, both of which are still relevant to modern practice and belief), a non-Muslim reader is likely to misunderstand and therefore misjudge the tradition. Interpretations don't come from nowhere. In fact, I would say that when it seems a belief is based on a late invention or a wacky interpretation, as you say, it is all the more important to do the work of uncovering its origins through context and exegesis.

No, they don't. For example, the interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve as a sign or a proof that sex is a sin was born from the history and culture of Western civilization in the middle ages. However, I very much doubt that someone with no previous knowledge of that myth and of the Western civilization would come to that conclusion just by reading the original text.

Originally Posted by ellimak

Of course, all of this would only be interesting to someone who truly wanted to take a good look at Islam and form her opinions fairly.

I can't pretend that I am interested in that, and I also don't pretend to judge Islam, just as I am not interested in judging Christianity, if such entities can be said to exist. If I was, I would certainly read those texts, but I would not fool myself that even a complete understanding of the texts, even with the correct historical context, would put me in a position to fully understand contemporary Islam.

But how does my interest, or lack thereof, in Islam invalidate my opinion that religious beliefs are only loosely related to their founding texts, and that those founding texts are tools that tend to be selectively used to give weight to beliefs that originated elsewhere, through a very complex historical and social process?

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The reason for reading the Koran is the same as the reason for reading the Bible - it gives you an understanding of the societies that base their cultural mores on that particular religious text. Regardless of whether one regards the Bible as having any spiritual meaning, its teaching underpin western society, and the same is true of the Koran and middle Eastern society. You cannot truly understand those societies without a knowledge of the foundation on which they are built.

Harry, how does reading the Book of Mormon give me any insight into the United States' cutlural mores? And which version of the new testament unpins Britain's and Frances cultural mores, let alone Russia's.

I'm not opposed to one reading bibles and other religious texts, but with the number of interpretative texts that call themselves the bible, it is impossible to know which "truth" really underpins society today or society of 350 years ago. The christian version, like versions from other religions, has undergone numerous rewritings and interpretations. Consider that the King James version was written by committee and subject to compromise, so how does it underpin the mores of society today?

As for the foundations of the societies, perhaps it might work if we narrow society down to the small village or tribe, but I think it loses a relevance when we talk nations.

[ellimak]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

But how does my interest, or lack thereof, in Islam invalidate my opinion that religious beliefs are only loosely related to their founding texts, and that those founding texts are tools that tend to be selectively used to give weight to beliefs that originated elsewhere, through a very complex historical and social process?

Well, that's just it, isn't it? Not knowing the text means that you may not see all the ways that the text directly influenced and continues to influence the society. And the Qur'an is not the only religious text that Muslims refer to. The hadith (accounts of things that Muhammad said or did) is also important to Muslim practice. The Qur'an, hadith, and tafsir all come together to inform Muslim practice. Are there some practices that did not come strictly from these three sources? Sure. But to say that the relationship between the belief of a Muslim and the Qur'an is only "loose" is to demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of the Islamic tradition and the way Muslims practice today. With Christianity, your argument is more valid. Islam, however, is entirely different.

Anyway, I think you and I might just be destined to disagree on this issue. For what it's worth, I've really enjoyed this entire conversation. Even if people aren't interested in getting to know more about Islam or any other tradition, I think it's great that we're all talking about it in one way or another.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by rhadin

The christian version, like versions from other religions, has undergone numerous rewritings and interpretations. Consider that the King James version was written by committee and subject to compromise, so how does it underpin the mores of society today?

Where I think Harry has a point is the Bible's teaching on the elevated place of humanity with regard to the rest of the animal kingdom.
That is still deeply ingrained in the world view of most Western people - even most atheists don't question the routine distinction between 'humans' and 'animals' inherited from Christianity (although, post-Darwin, it's akin to saying 'daffodils' aren't 'flowers').

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Where I think Harry has a point is the Bible's teaching on the elevated place of humanity with regard to the rest of the animal kingdom.
That is still deeply ingrained in the world view of most Western people - even most atheists don't question the routine distinction between 'humans' and 'animals' inherited from Christianity (although, post-Darwin, it's akin to saying 'daffodils' aren't 'flowers').

No, I actually didn't mean that at all. What I was meaning was that if you look at the history of western Europe for the last 1500 years or so, it has been extraordinarily affected by the mere existance of Christianity. A Europe without Christianity would be a very different Europe than the one we have today. The institutions of the Christian Church, religious wars, religious influence on legal frameworks, etc; all these have had a tremendous influence. If you were to look at western European history while knowing nothing at all about the corresponding history of Christianity, you'd have a much harder job trying to make sense of it all.

[Manichean]

Assuming you mean deleting it as a manner of demonstrating a viewpoint, no. Deleting it because I don't have the space/ don't want to read it anymore? Yes, as I don't value ebooks as highly as paper books in terms of, well, let's call it sentimental value.
Neither would I burn the paper books (I actually own both a very nice Qu'ran and a rather nice bible, but have read neither), neither as a demonstration nor because I want to be rid of them- but then again, I wouldn't burn any book I want to get rid of, I would give them away. (Hell, someone remember the last time a bunch of german people burnt books? That ended quite badly.)

[gollu]

Originally Posted by AprilHare

Would you delete a copy of the Koran from your liseuse?

I have no idea what a liseuse is(there seems to be mistake in the spelling) but my opinion is as follows:
Why in the first place would I want a digital copy of the Koran if I am to delete it lightheartedly? I don't have Koran e-book so I cannot delete it neither keep it.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, I actually didn't mean that at all. What I was meaning was that if you look at the history of western Europe for the last 1500 years or so, it has been extraordinarily affected by the mere existance of Christianity. A Europe without Christianity would be a very different Europe than the one we have today. The institutions of the Christian Church, religious wars, religious influence on legal frameworks, etc; all these have had a tremendous influence. If you were to look at western European history while knowing nothing at all about the corresponding history of Christianity, you'd have a much harder job trying to make sense of it all.

Harry, with this I agree. But to look at the history of Christianity one doesn't have to read a Christian bible. One can understand the Spanish Inquisition or the Children's Crusade without ever having opened a Bible. And we mustn't forget that many of the things done in the name of Christianity were really done in the name of unChristian greed and despotism, again not requiring one to have read the bible.