Ask me/us about Islam

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

Lassitude: Oct 21, 2003

Given how dating/romance usually work over in the West, is it difficult to date given the stipulations about unwed girls being alone with males who aren't relatives? I inquired in a previous thread about Islam and what I heard was that the modus operandi for Muslims is usually to have potential wives/husbands arranged by family and chaperoned. What do you do as someone whose family is not Muslim?

# ¿ Sep 29, 2015 00:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 01:24

Lassitude: Oct 21, 2003

Fuzz posted:

Excluding the 4 wives thing since that's all anyone ever wants to talk about.

Nine-year-olds, dude.

I kind of think loving children is a bigger deal than having multiple adult wives, personally.

Lassitude fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Dec 24, 2015

# ¿ Dec 24, 2015 02:34

Lassitude: Oct 21, 2003

Amun Khonsu posted:

Now you are delving into the "science of hadith" and if you dont understand the historical and cultural context, isnad (chain of narration), and the nature of the hadith, jurisprudence regarding Isnad and how to apply them then it's best not to make such assertions.

You are assuming the many hadith about her age is correct. In fact, many hadith are not accurate and contain errors. They after all, were written some 200-300 years after the Prophet's death. Hadith are basically "hearsay evidence" and have many classifications of authenticity of isnad, not accuracy of content. Despite the most authentic hadith being considered "authentic", it doesnt change the fact that they were written 200-300 years after the fact and are secondary to Quranic verses which were written immediately during the time of the Prophet who saw and authorized Quranic verses himself.

Keep in mind that although Muslims believe in the Bible (New Testament), we don't rely on it for our belief system because the earliest writings are from 132AD (in aramaic) and wasnt cannonized until 325AD (in greek). Furthermore it has no isnad. Yes, 100 to over 300 years after Jesus. The Prophet never saw our books of hadith and Jesus never saw the Bible to authorize it.

We draw truths based on them but understand that there may be errors.

Aisha's marriage was arranged by her father Abu Bakr and it was not consummated until she was of age to legally accept the marriage. The age is highly debatable due to the errors highlighted by true historical events recorded in the Quran and other hadith that make contradictions. To arbitrarily say 9 years old without taking into account the many other hadith that contradict this is a serious error.

http://www.discoveringislam.org/aisha_age.htm

A casual look at Wikipedia makes it clear that there's some real debate on the issue. Indeed, she may in fact have been as old as 12 when he started banging her. Whew! Anyway, truthfully I don't really care. People during that time period loved marrying children if they could. Certainly Muhammad would be no different. And none of the other religions are devoid of this kind of reprehensible garbage, either. So don't think I'm picking on Islam here. But I certainly place Muhammad having multiple wives far, far, far below aspects of the Islamic religion such as death to apostates, the sexism, Muhammad being the inspiration for Walder "Tight Fit" Frey, and so on.

# ¿ Dec 24, 2015 21:05

Lassitude: Oct 21, 2003

As I rather clearly said,

Lassitude posted:

People during that time period loved marrying children if they could. Certainly Muhammad would be no different.

His behaviour is completely unsurprising to me. I mean, the Greeks had, by modern standards, a disgusting habit of pederasty, too. Our modern sensibilities are exceptionally recent in human history. So I don't begrudge Muhammad or the Greeks the fact that they were men of their time.

Now, obviously if I thought Muhammad were meant to be a divinely inspired figure I'd hope that perhaps he'd be beyond the baser needs of men, and would do things designed to stand the test of time, things which would inspire humans through the ages. But I don't. So obviously he's just going to do what is appropriate at the time. And that's fine. I'm not casting aspersions on him or the culture he existed in, because I know he was just another human like everyone else in his age, and it's silly to judge things like marrying a six-year-old in the 7th century by 21st century standards.

But to the original point, marrying four (adult) wives is far less scandalous by today's standards than ploughing a nine-year-old.

Lassitude fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Dec 24, 2015

# ¿ Dec 24, 2015 22:48

Lassitude: Oct 21, 2003

Blurred posted:

When did your son choose to be a Muslim, just out of curiosity?

Muslims believe that everyone is by default born Muslim. They believe Islam is by default the religion of the human race, and anything else is a deviation from the correct path. So if you're born to Muslim parents, you are invariably Muslim yourself. And if you choose to reject that, you are put to death for apostasy (in nations where shari'a is enforced). Muslim children do not get to choose.

That said, this is not in any way different from any other religion. The only difference is that no other religion kills people for choosing an alternate path (if they're allowed to), as far as I'm aware.

Lassitude fucked around with this message at 07:46 on Dec 27, 2015

# ¿ Dec 27, 2015 07:41

Lassitude: Oct 21, 2003

I find the wiki article about the LGBT movement within Islam very interesting. Do "moderate" Muslims (presumably the type of Muslims posting here) generally have a negative opinion of homosexuality? On that note, I also recall an article about how Iran is apparently very cool with gender reassignment, which is quite interesting.

Similarly, how widespread is acceptance of the science of evolution? I know some Christian religious denominations (e.g. Catholics) have made peace with it. What is the moderate Muslim view of evolution?

# ¿ Dec 28, 2015 02:58

Lassitude: Oct 21, 2003

What is the "end game" for homosexuals in Islam? Is the notion that they may be cured of their sinful impulses, perhaps? Or are they expected to simply remain celibate the remainder of their life? Amun Khonsu used the term "lifestyle choice", which suggests a belief that homosexuality is a choice rather than an innate to certain individuals and unchangeable, but is that the general consensus in Islam? That homosexuals are simply afflicted temporarily, and through prayer or other for of atonement they'll become heterosexuals?

# ¿ Dec 30, 2015 07:31

Lassitude: Oct 21, 2003

Cingulate posted:

In typical deist ethics, the moral perspective of God is cointensional with the good. That is, the moral good is by its nature identical with god's will. God willing it is what makes something good in the first place. So you're professing a to me surprising perspective - where god's will can disagree with objective morals.

The belief that god's will = what's right, and may not also = human morality, isn't a particularly Islamic thing, it should be noted. Many Christians will say that god's command for Abraham to kill his son Isaac, had it been carried out, would have been a moral action, because if it's god's command, it's automatically good. It's formally called divine command theory, and guys like Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine have argued in its favour.

# ¿ Dec 30, 2015 18:46

Lassitude: Oct 21, 2003

Cingulate posted:

that's why I wrote "in typical deist ethics".

Yeah, I saw that, but what does deism have to do with it? Zakmonster has made it fairly clear they are a Muslim. What does deist ethics have to do with it?

Zakmonster posted:

Lifestyle choice is incorrect. We understand that homosexuality isn't a choice. As such, their 'end game' is celibacy. It's tough, and it's not fair because God made you this way (if you're the type of Muslim who believes that), but God also made some people to have crippling physical or mental disabilities. Not everyone's life circumstances are equal, and the understanding is that the harder your 'test' in this world, the better your reward in the next.

Has what Amun Khosu written changed your mind on this at all? How could Allah make people like X, and then create prohibitions against X? Or should homosexuals be allowed to engage in intercourse on account of their having been created as homosexuals, meaning the prohibition against their activites becomes less binding as it's a genetic "issue" as opposed to a lifestyle choice? Amun Khosu believes it must be a choice homosexuals make, and there must be a cure of some kind, because Allah wouldn't make people gay if being gay were disallowed. What are your thoughts on that?

Lassitude fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Jan 1, 2016

# ¿ Jan 1, 2016 00:30

Lassitude: Oct 21, 2003

Amun Khonsu posted:

The correct arabic translation indicates a limitation set of maximum attention getter you can use for a serious problem in a marriage, which put a stop to the harsh treatment of women in the early Arab tribes. It does not mean "beat" as in to abuse, but to "tap lightly" and in Arab tradition this meant to use nothing larger or more harmful than your one finger (typically a miswak).

Here, lets get women's perspective.

More detailed discussion on the topic:

http://www.islamicfinder.org/articles/article.php?id=307

In general, how do you reconcile the qur'an and the hadith when there's conflict between the two? Like, for example, Sahih Muslim 004, 2127, seems to explicitly contradict the explanation you gave there.

# ¿ Jan 2, 2016 18:15

Lassitude: Oct 21, 2003

That's cool, I don't want to get hung up on the topic specifically, I just noticed that he either hit in the chest or shoved Aisha at some point, which isn't quite the same as lightly tapping with one finger, so I was curious about how you reconcile the discrepancy when the qur'an says X and the hadith says Y.

and yeah that said it seems to be you'd take what's in the qur'an above what's in the hadith

Lassitude fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Jan 2, 2016

# ¿ Jan 2, 2016 19:57

Lassitude: Oct 21, 2003

Amun Khonsu believes that homosexuality is a choice, or is otherwise something people can overcome or otherwise be cured of. In other words, not born that way.

Amun Khonsu posted:

Frankly im not interested in discussing homosexuals anymore. What they do is between God and them, not me and them.

Homosexual equality is what's generally considered a relevant social justice topic.

Lassitude fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Jan 3, 2016

# ¿ Jan 3, 2016 04:56

Lassitude: Oct 21, 2003

I guess it makes it easier to be really weird about sex when you're imagining just a crazy, non-stop sex party in the afterlife.

# ¿ Jan 5, 2016 10:16

Lassitude: Oct 21, 2003

Well, on a lark I thought I'd look into the whole 72 virgins thing, and it seems like there are passages in the qur'an which make explicit mention to there being houri given to the faithful after death. That is, "companions" which are "full-breasted" and have "modest gazes" and such. Although the number is up for debate, it seems like it's more than one, too. Which is pretty hot. If there are other rewards explicitly mentioned I'd like to hear of them, though.

# ¿ Jan 5, 2016 10:45

Lassitude: Oct 21, 2003

Amun Khonsu posted:

It is. The idea that Islam does not evolve with the times is completely wrong. Yes, Muslims have had difficulty adjusting with a fast advancing west, but it was like this for Christian Europe during the Dark Ages when Muslims were in their Golden Age. It is natural among humans to go through these challenges in their societies and cultures.

The only thing that cannot evolve in Islam are things relating to the core tenets of the faith, the 5 pillars, 6 basic beliefs and the principle of "Ihsan" (our duty to work towards perfection). These are the three basic dimensions that make a Muslim a good Muslim.

In what way has Islam been a social justice movement in the last several centuries? The Golden Age of Islam is ancient history, unfortunately. I'm not aware of any social justice movement spawning progressive changes which have originated among Muslim groups. Certainly the Nation of Islam was a part of the Civil Rights Movement in the US, but I'm not sure that counts. Otherwise, I don't believe Islam being progressive relative to the 8th century, allowing women to own/inherit property and so on, suffices for cred as a social justice movement until the end of time. As they say, what have you done for me lately?

# ¿ Jan 6, 2016 17:19

Lassitude: Oct 21, 2003

That is interesting and I wasn't aware of it, but it seems as though the caste system has also been embraced by a certain percentage of Muslims in India as well. For example, this fellow writes here: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/ambedkar_partition/410.html

... that among Muslims in India, the caste system is actually significantly worse than among Hindus. While the caste system is terrible and I'm pleased to hear that some Muslims opposed it, in the end it would seem that they became what they initially fought, which I don't think we can blame on Gandhi.

# ¿ Jan 6, 2016 18:01

Lassitude: Oct 21, 2003

Fuzz posted:

Grandstanding and saying, "A BLOO BLOO ISLAM ENSLAVES WOMEN!" is disingenuous and an unfair assessment, and falls under the above outlined, "bullshit," which only serves to confuse the matter for those coming to the thread genuinely wanting to find out the religion's stance on women.

A lot of this is in response to the assertion that Amun Khonsu made, claiming Islam is a social justice movement. Social justice skews toward egalitarianism. A religion which explicitly limits the rights of certain groups of people cannot possibly be considered a social justice movement unless "social justice" means "whatever my religion arbitrarily says is appropriate".

nm about that other stuff

Lassitude fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Jan 8, 2016

# ¿ Jan 8, 2016 22:53

Lassitude: Oct 21, 2003

P-Mack posted:

Check out Albania, which is literally European, if you're not just trolling.

Albania is Muslim-majority, but it's not an Islamic country. That said, I'm not sure what the distinction would be, in practice. The US is secular by constitution, but it's quite religious relative to other nations which elevate Christianity in their foundational documents.

Either way, I think if you replaced Christianity with Islam in the US, you'd see very little change.

# ¿ Jan 10, 2016 00:33

Lassitude: Oct 21, 2003

I'd actually be interested in learning more about what caused Islam to go from a religion which, for a time, represented the peak of scholarship in the world, to what it is now.

# ¿ Jan 10, 2016 04:10

Lassitude: Oct 21, 2003

GreyjoyBastard posted:

But what about women watching boy butts?

Maybe the assumption is that women are inherently more pious and sensible, and boys are dumb and need to be nannied.

If that were the assumption, Muslim women probably wouldn't be prohibited from marrying non-Muslims, unlike Muslim men.

# ¿ Jan 11, 2016 19:25

Lassitude: Oct 21, 2003

Cingulate posted:

This is I think a good example for my position that Islam is a very common-sense religion if you just accept a few premises which are already very popular to begin with, plus an actually fairly limited set of arbitrary fluff

Much in contrast to Judaism, Christianity, and less familiar religions.

In fact it's been argued this has been a significant obstacle to attempts to modernize islam: it already is fairly modern.

Pretty much any religion becomes very common-sense if you ignore the garbage and only ascribe to the portions that are mostly congruent with contemporary, secular values and behaviours. There is no contrast between what someone like Fuzz has described himself as and the vast majority of Christians/Jews in the West.

# ¿ Jan 11, 2016 22:31

Lassitude: Oct 21, 2003

Some mosques have the women in a back room or otherwise partition the praying sections. There isn't one universal way they handle segregating prayers, in any case. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Lassitude fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Jan 15, 2016

# ¿ Jan 15, 2016 02:18

Lassitude: Oct 21, 2003

Are you people really so loving stupid you need the ethical position of homosexuality (or any sexual proclivity between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home) explained ad nauseam?

# ¿ Jul 28, 2016 07:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 01:24

Lassitude: Oct 21, 2003

Purple Prince posted:

Ethical positions are open to debate, and to understand why other people might not agree with one's ethical position on homosexuality, it's necessary to look at some of the assumptions that underpin the liberal acceptance of homosexuality, and understand that there are people who don't agree with them.

Do you think you're blazing a trail here? Do you imagine this topic has not been the fodder of debate for several decades now? The question is settled. Polluting this thread with your devil's advocate horseshit is not on. Homosexuality, as with any other sexual proclivity, is not a matter of ethics. The practices of consenting adults in their own bedrooms are irrelevant to broader society. Any religion which posits differently is embarking upon a course of bigotry for its own sake and is to be regarded as no better than neo-Nazis or the KKK or other subcultures which peddle in prejudice. That is to say, unworthy of attention or discourse.

# ¿ Aug 3, 2016 05:35

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