If you want religious nuts... (19 Viewers)

[Rami]

Rami, what I find particularly upsetting about Islam is that there is no interfaith marriage.

No interfaith? Why would you want anything that has the word "inter" in it....


No seriously, its not forbidden completly, there are restrictions. Men actually could marry Christians and Jew women, but thats about it.

There a reason and logic for this restriction, its not out of hate or anything. I will have to do more research on this issue, but off top of my head, children usually follow the the religion of their fathers (well throughout history, guess its changing now in the West). I will do more research on this and get back to you


So why is it upsetting? Fell for an Arab lass??

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[ReBeL]

Rami, what I find particularly upsetting about Islam is that there is no interfaith marriage.

For the sake of compatibility, and the upbringing of future children, it is most recommended for a Muslim to marry another Muslim. However, in some circumstances it is permissible for a Muslim to marry a non-Muslim.

In general, Muslim men are not permitted to marry non-Muslim women. "Do not marry unbelieving women until they believe." (Qur'an 2:221).

An exception is made for Muslim men to marry Jewish and Christian women, who are referred to as "People of the Book." This comes from the understanding that Jews and Christians share similar religious outlooks "This day are all things good and pure made lawful to you.... Lawful to you in marriage are not only chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time, when you give them their due dowers, and desire chastity not lewdness. If any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost" (Qur'an 5:5).

The children of such a union are always to be raised in the faith of Islam. This should be discussed thoroughly by the couple before they decide to marry.

On the other hand, under no conditions is a Muslim woman permitted to marry anyone but a Muslim man. The same verse cited above (2:221) mentions, "Nor marry your girls to unbelievers until they believe." No exception is given for women to marry Jews and Christians, so the law stands that she may only marry a believing (Muslim) man.

Why is there a difference between the two cases??

As a head of the household, the husband provides leadership for the family. A Muslim woman does not follow the leadership of someone who does not share her faith and values.

 

[ReBeL]

And speaking psychologically, look at the child's life when he opens his eyes to find each one of his parents with different religious beliefs...

He will be confused, and he will grow in a family where they don't work for one target...

Even if each one loves the another one, they'll give the child an impression that they are working individually which will affect his feeling of a good cooperative family...

 

[Martin]

There a reason and logic for this restriction, its not out of hate or anything. I will have to do more research on this issue, but off top of my head, children usually follow the the religion of their fathers (well throughout history, guess its changing now in the West). I will do more research on this and get back to you

So it's vendor lock-in then

So why is it upsetting? Fell for an Arab lass??

I'll keep you posted

 

[Martin]

Lawful to you in marriage are not only chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time, when you give them their due dowers, and desire chastity not lewdness.

Oh what crock. I can see this being relevant at one point, but there is no way that people in 2006 follow these rules. I'm sure there are geographical variations on sexual activity, but the book is common to all and there's no way you'll convince me that Muslims in the western world live by this stuff.

On the other hand, under no conditions is a Muslim woman permitted to marry anyone but a Muslim man. The same verse cited above (2:221) mentions, "Nor marry your girls to unbelievers until they believe." No exception is given for women to marry Jews and Christians, so the law stands that she may only marry a believing (Muslim) man.

Discrimination of women? Why should they not have the same right?

Why is there a difference between the two cases??

As a head of the household, the husband provides leadership for the family. A Muslim woman does not follow the leadership of someone who does not share her faith and values.

And speaking psychologically, look at the child's life when he opens his eyes to find each one of his parents with different religious beliefs...

He will be confused, and he will grow in a family where they don't work for one target...

Even if each one loves the another one, they'll give the child an impression that they are working individually which will affect his feeling of a good cooperative family...

Honestly, this is complete bollocks. A couple can live together and raise a child without being of the same faith, that has nothing to do with 'working for different targets'. Not a cooperative family? Please. All this tells the child is that people come from different walks of life and have their reasons for being different. And that they can coexist just fine.

 

[Slagathor]

You are way off, I always given these discussions top priority, and always try to represent my religion and people in a good way.

But starting a discussion with "Don't give me that", isn't really encouraging now is it?? And I do care what you think actually, but sometimes changing what a man believe's in is harder than moving mountains. And this is what I sensed from you....

Am I mistaken??

No you are not. I have grown very cynical towards these discussions. Mostly because I spent my whole life being surrounded by Protestants who kept telling me no matter how good a life I would try to live, helping as many people as I possibly could, I would still go to hell for the way I was born. I've grown a habit of assuming every religous person thinks that way about me because, for the largest part of my life, every religious person I knew did.

My apologies.

Erik, I think written Arabic didn't change much over the centuries. The Qu'ran has also never been altered, unlike the Bible. I have a friend who studies Arabic and he claims pretty much every muslim is able to read it.

Written Arabic has evolved, the Arab language itself has evolved. And 75% of understanding written texts is highly influenced by a person's cultural background. Given that modern Arab cultures have also evolved; any literature professor will tell you it is absolutely inevitable that perceptions of the Qur'an as they exist today are DIFFERENT from those as they existed hundreds of years ago.

To Rami: At the same time, the Qur'an is about as pure as any literary work could possibly be. The system used in order protect its purity is admirable and I respect that (and yes, I knew of it well before this thread was opened). It cannot be compared to the Bible which existed only in Latin for a considerable amount of time and was only translated well after the language in question had perished. Now, the problem with dead languages is that nobody on earth has an emotional feel with it, no matter how hard you study it. Intonations, hidden meanings, proverbs... They were all as good as lost by the time the Bible was translated into modern languages and via the various updates in later centuries, it is easy to conclude the Bible has lost most of its original meaning and is a mere shadow today of what it once was. That doesn't go for the Qur'an.
However, there are no motives to assume the Qur'an has maintained a 100% record. As I explained above: the book itself may not have changed, but the people reading and interpreting it have evolved. And a society that thinks differently from the society the writer lived in will misinterpret.

Just not as much as the Christians.

About your point, that's something the entire western world agrees about. At least everyone who has ever gone to universitary. Neither christianity or islam can be considered as of more value than ancient Greek myths. Believing in Jawhe is no more advisable than believing in Poseidon.

By fact and literature, that's true. Of course the whole point of faith is that it can't be backed up with facts, one has to believe.

 

[Rami]

No you are not. I have grown very cynical towards these discussions. Mostly because I spent my whole life being surrounded by Protestants who kept telling me no matter how good a life I would try to live, helping as many people as I possibly could, I would still go to hell for the way I was born. I've grown a habit of assuming every religous person thinks that way about me because, for the largest part of my life, every religious person I knew did.

My apologies.

It really saddens me when people pass judgement of who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. I for one could not claim that I will be going to heaven, I pray every day I will, but I cannot claim such a claim. In Islam there is a fine balance between fear and hope. leaning toward either would cause imbalance of how one leads his life. Hope in god's mercy would lead to living a hedonistic and indulging life, while fear from god would lead to abandoning ones social duties....

What I mean that is that no one can pass judgement, there are hadith's in Islam that would make anyone shut up. For example, the Jewish prostitute that found a dog in a desert and was almost going to die of thirst, so she went inside a well and filled her shoes with water and gave it to the dog...she went to heaven, just because her love and compassion....despite she was a prostitute...

Listen to me rambling...my point, no one can pass judgement, no one can be certain of his fate let alone others....

Written Arabic has evolved, the Arab language itself has evolved. And 75% of understanding written texts is highly influenced by a person's cultural background. Given that modern Arab cultures have also evolved; any literature professor will tell you it is absolutely inevitable that perceptions of the Qur'an as they exist today are DIFFERENT from those as they existed hundreds of years ago.

To Rami: At the same time, the Qur'an is about as pure as any literary work could possibly be. The system used in order protect its purity is admirable and I respect that (and yes, I knew of it well before this thread was opened). It cannot be compared to the Bible which existed only in Latin for a considerable amount of time and was only translated well after the language in question had perished. Now, the problem with dead languages is that nobody on earth has an emotional feel with it, no matter how hard you study it. Intonations, hidden meanings, proverbs... They were all as good as lost by the time the Bible was translated into modern languages and via the various updates in later centuries, it is easy to conclude the Bible has lost most of its original meaning and is a mere shadow today of what it once was. That doesn't go for the Qur'an.
However, there are no motives to assume the Qur'an has maintained a 100% record. As I explained above: the book itself may not have changed, but the people reading and interpreting it have evolved. And a society that thinks differently from the society the writer lived in will misinterpret.

Just not as much as the Christians.

Aha! True, if I were to open the Quran and read it for the first time, I will NOT interpret it as it was 1400 years ago.

But I think you have missed a point. Now I am not claiming that Muslims interpret the Quran 100% as the prophet used to. But the interpretation is more or less very much presreved...why? Because we have "Tafseer" books. "Tafseer" means interpretation. For perhaps every century there are "Tafseer" books, even the first century or so of Islam, the "Tafseer" was preserved via Hadith (which is also a very elaborate system of preserving the Prophet's sayings, really impressive tbh). This is why many scholars consider the invasion of the monghuls on Baghdad in 1258 one of the most catosrophic events on Islamic culture...The Euphrates and Tigris turned black from the ink of the books thrown into it....The world have lost a LOT, not just Muslims from that incident. However, other libraries around the Muslim empire helped keep all these sciences (including Tafseer and Hadith) intact.

Another thing that you might have overlooked, is the "Ijaza" system itself. Through this system the interpretation of the Quran was transferred from generation to generation. Of course it won't be as precise and perfect, but you would be amazed how immaculate Muslims become when it comes to the Quran and Hadith

Now interpretation is one thing, and execution is another, sadly these days Muslims (including I), are as far from what we preach as possible....

 

[JCK]

And speaking psychologically, look at the child's life when he opens his eyes to find each one of his parents with different religious beliefs...

He will be confused, and he will grow in a family where they don't work for one target...

Even if each one loves the another one, they'll give the child an impression that they are working individually which will affect his feeling of a good cooperative family...

I disagree, many families where the parents are of different religion or belief. A Christian father and non-believer mothrer, a Muslim mother and a Christian father a pagan mother and a Christian father and they have raised their children in the best way possible and neither of the beliefs was imposed on the children and the children are neither confused nor see any preference in any of te parents; and this is out of personal experience.

 

[Martin]

I disagree, many families where the parents are of different religion or belief. A Christian father and non-believer mothrer, a Muslim mother and a Christian father a pagan mother and a Christian father and they have raised their children in the best way possible and neither of the beliefs was imposed on the children and the children are neither confused nor see any preference in any of te parents; and this is out of personal experience.

Exactly, this just promotes the idea that religion is a choice, not inheritance. If the parents are of different faith, the child will be much less likely to be pushed into the same thing.

 

[JCK]

Exactly, this just promotes the idea that religion is a choice, not inheritance. If the parents are of different faith, the child will be much less likely to be pushed into the same thing.

Actually I am a strong believer in the fact that if religion was imposed on a child it will be with waaaay much less faith.

 

[Muha]

I disagree, many families where the parents are of different religion or belief. A Christian father and non-believer mothrer, a Muslim mother and a Christian father a pagan mother and a Christian father and they have raised their children in the best way possible and neither of the beliefs was imposed on the children and the children are neither confused nor see any preference in any of te parents; and this is out of personal experience.

This happens when one of the parents is not strict about her or his belief.

 

[JCK]

This happens when one of the parents is not strict about her or his belief.

No not really.

 

[Eddy]

This happens when one of the parents is not strict about her or his belief.

Doubt it.

 

[Muha]

well think about it .. if you have to parents who are strongly attached to their belief... dont you think the child's mind would be a lil distorted and confused?...

 

[JCK]

No, I just gave examples.

 

[ReBeL]

well think about it .. if you have to parents who are strongly attached to their belief... dont you think the child's mind would be a lil distorted and confused?...

Exactly, that's my point...

I don't talk about athiests who have their religion only in their passports...

 

[Muha]

No, I just gave examples.

well .. i do think so

 

[Slagathor]

Aha! True, if I were to open the Quran and read it for the first time, I will NOT interpret it as it was 1400 years ago.

But I think you have missed a point. Now I am not claiming that Muslims interpret the Quran 100% as the prophet used to. But the interpretation is more or less very much presreved...why? Because we have "Tafseer" books. "Tafseer" means interpretation. For perhaps every century there are "Tafseer" books, even the first century or so of Islam, the "Tafseer" was preserved via Hadith (which is also a very elaborate system of preserving the Prophet's sayings, really impressive tbh). This is why many scholars consider the invasion of the monghuls on Baghdad in 1258 one of the most catosrophic events on Islamic culture...The Euphrates and Tigris turned black from the ink of the books thrown into it....The world have lost a LOT, not just Muslims from that incident. However, other libraries around the Muslim empire helped keep all these sciences (including Tafseer and Hadith) intact.

Another thing that you might have overlooked, is the "Ijaza" system itself. Through this system the interpretation of the Quran was transferred from generation to generation. Of course it won't be as precise and perfect, but you would be amazed how immaculate Muslims become when it comes to the Quran and Hadith

Now interpretation is one thing, and execution is another, sadly these days Muslims (including I), are as far from what we preach as possible....

I wasn't familiar with the details of the preservation methods regarding all the interpretation guidelines, that sounds impressive.

However, I'm a born sceptic. No system is completely infallible and all it takes (I know from experience in Christian circles), is the misinterpretation of one single small detail to ruin an entire aspect.

It worries me. Not in the least because there is no going back. No matter how much we, as mankind, or you, as Muslims, may think we have preserved, there is no real way of knowing what is lost. Because otherwise it wouldn't be lost in the first place.

As a result, I am a strong supporter of the division between church and state. People ought to have the freedom to not choose religion and live in a society that isn't dominated by it.

Do I think the world would be a better place without religion? No. But ancient theories with guaranteed flaws should not be used as a standard for everyone. It should be a choice to live your life by them. When it comes to governing, systems of law should be based on morals and values we as adults can all agree on. Freedom, equality, respect and more.

Such a system should also support freedom of religion. But religion should never be the foundation of a Juridical or Legislative system.

 

[Muha]

As a result, I am a strong supporter of the division between church and state. People ought to have the freedom to not choose religion and live in a society that isn't dominated by it.

i agree with the second part but not the first (if you mean division between 'religions in general' and state)

 

[JCK]

Exactly, that's my point...

I don't talk about athiests who have their religion only in their passports...

The examples I gave are not about religious people with the religion on their ID, they are true believers.

well .. i do think so

You don't think I gave examples?