Why is there any need for interpretation by these middle men? Why does something thats omnipotent have such problems communicating? [I] expect the Quran to talk about pig genes in vegetable products 1500 years ago
Islam strongly encourages learning as one of the noblest forms of worship and scientists were often praised in the Quran. Perhaps God didn't tell humanity everything that is to know so that they discover the universe on their own. It is widely believed in Islam that learning was one of the primary reasons for creation of mankind. In that context, it makes sense. (See 2:30 to 2:32 in the Quran. Also,The relation between Islam and science is discussed here quite well).
will also know that we're human and therefore there should be no room for doubt as to meanings, because conflicts and divisions will ensue In the Quran and quotes of the prophet, the big picture is very clear and not very open to interpretation. All the important stuff are there and Muslims rarely have conflict over them. For example, the Quran says that "there is no enforcement into religion". If someone says "I'm a Muslim" and then forces someone into Islam, then it's human hypocricy in action, not miscommunication. As for stuff related to changing times and scientific discovery, God left those to us. The prophet encouraged Muslims to 'renew religion' by thinking about new situations and applying Islamic axioms to them. Some Islamic scholars did quite an impressive job. One even discussed the rights of a human if he was created by means other than normal parenthood. That was a few centuries ago and the concept of cloning was undreamed of but the scholar thought of it as a philosophical exercise!
But god does. And they're "guiding" you to what god thinks. I'm sure 99% are honest and true to you and themselves. But its a perfect position to manipulate people from, and would therefore attract the sort of person that would want to manipulate others
Well, prophet Muhammad in his life was a very good listener and consulted other Muslims in most of his decisions. His companions did the same and were careful to make sure people could come forward and correct them if they made any mistakes. If the current Muslim community read history and followed their example, manipulators would have a very hard time. The fact that the majority of Muslims are ignorant of that topic is due to a mix of bad decisions and social circumstances, hardly the error of the Islamic System. Scholars or no scholars, ignorant people are always manipulted by power hungry people.
FWIW i applaud you for your English skills. Skills that you acquired because the US was built on freedom of and from religion, freedom of thought, freedom of trade. And so it became ideal place to prosper. They became wealthy and their influence has spread through the world
Thanks! I don't live in America BTW* but I appreciate and admire the freedoms they created and fought so hard to keep. America may have it's problem now (sigh) but it's mostly built on the right principles. It's funny that Islam guarantees almost all those freedoms but in the Middle East Muslim nations ignore them. I remeber a famous Muslim scholar who went to Europe, and came back to say "Those people aren't even Muslims, but they follow Islam better than us!"
----- * I was taught by English and American teachers in school, though:)
You're mistinterpreting my words. Read my other posts where I describe how rules in Islam are set. Here's my response to your specific points:
So "scholars" determine the official stance? Not your god then?
As I said, the authority of a scholar comes from his knowledge of the interpretation of the Quran and the other sources. God makes the rules and the scholars explain them. My disclaimer (that you quote) doesn't say "Only certain people get to decide" but it says "I'm not an expert in the field".
I mean if it were an important issue surely your all powerful god would make its intentions absolutely clear?
What? you expect the Quran to talk about pig genes in vegetable products 1500 years ago? God set the basic rules and left scientists and thinkers to deduce the rest as time passes and new discoveries are made. This isn't particular to Islam either, many Jewish sites have a Q&A section where Rabbis apply ideas from the old testament to modern day scenarios.
but then i suppose the power wouldn't be in the hands of the "scholars"
You speak as if 'scholar' is a political position. You think they want to control people by saying that only themselves represent God. Islam doesn't work that way. Any Muslim can study enough and call himself a scholar. He won't gain automatic status and people won't blindly follow him. I repeat: it's not a position of power. It's a job title. Think of it like a lawyer: an expert in a specialized field that people consult, but he has no power over them.
So you can pick and choose these rules and still be a muslim. Whats the point of being identified as something if the characteristics of that something are meaningless?
Not picking and choosing the rules, but free thinking. We have a rule:"don't eat pig's meat or byproducts" and we are trying to see if a rule applies to a certain situation:"is pig genes in another creature a byproduct?" The question is partially scientific and partially philosophical. When a Muslim says his opinion in the matter, he's trying to discover the true answer and follow it, not make his own rules. If there is a clear evidence that one answer is true and the rest are not, people will follow that answer, not pick nad choose. And it's further indication that scholars don't "control people". Individual Muslims are encouraged to think for themselves about all matters in religioun, large and small.
Ah the irony. Life is only precious when it comes to stuffing ones face
What is stuffing one's face? I'm afraid I'm not a native English speaker.
You make halal questions sound very personal choice / decentralized
Islam is indeed quite decentralized. An Islamic scholar cannot say "trust me and do this and that" , but he has to justify in detail why he says a certain rule should be followed. All rules in Islam are derived from a set of well known sources (Mainly The Quran and quotes of the prophet) and a set of complex rules of inference from those sources that take years to learn. A scholar's authority over a normal person comes not from his position but from his knowledge and expertise in this area.
If Islamic scholars were asked about the tomatoes with pig genes issue,they will likely fall into one of the three camps I mentioned . If the majority agrees on one answer then this will be the 'agreement of scientists' which is the nearest thing we have to an official stance. If they didn't agree, a Muslim would have to see how each scholar's opinion was justified and make his/her own choice (or play it safe and avoid the product, especially that it's trivially easy when the product is a given brand of tomato!).
there's a couple of central authorities for 'certifying' foods as kosher (one in the US somewhere, and one in Israel) Does Islam have an equivilant authority?
Yes. In the USA and Europe ( and certainly in other countries) there are Islamic organizations whose job is to determine what food is haram and what is halal. They even publish lists of common brand names and their haram/halal status (can't remember their names though ).
But Muslims do not see these as authorities. We see them as helpful people who did the research for us, and they're almost certainly more correct than someone who didn't do the same research.
Well, I'm a Muslim, but not a religious scholar, so I'm saying my personal opinion, not the 'official' stance of Islam.
Your example of pig genes in tomatoes can go in many ways. Some Muslims will argue that if it's "pig anything" it's not halal and we won't eat it.
Other Muslims may say "guys, it's just tomatoes..as long as it's not real pig body parts then no problem".
Then some others will say "depends on the genes themselves. If they are the genes pigs have in common with other creatures that we already eat freely like cows, then it isn't a problem, but if its genes found only in pigs and other non-halal animals then we'll avoid it".
Notice, however, that Islam is a very practical religion. And in every time the Quran mentions that pigs are forbidden , it mentions that if someone was forced to eat them or he'll die, then he could eat them as long as his intent is saving life , not disobeying God.
So I think if a Muslim had to eat some genetically modified product ( that he believes isn't halal) in order to save himself/herself from diarrehea or from hunger, there is no problem with that as long as there is absolutely no other way. If conventional medicine and/or other sources of food exist or can be acquired , he/she has to use those.
When you capitalize the first letter in a noun it becomes a proper name. It becomes more than just the meaning of the word. I could accept the arabic term for "servant" (rough translation, muslim) as long as it's clear you're not trying to convince us that it's the same as the Arabic word "Servant" (Muslim). Likewise for Islam. Make it clear you're using the word for it's actual definition rather than as a proper name.
Forgive my sloppy capitalization (I'm not a native English speaker). I'm not trying to convince you of anything, just explain how we Muslims see the fact that previous prophets were also muslims. The problem is that your definition of Islam ( the proper noun) is "the religioun brought by prophet Muhammad" but that wasn't always the case. Islam existed before prophet Muhammad. If we want a precise definition of Islam( again, the proper noun) it would include "The belief in all the messengers of God,from the first of them to the final". And indeed, this is a subset of the formal definition of Islam.
But if Abraham said "I am the first of submitters" then either Abraham (the prophet) was not a very good prophet or the Quran is wrong when it says Adam and Eve were "submitters" as well?
I think it depends on context.I think Prophet Abraham wasn't answering an historical question but answering the call of God. He meant "I am the first of submitters among my people/the people alive today".
And you surely don't mean each religion, unless designated to be each among the three. Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Other religions, even other monotheisms are rejected, correct?
Not only those 3. The only religions that are rejected are the ones not received from a true prophet. So we believe in the message sent to prophet Dawood ( David) and Nooh (Noah) for example. To us,again, it was the continuation of the message of Islam.
on what basis should one from Judaism or Christianity identify Islam as true? Did Allah ever show proof? I didn't read the Bible or the Torah, but in the Quran it is mentioned that God said in the original Bible that there will be a final prophet with the message from God. And that a similar message was told to the Jews. In the history of Islam , it is told that indeed a lot of Jews believed in prophet Muhammad because they knew of him and expected him.
Here's an old commandment. On the testimony of two or three witnesses shall a man be condemned to death. Muhammad is only one witness. Um, I don't understand,you are saying prophet Muhammad was a witness to what exactly?
That would be insufficiant to condemn a man to death by the ancient law, which was given to Moses. Is there a similar commandment in the Quran?
Yes. The rules are subtly different but there is a minimum number of witnesses needed before condemning a criminal. The exact number is different according to the crime. you can check here for more details.
Consider this a key difference between Judaism and Islam/Xianity then. Some cultures place different value on intellectual pursuits.
I didn't understrand. Did you mean that Islam gives a high value to intellectual pursuits or that it gives a lower value?
Islam encourages science and intellectual pursuits a lot. The Quran is full of praise for scientists and how they are better worshippers of God than those who don't bother learning. It also mentions that after God showed the angels how Adam is capable of learning, the angels understood why God created him and was making him his follower/agent on Earth.
The point I made, about how not a lot of Egyptian youth are geeks was a jab at modern society in general, not at Islamic societies ( the same problem is everywhere) . FWIW, not a lot of Egyptian youth are particularly religious, either.
The fact that those parts of the world were civilized 500 years ago doesn't tell you much about what to expect out of them now. Well, it tells that Islam is not inherently against science or civilization as some claim. In fact, quite the opposite: in the Golden ages of Islam there was a lot of invention.
Then perhaps modern Egyptians will be more prone to take up civil engineering.
There are a lot of successful Egyptian scientists and engineers ( we even have some Nobel prize winners). Of course, we don't have nearly enough of those and I wish they were much more, but the problem is not related to Islam, it's that most Egyptian young people wanna be 'cool dudes' instead of geeks:(
Your faith (Islam) claims foundation upon the faith of Abraham. Islam, as a recognized religion, does not preceed Christianity and Judaism, which both make the same claim. But Islam does claim that it's progression is even from Judaism and Christianity, and that Judaism and Christianity (as a general rule) have fallen away. Right?
Islam means "submission" as in "submission to God". We Muslims believe that all preceding prophets were calling to Islam. Prohpet Moses, for example, simply called people to submit to God and worship him, he didn't say to people "Enter a religion that will be know as Judaism", these names were put later by historians. From that point of view, Judaism and Christianity were all parts of a larger picture of the messages of God, and Islam became complete with the message of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). It is noted, however , that believers of God have to accept each new prophet, so when prophet Jesus came, it would not be enough to simply follow the preceding prophets. Those people would not be Muslims but "people of the book", i.e. people who follow a previous message, albeit a true one.
Therefore, in the era when Islam considered Judaism as pure, it would be equally correct to claim that Adam and Eve were Jewish? And when Christianity was considered pure, it would also be correct to claim that Adam and Eve were Christians? Therefore, Adam & Eve were just as jewish and christian as they were muslim.
In the era when Judaism was sufficient, it *was* Islam. Not Islam as the message to prophet Mohamed, but Islam nontheless. So in that pre-Christianity era Adam & Eve were Muslims the same way those Jewish people were. However, since Adam and Eve died long before the term Judaism was coined to mean "believers in the message of Moses" we can't call them Jews.
That was only one critical aspect of my post. The other critical aspect is that it's dishonest to credit something prior to it's appearance in history. Islam does not appear in history prior to Muhammad.
Perhaps Islam didn't appear then in history with it's current meaning (i.e. the message of Muhammad), but according to the Quran, all prophets told their people "Submit to God". Prophet Abraham himself said "I am the first of submitters" , which in Arabic would be "I am the first of Muslims". So there was Islam prior to the final prophet.It may not be recorded in the history you read, but it is in ours. The language differences contribute the the ambuiguity.
The Quran commends those "people of the book" (christians and jews) who do not stray from the purity of monotheism or something to that effect, right? Would you also say that those faithful "people of the book" are truly muslims? You'd have to, if you wish to claim that Adam, Even, Abraham and Jesus were muslim. To include one for reason of faithfulness and exclude another despite faithfulness is dishonest.
According to the Quran: each religion is Islam until a later messenger of God arrives,then the faithful are those who follow him. And prophet Muhammad was the last messenger, so no, current Christians and Jews are not truly Muslims, but Adam,Eve, Abraham and Jesus ( may God be pleased with them all) were, because they believed in the last message as of their times.
Do you even know how Islam started? Yes, I do. Being an Arab Muslim and all.
Say, the forcible conversion at scimitar point. When did that happen? can you point to a known historical incident or do you just repeat what you hear?
or has the rioting and deaths over cartoons... Those acts were the sole responsibility of some individual Muslims, not Islam. There have been people who harmed prophet Mohammed in his lifetime, and he was in a position of power and could punish them if he wanted, but he didn't.Often he prayed for them. True Muslims are just, even when they're angry over a blasphemy.
Freedom of religion? As long as it's Muslim. No. In the golden age of Islam, Christians and Jews were 100% free to practice their religions.An important Islamic rule is that no one can be forced into Islam or prevented from practicing his own religion.
Freedom of speech? Sure, as long as it doesn't go against anything in the Koran. Are you talking about Muslims going against the Quran or non muslims? AFAIK, non Muslims can freely say their opinion about the Quran. Muslims wouldn't do anything to them. For Muslims, that's another story. If someone enters Islam, he has to follow the rules.
Right to live? Sure, as long as you are Muslim What are you talking about? Muslims are allowed to kill only in war, and they're not allowed to kill civilians then. where did you get the idea that it's otherwise?
and once you're in, you can never leave or it means death) Again,no one is forced to go into Islam. We believe that it's better for a person's life ( and afterlife) to enter, but still, it is each individual's choice.
Not that there's anything wrong with using Microsoft products, but here in Egypt most people don't even know other products exist.
MSN messenger is dominant ( though many people use yahoo! and ICQ). Very few people have heard of Corel Office or Lotus Smartsuite. worse, very few developers have heard of Delphi ( shame!). And when I tell somebody that Delphi is easier to use than, say, Visual C++ 6, They look at me with surprised faces and say "What? Everyone knows Microsoft are the masters of easy to use products".
Microsoft got them early. They have made several deals with the government and educational institutions to make everyone use MS products. When you are taught C# the moment you enter colledge, it wont be easy to learn about anything else.
Personally, as an Arab developer, I have no problems with coding using English constructs. Most Arab developers are the same. It's quite the opposite, in fact, there have been many attempts to create an 'Arabic programming language' that used Arabic keywords and identifiers, but none of them became popular even if the language itself was good.
The problem, IMO, is with learning, not developing. Some of my students are not very good English speakers. They have no problem with basic programming constructs like for or while, but when it comes to high level abstractions, they have trouble.
For example, we have to spend quite some time explaining the difference between.net's IComparable and IComparer interfaces, or what a 'paradigm' is. In many cases part of the lesson had to be a lesson in English instead of programming!
Dude, What you say is 100% in agreement with my points - I said women are allowed to work in Islam freely - I said that tourist women are mistaken because they didn't respect the rules of the place - And yet , Muslims are tolerant of said behaviour and they shouldn't threaten or harm them, merely tell them to come only if they respect the rules.
Why do you keep telling me that I don't understand Islam and that I make blanket statements?
Did you mean to reply to someone else?
Strange, Google doesn't show many hits for "Islamic scientist" (only 466) and most of those refer to people studying science such as optics. I'm not a native English speaker so pehaps I mistranlated the term. There are two kinds of Islamic scientists : * Scientists in the ways of life: Those are the standard researchers in bilogy, chemistry, physics, maths...etc * Scientists in the ways of religion: Those are the one's who try to answer religious questions using a rigourous logic induction/deduction system which assumes the Quran and the Words of the Prophet are axioms, and attempt to deduce all other rules from them.
Islam encourages both ways of science and many Muslim scientists are adept at both. Unfortunately I'm only good at the first type (computer science) and thus can't always tell with 100% certainity if is an Isdlamic rule or not.
The only thing I read is a verse in the Quran where God orders women to cover themselves. I heard of the "moral police" in Saudi Arabia who threaten women to wear suitable attire among other duties, but honestly I don't know if this is part of Islam or an 'initiative' from the Saudi Government. I should read more about that.
Yes, you should read more.
What does that mean? does it say somewhere that Islam dictates said moral police?
Perhaps Saddam's regime did this in the name of Islam, but Islam is innocent from these horrible actions.
This is another of those cases where you have not read enough. Saddam was secular. He did not enforce Islamic law (Sharia).
I didn't understand the grandparent poster, I thought he said "Saddam did so and so in the name of Islam". In any case Islam is innocent from what has been done, regardless of the regime. No Muslim would kill/rape a woman in any situation because she wasn't well covered.
In that case, in Islam, a woman can work trade, fight in a war,teach,get educated, become presidents or parliment members, write poetry, and practically any type of business women in the west can do ( they can even sing, as far as I know, but to a women-only audience).
You might want to take a look at the fundamentalist Taliban and their implementation of Sharia.
Seriously, do some research. It's not like it's that difficult.
I know what Taliban did, but that has nothing to do with Islam. There were many crimes commited in the name of Christianity ( say) , that doesn't make Christianism or Christians bad.
Okay, I misunderstood you, but that was orthogonal to the original point, which I think I replied to: Women could work and deal with men...etc normally in Islam. They do that everyday in Islamic countries.
As for tourists being attacked or threatened because they don't wear enough. Well, I think these women were mistaken because they didn't respect other people's religion and culture. It would be like slaughtering a cow in India in public. That said, threatening or attacking them wouldn't be what a Muslim would do, far from it. He would simply avoid them and move on. If he wanted to do something about it perhaps he would tell them nicely they're expected to respect the rules of the place.
You're kiding right? No, 'twas an honest question:)
You mean other than being beaten to death or raped for leaving the house wearing unsuitable attire? I'm a Muslim, and while Im not an Islamic scientist and thus dont know all the rules, I've never, ever read or knew of a rule that says "punishment X for a woman who doesn't cover her body and hair". The only thing I read is a verse in the Quran where God orders women to cover themselves. I heard of the "moral police" in Saudi Arabia who threaten women to wear suitable attire among other duties, but honestly I don't know if this is part of Islam or an 'initiative' from the Saudi Government. I should read more about that.
And certainly beating or raping a woman is the last thing Islam would command. If a man does this to a woman, this would be a sure ticket to the worst pits of hell. Perhaps Saddam's regime did this in the name of Islam, but Islam is innocent from these horrible actions.
Under Saddam women could even work. And why is this bad? perhaps you mean "under saddam women couldn't even work"?. In that case, in Islam, a woman can work trade, fight in a war,teach,get educated, become presidents or parliment members, write poetry, and practically any type of business women in the west can do ( they can even sing, as far as I know, but to a women-only audience).
The thing is, most developers use the dev tool/database they 'play with'. So all companies are releasing a "playful developer edition" of their tools, so that developers learn their stuff, play with it,and when they do a serious project, they will ask their boss to buy tool X because it's what they know.
To directly answer your question: you don't have a reason to replace MySql on your site where you post mexico photos. But IBM wants other people to use DB/2 on their personal sites/apps so that they get the habit of using it elsewhere.
I feel your pain. Humans in general don't like thinking, and prefer to replace it with the repetition/amplification of pre-canned thoughts. This has led to a lot of 'idea factories' ranging from political parties to aggregators, as you mentioned.
But still. Stuff like slashdot and digg aren't all repeated crap, often you find genuinely interesting opinions from genuinely interesting people, and then it's worth wading through the other cliche's and buzzwords.
Back to the topic, a game review agrregator would actually work for a good reviewer, not against him, even by making more people know that reviewer X exists. And if he really does stand up from the crowd, he will be a neat red line within standing from all the grey areas around him.
If I make good reviews, and they get aggregated with other reviews, why is this a bad thing that has to be 'defied'? Isn't the aggregation service something the readers persumably want?
And why assume that the reader will only look at the score from your review? perhaps the reader is actually interested in the detailed information you provide and click on a link to your site from the aggregation site? And then the aggregation site will actually benfit the reviewer, not go against him.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is there any need for interpretation by these middle men? Why does something thats omnipotent have such problems communicating? [I] expect the Quran to talk about pig genes in vegetable products 1500 years ago
:)
Islam strongly encourages learning as one of the noblest forms of worship and scientists were often praised in the Quran.
Perhaps God didn't tell humanity everything that is to know so that they discover the universe on their own. It is widely believed in Islam that learning was one of the primary reasons for creation of mankind. In that context, it makes sense. (See 2:30 to 2:32 in the Quran. Also,The relation between Islam and science is discussed here quite well).
will also know that we're human and therefore there should be no room for doubt as to meanings, because conflicts and divisions will ensue
In the Quran and quotes of the prophet, the big picture is very clear and not very open to interpretation. All the important stuff are there and Muslims rarely have conflict over them. For example, the Quran says that "there is no enforcement into religion". If someone says "I'm a Muslim" and then forces someone into Islam, then it's human hypocricy in action, not miscommunication.
As for stuff related to changing times and scientific discovery, God left those to us. The prophet encouraged Muslims to 'renew religion' by thinking about new situations and applying Islamic axioms to them. Some Islamic scholars did quite an impressive job. One even discussed the rights of a human if he was created by means other than normal parenthood. That was a few centuries ago and the concept of cloning was undreamed of but the scholar thought of it as a philosophical exercise!
But god does. And they're "guiding" you to what god thinks. I'm sure 99% are honest and true to you and themselves. But its a perfect position to manipulate people from, and would therefore attract the sort of person that would want to manipulate others
Well, prophet Muhammad in his life was a very good listener and consulted other Muslims in most of his decisions. His companions did the same and were careful to make sure people could come forward and correct them if they made any mistakes. If the current Muslim community read history and followed their example, manipulators would have a very hard time. The fact that the majority of Muslims are ignorant of that topic is due to a mix of bad decisions and social circumstances, hardly the error of the Islamic System.
Scholars or no scholars, ignorant people are always manipulted by power hungry people.
FWIW i applaud you for your English skills. Skills that you acquired because the US was built on freedom of and from religion, freedom of thought, freedom of trade. And so it became ideal place to prosper. They became wealthy and
their influence has spread through the world
Thanks! I don't live in America BTW* but I appreciate and admire the freedoms they created and fought so hard to keep. America may have it's problem now (sigh) but it's mostly built on the right principles.
It's funny that Islam guarantees almost all those freedoms but in the Middle East Muslim nations ignore them. I remeber a famous Muslim scholar who went to Europe, and came back to say "Those people aren't even Muslims, but they follow Islam better than us!"
-----
* I was taught by English and American teachers in school, though
You're mistinterpreting my words. Read my other posts where I describe how rules in Islam are set. Here's my response to your specific points:
So "scholars" determine the official stance? Not your god then?
As I said, the authority of a scholar comes from his knowledge of the interpretation of the Quran and the other sources. God makes the rules and the scholars explain them.
My disclaimer (that you quote) doesn't say "Only certain people get to decide" but it says "I'm not an expert in the field".
I mean if it were an important issue surely your all powerful god would make its intentions absolutely clear?
What? you expect the Quran to talk about pig genes in vegetable products 1500 years ago? God set the basic rules and left scientists and thinkers to deduce the rest as time passes and new discoveries are made.
This isn't particular to Islam either, many Jewish sites have a Q&A section where Rabbis apply ideas from the old testament to modern day scenarios.
but then i suppose the power wouldn't be in the hands of the "scholars"
You speak as if 'scholar' is a political position. You think they want to control people by saying that only themselves represent God. Islam doesn't work that way.
Any Muslim can study enough and call himself a scholar. He won't gain automatic status and people won't blindly follow him.
I repeat: it's not a position of power. It's a job title. Think of it like a lawyer: an expert in a specialized field that people consult, but he has no power over them.
So you can pick and choose these rules and still be a muslim. Whats the point of being identified as something if the characteristics of that something are meaningless?
Not picking and choosing the rules, but free thinking. We have a rule:"don't eat pig's meat or byproducts" and we are trying to see if a rule applies to a certain situation:"is pig genes in another creature a byproduct?"
The question is partially scientific and partially philosophical. When a Muslim says his opinion in the matter, he's trying to discover the true answer and follow it, not make his own rules. If there is a clear evidence that one answer is true and the rest are not, people will follow that answer, not pick nad choose.
And it's further indication that scholars don't "control people". Individual Muslims are encouraged to think for themselves about all matters in religioun, large and small.
Ah the irony. Life is only precious when it comes to stuffing ones face
What is stuffing one's face? I'm afraid I'm not a native English speaker.
So like you said, it's not exactly centralised but it's not a completely personal decision either :)
Very well said
Glad to be of help :)
As to your follow up,
You make halal questions sound very personal choice / decentralized
Islam is indeed quite decentralized. An Islamic scholar cannot say "trust me and do this and that" , but he has to justify in detail why he says a certain rule should be followed.
All rules in Islam are derived from a set of well known sources (Mainly The Quran and quotes of the prophet) and a set of complex rules of inference from those sources that take years to learn. A scholar's authority over a normal person comes not from his position but from his knowledge and expertise in this area.
If Islamic scholars were asked about the tomatoes with pig genes issue,they will likely fall into one of the three camps I mentioned . If the majority agrees on one answer then this will be the 'agreement of scientists' which is the nearest thing we have to an official stance. If they didn't agree, a Muslim would have to see how each scholar's opinion was justified and make his/her own choice (or play it safe and avoid the product, especially that it's trivially easy when the product is a given brand of tomato!).
there's a couple of central authorities for 'certifying' foods as kosher (one in the US somewhere, and one in Israel) Does Islam have an equivilant authority?
Yes. In the USA and Europe ( and certainly in other countries) there are Islamic organizations whose job is to determine what food is haram and what is halal. They even publish lists of common brand names and their haram/halal status (can't remember their names though ).
But Muslims do not see these as authorities. We see them as helpful people who did the research for us, and they're almost certainly more correct than someone who didn't do the same research.
Well,
I'm a Muslim, but not a religious scholar, so I'm saying my personal opinion, not the 'official' stance of Islam.
Your example of pig genes in tomatoes can go in many ways. Some Muslims will argue that if it's "pig anything" it's not halal and we won't eat it.
Other Muslims may say "guys, it's just tomatoes..as long as it's not real pig body parts then no problem".
Then some others will say "depends on the genes themselves. If they are the genes pigs have in common with other creatures that we already eat freely like cows, then it isn't a problem, but if its genes found only in pigs and other non-halal animals then we'll avoid it".
Notice, however, that Islam is a very practical religion. And in every time the Quran mentions that pigs are forbidden , it mentions that if someone was forced to eat them or he'll die, then he could eat them as long as his intent is saving life , not disobeying God.
So I think if a Muslim had to eat some genetically modified product ( that he believes isn't halal) in order to save himself/herself from diarrehea or from hunger, there is no problem with that as long as there is absolutely no other way. If conventional medicine and/or other sources of food exist or can be acquired , he/she has to use those.
Hope that answered your question.
When you capitalize the first letter in a noun it becomes a proper name. It becomes more than just the meaning of the word. I could accept the arabic term for "servant" (rough translation, muslim) as long as it's clear you're not trying to convince us that it's the same as the Arabic word "Servant" (Muslim). Likewise for Islam. Make it clear you're using the word for it's actual definition rather than as a proper name.
Forgive my sloppy capitalization (I'm not a native English speaker). I'm not trying to convince you of anything, just explain how we Muslims see the fact that previous prophets were also muslims. The problem is that your definition of Islam ( the proper noun) is "the religioun brought by prophet Muhammad" but that wasn't always the case. Islam existed before prophet Muhammad.
If we want a precise definition of Islam( again, the proper noun) it would include "The belief in all the messengers of God,from the first of them to the final".
And indeed, this is a subset of the formal definition of Islam.
But if Abraham said "I am the first of submitters" then either Abraham (the prophet) was not a very good prophet or the Quran is wrong when it says Adam and Eve were "submitters" as well?
I think it depends on context.I think Prophet Abraham wasn't answering an historical question but answering the call of God. He meant "I am the first of submitters among my people/the people alive today".
And you surely don't mean each religion, unless designated to be each among the three. Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Other religions, even other monotheisms are rejected, correct?
Not only those 3. The only religions that are rejected are the ones not received from a true prophet. So we believe in the message sent to prophet Dawood ( David) and Nooh (Noah) for example. To us,again, it was the continuation of the message of Islam.
on what basis should one from Judaism or Christianity identify Islam as true? Did Allah ever show proof?
I didn't read the Bible or the Torah, but in the Quran it is mentioned that God said in the original Bible that there will be a final prophet with the message from God. And that a similar message was told to the Jews. In the history of Islam , it is told that indeed a lot of Jews believed in prophet Muhammad because they knew of him and expected him.
Here's an old commandment. On the testimony of two or three witnesses shall a man be condemned to death. Muhammad is only one witness.
Um, I don't understand,you are saying prophet Muhammad was a witness to what exactly?
That would be insufficiant to condemn a man to death by the ancient law, which was given to Moses. Is there a similar commandment in the Quran?
Yes. The rules are subtly different but there is a minimum number of witnesses needed before condemning a criminal. The exact number is different according to the crime. you can check here for more details.
Consider this a key difference between Judaism and Islam/Xianity then.
Some cultures place different value on intellectual pursuits.
I didn't understrand. Did you mean that Islam gives a high value to intellectual pursuits or that it gives a lower value?
Islam encourages science and intellectual pursuits a lot.
The Quran is full of praise for scientists and how they are better worshippers of God than those who don't bother learning. It also mentions that after God showed the angels how Adam is capable of learning, the angels understood why God created him and was making him his follower/agent on Earth.
The point I made, about how not a lot of Egyptian youth are geeks was a jab at modern society in general, not at Islamic societies ( the same problem is everywhere) . FWIW, not a lot of Egyptian youth are particularly religious, either.
For more info about how Islam encourages science, I suggest
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/scislam.html
The fact that those parts of the world were civilized 500 years ago doesn't tell you much about what to expect out of them now.
:(
Well, it tells that Islam is not inherently against science or civilization as some claim. In fact, quite the opposite: in the Golden ages of Islam there was a lot of invention.
Then perhaps modern Egyptians will be more prone to take up civil engineering.
There are a lot of successful Egyptian scientists and engineers ( we even have some Nobel prize winners). Of course, we don't have nearly enough of those and I wish they were much more, but the problem is not related to Islam, it's that most Egyptian young people wanna be 'cool dudes' instead of geeks
Your faith (Islam) claims foundation upon the faith of Abraham. Islam, as a recognized religion, does not preceed Christianity and Judaism, which both make the same claim. But Islam does claim that it's progression is even from Judaism and Christianity, and that Judaism and Christianity (as a general rule) have fallen away. Right?
Islam means "submission" as in "submission to God". We Muslims believe that all preceding prophets were calling to Islam. Prohpet Moses, for example, simply called people to submit to God and worship him, he didn't say to people "Enter a religion that will be know as Judaism", these names were put later by historians. From that point of view, Judaism and Christianity were all parts of a larger picture of the messages of God, and Islam became complete with the message of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
It is noted, however , that believers of God have to accept each new prophet, so when prophet Jesus came, it would not be enough to simply follow the preceding prophets. Those people would not be Muslims but "people of the book", i.e. people who follow a previous message, albeit a true one.
Therefore, in the era when Islam considered Judaism as pure, it would be equally correct to claim that Adam and Eve were Jewish? And when Christianity was considered pure, it would also be correct to claim that Adam and Eve were Christians? Therefore, Adam & Eve were just as jewish and christian as they were muslim.
In the era when Judaism was sufficient, it *was* Islam. Not Islam as the message to prophet Mohamed, but Islam nontheless. So in that pre-Christianity era Adam & Eve were Muslims the same way those Jewish people were. However, since Adam and Eve died long before the term Judaism was coined to mean "believers in the message of Moses" we can't call them Jews.
That was only one critical aspect of my post. The other critical aspect is that it's dishonest to credit something prior to it's appearance in history. Islam does not appear in history prior to Muhammad.
Perhaps Islam didn't appear then in history with it's current meaning (i.e. the message of Muhammad), but according to the Quran, all prophets told their people "Submit to God". Prophet Abraham himself said "I am the first of submitters" , which in Arabic would be "I am the first of Muslims". So there was Islam prior to the final prophet.It may not be recorded in the history you read, but it is in ours. The language differences contribute the the ambuiguity.
The Quran commends those "people of the book" (christians and jews) who do not stray from the purity of monotheism or something to that effect, right? Would you also say that those faithful "people of the book" are truly muslims? You'd have to, if you wish to claim that Adam, Even, Abraham and Jesus were muslim. To include one for reason of faithfulness and exclude another despite faithfulness is dishonest.
According to the Quran: each religion is Islam until a later messenger of God arrives,then the faithful are those who follow him. And prophet Muhammad was the last messenger, so no, current Christians and Jews are not truly Muslims, but Adam,Eve, Abraham and Jesus ( may God be pleased with them all) were, because they believed in the last message as of their times.
Do you even know how Islam started?
Yes, I do. Being an Arab Muslim and all.
Say, the forcible conversion at scimitar point.
When did that happen? can you point to a known historical incident or do you just repeat what you hear?
or has the rioting and deaths over cartoons...
Those acts were the sole responsibility of some individual Muslims, not Islam. There have been people who harmed prophet Mohammed in his lifetime, and he was in a position of power and could punish them if he wanted, but he didn't.Often he prayed for them. True Muslims are just, even when they're angry over a blasphemy.
Freedom of religion? As long as it's Muslim.
No. In the golden age of Islam, Christians and Jews were 100% free to practice their religions.An important Islamic rule is that no one can be forced into Islam or prevented from practicing his own religion.
Freedom of speech? Sure, as long as it doesn't go against anything in the Koran.
Are you talking about Muslims going against the Quran or non muslims? AFAIK, non Muslims can freely say their opinion about the Quran. Muslims wouldn't do anything to them. For Muslims, that's another story. If someone enters Islam, he has to follow the rules.
Right to live? Sure, as long as you are Muslim
What are you talking about? Muslims are allowed to kill only in war, and they're not allowed to kill civilians then. where did you get the idea that it's otherwise?
and once you're in, you can never leave or it means death)
Again,no one is forced to go into Islam. We believe that it's better for a person's life ( and afterlife) to enter, but still, it is each individual's choice.
I didn't hear that one myself, thanks for sharing!
Not that there's anything wrong with using Microsoft products, but here in Egypt most people don't even know other products exist.
MSN messenger is dominant ( though many people use yahoo! and ICQ).
Very few people have heard of Corel Office or Lotus Smartsuite. worse, very few developers have heard of Delphi ( shame!). And when I tell somebody that Delphi is easier to use than, say, Visual C++ 6, They look at me with surprised faces and say "What? Everyone knows Microsoft are the masters of easy to use products".
Microsoft got them early. They have made several deals with the government and educational institutions to make everyone use MS products. When you are taught C# the moment you enter colledge, it wont be easy to learn about anything else.
Personally, as an Arab developer, I have no problems with coding using English constructs. Most Arab developers are the same.
.net's IComparable and IComparer interfaces, or what a 'paradigm' is. In many cases part of the lesson had to be a lesson in English instead of programming!
It's quite the opposite, in fact, there have been many attempts to create an 'Arabic programming language' that used Arabic keywords and identifiers, but none of them became popular even if the language itself was good.
The problem, IMO, is with learning, not developing.
Some of my students are not very good English speakers. They have no problem with basic programming constructs like for or while, but when it comes to high level abstractions, they have trouble.
For example, we have to spend quite some time explaining the difference between
Yeah, here in Egypt we have a lame joke regarding this topic.
Q: How does an English person iron his clothes?
A: From left to right!
*ducks*
Ummm, BIDI?
I appreciate the info!
Dude,
What you say is 100% in agreement with my points
- I said women are allowed to work in Islam freely
- I said that tourist women are mistaken because they didn't respect the rules of the place
- And yet , Muslims are tolerant of said behaviour and they shouldn't threaten or harm them, merely tell them to come only if they respect the rules.
Why do you keep telling me that I don't understand Islam and that I make blanket statements?
Did you mean to reply to someone else?
I'm not a native English speaker so pehaps I mistranlated the term.
There are two kinds of Islamic scientists :
* Scientists in the ways of life: Those are the standard researchers in bilogy, chemistry, physics, maths...etc
* Scientists in the ways of religion: Those are the one's who try to answer religious questions using a rigourous logic induction/deduction system which assumes the Quran and the Words of the Prophet are axioms, and attempt to deduce all other rules from them.
Islam encourages both ways of science and many Muslim scientists are adept at both. Unfortunately I'm only good at the first type (computer science) and thus can't always tell with 100% certainity if is an Isdlamic rule or not.
What does that mean? does it say somewhere that Islam dictates said moral police?
I didn't understand the grandparent poster, I thought he said "Saddam did so and so in the name of Islam". In any case Islam is innocent from what has been done, regardless of the regime. No Muslim would kill/rape a woman in any situation because she wasn't well covered.
I know what Taliban did, but that has nothing to do with Islam. There were many crimes commited in the name of Christianity ( say) , that doesn't make Christianism or Christians bad.
Okay, I misunderstood you, but that was orthogonal to the original point, which I think I replied to: Women could work and deal with men...etc normally in Islam. They do that everyday in Islamic countries.
As for tourists being attacked or threatened because they don't wear enough. Well, I think these women were mistaken because they didn't respect other people's religion and culture. It would be like slaughtering a cow in India in public.
That said, threatening or attacking them wouldn't be what a Muslim would do, far from it. He would simply avoid them and move on.
If he wanted to do something about it perhaps he would tell them nicely they're expected to respect the rules of the place.
Thanks for the reply,
:)
You're kiding right?
No, 'twas an honest question
You mean other than being beaten to death or raped for leaving the house wearing unsuitable attire?
I'm a Muslim, and while Im not an Islamic scientist and thus dont know all the rules, I've never, ever read or knew of a rule that says "punishment X for a woman who doesn't cover her body and hair". The only thing I read is a verse in the Quran where God orders women to cover themselves. I heard of the "moral police" in Saudi Arabia who threaten women to wear suitable attire among other duties, but honestly I don't know if this is part of Islam or an 'initiative' from the Saudi Government. I should read more about that.
And certainly beating or raping a woman is the last thing Islam would command. If a man does this to a woman, this would be a sure ticket to the worst pits of hell. Perhaps Saddam's regime did this in the name of Islam, but Islam is innocent from these horrible actions.
Under Saddam women could even work.
And why is this bad? perhaps you mean "under saddam women couldn't even work"?.
In that case, in Islam, a woman can work trade, fight in a war,teach,get educated, become presidents or parliment members, write poetry, and practically any type of business women in the west can do ( they can even sing, as far as I know, but to a women-only audience).
Um, sorry, but what do you mean "women are second class citizens?"
What do Muslim women lack in citizen rights that men have, in Islam?
The thing is, most developers use the dev tool/database they 'play with'.
So all companies are releasing a "playful developer edition" of their tools, so that developers learn their stuff, play with it,and when they do a serious project, they will ask their boss to buy tool X because it's what they know.
To directly answer your question: you don't have a reason to replace MySql on your site where you post mexico photos. But IBM wants other people to use DB/2 on their personal sites/apps so that they get the habit of using it elsewhere.
I feel your pain. Humans in general don't like thinking, and prefer to replace it with the repetition/amplification of pre-canned thoughts. This has led to a lot of 'idea factories' ranging from political parties to aggregators, as you mentioned.
But still. Stuff like slashdot and digg aren't all repeated crap, often you find genuinely interesting opinions from genuinely interesting people, and then it's worth wading through the other cliche's and buzzwords.
Back to the topic, a game review agrregator would actually work for a good reviewer, not against him, even by making more people know that reviewer X exists. And if he really does stand up from the crowd, he will be a neat red line within standing from all the grey areas around him.
If I make good reviews, and they get aggregated with other reviews, why is this a bad thing that has to be 'defied'?
Isn't the aggregation service something the readers persumably want?
And why assume that the reader will only look at the score from your review? perhaps the reader is actually interested in the detailed information you provide and click on a link to your site from the aggregation site? And then the aggregation site will actually benfit the reviewer, not go against him.