|
The problem with that argumentation is that it treats Muhammad like any other human being of his time. The question is why, of all the billions of people who have lived on this planet, someone chooses to follow the teachings of this exact one guy (which they do in 2015, not 700) when he did not live what you would consider a morally justifiable life.
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 13:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 04:04 |
|
|
You're doing a thing where you're expecting there to be an objective definition of a "morally justifiable life". Social moral standards shift and change, 10 years ago many of the people currently changing their Facebook profiles to rainbow-ized versions were calling people "faggots" and opposed to gay marriage. 25 years ago, "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was considered progressive by many. 50 years ago plenty of people thought "separate but equal" for blacks and whites was reasonable. What do you do, that is socially normal, that will be judged as immoral in the future? It's hard to know, and the standards are set by fickle people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
anchorpunch posted:Aisha, married her when she was six, slept with her when she was 9. Then stuff like approval of slavery or murdering of scoffers, misogyny etc.... Sure all religions have questionable aspects, but how do you, especially as you are a convert, deal with your prophets most obvious shortcomings? I've always viewed Muhammad as intensely human; it's like the story I mentioned about him being poo poo-scared as the revelations started and running to Khadija all freaked the gently caress out. The reaction is so incredibly human because let's be honest, if I started hearing voices from on high I'd probably run to my mom all "I think I'm going loving crazy." Muhammad was the recipient of revelations but that doesn't make him any less human or any less prone to doing things that I think are wrong. The problem is the mindset that we as Muslims have to remain at the point of marrying nine year old girls to consolidate power and alliances, or wage violent war like we're being hounded like the early Muslims were in Mecca, solely to try to spread religion and get power. It goes against the Qur'an at its most basic, one of the most famous lines is "there shall be no compulsion in religion" from 2:256. It comes down to this idea for me: If Allah showed Himself to not be afraid of making changes that bettered society, why are we so scared of it? If something is kinder, if something is better to people, if something more fully embraces the welcoming side of Islam that is so rarely shown especially in the West, if something allows us to more perfectly show Allah's mercy to ourselves and those around us, it should be encouraged and not denied simply because "Muhammad did it like this." A lot of this comes down to the Qur'anist viewpoint (which is further separated into literalism vs. other interpretations) vs. the Hadith and Sunna, and the question that even scholars back in the 820s had about whether people were clinging too close to Muhammad's practices and not close enough to what the Qur'an said. cebrail posted:The problem with that argumentation is that it treats Muhammad like any other human being of his time. The question is why, of all the billions of people who have lived on this planet, someone chooses to follow the teachings of this exact one guy (which they do in 2015, not 700) when he did not live what you would consider a morally justifiable life. ashgromnies posted:You're doing a thing where you're expecting there to be an objective definition of a "morally justifiable life".
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:You're doing a thing where you're expecting there to be an objective definition of a "morally justifiable life". No, I'm not. I'm presuming everyone in this thread does not consider slavery or having sex with 9 year olds morally justifiable. I'm also not talking about people following Muhammad 1000 or 50 years ago, I'm talking about people following him in 2015. Tendai posted:I didn't convert because of Muhammad. I converted because of the Qur'an and how it spoke to me. He was, and this is probably going to sound blasphemous as poo poo, simply the conduit through which it passed. As to why he was the one chosen for it, gently caress if I can answer that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Sunna seems to be a pretty central part of Islam to me? If it's not part of your belief then my question obviously doesn't apply to you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
cebrail posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Sunna seems to be a pretty central part of Islam to me? If it's not part of your belief then my question obviously doesn't apply to you. quote:A man came to the Prophet and said, ‘O Messenger of God! Who among the people is the most worthy of my good companionship? The Prophet said: Your mother. The man said, ‘Then who?’ The Prophet said: Then your mother. The man further asked, ‘Then who?’ The Prophet said: Then your mother. The man asked again, ‘Then who?’ The Prophet said: Then your father. (as relayed by al-Bukhari) Or Muhammad was just a proto-goon making the world's earliest "your mom" joke. There's even something that corresponds more or less to the "golden rule" idea: quote:"None of you will have faith till he wishes for his brother what he likes for himself." Others are used to oppress women, do violence to people, and keep Islam in the metaphorical dark ages. Like any parables, which are again as close as I can think of to them in the other Abrahamic religions, they can be used to justify almost anything. Even more so when you're looking at them in translation. For me it comes down to Allah being perfect, but humanity not being perfect. That's not a bad thing, it's one of our charms and like I've mentioned before, the journey to try to reach that perfection or connection with Allah is essentially the main part of many Sufi practices. I don't think there's a nefarious purpose behind the hadith and sunna but I do think they're the actions of humans, relayed by humans, many if not all of whom had reasons for backing their positions up with stories about the practices and sayings of Muhammad and the early Muslims. In short, they can have good lessons and good points, but should not be treated as infallible religious dogma because they are the actions of people who are by definition not perfect. EDIT: A few more often-ignored-by-extremists hadith/sunna that I've always liked: quote:"The most complete of the believers in faith, is the one with the best character. And the best of you are those who are best to their women." quote:Aishah reported that she accompanied the Prophet in a travel when she was still slim. The Prophet told people to move forward and then he asked Aishah to race with him. They had a race and Aishah won. quote:"A person who goes in search of knowledge, he is in the path of God and he remains so till he returns." quote:"Facilitate things to people, do not make it hard for them; give them good tidings and do not make them run away." quote:"If you see a disputing, arrogant, and bigoted person, bear in mind that they are utterly lost." --- AND another edit because I just thought of this and people in here know things and might have the answer: In Islam, the search for knowledge is an obligation according to many scholars. It's pointed out in the Qur'an, it's pointed out in the hadith, it's basically a pretty unshakable tenet of the faith. In a lot of writings about it there's the implication that one isn't truly faithful unless they're trying to seek knowledge, and somebody who is, is seen as being a fuller practitioner of the faith: "A person setting forth for the acquisition of knowledge is like the one who struggles in the way of Allah." So my question is, is that onus applied in Christianity and Judaism as well? Obviously knowledge is a good thing, but the explicit nature of "learn about things and know things, shitlords, or you're not being as good a Muslim as you should" in Islam isn't something I remember from reading the Bible or what I've read about Judaism. I'm curious as to whether it's considered as essential a part of being a "good" member of the religion as it is in Islam. Tendai fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Oct 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Thank you for excellent replies. I've wanted to ask a few of these before, but whenever I ask muslims in real life they answer with some version of "You plan to convert, right?  No? Then why do you want to know?  " I can see where they are coming from, but it makes it easier to simply not ask. On to my new questions! Hadith. Can you translate them to modern day? Say there was a hadith going something like "The Prophet told his friend so-and-so to let his wife keep her camel so she had a way to visit her aging grandfather". Could someone use this to argue that muslim women should be allowed a car since cars fill the roles of camels today? (I totally made up this example, hope that is OK) Food. I know some animals are absolutely forbidden, like pigs. But what about animals no one in Arabia knew about in the 600s? Reindeer, kangaroo, bison, etc. Are they automatically legal food since they are not specifically forbidden? At least if they are correctly slaughtered?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Tendai posted:I didn't convert because of Muhammad. I converted because of the Qur'an and how it spoke to me. He was, and this is probably going to sound blasphemous as poo poo, simply the conduit through which it passed. As to why he was the one chosen for it, gently caress if I can answer that. You aren't wrong, Muhammed is referred to as a Messenger as opposed to prophet (rasul vs nabi) its an interesting point because you arent supposed to emulate him but rather follow the message that is delivered.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
BattyKiara posted:Thank you for excellent replies. I've wanted to ask a few of these before, but whenever I ask muslims in real life they answer with some version of "You plan to convert, right? BattyKiara posted:On to my new questions! Hadith. Can you translate them to modern day? Say there was a hadith going something like "The Prophet told his friend so-and-so to let his wife keep her camel so she had a way to visit her aging grandfather". Could someone use this to argue that muslim women should be allowed a car since cars fill the roles of camels today? (I totally made up this example, hope that is OK) The problem remains the same as it is everywhere -- there are so many of them, and there are so many ways to interpret them in terms of the literal translation and then the larger meaning. So how it's applied to modern life depends on your branch of Islam, your sect, your culture, your personal views, and all that kind of thing. BattyKiara posted:Food. I know some animals are absolutely forbidden, like pigs. But what about animals no one in Arabia knew about in the 600s? Reindeer, kangaroo, bison, etc. Are they automatically legal food since they are not specifically forbidden? At least if they are correctly slaughtered? I follow roughly this idea, this is a simplification but it'll give you the basics: "Don't eat reptiles/amphibians, carnivores like lions or hawks, canines, primates, pigs or carrion-eaters. If you aren't sure, try to figure it out." None of those were particularly hard to give up at 15 or 16, I grew up in an Alaskan fishing town and we ate a lot of seafood more than meat. And I'm not particularly interested in eating lions or gorillas. The only thing I can really think that I kind of miss are bacon/lettuce/tomato sandwiches on home-made sourdough bread. While I can find decent halal pepperoni, I have yet to find anything that has the same bacony-ness in that sandwich. Here is a list of halal/haram foods according to the Hanafi school for an example of how incredibly specific it can be. They don't allow shellfish, others say just about anything from the sea is okay so long as it doesn't fit into a specifically-haram category. Then the arguing about how to interpret the category starts. This thread has made me realize that at times Islam is less a religion and more a very sustained argument  Fizzil posted:You aren't wrong, Muhammed is referred to as a Messenger as opposed to prophet (rasul vs nabi) its an interesting point because you arent supposed to emulate him but rather follow the message that is delivered. Tendai fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Oct 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
cebrail posted:No, I'm not. I'm presuming everyone in this thread does not consider slavery or having sex with 9 year olds morally justifiable. I'm also not talking about people following Muhammad 1000 or 50 years ago, I'm talking about people following him in 2015. I don't get your angle. You're confused at how people can take historical context into account, and say, "we like THESE ideas this person had, but not these other ones any more because we've moved beyond that societally"? You think there should be prophets of every moral era, to match the standards of the time? I'm not sure what your argument is any more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:I don't get your angle. You're confused at how people can take historical context into account, and say, "we like THESE ideas this person had, but not these other ones any more because we've moved beyond that societally"? You think there should be prophets of every moral era, to match the standards of the time? I'm not sure what your argument is any more. No. My point is that, as far as I know, Muslims are supposed to emulate Muhammads life (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunnah). My questions was how someone in 2015, who doesn't consider that life justifiable by their own standard, would willingly decide to do that. I'm not talking about how to judge the actions of people 1300 years ago, I'm asking why someone would, in 2015, decide that the life of one of them should be the standard of moral living. Of course it's fine to say "we like THESE ideas this person had, but not these other ones any more because we've moved beyond that societally" but that, as far as I know, would not be considered Islam by any major religious faction. That last part could be totally wrong, which is why I was asking it in the first place. Peggotty fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Oct 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
cebrail posted:Of course it's fine to say "we like THESE ideas this person had, but not these other ones any more because we've moved beyond that societally" but that, as far as I know, would not be considered Islam by any major religious faction. That last part could be totally wrong, which is why I was asking it in the first place.  Like I commented previously in this thread, Sunni and Shi'a have any number of sunna and hadith that one group will consider valid and another won't, often because they dispute the reliability of this or that narrator. There are something like ten thousand hadith, not even counting the sunna, in Sunni theology alone. Some of these the Shi'a agree on, some they don't. From what I know, Shi'a are more likely to be generally distrustful of them because they have doubts about any collection or recording done by men, who are inherently fallible, being sahih. Sahih is a term I only know of in relation to studying the hadith, I've always seen it translated as "authentic" but it also carries connotations of being honest and other trustworthy characteristics in the sense of referring to the hadith and the people who recorded them and/or passed them down. There are strict Qur'anists who disregard the entirety of the hadith and sunna. The ones I've met have also tended to be pretty strict Qur'anic literalists which doesn't so much jive with how I think, so I don't consider myself an expert on the thought. There is always going to be a difference of opinion, and there isn't a black and white as to how they should be used either. It wasn't long after Muhammad died that Muslim scholars were having doubts about using them as dogma, this isn't a particularly new phenomenon. Like I said before, interpreting them for the passing of time is another area that's pretty much impossible to standardize as "this is what most Muslims believe" because there are too many people interpreting the meaning of too many things.  inevitable edit goes below Looking back at my first post, I may have given the impression that I identify more with the strict Qur'anists than I actually do. I'm not a strict purist; rather, I disagree with the use of the hadith/sunna as infallible guides for Proper Muslim Life rather than stories which may or may not have good lessons to them. In my mind is always the thought that Muhammad and the people around him were speaking to people of that time, not this one, and while some ideas are timeless like some of the hadith I posted earlier, other things are not. Tendai fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Oct 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Hey there, OP. I don't really have a question, I just thought you'd like to know (if you didn't already) that the first purpose-built mosque in Alaska is nearly complete. Maybe you'd be interested in checking it out if you're ever back in Anchorage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
comaerror posted:Hey there, OP. I don't really have a question, I just thought you'd like to know (if you didn't already) that the first purpose-built mosque in Alaska is nearly complete.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
Tendai posted:Yes. The vast majority of Muslims accept at least some of the hadith/sunna. And to be honest, I don't totally disregard them. Some of them are quite beautiful and espouse a message that I think fits with the merciful interpretation if Islam: Not much of a question but here we go. I think we have to remember that the hadith began being written or collected into volumes nearly 200 years later. Naturally even the "Sahih" (Authenticated chain of narration (isnad)) will not be precise and differs from each other in the same volume or even between volumes from other Imams. It is the reason why the Qur'an (words of Allah) is the final authority on an issue and there is consensus (ijtihad) made among the scholars where the Qur'an doesn't directly address an issue of Shariah.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 08:47
|
|
|
PT6A posted:In your opinion, do you feel like "Saudi Arabia is loving crazy" is a sufficient excuse to not do the Hajj? Obviously it's a matter of personal conscience, but given the disasters that have happened this year, and in other years, and the fact that Saudi Arabia observes a particularly hard-line version of Islam as compared to many of the Muslims in the rest of the world, I think I'd still have reservations about going there even if I were an observant Muslim. Im concerned about going anywhere in the middle east atmo. Rather not become cattle for the ISIS slaughter while trying to do something good and decent. I have a family that depends on me. As far as apostasy, only one thing makes one become a Muslim and violating that one thing takes you out. There is no justification in Islam for someone to be killed for it. That is the First Pillar of Islam. Extremists suck. The Prophet Muhammad said, "Religion is very easy and whoever overburdens himself in his religion will not be able to continue in that way. So you should not be extremists, but try to be near to perfection and receive the good tidings that you will be rewarded." Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 38 Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 09:01 on Oct 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 08:58
|
|
|
The way I've always seen the Hadith is like unofficial tie-in novels to a movie. Some of them might be pretty good, but a lot of them are probably bad and nobody'll really agree whether or not they're canon because the person who wrote the movie is dead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 11:38
|
|
|
Amun Khonsu posted:I think we have to remember that the hadith began being written or collected into volumes nearly 200 years later. Naturally even the "Sahih" (Authenticated chain of narration (isnad)) will not be precise and differs from each other in the same volume or even between volumes from other Imams. It is the reason why the Qur'an (words of Allah) is the final authority on an issue and there is consensus (ijtihad) made among the scholars where the Qur'an doesn't directly address an issue of Shariah. Amun Khonsu posted:Im concerned about going anywhere in the middle east atmo. Rather not become cattle for the ISIS slaughter while trying to do something good and decent. I have a family that depends on me.  And I mean, as optimistic as I am about having probably 50-60 years left to live, I'm doubtful that the entirety of the political/religious/economic/etc shitstorm there will be fixed by then.Even if you leave aside the Hadith, even the Qur'an itself explicitly states there is no compulsion in religion. And the first actual Muslim state gave political and other equality to people of other religion, if they're looking at real world examples of how it was lived. Ugh, it just makes me mad on top of how horribly loving depressing it is. Then they destroy historical sites and it's the cherry on the angry cake. Flagrant Abuse posted:The way I've always seen the Hadith is like unofficial tie-in novels to a movie. Some of them might be pretty good, but a lot of them are probably bad and nobody'll really agree whether or not they're canon because the person who wrote the movie is dead. I can't think of an equivalent in Christianity, is there one? Like, Lutherans don't go "Martin Luther did this according to someone who knew him and so we will do this through time eternal." This is not specifically directed at Flagrant Abuse but at anyone who happens to know. I think Jewish law tends to be a bit more like this in terms of arguments about authentication and historicity and applicable meaning but I've only read a couple books where it's more or less mentioned in passing so I could really be not understanding it right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
Tendai posted:I can't think of an equivalent in Christianity, is there one? Like, Lutherans don't go "Martin Luther did this according to someone who knew him and so we will do this through time eternal." This is not specifically directed at Flagrant Abuse but at anyone who happens to know. I think Jewish law tends to be a bit more like this in terms of arguments about authentication and historicity and applicable meaning but I've only read a couple books where it's more or less mentioned in passing so I could really be not understanding it right. I don't think there are any Christian figures whose observances come anywhere near the devotion of Mohammedan Muslims - but that would be a really good question for the Liturgial Christianity thread on the first page of this very subforum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
I wasn't sure if I should ask general Christianity questions in there since it was focused on one particular type but I think I shall! I never really thought about it until this thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Tendai posted:tarted getting deeper and deeper into it. I'm now 32 so it's been about 16 years and as with most things in life, my faith has evolved and changed. I've been reading the Quran and hadith for several years on and off and have been trying to learn more about Islam. Is being a "liberal muslim" even possible? What is your opinion on the penalty of Apostaste? I assume you may not agree with it. Not challenging you, just curious on your view of this topic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
(A preface/disclaimer: I am not a Muslim scholar and do not read Arabic. All my statements are based on readings of multiple translations of the Qur'an and other reading that I've done by people who are scholars/jurists/etc. Also, all the Qur'an translations are from the Yusuf Ali version in this post unless otherwise noted)Positive Optimyst posted:I've been reading the Quran and hadith for several years on and off and have been trying to learn more about Islam. I think that the idea of the death penalty for apostasy is a wrong opinion based almost solely on the hadith and sunna as well as an extremely loose interpretation of certain Qur'anic verses as well as taking them out of what many scholars consider to be their Qur'anic and historical context in the main case that I can think of, talked about below. Is it condemned? Yes, as in every religion that I'm aware about condemns it in one way or another. But the Qur'an very specifically leaves any possible punishment for it up to Allah, not to mankind: quote:Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty. (16:106) The assumption that things like this indicates that humanity should take up Allah's mantle is repugnant. As Fizzil said earlier, even Muhammad is called a messenger rather than the divinely-authoritative word prophet, and that isn't a translation error but a very specific thing that's a difference between two words. The idea that people like ISIS or any other group or person assumes they know just what Allah would do in that situation is beyond offensive to me and to many other Muslims. There are verses that do seem to indicate it but they are without exception (to my knowledge) verses that are interpreted by different people in different ways as to their meaning and intent: quote:They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. (4:80) It seems fairly overt but it's a pretty hotly contested topic. Conservatives who support the idea of death for apostates tend to isolate it and use it as an example of the Qur'an supporting the hadith and sunna. Other scholars, and these are the ones I tend to side with, tend to believe that in context with other verses and the historical association with what's being talked about, the verse is referring not to simple apostates but more specifically to people who leave Islam in order to side with people attacking them, either out of greed or cowardice, and who specifically take up arms against them. And the next verse seems to imply that as well by essentially saying "if they don't fight you, don't fight them.": quote:Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them). (4:90) I am unsure of the nuances of the translation from Arabic to English but my interpretation of this based on the translations I've read and my own study and a whole fuckload of thought is that "withdraw from you" means both ceasing to fight on your side and, as 4:89 specifies, leaving Islam. Most of all, in my eyes, the idea that anyone should be in any way penalized for their own personal choices when it comes to their faith or lack thereof is a conflict with the verse at 2:256, which in every translation I've ever read is essentially the same in stating that religion must be something that comes from the individual and not an outside force: quote:Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. I actually disagree with the death penalty in its entirety. This was an opinion I held before I converted and it's one that I feel is backed up Islamically-speaking by the multitude of verses that specifically give Allah alone the power of life and death. Much like I talked about above, people presuming to be the tool of Allah's will on Earth is beyond offensive, and to my mind presuming that you have the right to take the life of another is not only a matter of right and wrong but is, for me as a Muslim, a matter of not putting yourself on the same level as the creator you egotistical, grandiose fuckass (not you the person, the general you). We are imperfect. Even Muhammad wasn't perfect. The idea that we'd presume to justify having the institutional power to kill someone like we're all-knowing and all-seeing is ridiculous to me. That went on longer and got me more angried up (not at you but just in a vague, unfocused general sense) than I expected, so I'm sorry for the tl;dr rambling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
Tendai posted:
Only vaguely related, but the way the media reports on Islam rubs me the wrong way a lot of the time. They'll say things like, "Many Catholics oppose abortion," or "Jews have traditionally been required to avoid shellfish," or "The belief in reincarnation is widespread in Hindu areas," with standard journalistic weasel words. But with Islam it's "Islamic law requires women to wear headscarves," or"portraying Muhammad is blasphemous according to Islam," these very flat declarations portraying a monolithic belief system. This helps create a perception that a "moderate" Muslim is a Muslim who doesn't Muslim as hard as real rule-following Muslims do, as opposed to someone embracing and fully practicing a different but valid interpretation of Islam. It's not just right wing thing. Liberal outlets opposing, say, headscarf bans will operate from the same premise that these things are absolutely the hard and fast Rules of Islam, and differ only in how they feel about accommodating those Rules. This is all the perspective of a non-Muslim of course, but that's the impression I get.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Only vaguely related, but the way the media reports on Islam rubs me the wrong way a lot of the time. They'll say things like, "Many Catholics oppose abortion," or "Jews have traditionally been required to avoid shellfish," or "The belief in reincarnation is widespread in Hindu areas," with standard journalistic weasel words. But with Islam it's "Islamic law requires women to wear headscarves," or"portraying Muhammad is blasphemous according to Islam," these very flat declarations portraying a monolithic belief system. This helps create a perception that a "moderate" Muslim is a Muslim who doesn't Muslim as hard as real rule-following Muslims do, as opposed to someone embracing and fully practicing a different but valid interpretation of Islam. It's not just right wing thing. Liberal outlets opposing, say, headscarf bans will operate from the same premise that these things are absolutely the hard and fast Rules of Islam, and differ only in how they feel about accommodating those Rules. They're usually the same ones who say "BUT THE QUR'AN SAYS DEATH TO SO AND SO YOU CAN'T PICK AND CHOOSE" then hand-wave away things like Leviticus talking about killing gays because that's different somehow. Motherfucker, if you're going to say I have to be a literalist, you better be one yourself. I still won't be, but at least you won't be a hypocrite. Tendai fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Oct 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
Tendai posted:This is something I've started trying to talk about in posts in this thread a couple times but then had to just stop myself because I get so loving angry. And the people who do it are often people who will just ignore any statistics or facts you offer, point at people like the Taliban and say "that's how they do it so all Muslims do it." Even people who are the first ones to scream about logical fallacies. It's loving bizarre and consequently infuriating because with the majority of people I see who are like that, there is literally no way to change their mind. There is a level of belligerent ignorance that people engage in and I find that there are different types. One is those who are from "competing religions" who want to spread their message to the world. Second, is those who are involved in a political struggle for control of territory where Muslims live. Third, is anti-established religion sentiment. Im not suggesting that many muslims dont engage in this same dogma but I am identifying that there is a feeling of "competition" among some and as a result Islam is often misrepresented intentionally in order for those religions, political entities and social commentators to gain converts for their cause. The media has changed in modern times and is influenced by many of these kinds of commentators. It used to be that the media was nationalized or not-for-profit in much of the west. Today it is commercialized. That means there is a larger market for "clicks" on the TV channel or internet site from the viewers that made them successful and this will take priority, determining how they report. Its easy clickbait to report on the Taliban blowing up a school than to report on Muslim, Christian and Jewish interfaith cooperation to resolve differences, or to report on how Muslims are trying to integrate as positive members of society, etc. That said, it can be most easiy seend by watching the news and getting a report in 1 hour that is 90% shootings, rapes, robberies and tragedies in your local city, state or country. That is what holds people to the television, not positive story telling, which they sometimes do but not often enough. Most working class people might come home and watch the evening news for an hour or so, maybe hear tid bits during the day, but they dont have the time to sort through issues that dont concern them. So, what the media reports is directly reflected in a persons knowledge filtered through their preconceived prejudices. They make up their minds and thats where they stand. I spent a lot of time teaching on this topic with most people coming in with an idea of Islam that they saw on television and very hostile to it. What they believed is that Muslim countries are not modern, but deserts. Muslims were desert dwellers who the majority lived in the Middle East and all dressed like the Taliban. They were people who wanted to kill us in a grand scheme to take over the world by force. After they left the class their ideas had done a complete 180 degree turn around. The Muslim world did not fit the mould that they saw in Hollywood films or in the news. Shocker eh? On the internet its important to pick your fights and have patience for that one person that is intelligent and open minded enough to learn some facts and decide for himself. The rest are just lemmings leading each other in a delusion that they are comfortable remaining in, for now. I apologize for the WoT.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
Amon Khonzu, did you ever see the film called "Reel bad arabs"? About how Arabs in general, but especially muslims are stereotyped in Hollywood? If you have, any thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 14:13
|
|
|
Amun Khonsu posted:WoT (that I'm not quoting in full so people don't have to scroll over it but READ IT PEOPLE because he/she makes good points) I don't think there's any religion that doesn't engage in that sort of thing. I might think "This was my path and I think it's a good one but maybe others will find their own that I don't know about," but I think other Muslims, maybe most other Muslims (or any member of any religion that's more or less organized), have the idea in varying stages of intensity that their way is a better way than (insert religion here). Your comments on the media are spot on. Until I started studying the "big 3" western religions as a whole and focused in on Islam in particular, I won't deny that I was effected by them. I remember being ten or so and flying alone to see my dad in the Lower 48, and being really nervous because there were these Men In Turbans Talking In A Different Language and that was clearly shady and what if they bombed the plane. I'm still ashamed of that, even if I was a kid. Your last comment made me laugh, because I briefly became ~*big on twitter hashtags*~ a couple days ago in regards to the Oregon shooting and eventually made the rueful comment to my sister in regards to myself that "sometimes you have to step back and say to yourself, stop getting mad on the internet." It's frustrating when people are so closed-minded that they won't even listen, and my reaction is usually to keep shoving and throwing facts even as they clam up harder. Which is not entirely effective and just ends up getting me called a heartless terrorist by some random white dude on twitter, which was kind of hilarious to be honest. BattyKiara posted:Amon Khonzu, did you ever see the film called "Reel bad arabs"? About how Arabs in general, but especially muslims are stereotyped in Hollywood? If you have, any thoughts? EDIT: You weren't referring to Amon being Arab or not and I thought you were  I need to stop answering these before eight in the morning.
Tendai fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Oct 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
What do you know, it's on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKD3CnPJNOE
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Where I didn't even think to look because I'm a big dumb idiot. Thank you! Going to check that out today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
Yet another food question! More specifically Ramadan. No food or drink between sun up and sun down. Should be simple enough. But what if you are so far north It is virtually 24 hour night or 24 hour day. Not much point in fasting for 2 hours. And going more than 20 hours without water doesn't sound like a great idea either. So, is there a rule saying something like "If it is more than 20 hours daylight or nighttime, you follow the clock in Mecca" or anything like that? Same question for space flight. How would a muslim astronaut calculate things like fasting and prayer times?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
BattyKiara posted:Yet another food question! More specifically Ramadan. No food or drink between sun up and sun down. Should be simple enough. But what if you are so far north It is virtually 24 hour night or 24 hour day. Not much point in fasting for 2 hours. And going more than 20 hours without water doesn't sound like a great idea either. So, is there a rule saying something like "If it is more than 20 hours daylight or nighttime, you follow the clock in Mecca" or anything like that? There are generally two answers: One is to follow Mecca time, the other is to do a 12/12 split, from 8am to 8pm for example. There's not really one standard, I read about communities in like, far north Norway and the like using either one as they preferred, more in tune with how they had to work and function than either one being more right than the other. If I ever went back to Alaska or something like that I'd probably just do the 12/12. Not that Ramadan in the middle of the summer in the Lower 48 is particularly easy but it's not, you know, actual torture. I had no idea about what they might do for spaceflight and so I went looking. The first Muslim astronaut to go into space during Ramadan went up in 2007 so apparently a lot of other people had this question too. The general answers that various imams gave that I read just now were that he should either use the times of wherever he took off from, use Mecca time like mentioned above, or simply not do it since it's pretty clear in Islam that if you have some exceptional circumstance (illness, economic, whatever) you shouldn't fast if it'll hurt you. It sounds like he ended up following the times at Baikonur where they launched from. That's pretty cool, I'd never considered that and actually had no idea if any Muslims had been in space till now. EDIT: Aw he even packed food to share in an Eid party at the end  That's kind of awesome
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
BattyKiara posted:Amon Khonzu, did you ever see the film called "Reel bad arabs"? About how Arabs in general, but especially muslims are stereotyped in Hollywood? If you have, any thoughts? I had not seen it prior to it being mentioned here, but I just watched half of it in my free time. It is funny, I remember watching a lot of those old black and white movies as a child and growing up with similar views of Arabs, often confusing it for real culture and even the religion of Islam. Based on Hollywood films and soundbyte media reports, I used to hold these views growing up until I learned about the culture, religion and people. There are 2 main groups Hollywood historically dehumanises, Arabs and Native American Indians. Hollywood itself is perhaps not intentionally choosing scripts that dehumanize Arabs or Muslims, but the writer's guilds who put out these scripts are of a selection of people who hold these views and write according to their "preconceived" ideas and prejudices. Its more likely that Hollywood companies are choosing from the pool of scripts that they feel would make them the most money. Some anti-arab films that have very strong US patriotic sentiment sell very well, like Rules of Engagement, Argo (Americans often confuse Persian for Arab), American Sniper, etc. All very good films based on a true story, but very rarely is the deeper history that created the situation depicted in the film ever discussed, nor is there much focus on the positive contributions of Arabs in these conflicts. The viewer is often left with a deep sense of patriotism (a good thing) and a deep sense of hatred for the "enemy" (Arabs/Muslims). Another thing that isnt often discussed in these films, perhaps because there is no need to identify religion as it is assumed, is that not all Arabs are Muslims. There are Jewish, Arab, Zoastrian, Christian and other types of Arabs. Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 10:39 on Oct 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 10:36
|
|
|
What do you think about Islamists or "political Islam"? I mean specifically "the belief that Islam should guide social and political as well as personal life". I'm sure that fringe christian analogies exist, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say the concept of theocracy is far, far more widespread in the Muslim world than anywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
counterfeitsaint posted:What do you think about Islamists or "political Islam"? I mean specifically "the belief that Islam should guide social and political as well as personal life". I'm sure that fringe christian analogies exist, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say the concept of theocracy is far, far more widespread in the Muslim world than anywhere else. That being said, I think a theocracy is a bad idea in general because basing a government off of documents that can be translated (both literally and in terms of meaning) in about ninety different ways is an impossible way to govern. How the government works comes down to how whatever imam(s) or scholar(s) interpret it. Sure, the Constitution is open to interpretation but not to the extent that religious texts are, and that's even without bringing the tricky idea of the government being almost, I don't know, divinely led and adding more tension to the mix. The idea that Allah is approving or disproving of certain governments kind of.. I don't want to say offends me because that implies more anger. It seems bizarre to me. Keep in mind that I was raised by my mother, who's taught US history/government for 40 years so I grew up with a pretty deep appreciation for our system since despite not being perfect, it's better than a lot of other options. Would the Ideal Islamic State work and be beneficial? Yeah, because it'd guarantee equality and a political voice for everyone and not sink into horrible poo poo barbarity. The problem is that the ones pushing for theocracies are always (that I know of historically) the hardliners who interpret things in a very narrow way and are convinced that Their Way Is The Right Way to an extent that they cannot tolerate having other views expressed or even knowing that people who believe otherwise are enjoying the same rights. So while the ideal would work, it's also impossible to achieve. Kind of like how the ideal of true Communism is a really nice way to envision a government but totally loving unworkable in practice. Daesh/the Taliban/others are not, to my mind, Muslims. They've violated too many of the specific rules that Allah set down in the Qur'an, a lot of which I've quoted in this thread before. When I see what they do (this has been on my mind since I posted in the thread about 9/11 here in this forum) it makes me angry on a level not just because of the horrible human rights violations and the cultural history they destroy, but because through their actions and their insisting that they're the Real Muslims, they make life that much harder for every other Muslim around the world who is painted to some extent or another by the same brush. When I have people who I've known since I was 6 casually ask "Do you agree at all with ISIS?" like it's even a possibility that I might it's loving offensive. I remember after there was the video of ISIS burning captives (soldiers I think) alive, I watched it and that night I couldn't even pray normally because it just kept devolving into this question of "why are you letting this poo poo happen?" That question still troubles me. It makes me ashamed even if I have nothing to do with it, even if I don't think they're practicing Islam, because this is what people think my faith is like. I have no interest in proselytizing but I know that for me Islam was a real comfort for a lot of my issues and it makes me sad that people who might find that same comfort in a positive way are repulsed because they think we're all Daesh. (Daesh is my preferred term not only because it's the actual Arabic acronym but because depending on a few things it can also mean "a bigot who imposes his view on others" in a negative sense. So gently caress those guys. I think they threatened to cut out the tongue of anyone using it, if I remember right. Cut off something at least) Anyhow, I think I wandered from your question and that last part was more or less an angry rant-bubble that's been stewing for a couple days. It is not directed towards you!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
counterfeitsaint posted:What do you think about Islamists or "political Islam"? I mean specifically "the belief that Islam should guide social and political as well as personal life". I'm sure that fringe christian analogies exist, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say the concept of theocracy is far, far more widespread in the Muslim world than anywhere else. There are 2 main differences in opinion on the issue of governance. The answer is complex but please bare with me. 1) Sunni 2) Shi'a The Sunni make up roughly 83% of the population of Muslims in the world. In the case of the majority of the Muslim world which is Sunni, a theocracy cannot exist. The first Caliph (Abu Bakr) was elected by the people. Sunni believe in what is called "selection". One person, one vote. No electoral college business like in the modern day US political system. Men and woman from as early as 13 (age of accountability) are equal in the choice of governmental leadership (a Caliph). A state ruled by a Caliph resembles more of a pseudo-monarchy (can even be similar to what Britain currently has). There is a Caliph (leader, prime minister, president) and there is a series of consultative bodies. These are to include a religious consultation system from the top down (similar to a supreme court and lesser courts but without lawmaking authority) in whom the Caliph, legislators, governors, court judges and local leaders are to use for opinions (fatwah) on issues that are religiously unclear. These decisions make up Shar'iah, but the purpose of a fatwah is not to make a decision for the political leader. It only gives him opinion of the religious scholars. Shar'iah is not the same from region to region, nor is it the same from century to century. About 10% of Shar'iah is 100% unchangeable and that is matters regarding religion (5 pillars, 6 beliefs, etc). The other laws of Shar'iah can change depending on the necessity of accommodating the time, place, technology and people's needs. Shar'iah is not God's law but man's law based on God's revelation, though some of it contains laws given by God (such as the law requiring Muslims to establish prayer). So, the governmental structure the Sunni aspire towards is not a theocracy but an elected government with consultative bodies, though in recent days with the rise of illiteracy (some countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan have as great as a 70% illiteracy rate) and extremism in Muslim countries, there is a common misconception that a Caliphate will/should institute and type of 100% unquestionable Shar'iah that would be God's law and as brutally repressive as the current dictators they have lived under for many decades prior to their seizing power. The example of which was mentioned above in the Afghani and Pakistani Taliban. The Shi'a represent maybe 17% of the Muslim population in the world, mostly populated by Persians from Iran. The Shi'a get their name from Shi'at ul-Ali (followers of Ali). They believe that after the Prophet Muhammads death, the Caliphate should have been given to a blood relative of the Prophet, Ali instead of holding an election. The Shi'a concept of government can be viewed as a "theocracy" or "monarchy" mixture due to their belief structure, however does not have to resemble one. The Shi'a believe in 12 Imams who are ordained by Allah to rule as Caliphs. 11 have already come, but the last one, Imam Mahdi, who is related to the Prophet Muhammad, is yet to come. He will come during close to the Last Days during a time of great tribulation and fight the Anti-Christ (ad dajjal) until Jesus (Isa) returns in his second coming. Prophet Isa (Jesus Christ) will take over being Caliph and Al-Mahdi will step aside. Prophet Isa then defeats the anti-Christ and establishes God's law on earth. Side note: Both Shi'a and Sunni believe that Prophet Isa (Jesus Christ) will in the End establish God's law on Earth for a period of time (as do Christians). Shi'a and Sunni believe that Prophet Isa will live out the remainder of his life on earth and die a normal death. So, most Muslims in the world do not desire a theocracy. Shar'iah is man's law based on Allah's revelation. Allah entrusted man to rule the earth in Justice for all human beings (including non-Muslims of all types). Islam is supposed to be a social justice movement. Sadly, today it is often not carried out as one, but quite contrary to it's original intent. Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Oct 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
I was always fascinated by how the image of God/Gods changes over time. For example, the way Greek gods changed between the archaic and ancient period. Or the contrast between God in the old and the new testament. Are there any dramatic changes in the Islamic perspective, compared to Judaism and Christianity? I think someone already mentioned that Islam has a more pantheistic vibe to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
counterfeitsaint posted:I don't think it's unreasonable to say the concept of theocracy is far, far more widespread in the Muslim world than anywhere else. I think the big difference is other religions just don't say that they want a theocracy. I mean, there's a significant percentage of the American right wing whose campaign platform is pretty much "we should legislate by biblical principles."
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Are there any dramatic changes in the Islamic perspective, compared to Judaism and Christianity? I think someone already mentioned that Islam has a more pantheistic vibe to it. In terms of the portrayal of Allah, I can't really think of any big shifts like you're talking about in the Greek pantheon, but there might be. Someone with a more specific knowledge of that area of theological history might be able to answer that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Tendai posted:That depends on entirely which line of thought you follow, wahdat al-wujud or wahdat ash-shuhud, the two areas I mentioned before. The first holds essentially that Allah and Creation are one and indivisible (this is a MASSIVE oversimplification, but it works), the second that they're totally separate. In my experience, this isn't something that the Average Muslim pays much mind to and is mostly focused on by some scholars and a whole lot of Sufis. Offhand I'd guess that the general point of view would be for wahdat ash-shuhud with Allah as a specific and anthropomorphic figure. IRC people are made in Gods image, according to Christianity. That's why it makes sense that God can have emotions like love for humanity. But how would that even work with a non anthropomorphic divine being? How to ascribe motivations to such a being?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:IRC people are made in Gods image, according to Christianity. That's why it makes sense that God can have emotions like love for humanity. But how would that even work with a non anthropomorphic divine being? How to ascribe motivations to such a being? quote:Say, "He is Allah , [who is] One, Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born, Nor is there to Him any equivalent." quote:No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 04:04 |
|
|
waitwhatno posted:IRC people are made in Gods image, according to Christianity. That's why it makes sense that God can have emotions like love for humanity. But how would that even work with a non anthropomorphic divine being? How to ascribe motivations to such a being? Bear in mind in theological terms in Christianity, frequently people would say any description of God in terms we understand is allegorical at best. Christian talk of God 'loving' humanity is an attempt to explain God's feelings in a way we understand. Some prefer saying something like God's perfect love to try and make that a bit clearer or retreat into negative theology (we can't say God's love because love is human, so God's feeling that isn't human love). Generally the attitude is that that way of talking isn't right (but isn't quite wrong) but it helps convey the Message so it's acceptable. Of course in many, many cases people just anthropomorphise away without ever thinking about it more deeply. Tendai thanks for making this thread! I've just moved away from a Muslim country (Malaysia specifically) where there's all sorts of fun regarding religious issues that I won't drag into your thread because it's a specific practise of Islam that's very tied into the Malay majority ethnic identity. What I am curious about are the historical origins of Islam and scholarly understanding of Islamic history. The great History of Byzantium podcast lead me onto this and specifically the interview episode with Tom Holland, which inspired me to read In the Shadow of the Sword. His thesis regarding Mohammed himself is that he's historically analagous to Shakespeare. We have a few pretty strong dates for a few major events but otherwise there is 0 academically acceptable information about his life. Simultaneously we have a huge amount of supposition, hearsay and general folklore (for want of a better term) about him that is frequently put forward or taught as verifiable and certain historical fact. He generally argues that Islam hasn't been subjected to the same level of rigorous academic scrutiny as Christianity has been since the 19th century and as a result what is known and taught in Islamic history generally relies on oral histories written centuries after the fact without documentary evidence. He discounts the Qu'ran as a particularly good source of historical information because it almost never talks about geographical locations and when it does it rarely gives any information about them (Holland himself argues that sites such as Mecca were moved for political reasons, claiming there's evidence of a tradition in Arabic culture of shrines and holy sites being movable). I'm worried this might come off as agressive, Holland in all the writing I've read of his tries to point out that he's not attacking the religious veracity of Islam but obviously it's hard to avoid doing so with a religion that invests so much importance in a written work (Holland also claims the Qu'ran was assembled from different versions, somewhat akin to the New Testament) and a single historical origin. Basically he argues against the idea that Islam emerged as a religion fully formed from the mouth of Mohammed and that it's teachings and scripture have remained unchanged. It's not an area I know much about and some parts of his thesis, like early Muslim communities following still many of their old pagan beliefs (because they were Arabs who heard about this great new religion thing and how much conquering and booty was agoing and wanted in without really understanding it) is something which appeals to me as fitting in with how such phenomena usually appears in history (c.f. Pagan kings in England converting to Christianity and happily showing off how they'd built an altar to pray to Jesus alongside all the other ones). I don't know if he's overly critical though or what kind of historiography there is in the Muslim (and non-Muslim) world regarding Islamic history. Holland basically dismisses the entirety of the Hadith as historical documentation, which gives me some pause in thinking he's entirely right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 22:30
|
|
