Do not take Jews or Christians as your wali...

SAM said:
But I don't take government pronouncements seriously
No one else does either, in this matter. That's why no one was talking about government pronouncements.

So: why the nun picture?
pdude said:
ets not forget that alot of what anti-Islam people want to label as islamic practices were practices that predate islam
Almost all human practices predate any given human religion. That doesn't mean they are not, now, practices of that religion - mandated or encouraged or discouraged or forbidden by that religion.
SAM said:
When pressed on the issue for FGM, the scholars declared it as un-Islamic for the above reason.
Those are largely governmental pronouncements, official positions, which you do not take seriously.

Neither do I.
 
The religion of Islam was brought to the Quraish as a guidance and to correct some of their practices [female infanticide, legal injustice, slavery and idol worship] which were oppressive to the common man.
(1) Is there ANY contemporary evidence that Quraish practiced female infanticide? Mohammad supposed worked for a powerful woman. I often wonder if this isn't a case of the winners rewriting history. Sounds like a classic case of White Man's Burden to me.

(2) Slavery was practiced by Mohammad. Slavery was institutionalized and Muslims bought and sold slaves for everything from hard laborer to be used for sex.

(3) Legal Injustice? You mean like smashing other peoples stuff... speaking of which.

(4) Idol Worship is a practice that NEEDED CORRECTED? Bugger off. It's their Shrine if they want to place an Idol in it and worship it then that's their business.


Note: When SAM writes Islam was brought to the Quraish she conveniently leaves off - by the sword. Ledgend has it, Mohammad wouldn't even poke his little toe into the city until AFTER his thugs smashed the place to bits - including people's homes, businesses, Temples and the beautifully carved and painted statues of the peaceful Gods they worshiped. Before Islam Arabs were very peaceful traders, after Islam they became violent and aggressive - even kill off the Chinese living in Turkmenistan (as if these Chinese had ever done a thing to Arabs).
 
No one else does either, in this matter. That's why no one was talking about government pronouncements.

My mistake. What did you mean by this then?

IIRC the Egyptian government at one time had hired a crew of Quranic scholars to find "backing" for birth control pills
So: why the nun picture?

Almost all human practices predate any given human religion. That doesn't mean they are not, now, practices of that religion - mandated or encouraged or discouraged or forbidden by that religion.

I'm asking a specific question. Why are Muslims still following social practices forbidden or not mentioned in the Qur'an even though the original societies that mandated these practices in their religion have given them up?

Those are largely governmental pronouncements, official positions, which you do not take seriously.

Neither do I.

No I'm referring to the consensus of al Azhar scholars. The fatwa has no legal connotations it is simply a scholarly opinion which was announced in the media

Again, it has had no effect on the people who have these practices. So why are these people following them even after religious scholars have denounced them?
 
SAM said:
My mistake. What did you mean by this then?
Just an anecdote showing how the Quran has not been set aside, and remains an important influence on self-described Muslim people.
SAM said:
I'm asking a specific question. Why are Muslims still following social practices forbidden or not mentioned in the Qur'an even though the original societies that mandated these practices in their religion have given them up?
Well, the "original societies" you refer to have either not mandated them in their religions or not given them up, and surely you don't see any mystery about any believers in any holy book interpreting that book to suit themselves? - happens all the time, for many and quite obvious reasons.

So what are you getting at, really?
 
Because superstition in the guise of tradition and custom, even if mindless, doesn't die easy.

I would agree with that. But it would seem that Jews and Christians have disregarded these teachings from their own scriptures. So why do Muslims continue with these practices [and also appear to institute even more of them] when they are not present in their own?
 
I would agree with that. But it would seem that Jews and Christians have disregarded these teachings from their own scriptures. So why do Muslims continue with these practices [and also appear to institute even more of them] when they are not present in their own?

Maybe because the three major religions are related and Muslims want to cover all the bases in case they're backing the wrong horse? Really I don't know and don't care and the only interesting thing I see from this is how religions evolve and change, it's all part & parcel of it.
 
SAM said:
But it would seem that Jews and Christians have disregarded these teachings from their own scriptures.
No, it wouldn't. Not to the Jews and Christians.

SAM said:
So why do Muslims continue with these practices [and also appear to institute even more of them] when they are not present in their own?
Either that, or many people interpret their scriptures differently from you, and follow their own religions as they please.

Why would you be puzzled about that?
 
No, it wouldn't. Not to the Jews and Christians.

Wouldn't it? Which practices of the Muslims are the Jews and Christians still following? The veil for modesty? Stoning for adultery? Circumcision of males?

Either that, or many people interpret their scriptures differently from you, and follow their own religions as they please.


Why would you be puzzled about that?

Probably because I cannot see how ignoring the verdict of scholars on religious issues is "following religion"
 
SAM said:
Wouldn't it? Which practices of the Muslims are the Jews and Christians still following?
Religious people follow their own religion's practices. You appear to be claiming to know what they should be, for other people's religions.
SAM said:
Probably because I cannot see how ignoring the verdict of scholars on religious issues is "following religion"
Really? You have seen how that works in the past, other threads.

As you have claimed, these scholars have no official authority - there are no men between a Muslim and Allah.

You have emphasized in the past how these verdicts are just the opinions of some scholars, and others may disagree or ignore them and still follow Islam.

The one about murdering Rushdie, for example - I think you agreed that one could follow Islam and not kill Rushdie, fatwa or no fatwa.
 
S.A.M.

Why do Muslims follow these practices?

Because their parents did, as did their parents, and their parents, too. These practices have become tradition; whether or not they can trace their roots to Islam is not of importance.

Michael

Ledgend has it, Mohammad wouldn't even poke his little toe into the city until AFTER his thugs smashed the place to bits - including people's homes, businesses, Temples and the beautifully carved and painted statues of the peaceful Gods they worshiped.

Actually, legend has it that Muhammad personally smashed all three-hundred sixty idols himself after conquering the city of Mecca. Later in Ramadan, he ordered three close friends of his (including Khalid bin Walid) to destroy other key idols worshipped by Arabs of the time. It must have been a powerful sight to behold: the reclaiming of the house Abraham and his son Ishmael built centuries ago.

I am unsure as to which conquest you are referring to when you say "smashed the place to bits - including people's homes, businesses, Temples and the beautifully carved and painted statues of the peaceful Gods they worshipped". The conquest of Mecca saw very little bloodshed or destruction, mainly because the city's defenders were overwhelmed by Muhammad's ten thousand strong force. Most of the resistance occurred on the outskirts of Mecca, as Arabs of the time (and even long before Muhammad's time) forbade fighting in Mecca. This tradition was exemplified in the conflict between the Confederates and the Scented Ones. Qusayy (Muhammad's great great great grandfather, father's side), once ruler of Mecca and Guardian of the Ka'bah, had four sons; two of them, Abdu Manaf (leader of the Scented Ones) and Abd ad-Dar (leader of the Confederates), would eventually form clans for themselves and compete for Mecca after their father had died (Qusayy had preferred Abd ad-Dar, although the city knew Abdu Manaf was a far more capable man and leader). The two sides were on the verge of leaving Mecca to fight until a compromise was offered and accepted.

Before Islam Arabs were very peaceful traders, after Islam they became violent and aggressive ...

Before Islam, in Mecca alone, there were multiple feuds and battles which saw a change in leadership and established a new guardian of the Ka'bah. After Ishmael's time, the Jurhumites forcefully established themselves as rulers of Mecca (during which time they introduced the Ka'bah and the greater city to stone idols). They were eventually overthrown by the Kuza'ah, a Yemeni tribe which migrated northwards, who brought with them Hubal (which they received as a gift from another tribe, and so the story of Hubal began). Later, after a fierce battle, Qusayy of the Quraysh established his tribe as the rightful rulers of Mecca. And then there is Surah 105 of the Qur'an which describes the story of The Elephant. During the time when Yemen was under the control of Abyssinian Christians, an Abyssinian leader named Abrahah sought to build a cathedral in San'a in hopes of winning over Mecca's pilgrims and establishing a new House of Worship in Arabia. When the cathedral was defiled by a tribe which was on good terms with the Quraysh, Abrahah swore revenge and gathered an army and an elephant to destroy the Ka'bah. As they arrived on the outskirts of the city, the elephant was commanded to proceed to Mecca. However, the elephant would only kneel when in the direction of Mecca and would not budge forward. When commanded to retreat, it complied; when reordered to go forth in the direction of Mecca, once again the elephant knelt. Soon the sky grew black, eclipsed by birds; each bird had three pebbles, which it dropped fiercely on the invading army below, slaying all but the elephant.

Whether or not you believe the story, the conflict was real. Arabs were no more peaceful before Islam than after; the only significant difference is, they were organized well enough after Islam to involve themselves in serious campaigns against neighbouring empires rather than frequent and savage quarrels amongst themselves.
 
S.A.M.



Because their parents did, as did their parents, and their parents, too. These practices have become tradition; whether or not they can trace their rootsto Islam is not of importance.

Why don't we follow the customs and traditions of our parents?

Actually, legend has it that Muhammad personally smashed all three-hundred sixty idols himself after conquering the city of Mecca. Later in Ramadan, he ordered three close friends of his (including Khalid bin Walid) to destroy other key idols worshipped by Arabs of the time. It must have been a powerful sight to behold: the reclaiming of the house Abraham and his son Ishmael built centuries ago.

I am unsure as to which conquest you are referring to when you say "smashed the place to bits - including people's homes, businesses, Temples and the beautifully carved and painted statues of the peaceful Gods they worshipped". The conquest of Mecca saw very little bloodshed or destruction, mainly because the city's defenders were overwhelmed by Muhammad's ten thousand strong force. Most of the resistance occurred on the outskirts of Mecca, as Arabs of the time (and even long before Muhammad's time) forbade fighting in Mecca. This tradition was exemplified in the conflict between the Confederates and the Scented Ones. Qusayy (Muhammad's great great great grandfather, father's side), once ruler of Mecca and Guardian of the Ka'bah, had four sons; two of them, Abdu Manaf (leader of the Scented Ones) and Abd ad-Dar (leader of the Confederates), would eventually form clans for themselves and compete for Mecca after their father had died (Qusayy had preferred Abd ad-Dar, although the city knew Abdu Manaf was a far more capable man and leader). The two sides were on the verge of leaving Mecca to fight until a compromise was offered and accepted.



Before Islam, in Mecca alone, there were multiple feuds and battles which saw a change in leadership and established a new guardian of the Ka'bah. After Ishmael's time, the Jurhumites forcefully established themselves as rulers of Mecca (during which time they introduced the Ka'bah and the greater city to stone idols). They were eventually overthrown by the Kuza'ah, a Yemeni tribe which migrated northwards, who brought with them Hubal (which they received as a gift from another tribe, and so the story of Hubal began). Later, after a fierce battle, Qusayy of the Quraysh established his tribe as the rightful rulers of Mecca. And then there is Surah 105 of the Qur'an which describes the story of The Elephant. During the time when Yemen was under the control of Abyssinian Christians, an Abyssinian leader named Abrahah sought to build a cathedral in San'a in hopes of winning over Mecca's pilgrims and establishing a new House of Worship in Arabia. When the cathedral was defiled by a tribe which was on good terms with the Quraysh, Abrahah swore revenge and gathered an army and an elephant to destroy the Ka'bah. As they arrived on the outskirts of the city, the elephant was commanded to proceed to Mecca. However, the elephant would only kneel when in the direction of Mecca and would not budge forward. When commanded to retreat, it complied; when reordered to go forth in the direction of Mecca, once again the elephant knelt. Soon the sky grew black, eclipsed by birds; each bird had three pebbles, which it dropped fiercely on the invading army below, slaying all but the elephant.

Whether or not you believe the story, the conflict was real. Arabs were no more peaceful before Islam than after; the only significant difference is, they were organized well enough after Islam to involve themselves in serious campaigns against neighbouring empires rather than frequent and savage quarrels amongst themselves.

Cool. I didn't know this. How do you know surah al Fil refers to Abrahah?

edit: I found it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Elephant
 
Sam you show a picture of sixteenth century arab women and then compare them with nuns in a habit. It would have been more pertinent if you compared sixteenth century arab women with the dress of married women of that same time period. Nuns in habits are meant to show that they are not like other women, they are separate and belonged to the catholic church. The average european woman from the sixteenth century was not wearing a habit.
 
Sam you show a picture of sixteenth century arab women and then compare them with nuns in a habit. It would have been more pertinent if you compared sixteenth century arab women with the dress of married women of that same time period. Nuns in habits are meant to show that they are not like other women, they are separate and belonged to the catholic church. The average european woman from the sixteenth century was not wearing a habit.

There are no nuns in Islam. Which was the point.

Also, the veil is not an Islamic covering,

And she (Rebecca) said to the servant, "Who is that man in the field, walking toward us?" And the servant said, "He is my master (Isaac)," and she took the veil and covered herself. Genesis 24:65

Which was also the point. The quality of women as defined by veiling is a Christian concept and before that a Jewish one [see bedeken]
 
SAM said:
Also, the veil is not an Islamic covering,
Yes, it is. It is commonly prescribed by Muslim clerics, enforced by Muslim officials, adopted byMuslim women, and justified or explained by reference to the edicts of Islam.
SAM said:
The quality of women as defined by veiling is a Christian concept
No, it isn't. It is not found in any of the major Christian sects. Very few if any Christians "define the quality of women" by veiling them.
 
Yes, it is. I is prescribed by Mulsim clerics, enforced by Muslim officials, and justified by reference to the edicts of Islam.
No, it isn't. It is not found in any of the major Christian sects. Very few if any Christians "define the quality of women" by veiling them.

And hence my question.

"Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven."
 
SAM said:
And hence my question.
Which makes no sense.

You had to invent a fantasy world to ask it with relevance.

Witness:
SAM said:
"Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven."
Are you going to be claiming next that the hijab is not an "Islamic concept"?
 
Which makes no sense.

You had to invent a fantasy world to ask it with relevance.

Witness: Are you going to be claiming next that the hijab is not an "Islamic concept"?

Full quote:

1 Corinthians 11v4-6: Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

Why are Muslims covering their head and face? The Quran says nothing about head and face. There is only ONE refernce to hijab in the Quran and it refers to a curtain and seems more like a request to honour the private lives of individuals in the public sphere.

O Ye who believe! Enter not the dwellings of the Prophet for a meal without waiting for the proper time, unless permission be granted you. But if ye are invited, enter, and, when your meal is ended, then disperse. Linger not for conversation. Lo! That would cause annoyance to the Prophet, and he would be shy of (asking) you (to go); but Allah is not shy of the truth. And when ye ask of them anything, ask it of them from behind a curtain. (Qur'an 33:53)
 
SAM said:
Why are Muslims covering their head and face? The Quran says nothing about head and face. There is only ONE refernce to hijab in the Quran and it refers to a curtain
So?
 
So why does a request to others to not intrude upon the private lives of others get set aside and the bible verse to cover women become the norm?
 
Back
Top