Has bestiality been noticeably prevalent among Muslim / Middle East people and for how long?
Question is put on hold with the following explanation:
"The primary purpose of this question appears to be to promote or discredit a specific idea, theory, cause, group or person. It does not appear to be a good-faith effort to learn more about history as defined in the help centre."
Why is that so?
"promote or discredit" – NO. I am not promoting the notion that bestiality is prevalent there. I am asking if the notion is grounded in reality. I do not believe that asking if X is grounded in reality automatically mean promoting X.
"as defined in the help centre" – As per the help centre it is on-topic to ask about "cultures and historical practices". So I'm doing.
I got linked to the answer below Are questions on racial stereotypes in the US on-topic? . From this answer:
""What spurred racial stereotypes?", history is probably not the right forum. Humans are prejudiced; throughout time and space, humans have displayed a remarkably consistent ability to find something hateful about other humans. If you want to understand that, psychology or sociology or theology is more likely to have answers; asking a historian why humans hate is a bit like asking why they are bipedal or mammalian.
I am not asking what spurred this stereotype apart from whether this stereotype is grounded in reality. I am not asking why did people of the past / do people of the present hate Muslim / Middle East world.
Similarly, "How were they rationalized?" is not a historical question.
I am completely not asking about this.
Yes, there probably are questions about racial stereotypes that can be answered with historical sources and methods
I believe it can be answered with historical sources and methods if the practice has been prevalent there and for how long. If there is insufficient data to determine this, then this fact will constitute a valid answer.
But I ask you to be very careful to structure the question so that it is precise, answerable through historical sources and methods, and that the probability of learning is greater than the probability of offense.
I believe my question is objective and precise. I also believe that StackExchange's standards are high enough that this question will not become a haven for trolls and haters.
I do not understand how am I running afoul this site's rules.
Many people in the comments mentioned that I was insulting and offensive. I do not believe that an objective, fact-based discussion about stereotypes alleging particular embarrassing practices to a certain group is automatically insulting or offensive. I do not believe that the existence of such stereotypes necessities precluding an objective, fact-based discussion about their alleged grounds in reality. Instead, I believe that the alleged truthfulness of such stereotypes ought to be objectively discussed – If it can be found and proven that these stereotypes are groundless, then such a discussion can only be beneficial to the offended group; should however these stereotypes be found truthful, then unfortunately the notably high prevalence of bestiality among a particular group is an encyclopedic and notable fact that should be noted objectively, neutrally and in a non-hateful way – since representing reality is not offensive by itself, however sad and undesirable this reality might be. Rather, representing reality is both a purpose and a duty of science.
If however I, unintentionally, worded the question in a less-than-perfect way that can be perceived as insulting, I am open to any suggestions how to word it in a more objective and neutral way. I tried to reword it according to Semaphore's suggestions; a problem that remains is that the word "prevalence" has been perceived as insulting – I don't understand this, I thought this was a precise and neutral term frequently used in research, if I was wrong then I'm sorry and again, I'm open to any suggestions how to improve this.
But if my question is fundamentally off-topic and cannot be fixed by rewording it – then please explain why, because I really don't get why.
the word "prevalence" has been perceived as insulting – I don't understand this, I thought this was a precise and neutral term(1) You didn't say prevalence, you said "noticeably prevalent". That implies Muslims widely engage in bestiality, a trivially absurd claim that I immediately perceived to be offensive. (2) Further, there is nothing precise about "prevalent". (3) However, the reason I suggested asking "Is there any truth to this" instead is because that distances yourself from the claim. When dealing with offensive claims, it is best to avoid repeating it in your own words.