|
Per posted:I get that part, I'm just wondering why the Saudi state lets them into Mecca/Medina in the first place. I mean, typically they don't want non-Muslims there, and if the Wahhabi clerics say Shias aren't muslims... Shia Muslims make up about 40% of the population. You don't tell a group that size that they can't obey a pivotal fard without generating inconvenient amounts of instability. I don't pretend to understand the interplay between the Wahabis and the House of Saud, but I imagine the royal family has enough pull to stop the clerics from making their lives difficult by doing something so drastic.
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 00:15 |
|
|
Tendai posted:In terms of other reforms, I know it made some changes in slavery (made it less harsh and also made it more difficult for a non-slave to become a slave), and a lot of them for women (how much is debated, but I haven't found a historian who simply denies it yet), and children. Women really benefited in inheritance law and children, it's interesting, benefited from the rejection of what early Muslims saw as the Judeo-Christian idea that they're the property of their father. When it was founded, Islam was a remarkably progressive philosophy, kind of like how early Christianity was with its acceptance of "dirty" people like prostitutes and slaves. Christianity has been rather better, as a whole, at adapting to the modern world however, which is probably as much political and historical as anything else. I don't think you can ever study religion without studying actual, un-biased history or you're just getting half the story. They've also had a bit of a longer run-up. When it was Islam's age, Christianity could be kind of a dick. It's also easier to be progressive when you're wealthy; a lot of impoverished people take their faith very seriously because it's all they have. That's not strictly a Muslim phenomenon of course, but at this particular point in history that's where a lot of the noise is coming from. flakeloaf fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Sep 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
BattyKiara posted:I get that Islam doesn't allow paintings, but what about music? Or other types or art. Is there such a thing as Islamic art to show the glory of Allah? I thought the prohibition on art was a Salafi thing. Newsweek ran a pretty good article (depicts Mohamed) about that stuff. quote:In regard to image making, the earliest and most synthetic source is the medieval law book of Ibn Qudama (died 1223), a towering Sunni theologian of the medieval period. In his handbook, Ibn Qudama discusses the various possible “abominations” that can occur at wedding ceremonies, including the playing of music and backgammon, the consumption of liquor, and the presence of images. As for the legality of images, he notes that the question is complicated because it depends on what the images depict and where they are situated. He thus concludes that images are not prohibited per se; rather, their legality depends on content and context.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Fizzil posted:Hey, i have been to Umra recently, Mecca is a very crowded place, and i made the mistake of agreeing to be dragged into it by family who thought the Hajj period is over. If anyone is curious about that sort of thing feel free to ask.  Did you ever think you were in serious danger of getting trampled? How did the Mutauween determine/test your Muslimness? Meet any interesting people from far-off lands, or was everyone just sorta doing their own thing?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
I'd just blame it on White People gently caress Up Everything, alongside "Bombay" and "Meck-sicko" and "Iqualuit". A probably innocent mispronunciation in our language means something else entirely in yours, and we shouldn't be saying it. At least we're not calling you Mohammedans anymore. Progress?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 12:55
|
|
|
I have a few questions about dogs that stem from my poor understanding of both the Quran and Islamic culture. My understanding of Mohamed's issue with dogs is how Medina was lousy with them, and feral dogs sharing space with people can lead to some pretty filthy diseases. Mohamed knew this, so he said something along the lines of "Can someone please do something about these pestilential dogs already?" and the people did. On the other side, the Surah of the Cave seems to tell a story about a time when Allah guided a small band of people and their dog to safety from a city of nonbelievers; surely if the dog were a problem He would've mentioned that? Now, there definitely are parts of the world where feral dogs are still a problem so a cultural revulsion to the creatures is totally understandable, but that's a far cry from claiming that pet/service dogs themselves are somehow offensive to Muslims, isn't it?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
Amun Khonsu posted:Those who handle dogs cannot pray any of the 5 mandatory formal prayers (salat) without rigorous washing prior to the prayer. That makes a lot of sense. I've seen some serious work put into wudu, and to have go go back and do that all over again because a puppy got curious would be really irritating. quote:The Second is the flip side to the first. Muslims from Muslim populated countries have culturally been kept away from contact with dogs all of their lives and naturally don't know how to react around them, are often perceived to be afraid of them, may have misconceptions about domesticated dogs and may even show a level of disgust at how people can be licked by a dog, have them in the house or even (as many westerners do) sleep with them in the bed. It is not a religious mandate by the Prophet to have this attitude but has developed into the culture of many Muslim dominated countries. That's also really sensible. Who'd have thought that being unfamiliar with a thing might make people mistrustful or fearful  ?For the record, I've had dogs for most of my life and I'll be the first to tell you that letting one lick your face is loving revolting and having them sleep in the bed is a notion that works much better in theory than in practice. Thanks! e: Oh yes most definitely, wild dogs are certainly not a "Muslim country" problem, they're a human problem.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
BattyKiara posted:Latey someone has been spamming my facebook with pictures of muslims whipping themselves. I know this is some kind of celebration It's for Ashura and Christian self-flagellation predates Islam by centuries and I need to type faster.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
Tendai posted:In an unrelated note, today the idiot cat jumped on me during fajr, the first prayer of the day, when I was prostrated on the floor. Idiot cat weighs fifteen pounds. No matter what you call his name, I'm of the opinion that you can't believe in a god without also accepting that he has a sense of humour. And also that he really likes beetles.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Wine and gummi bears are kosher but not halal; lobster and some ungulates are halal but not kosher. Meat in general is a problem because the laws of slaughter are different - a halal slaughter must invoke the name of Allah once for each animal, and a kosher slaughter should "probably but it's okay if you forgot" invoke a blessing (which would of course not include G-d's name at all) before a series of slaughters. Turn kosher beef into a cheeseburger and neither side can eat it. Dietary laws are a really interesting part of faith and something you learn a lot about entirely by accident in the funeral game.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Amun Khonsu posted:The gummi bear thing is a hit or miss for Jews and Muslims. As long as they are made without gelatin then they are halal, because Jews and Muslims dont eat products made from the blood of an animal. Hm. I thought animal gelatin was made from animal bones, and that kosher, non-pork gelatin is still haraam for the same reason that said animals' meat would be. Now I'm trying to think of a situation where you'd be in mortal danger of starvation and the only food available was gummi bears. Perhaps a bizarre movie theatre cave-in.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
Speaking of breaking rules, can you think of any Islamic observances that purport to obey the letter of the law even if they seem to violate the spirit of it? For example, Jews are forbidden to carry things outside from one place to another on the sabbath. To get around that rule they came up with the eruv, which is basically a length of string hung up around a community that allows people within it to pretend they're still "inside" so it's totally okay to pack up a casserole and bring it over to a friend's house inside the same eruv. Some say that god wouldn't be fooled by such transparent rules lawyering, others insist that the eruv demonstrates how they remember the commandment and they want to observe it but the same time stuff's gotta get done.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
quote:the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them A 21st century reader could be forgiven for thinking "big bang" when reading this bit, because the person doing the reading is just as important as the person doing the writing when it comes time to explain what a holy book means. To me, the takeaway isn't that fifth-century Arabs knew the origin of the universe, it's that they believed Allah existed before the universes, he created them from nothing but his own will, and everything that followed was his idea alone.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Tendai posted:The same principle applies to the scientific ideas that I and many others don't see as conflicting. Allah had to explain this in terms that a man born in Mecca in 570 CE would understand, who had not been particularly educated in anything beyond the basics of the time (whatever they were in the area) and the skills needed to be a merchant. I don't even know how much he knew about any advanced scientific ideas in his own time, speaking to him in terms of what we know even concretely and without theorizing about the universe would have been not merely baffling but incomprehensible. So, we got what seems to our ears like poetry that can be taken either way, and Muhammad got something that he could actually sort of explain to other people, at least in a sense that they would be able to visualize or understand the concept. That makes perfect sense. After all, the revelations of the Abrahamic holy texts all started with an infinite, omnipotent god telling a mortal man not only how to begin to comprehend the infinite, but that he should gain sufficient understanding of the idea to explain it to other mortals. It's basically flatland but with people. (Yeah, the video's ten minutes but watch it anyway because it's a good ten minutes and if anyone's earned them it's Carl Sagan) If you can pare down the true nature of a deity so that it fits into a tiny, squishy brain, why can't that also be done with something as [relatively] straightforward as the origin of the universe?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
Positive Optimyst posted:How do we know that Mohammed was a "darkie?" I'm happy to take his cousin's word for it. Ali ibn Abi Talib posted:He was not too tall nor too short. He was medium sized. His hair was not short and curly, nor was it lank, but in between. His face was not narrow, nor was it fully round, but there was a roundness to it. His skin was white. His eyes were black. He had long eyelashes. He was big-boned and had wide shoulders
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
"[Ask] me why Islam is a stupid religion for children that shouldn't be followed because it's old and dumb" would be a great idea for another thread. Maybe we can take that discussion there? I'm intrigued by the hadiths and the weight they (don't?) carry. Specifically, Mohamed's statement that the pursuit of knowledge is the responsibility of every Muslim, and it's the use you make of that knowledge that makes it good or bad (vs. the Qur'anic literalists who reject all books that aren't that one). My understanding is that the hadiths are credible hearsay accounts of things Mohamed probably/may have/probably didn't say that amplify what's in the actual scriptures. What's the split on people who accept them vs. those who don't? Are some hadiths (?) more controversial than others? Is "Well, actually, The Prophet said..." likelier to start an argument than to end one? How prevalent is the notion that time spent learning things not in the literal text of the scripture is time wasted? flakeloaf fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 00:15 |
|
|
Tendai posted:I acknowledge that they can serve as good examples in some cases but are overwhelmingly so tied to the cultural standards of the Prophet's time as well as being of what is, to me, questionable historicity, that they often simply don't apply. I see some of them as being valuable today, but others I often see as an anchor keeping a large part of the Muslim world convinced that we have to live in a way consistent with pre-Industrial Arabia, which I don't agree with. Well there goes my follow-up question, cause it seemed to me like someone overhearing him say "Man it's a good thing you have something to get all this dust off the cuffs of my izaar" would lead someone to decide everybody should keep a little brush by the doorway, even if they live in northern Quebec.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 18:34
|
|