Ask me/us about Islam

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Ask me/us about Islam

Bolocko: Oct 19, 2007

Tendai posted:

This is the biggest difference between "Standard Christianity" and Islam that I can think about in terms of relations between husband and wife; there's more or less no shame attached to sex in marriage, the act itself is not sinful.

Have to interject: this reeeally depends on what you mean by "Standard Christianity", and I think it may be one of those cases where some vocal American Protestant minorities and misteaching/misunderstanding of Catholic/Christian theology are distorting the message. For most, I think, the act of sex is neither shameful nor sinful but in fact a beautiful gift from God, provided it's within the correct boundaries (i.e. married husband+wife & w/o contraceptives (depending)).

Anyway, I'm glad this thread is here, nice work. My current read is Michael Muhammad Khan's "Why I Am A Salafi" and if any Muslims posting here get around to reading it I'd love to see your take.

# ¿ Oct 14, 2015 04:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 02:16

Bolocko: Oct 19, 2007

I think a copy of that is held in an Amazon wishlist, but thanks ever for the link.

The Perfumed Garden of Sensual Delight posted:

Know, O Vizir (to whom God be merciful), that women differ in their natural dispositions: there are women who are worthy of all praise; and there are, on the other hand, women who only merit contempt.

The woman who merits the contempt of men is ugly and garrulous; her hair is woolly, her forehead projecting, her eyes are small and blear, her nose is enormous, the lips lead-coloured, the mouth large, the cheeks wrinkled and she shows gaps in her teeth; her cheekbones shine purple, and she sports bristles on her chin; her head sits on a meagre neck, with very much developed tendons; her shoulders are contracted and her chest is narrow, with flabby pendulous breasts, and her belly is like an empty leather-bottle, with the navel standing out like a heap of stones; her flanks are shaped like arcades; the bones of her spinal column may be counted; there is no flesh upon her croup; her vulva is large and cold.

Finally, such a woman has large knees and feet, big hands and emaciated legs.

A woman with such blemishes can give no pleasure to men in general, and least of all to him who is her husband or who enjoys her favours.

The man who approaches a woman like that with his member in erection will find it presently soft and relaxed, as though he was only close to a beast of burden. May God keep us from a woman of that description!

Ouch.

# ¿ Oct 14, 2015 09:40

Bolocko: Oct 19, 2007

The thing is, Catholicism, like Islam & Shari'ah law, is often assumed to rigidly define all sorts of things that aren't actually rigidly defined (whether that's an "any more" or "ever").

waitwhatno says there are rules on "how to gently caress", but there aren't really. There are basic rules on the context for sex (married, for one), but for sex itself just one thing: to respect the procreative nature of the event any intentional male orgasms should occur vaginally. Whatever happens to get a man there � whatever positions, acts, toys, liquids, etc. � are between man, wife, and God, and if he never orgasms but his wife orgasms a dozen times, that's A-OK. Just be conscientious and safe.

Likewise "when to eat fish" is answered with: whenever you'd like. It's the only meat that's permissible during Friday fasts and Ash Wednesday, and so on those days when abstinence from red meat is expected fish provides a fair substitute. But fish isn't *required* on those days, nor is there a prohibition on eating it any other day.

# ¿ Oct 25, 2015 09:50

Bolocko: Oct 19, 2007

Tendai posted:

This really contrasts to what I know of official Catholic doctrine historically (I'm not sure if the official ruling is still "sex must be for procreation") and has led to sex not being particularly shameful in and of itself, so long as it's done within the sphere of marriage.

The view is that God's purpose for sex is procreation, and so couples should conduct themselves in due reverence to that purpose (by refraining from birth control, male ejaculate delivered vaginally, etc), but not all sex needs to be procreative — it's certainly acknowledged that sex is fun and pleasurable, beautiful in its messy humanness, and that sharing in it is can be a transcendent sort of experience. You can look at it as being about regulating male orgasms if you want; as I said in the previous post, everything else is fair play.

# ¿ Oct 25, 2015 17:01

Bolocko: Oct 19, 2007

Khizan posted:

So basically you're saying that all sex needs to include the possibility of having children or it's sinful but you don't get retroactive sinning points if it doesn't take? I mean, doesn't this boil down to "The dude should only orgasm if you're willing to have another child?"

Regarding coitus, in effect yes, that's more or less the gist of it. Couples can do other things to avoid the possibility of pregnancy: Catholic Natural Family Planning is absolutely a thing.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2015 03:30

Bolocko: Oct 19, 2007

As I said, sex for fun isn't prohibited, and sex outside the fertility window isn't disrespectful of God's procreative design, which is not that we only have sex when pregnancy is most likely to occur.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2015 20:16

Bolocko: Oct 19, 2007

waitwhatno posted:

Please don't take it the wrong way, but this makes absolutely no sense to me. It seems like it's trying to unify two totally different views on sex.

the ultimate purpose of sex should be procreation <-> it's totally fine to have sex for fun only, as much as you want, even if you don't want children

Sex is also "a source of joy and pleasure", and "spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment." "Spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God" which should be fulfilled "responsibly", and "a particular aspect (of that responsibility) concerns the regulation of procreation . . . conform(ed) to the objective criteria of morality." "The methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity of the objective criteria of morality," "criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts, criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love": "these methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom." (quotes from the Catechism)

I've tried to keep it brief but doing so seems to promote oversimplification, and I could also be incorrect or just inarticulate, so I'd recommend posing the question to the Liturgical Christianity thread if you want someone better-qualified to respond in more detail. A longer reply involving more quotation from the Catechism and pertinent documents (Gaudium et Spes, Familiaris Consortio, et al) doesn't seem appropriate for the Islam thread.

# ¿ Oct 27, 2015 00:20

Bolocko: Oct 19, 2007

Fuzz posted:

Something that hasn't really been touched upon in this thread and is such a huge and massive component to the current misunderstanding of Islam is the whole darkie factor. If the Quran had been revealed to some white guy, we'd be having very different opinions and discussions about the religion, but because it's some "heathen darkie religion" let's not take it seriously or even give it any thought before casting wide assumptions and aspersions about both it and its followers.

If Muhammad had been born in, let's say, an Israel suburb some 750 miles due north, what would be different? (EDIT: Just going by significance of the founder's skin color here, as a change in location would obviously otherwise change the historical story of Islam.)

Bolocko fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Nov 26, 2015

# ¿ Nov 26, 2015 01:45

Bolocko: Oct 19, 2007

Of course, but I'm still curious how Fuzz thinks responses would shift.

VVVV I'm assuming symatics is meant to be semantics

Bolocko fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Nov 26, 2015

# ¿ Nov 26, 2015 02:16

Bolocko: Oct 19, 2007

As the story I've heard goes, God instructs Muhammad to pray fifty times a day. Muhammad is then advised by Moses to haggle with God to get that number down. So Muhammad goes back and does so and gets God down to five prayers a day. The way I've heard this justified is that God still gets his fifty prayers because each of a person's actual five is magnified ten times in God's sight. But I'm phone posting and one of the Muslims here should be able to explain this better.

EDIT: it comes from Bukhari, from an account of Muhammad's night trip into heaven:

Sahih Bukhari, Vol 1, Book 8, Number 345 posted:

Then I passed by Abraham and he said, 'Welcome! O pious Prophet and pious son.' I asked Gabriel, 'Who is he?' Gabriel replied, 'He is Abraham. The Prophet added, 'Then Gabriel ascended with me to a place where I heard the creaking of the pens." Ibn Hazm and Anas bin Malik said: The Prophet said, "Then Allah enjoined fifty prayers on my followers when I returned with this order of Allah, I passed by Moses who asked me, 'What has Allah enjoined on your followers?' I replied, 'He has enjoined fifty prayers on them.' Moses said, 'Go back to your Lord (and appeal for reduction) for your followers will not be able to bear it.' (So I went back to Allah and requested for reduction) and He reduced it to half. When I passed by Moses again and informed him about it, he said, 'Go back to your Lord as your followers will not be able to bear it.' So I returned to Allah and requested for further reduction and half of it was reduced. I again passed by Moses and he said to me: 'Return to your Lord, for your followers will not be able to bear it. So I returned to Allah and He said, 'These are five prayers and they are all (equal to) fifty (in reward) for My Word does not change.' I returned to Moses and he told me to go back once again. I replied, 'Now I feel shy of asking my Lord again.' Then Gabriel took me till we '' reached Sidrat-il-Muntaha (Lote tree of; the utmost boundry) which was shrouded in colors, indescribable. Then I was admitted into Paradise where I found small (tents or) walls (made) of pearls and its earth was of musk."

(God in Christianity: also a "single unity"; but that's for the Liturgical Christianity thread)

Bolocko fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Mar 2, 2016

# ¿ Mar 2, 2016 22:07

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 02:16

Bolocko: Oct 19, 2007

Hazzard posted:

I know Sam Harris wrote "Islam and the Future of Tolerance" with Maajid Nawaz, which may be something worth looking at, since it's an atheist and a Muslim writing together. The main issue is Maajid is anti Islamist, which draws him a lot of ire from some groups.

Nawaz being an anti-Islamist is probably less controversial (many Muslims I'm familiar with cast side-eye at Islamists) than the arguably anti-theist Harris, who's on record often saying Muslims, Jews, and Christians who don't accept the violent extremist versions of their religions "don't take their beliefs seriously".

# ¿ Jul 8, 2016 17:50

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Ask me/us about Islam