whaddara@kean.ucs.mun.ca (04/05/91)
some African societies who have a very lax dress code but who are also relatively free of 'social crimes'. I would be indebted to him if he would mention the names of a couple of those societies, since I seem to recall that the problem with AIDS in Africa is that people have a very lax moral code. This is to the extent that *heterosexual* transmission of AIDS has become much more of a problem than *homosexual* spread. This would seem to indicate a problem. At least to me . The issue that I'm trying to adress is that Islam is not an irrational religion, especially as regards social restrictions. When a ruling has been made in Islam you could expect that breaking that rule will bring adverse consequences. This applies to such varied things from 'moral' behaviour and relations between the sexes to alcohol consumption. Wael M. R. Haddara School of Pharmacy Memorial University of Newfoundland St. John's, Newfoundland Canada All disclaimers apply. I'm only a student :-)
whaddara@kean.ucs.mun.ca (04/05/91)
[Note by a moderator: I am posting this submission by Wael again since due
to reasons unknown to me it showed up distorted the first time I
posted it. Hopefully, it'll turn out all right this time. -Behnam ]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a previous article Anoosh Husseini writes regarding
some African societies who have a very lax dress code but who are
also relatively free of 'social crimes'. I would
be indebted to him if he would mention the names of a couple
of those societies, since I seem to recall that the problem
with AIDS in Africa is that people have a very lax moral code.
This is to the extent that *heterosexual* transmission of AIDS
has become much more of a problem than *homosexual* spread.
This would seem to indicate a problem. At least to me .
The issue that I'm trying to adress is that Islam is not an irrational
religion, especially as regards social restrictions. When a ruling has
been made in Islam you could expect that breaking that rule will bring
adverse consequences. This applies to such varied things from 'moral'
behaviour and relations between the sexes to alcohol consumption.
Wael M. R. Haddara
School of Pharmacy
Memorial University of Newfoundland
St. John's, Newfoundland
Canada
All disclaimers apply. I'm only a student :-)
anoosh@mips.com (Anoosh Hosseini) (04/08/91)
> In a previous article Anoosh Husseini writes regarding ^^^^^^^ (Hosseini) please, I am not related to Saddam Hussein. :-) > some African societies who have a very lax dress code but who are > also relatively free of 'social crimes'. I would > be indebted to him if he would mention the names of a couple > of those societies, since I seem to recall that the problem > with AIDS in Africa is that people have a very lax moral code. > This is to the extent that *heterosexual* transmission of AIDS > has become much more of a problem than *homosexual* spread. > This would seem to indicate a problem. At least to me . Well start with Zulus in Africa, and indians in the Amazon region of South America. I don't have enough information to discuss the nature of the spread of AIDS in Africa. The point I was trying to make required you to have followed discussion in S.C.Iranian. There were some who based their whole argument on dress code in the West, and as we know there is much more to the World than just the Islamic countries and the West. There are many cultures which require less body cover than the Islamic dress code, but still demonstrate high moral values. And as I mentioned before, Even with 11 years of enforced hijab, we have many social problems in Iran. I am not making this point to humiliate anyone, rather to demonstrate that society needs to install good values and common sense. Forcing hijab which is relatively easy, is not a cure all, and we should stop fooling ourselves. > The issue that I'm trying to address is that Islam is not an irrational > religion, especially as regards social restrictions. When a ruling has > been made in Islam you could expect that breaking that rule will bring > adverse consequences. This applies to such varied things from 'moral' > behaviour and relations between the sexes to alcohol consumption. > Yes, in fact I generally agree. Take for example the consumption of pork, or shark meat. The latter will cause sinkness if not properly treated because the shark has urine tubes going through its flesh (Please correct me on the exact detail, its been a while since biology 101 :-) It made sense to make such animals "haram" for consumption. But with science and technology we are able to address these problems today. (In either case, pigs each a lot of garbage, so I wouldn't recommend it even if they are no longer hazardous to your health. As they say, you are what you eat. :-) Islam encourages the presuit of knowledge, and the sciences. Fundamental to science is asking questions. So it is not Un-Islamic to discuss such topics. I think by studying history, understanding the social and economic climate of the time, even those rulings which may seem questionable today, find quite rational explanations. In that regard there are systematic ways of introducing new laws based on our new understandings. However I think there is group of people who because of power, of which they want to remain the center of, would prefer that no questions or very few be ask. Asking small questions may lead to bigger and more fundamental questions, and this will threaten the traditional power granted to certain individuals. > Wael M. R. Haddara > School of Pharmacy > Memorial University of Newfoundland > St. John's, Newfoundland > Canada > All disclaimers apply. I'm only a student :-) peace, -anoosh (all disclaimers here too, I'm only an engineer :-) ---------------------------------------------------------
reddy@mips.com (T.S. Reddy) (04/09/91)
In article <1991Apr5.044254.15940@nntp-server.caltech.edu> whaddara@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes: > ... >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > In a previous article Anoosh Husseini writes regarding >some African societies who have a very lax dress code but who are >also relatively free of 'social crimes'. I would >be indebted to him if he would mention the names of a couple >of those societies, since I seem to recall that the problem >with AIDS in Africa is that people have a very lax moral code. >This is to the extent that *heterosexual* transmission of AIDS >has become much more of a problem than *homosexual* spread. >This would seem to indicate a problem. At least to me . >The issue that I'm trying to adress is that Islam is not an irrational >religion, especially as regards social restrictions. When a ruling has >been made in Islam you could expect that breaking that rule will bring >adverse consequences. This applies to such varied things from 'moral' >behaviour and relations between the sexes to alcohol consumption. > > >Wael M. R. Haddara I don't think this is very difficult to find. I have seen many National Geographic specials on TV on the life of tribal societies in Africa (and South America) where the women and men wear a minimal amount of clothing. However, these societies are far removed from the 'modern African (or South American)' life in the cities or where civilization has touched society and where, as you say, the spread of AIDS has become a problem. They exist mainly on the plains and in the jungles. Their society is very tight knit so they can impose a rudimentary societal code which serves them well and precludes any abnormal behavior because of it. In fact, many of these tribes were devastated by their exposure to 'civilization' because it brought with them diseases like cholera etc. against which they had no natural defenses. But I can give you an example from a few years ago in India which brings up the dichotomy between this 'tribal' way of thinking and it's clash with conservative values. These is a certain sect in the southern Indian state of Kerala (which has a very harmonious mix of Muslim, Christian and Hindu populations) where the women used to go around topless (without any problems). Apparently, a conservative Christian group managed to infuse the thought amongst these women that doing so was amoral. Consequently, the women started covering themselves, which had the men up in arms about it. I do not know how the issue was resolved but, suffice to say, it caused quite a furor. But this brings up the point of moral codes. These tribes do not see the relationship between males and females in the same way that, say, Western or Islamic societies see them. Consequently they do not need to impose the rules and restrictions that the latter societies impose. Their measure of morality is quite different from ours. Perhaps if we can go back to basics and see the relationship between the sexes as a question of survival of the human race as opposed to a pursuit of desirous objects, then we can start thinking in the same manner too. -- T.S.Reddy (e-mail: reddy@mips.com) Life is what happens to you when you're busy making other plans John Lennon.
lateef@csseq.tamu.edu (Afroz Lateef) (04/09/91)
In article <1991Apr5.043242.15563@nntp-server.caltech.edu> whaddara@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes: >some African societies who have a very lax dress code but who are >also relatively free of 'social crimes'. I would >of those societies, since I seem to recall that the problem >with AIDS in Africa is that people have a very lax moral code. >This is to the extent that *heterosexual* transmission of AIDS >has become much more of a problem than *homosexual* spread. >This would seem to indicate a problem. At least to me . >The issue that I'm trying to adress is that Islam is not an irrational >religion, especially as regards social restrictions. When a ruling has ^^^^^^^^^^^ >been made in Islam you could expect that breaking that rule will bring ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >adverse consequences. This applies to such varied things from 'moral' ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Wael M. R. Haddara >All disclaimers apply. I'm only a student :-) > WELL SAID! Even if we try to explain somethings, it is beyond the understanding of someof the people. (those whose minds are corrupted by satan). M. Afroz Lateef Also a student (at _) TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY.
gt8145a@prism.gatech.edu (FADEL,AYMAN HOSSAM) (04/09/91)
In article <1991Apr5.044254.15940@nntp-server.caltech.edu> whaddara@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes: > >The issue that I'm trying to adress is that Islam is not an irrational >religion, especially as regards social restrictions. When a ruling has >been made in Islam you could expect that breaking that rule will bring >adverse consequences. This applies to such varied things from 'moral' >behaviour and relations between the sexes to alcohol consumption. > > >Wael M. R. Haddara I think we should avoid attempting to justify or defend Islamic injunctions rationally. Rationality, as we know it today, is a product of a culture that does not (admit to) believe in the non-empirical, i.e. that which is not perceived by the five physical senses. There can be no religion without belief in the unseen (al-iimaan bil-ghayb). It is then entirely useless to discuss religion with people who will not believe in the unseen. In addition, I prefer to equate rationality with hawaa, or whim. In most cases, we merely rationalize whatever we wanted to believe anyway, and then we sanctify it (our whim) over revelation by calling it rationality. salam, ayman -- FADEL,AYMAN HOSSAM Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt8145a Internet: gt8145a@prism.gatech.edu
bes@tybalt.caltech.edu (Behnam Sadeghi) (04/11/91)
Although I believe in a certain amount of "cultural relativism" (i.e. the idea that an institution that is good in a certain social structure can be harmful in another context), I think that there are many priciples that transcend the social and historical contexts due to the common human nature. I think one of these principles is that covering the body (to whatever extent) "contributes" to a healthier society by "helping" to reduce promiscuity and other problems in the long run. A society based on Islam would certainly be one that would not consider promiscuity a virtue. I think that's where the Islamic injunctions concerning modest dress coupled with the Quranic command to "lower your gaze" come from. [Let me stress that I am not an expert on Islam and this is just my personal viewpoint which may be wrong; there are probably other reasons too]. ----- Anoosh Hosseini writes: >Well start with Zulus in Africa, and indians in the Amazon region of >South America. I don't have enough information to discuss the nature >of the spread of AIDS in Africa. You never mentioned what the rate of fornication, adultery, and rape are in such cultures. >you to have followed discussion in S.C.Iranian. There were some who based >their whole argument on dress code in the West, and as we know there is much >more to the World than just the Islamic countries and the West. There are many >cultures which require less body cover than the Islamic dress code, but still >demonstrate high moral values. And as I mentioned before, Even with 11 years >of enforced hijab, we have many social problems in Iran. I am not making this >point to humiliate anyone, rather to demonstrate that society needs to >install good values and common sense. Forcing hijab which is relatively >easy, is not a cure all, and we should stop fooling ourselves. Although these social problems (e.g. fornication or sexual crimes) will always exist in any society, I believe the long-term enforcement of hijab "helps" reduce or at least keep in check these problems. I am certain that the rate of these problems is significantly less in those Islamic countries that have been enforcing hijab for a long time than in other nations. [This view is a personal assessment and is not based on a statistical analysis]. By the way, nobody is saying that hijab is a cure-all; there are many different and complex factors that affect social behavior. Clothing is just one of these factors. ---- A brother wrote that we must not appeal to rationalism when dealing with Islamic injuctions. I humbly disagree with this mainly because the Holy Quran itself often uses rational aruguements to justify Islamic injunctions. In cases when the Quran doesn't use such arguments, then there's nothing wrong in "speculating" about rational reasons behind the injuctions as long as we are conscious that we are only speculating. In other words, we shouldn't become dogmatic about arguments that are the products of human reasoning. [By the way, this inludes most of the body of fiqh (Islamic Jurisprudence)]. Behnam Sadeghi
hanan@mcs213k.cs.umr.edu (Hanan Lutfiyya) (04/11/91)
In Message-ID: <1991Apr9.060113.7445@wpi.WPI.EDU> (M. Afroz Lateef) writes >In article <1991Apr5.043242.15563@nntp-server.caltech.edu> whaddara@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes: >>religion, especially as regards social restrictions. When a ruling has ^^^^^^^^^^^ >>been made in Islam you could expect that breaking that rule will bring ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>adverse consequences. This applies to such varied things from 'moral' ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>Wael M. R. Haddara >>All disclaimers apply. I'm only a student :-) >> > WELL SAID! > Even if we try to explain somethings, it is beyond the >understanding of someof the people. (those whose minds are corrupted by > satan). >M. Afroz Lateef >Also a student >(at _) TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY. Let's be careful here. Do all rulings have to be necessarily correct? Many "Islamic scholars" make "rulings". All use the Quran to make their claims. Are we suppose to never question these scholars? A person questioning a "ruling" by an "Islamic scholar" is not necessarily influenced by Satan or is it because this person will not blindly follow "Islamic scholars". Also different scholars will have different opinions and approaches. Different scholars will have conflicting opinions on the same subject. Are you saying that there is one correct view and all different opinions are the result of minds that have been corrupted by Satan? One example of what I would consider a stupid, silly ruling is the Saudi "Islamic scholar" who said that women should not drive. This "scholar" also ruled that the earth was the center of the universe. He only changed his mind after a Saudi astronaut went up in the Space Shuttle. He seems to have a great deal of influence in Saudi Arabia. Should he be followed blindly just because he is an Islamic scholar? Rather people should be able to do some reasoning for themselves. Hanan Lutfiyya (Always a student) University of Missouri-Rolla
whaddara@kean.ucs.mun.ca (04/13/91)
In article <1991Apr5.044254.15940@nntp-server.caltech.edu> whaddara@kean.ucs.mun >> >>The issue that I'm trying to adress is that Islam is not an irrational >>religion, especially as regards social restrictions. When a ruling has >>been made in Islam you could expect that breaking that rule will bring >>adverse consequences. This applies to such varied things from 'moral' >>behaviour and relations between the sexes to alcohol consumption. >> >> >>Wael M. R. Haddara >I think we should avoid attempting to justify or defend Islamic injunctions >rationally. Rationality, as we know it today, is a product of a culture >that does not (admit to) believe in the non-empirical, i.e. that which >is not perceived by the five physical senses. I agree that we should avoid trying to rationalize Islam. That does not mean, however, that Islam is not rational. It simply means that we do not posess enough knowledge to make such judgements across the board. Islamic rulings ARE rational. God does not forbid something just to make it a pain for us. In surat Al-Ma'eda, verse 6 : " God does not wish to burden you". Hence if you can't eat pork it's because there is a reason behind it. >There can be no religion without belief in the unseen (al-iimaan bil-ghayb). >It is then entirely useless to discuss religion with people who >will not believe in the unseen. >In addition, I prefer to equate rationality with hawaa, or whim. In most >cases, we merely rationalize whatever we wanted to believe anyway, and >then we sanctify it (our whim) over revelation by calling it rationality. I must disagree with that. We are asked to *rationaly* evaluate Islam. We are presented with a book ( Qur'an). The claim is that this book is from God. You must sit down and objectively determine for yourself whether or not it indeed is. This stems from the precept that God is just. He gives us the wherewithal for guidance. Now, once you believe that the Qur'an is the word of God, you do not judge its individual rulings because that is to presume that you can understand the mind of God, which of course is not true. So, in summary, you can rationalize the theology, but not the practice ( i.e Al-'aqeeda vs al-'ibadat ) >salam, Wa alaikum alsalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh >ayman >-- >FADEL,AYMAN HOSSAM >Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 >uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt8145a >Internet: gt8145a@prism.gatech.edu >-- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Wael M. Haddara | whaddara@kean.ucs.mun.ca School of Pharmacy | Memorial Univ of Newfoundland | "I have tried too to be a St.John's, Newfoundland | philosopher in my time; but I Canada | don't know how, cheerfulness was | always breaking in" All Disclaimers apply- I'm only | Oliver Edwards a student :-) | =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
whaddara@kean.ucs.mun.ca (04/13/91)
#>In Message-ID: <1991Apr9.060113.7445@wpi.WPI.EDU> (M. Afroz Lateef) writes
#>In article <1991Apr5.043242.15563@nntp-server.caltech.edu> whaddara@kean.ucs.m
#>>religion, especially as regards social restrictions. When a ruling has
^^^^^^^^^^^
#>>been made in Islam you could expect that breaking that rule will bring
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#>>adverse consequences. This applies to such varied things from 'moral'
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#>>Wael M. R. Haddara
#>>All disclaimers apply. I'm only a student :-)
#>>
#> WELL SAID!
#
#> Even if we try to explain somethings, it is beyond the
#>understanding of someof the people. (those whose minds are corrupted by
#> satan).
#>M. Afroz Lateef
#>Also a student
#>(at _) TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY.
> Let's be careful here. Do all rulings have to be necessarily correct?
>Many "Islamic scholars" make "rulings". All use the Quran to make
>their claims. Are we suppose to never question these scholars?
> A person questioning a "ruling" by an "Islamic scholar" is not
>necessarily influenced by Satan or is it because this person will
>not blindly follow "Islamic scholars".
Let me qualify my initial statement : When one breaks
*unequivocal Qur'anic admonitions* one can expect adverse
consequences.
> Also different scholars will have different opinions and approaches.
>Different scholars will have conflicting opinions on the same
>subject. Are you saying that there is one correct view and
>all different opinions are the result of minds that have been
>corrupted by Satan?
The difference between scholars is an acceptable and healthy
thing. The prophet pbuh said : "My companions are like stars,
whichever of them you follow, you will be guided." So, in a way, he
recognized the difference in practice. So long, of course, as the
difference is within a clearly demarcated area.
>Hanan Lutfiyya
>(Always a student)
>University of Missouri-Rolla
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Wael M. Haddara | whaddara@kean.ucs.mun.ca
School of Pharmacy |
Memorial Univ of Newfoundland | "I have tried too to be a
St.John's, Newfoundland | philosopher in my time; but I
Canada | don't know how, cheerfulness was
| always breaking in"
All Disclaimers apply- I'm only | Oliver Edwards
a student :-) |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=darwish@eng.umd.edu (Ali Darwish) (04/17/91)
Assalamu `alaykum. Sister Hanan Lutfiyya writes: > > Let's be careful here. Do all rulings have to be necessarily correct? I think he was refering to the Islamic rulings that are not simply opinions. eg: The Qur'an says "Do not kill your children for fear of poverty". As for scholars' opinions, there is no cleargy in Islam and we may choose to disagree. Their opinion is heard because they know more, but they can still be wrong. > One example of what I would consider a stupid, silly ruling >is the Saudi "Islamic scholar" who said that >women should not drive. This "scholar" also ruled that the >earth was the center of the universe. He only changed his mind >after a Saudi astronaut went up in the Space Shuttle. He seems >to have a great deal of influence in Saudi Arabia. Should he >be followed blindly just because he is an Islamic scholar? >Rather people should be able to do some reasoning for themselves. The earth being at the centre of the universe is an interesting opinion that cannot be understood from the Qur'an or the Sunna. Its only source is medieval Christian litterature. This should cast some doubt as to the seriousness of such "scholar". It is my duty as a Muslim to warn other Muslims about danger. Saudi Arabia a terrible source of Islamic knowledge in any topic that can be used politically. It has been dubbed by some "the graveyard of scholars" because ideas are not respected, opinions are sometimes forbidden and scholarly opinion is frequently bought from those who will sell it. The reason the Saudi government (not the scholars per se) does not want women to drive is for fear of the corrupting influence of the large number of foreigners on their daughters. This fear is supported by some incidents, some of which are famous. Still, The Saoudi government has no right to restrict a freedom given by the creator (after all, since when were women even discouraged from riding horses?) If I have wronged the Saoudi governemt, I ask Allah for forgivness, but I do not think I made that mistake. Assalamu `alakum
darwish@eng.umd.edu (Ali Darwish) (04/17/91)
Assalamu `alaykum, brothers. Brother Afroz Lateef writes: >> When a ruling has > ^^^^^^^^^^^ >>been made in Islam you could expect that breaking that rule will bring >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>adverse consequences. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> > WELL SAID! > > Even if we try to explain somethings, it is beyond the >understanding of someof the people. (those whose minds are corrupted by > satan). .. or those who do not know enough. It takes wisdom, not just a pure mind to understand some things. Was a student (Does that count ?) Assalamu `alaykum