@benk

Wel that part that was true is that it is considered "unholy" or rather less holy, to translate the quran.

@mur2501 @trinsec

@freemo @mur2501 @trinsec Maybe a language barrier here, but "unholy" seems like the least true part of the statement. Translation of the Qur'an was never discouraged, but rather in the old tradition Muslims were encouraged to study and learn, which entailed "explaining" the Qur'an, also known as tafsir or exegesis. Early Muslims always translated the Qur'an, apparently regarding it as a righteous act.

@benk
Also being unholy or holy is not the point here.
The point is what if people would be able to read Quran, do Wadu and Namaz in whichever language they speak everyday?
@freemo @trinsec

@mur2501 @freemo @trinsec Regarding ritual prayer (namaz/salah) you've hit on an interesting and potentially complicated topic. As you correctly observed, Muslims according to tradition recite the ritual part of the prayer in Arabic. To complicate matters I think there are some Muslim sects that recite them in their own language or allow it to be done, but we can just say this is uncommon and the majority opinion is that the Arabic recitation is part of the prayer itself. I guess the point is that it serves as a universal standard so all Muslims in the world can pray together in the same way. It's worth pointing out that aside from the basic ritual prayer, any free-form aspect (what they call "dua" or supplication) of prayer can be done in any language.

@benk

I personally dont see the adherence to arabic a bad thing so long as a person is allowed to use their native language as a stepping stone, particularly if adopting the religion later in life.

My impression has been that while the Arabic language is strongly prefered and generally seen as the only way to really understand or be part of the religion at all, translations are acceptable as a stepping stone. Most muslims seem to think even a partial effort is better than no effort.

@mur2501 @trinsec

@benk

Quote from wikipedia with source:

Because Muslims revere the Qurʻan as miraculous and inimitable (iʻjaz al-Qurʻan), they argue that the Qurʻanic text should not be isolated from its true form to another language or written form, at least not without keeping the Arabic text with it. Furthermore, an Arabic word, like a Hebrew or Aramaic word, may have a range of meanings depending on the context – a feature present in all Semitic languages, when compared to English, Latin, and Romance languages – making an accurate translation even more difficult.[1]

Fatani, Afnan (2006). "Translation and the Qurʻan". In Leaman, Oliver (ed.). The Qurʻan: an encyclopaedia. Great Britain: Routledge. pp. 657–669.

@mur2501 @trinsec

@freemo @mur2501 @trinsec I think I do understand what you're saying, about how the original words of the Qur'an are considered "holy" but translations are not sacred in and of themselves. Perhaps "unholy" is just too strongly negative because it has some implications in English of being the opposite of holy, like evil or satanic. (Of course, I'm sure you didn't mean that!)

@benk

Agreed it may not have been the best word choice, but you get the idea.

@mur2501 @trinsec

@freemo @mur2501 @trinsec By the way I found the discussion about the Enlightenment and science to be interesting. I kind of have a different opinion that lines up a lot with what Trinsec said about Muslim countries being stuck in political dysfunction. The historical background is very long and complicated but as you probably noticed most Muslim countries today have become weak, impoverished, and unstable. This comes with intractable societal dysfunction, despotic and corrupt governments, and so on. *It's very tempting* when your country is prosperous and nice to go down that path of, "We're doing so great because we have the best culture, religion, way of thinking, etc." It's like when rich people say to themselves they are rich because they're just the best people, and poor people are poor because they're bad. I tend to avoid thinking that the success or failure of countries rests on whether or not "Islam" itself is good, or our success is because "we did religion right" / "because we're atheist" / "because we correctly understood Christianity". These rationalizations always come after the fact.

To me the Enlightenment as a concept popularized in European historiography, to what extent it was a real phenomenon, cannot be universalized and is just something unique to European society. I'm not sure people outside of Europe can really relate to the conditions or thinking that bring about this concept. (Did Europeans even relate? Or were so-called Enlightment thinkers always a privileged, minority voice in a broader society that didn't relate to them?) For one thing it relies on a belief that religion and science are opposing forces. If you mistakenly tried to project these ideas onto Muslim societies or histories you would make a few wrong assumptions like, "Muslims were less religious back when they were having their scientific golden age; now they've traded science for religion." Actually a lot of these scientific scholarly dudes 1000 years ago in the Muslim world who were advancing mathematics and medicine were also reading and writing books on theology and religious philosophy urging orthodox Islamic piety. That's just how they looked at the world back then.

But yeah I would say the single thing most Muslim countries need now more than anything is education. I wouldn't say their religion is bad or good, because whether they pray in Arabic or wear certain clothes or practice sobriety is all well and good, BUT it's the higher-level functions that need reform. (I argue this transcends mere religion.) More information and a broader worldview will help them to make the right choices. I think we're seeing this more and more now with the sudden rise of education and connectedness in the Muslim world. (Just look at Internet usage.) It's true these countries lagged behind in modernization; they suffered several major shocks in the 20th century. Things are predictably rocky, but they'll smooth out soon. A bit more stability in their lives and having their basic material needs met will help a lot of people to chill out.

@benk

What country isnt stuck in politicial dysfunction. The USA feels like a mental hospital right now and they are more anti-muslim than they are pro by the looks of it.

@mur2501 @trinsec

@freemo @mur2501 @trinsec Yep we all have our problems. As an American myself, I don't know what country this is... it isn't the America I thought I was growing up in.

@benk@pleroma.tilde.zone @freemo @mur2501 @trinsec
Very interesting conversation. I very much echo @benk@tilde.zone 's remark about how easy it is to get into "we are doing better therefore we are inherently better" and that Elightenment was the key to our current successes. To support that point, let's inspect some real historical facts in a sequence:
1. the peak period of the Islamic science achievements was [High Middle Ages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Middle_Ages). Se [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world#Significance) and [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_world_contributions_to_Medieval_Europe). That is, the peak time of scientific and cultural expansion was between 1000-1500 AD.
2. the peak of [Ottoman empire](https://www.britannica.com/place/Ottoman-Empire/The-peak-of-Ottoman-power-1481-1566) millitary expansion was betwen 1481-1566 and their dominance/power was projected till 17th and 18th centuries. To achieve that, they had to show a significant technological superiority. That points to a significant technological and scientific capacigty and exploitation thereof.
3. Gutenberg invented the [printing press](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press) around 1400. This is perhaps the single most important lasting invention spanning technology, society and politics till today. Behind this invention lie all the small technological and political innovations facilitating the press (think the monopoly on written word moving from the Church to citizens)
4. Columbus "discovered" Americas 1492-1504 during the [Age of Discovery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Discovery), arguably the pinnacle point of technological advancement of that time. Underpinning the voyages, there were numerous smaller technological, societal and political innovations necessary in the period before.
5. [Reformation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation) came about to its full force in 1517 with Martin Luther.
6. [Age of Enlightenment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment) came only in late 17th and 18th centuries.

This shows that:
1. muslim Ottoman empire did not quickly lose a capability to exploit science and technological innovations after the peak cultural and scientific expansion. The decline was very gradual. As the religion was well established by then, apparently the correlation between its success (as in driving force of military expansion, etc.) and its strictness is not clear.
2. European started their to exercise and exploit their technological and scientific capabilities way before the age of Enlightenment and Enlightenment (whatever exactly it meant to the contemporaries) has little to do with the vast technological expansion which happened independently already before.
3. the big political and societal upheaval of reformation came _after_ many significant technological advances unlocking European expansion were already in place.

What I am trying to say in so many words is this: it seems to me that scientific/technological/military advances and exploitations seem to be rather weakly correlated with cultural and political "revolutions/awakenings". Based on that, I would be quite suspicious to say that Muslim countries struggle in the recent centuries in the realm of science _because_ of their religion. I'd argue, they seem to be rather independent and it is something else which caused the decline. And in reverse, I personally wouldn't look at reforming the religion in order to unlock and boost technological & scientific developments either.

But again, I am just an amateur historian and a very inconsequential policy maker, so what do I know :-).

@benk

Very well said, I would also add
one of the factors that slowed Muslims nations development is that the international monetary system isn't compatible with Islamic finance doctrine, especially the usury (making money, lending money).In a verse from the Quran, people who engage in this practice are actively waging war against God.(That's how bad its perceived).

[Quran 2:276-280] God condemns usury, and blesses charities. God dislikes every disbeliever, guilty. O you who believe, you shall observe God and refrain from all kinds of usury, if you are believers. If you do not, then expect a war from God and His messenger. But if you repent, you may keep your capitals, without inflicting injustice, or incurring injustice. If the debtor is unable to pay, wait for a better time. If you give up the loan as a charity, it would be better for you, if you only knew.

There is considerable development in last decade in Islamic finance to make it compatible with international finance, so that might bring capital to those nations to invest in education, Infrastructure and manufacturing which should instate stability.

One of the factors that accelerated the western nations development, especially in the last century is the invention of fiat money and the infinite money printing.

@freemo @mur2501 @trinsec

@benk
On what basis?
@freemo @trinsec