The burka:as much a sex symbol as Page 3?

[tobyjug]

Harley St in the Uk for instance?

I take it you are unaware a Harley Street surgeon was recently struck off for that. The situation no longer applies.

 

[Boogie Boy]

okay so you can deny the existance of Mohammed as a prophet and even a historical figure yet still be a fucking muslim? I suppouse someone can be a Darwinist without believing Darwin existed then?

And of course it's culturally specific? Or is there some reason outside of the material world as to why Islam never spread across northern europe?

Calm down and read.

I have never suggested that some form of belief in Muhammad was not necessary, the issue is what form that belief takes. The Qur'an (as it now stands) names Muhammad four times specifically by name, with various references to a 'prophet' throughout. Within the Qur'an Muhammad is clearly identified as being no more than a man, replaceable if required. The Qur'an makes clear that Muhammad is a messenger or prophet, but not a divine being, and is not to be worshipped. The purpose of the Qur'an is not to provide information about Muhammad, or the way that he may (or may not) have lived his life.

The most important principle and core within Islam is the belief in a single God.

So what is your point exactly?

BB

 

[revol68]

my point is that you have to believe in the word of god as transmitted through Mohammed, otherwise my baptist R.E. teacher could be a muslim.

Also surely the belief in a monotheist god is also culturally dependent.

 

[Boogie Boy]

my point is that you have to believe in the word of god as transmitted through Mohammed, otherwise my baptist R.E. teacher could be a muslim.

It might seem an easy point to make but it actually isn't as clear cut as that for a number of reasons. There are issues around the Qur'an, as a text, as an apparently recieved text, as a text that may be incomplete (and appears to have been recognised as such by some of the earliest Muslims), as a text that was fully revealed prior to its transmission to Muhammad, the issue of additions and abbrogation, the lack of historical evidence to support the existance of Muhammad as an historical figure, the issue of the Shahada and its introduction (identifying and affirming the existance of one God and the position of Muhaamd as his messenger), the develoment and introduction of the 'Five Pillars' of Islam, the problem of transmission and the chain of transmitters recording the sunna (example/practice) of Muhammad, the issue of authenticity.

It is also important to remember that the Qur'an may be considered as textually 'unstable', there appear to be marked differences between the surra revealed in Mecca and in Yathrib, but also please be aware that Jews and Christians appear to have been recognised as being 'people of the book' - they were recognised as having been receivers of a divine messge. Now this is complicated by considerations of Muhammad's behaviour towards the two groups (the Jews in particular), his changing political view regarding the accomodation of such groups, and later textual additions...........

BB

 

[revol68]

so can one be a muslim and not recognise Mohammed as a prophet or even transmittor of the dieties will.

 

[Good Intentions]

so can one be a muslim and not recognise Mohammed as a prophet or even transmittor of the dieties will.

Don't be obtuse.

Islam isn't concerned with Mohammed any more than Christianity is with the Virgin Mary. The rub on his is that the Qu'ran, the book he scribed (through divine inspiration, the story goes) is the heart and soul of Islam. He's an immensely important figure, but by no means the defining element of the religion.

 

[Good Intentions]

Also, the level of tolerance (towards outsiders and members of its own culture) shown in a culture has very little, if anything, to do with what religion is practised and only runs parallel to how it is practised. It has to do with the strength and health of the society - the Fatimid caliphate (who claimed descent from a woman, Mohammed's daughter Fatima) once had a Jew as it's chief non-royal figure, for instance. So you really are barking up the wrong tree, revol68

 

[revol68]

Don't be obtuse.

Islam isn't concerned with Mohammed any more than Christianity is with the Virgin Mary. The rub on his is that the Qu'ran, the book he scribed (through divine inspiration, the story goes) is the heart and soul of Islam. He's an immensely important figure, but by no means the defining element of the religion.

well if you don't believe he was a transmittor of gods word then why would you care about his writings ie the Qu'ran anymore than Pride and Prejudice?

 

[kyser_soze]

Islam isn't concerned with Mohammed any more than Christianity is with the Virgin Mary.

Ummm, you would of course be forgetting the biggest strand of Xtianity from that particular comment then? I could have been misled, but I was under the impression that the BVM was a central figure to the Catholic Church...

 

[Boogie Boy]

well if you don't believe he was a transmittor of gods word then why would you care about his writings ie the Qu'ran anymore than Pride and Prejudice?

Because it is not clear 'who' wrote the Qur'an, if indeed it was written by a human. Perhaps you should read a little more about Islam before posting?


BB

 

[kyser_soze]

Because it is not clear 'who' wrote the Qur'an, if indeed it was written by a human. Perhaps you should read a little more about Islam before posting?


BB

Well, it was clearly written by a human so let's clear that little dispute up before getting bogged down.

 

[audiotech]

My approach is not to debate the 'right to choose' as such simply to cast some light on why the burka etc is recomended/demanded within Muslim society. If a woman accepts the thinking behind it then there is little need for coercion as such. What I'm saying is that the propaganda arguments for and against are fought against a rationale that would not readily be recognised within Muslim countries. The pro-hijab/burka justification in the West is based on arguments that have been adapted to fit in with old-fashioned Christian puritan values (woman as essentially asexual victim of predatory male) that does not really accord with Muslim beliefs, customs or practice. The requirements necessary to secure a conviction for rape, honour killings and so on.

Interesting point on the 'puritanical values' tradition Joe, which seems to seep into some feminist thinking. The political is personal method. An oasis which offers it's participants some illusory protection from the ravages of the market.

 

[revol68]

Because it is not clear 'who' wrote the Qur'an, if indeed it was written by a human. Perhaps you should read a little more about Islam before posting?


BB

well as kyser said it was clearly written by a human, and lets get this right are you suggesting that one can be a muslim and yet not accept that Mohammed was a prophet/ messenger for Allah? As for the Qu'ran well I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that it was a collection of various sources inspired by Mohammed (or in general line with his views) who in turn was inspired by Allah?

 

[Good Intentions]

Ummm, you would of course be forgetting the biggest strand of Xtianity from that particular comment then? I could have been misled, but I was under the impression that the BVM was a central figure to the Catholic Church...

She's a central figure, but the Catholics worship Christ (and the Father and the Holy Ghost) and not her. Same with Mohammed - the religion wouldn't be the same without him, but it isn't about him. If I remember correctly the only other canon Islamic religious texts are sayings attributed to him (and perhaps commentaries on them), but they are a complement to the Qu'ran. It's all about the Qu'ran.

 

[Good Intentions]

well as kyser said it was clearly written by a human, and lets get this right are you suggesting that one can be a muslim and yet not accept that Mohammed was a prophet/ messenger for Allah? As for the Qu'ran well I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that it was a collection of various sources inspired by Mohammed (or in general line with his views) who in turn was inspired by Allah?

You are right. You assumed wrongly.

The Qu'ran is God's message to mankind, telling them how best to serve Him, delivered by the archangel Gabriel to Mohammed, who in turn delivered it to mankind. Think of a cross between St Paul and the Virgin Mary

You can not follow Islam without believing that the Qu'ran is the final and most complete Word of God, and to believe that you must believe that it was delivered in that form to Muhammed, who is consequently blessed as the Prophet (of the Word of God), as a consequence. Whatever good/virtue/sanctity belongs to Muhammed is derived from Allah and his message to man, the Qu'ran.

 

[revol68]

She's a central figure, but the Catholics worship Christ (and the Father and the Holy Ghost) and not her. Same with Mohammed - the religion wouldn't be the same without him, but it isn't about him. If I remember correctly the only other canon Islamic religious texts are sayings attributed to him (and perhaps commentaries on them), but they are a complement to the Qu'ran. It's all about the Qu'ran.

well actually surely it's about Allah as worshipping the Qu'ran would be idolatory (though i don't know if Islam has such a problem with that).

And no one ever suggested believing in Allah meant worshipping him.

 

[Good Intentions]

What are you on about? I was talking about Mohammed, not Allah, and you would need to be daft to believe in an allmighty, all-knowing, loving god and not worship him. That's the kind of nonsense idiots belief satanists do.

 

[revol68]

You are right. You assumed wrongly.

The Qu'ran is God's message to mankind, telling them how best to serve Him, delivered by the archangel Gabriel to Mohammed, who in turn delivered it to mankind. Think of a cross between St Paul and the Virgin Mary

so where did i assume wrong? I mean leaving out that wee arse lick gabriel (who I have it on good authority scabbed in the big Angel uprising that seen "you know who" kicked out the pearly gates) where does what I say differ? I mean based on the fact I reckon Mohammed was talking out of his arse when he says that some imaginary fairy came to him, surely it follows that the Qu'ran is in effect the teachings of ole Mohammed himself, know as I said and I think you stated earlier no one is sure who actually wrote the Qu'ran but we do know it is inspired by the message of Mohammed (cos the rest of the hierarchy is just balls).

 

[revol68]

What are you on about? I was talking about Mohammed, not Allah, and you would need to be daft to believe in an allmighty, all-knowing, loving god and not worship him. That's the kind of nonsense idiots belief satanists do.

shit i meant Mohammed.

and even if i believed Allah exist I would reject him as a tyrant, anything else would be existiantialist suicide.

 

[Good Intentions]

Stop being tiresome. The point is that the religion has almost nothing to do with the treatment of women, for the same reason I ate bloody meat, conversed with menstruating women and didn't always wear a hat when I still was a churchgoing Christian

 

[revol68]

We know it was written by Mohammed. Stop being tiresome. Or do you think Mohammed and Allah are the same entity?

Anyway this has gone far enough off topic

I thought someone posted that no one is actually sure who wrote the actual thing. I mean it would make sense that Mohammed got some other losers to write it for him, he was a very busy man, fighting wars and fucking 12 year old girls.

 

[Boogie Boy]

well as kyser said it was clearly written by a human, and lets get this right are you suggesting that one can be a muslim and yet not accept that Mohammed was a prophet/ messenger for Allah? As for the Qu'ran well I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that it was a collection of various sources inspired by Mohammed (or in general line with his views) who in turn was inspired by Allah?

I'm not suggesting any such thing, I'm trying to show that the relationship between the Qur'an and Muhammad is far more complicated than you are trying to suggest.In answer to your question, you have to consider the fact that Muhammad's position might have undergone a number of changes before we see the emergence of the 'Shahada', the testament of faith, which is the first step to being accepted as a Muslim. At this moment the idea of there being a single God is accepted and Muhammad is accepted as being the messenger/prophet of God. It is quite possible that this was not a central condition to being a Muslim before it was codified as one of the ' Five Pillars' of Islam - the specific wording of the shahada is not found within the Qur'an -although there are variations of the two 'parts' found within the Qur'an expressed in varying ways.

A problem arises once a clear association is drawn between the position of Muhammad and the Qur'an,any further discussion of his position becomes difficult, any attack on Muhammad is seen to represent an attack on the Qur'an (which is accepted by Muslims as the revealed word of God). But remember, the Qur'an is not principally concerned with Muhammad, it is concerned with revealing God.

We don't have any documents that clearly record what Muhammad himself said and thought (again accepting that such an individual existed), and it is not clear that the practice of Islam as it now exists would have been recognised or approved of by Muhammad - this fact helps to explain the importance of the sunna[/I, which help to humanise the Qur'an, and provide information apparently relating to the practice of Islam (as practised by the earliest Muslims). But these collections emerged over a hundred years after the death of Muhammad. It is difficult to assess their reliability, their provenance, and to separate their emergence from the contemporary political conditions in which they emerged.

BB

 

[Good Intentions]

Good post BB

 

[revol68]

I'm not suggesting any such thing, I'm trying to show that the relationship between the Qur'an and Muhammad is far more complicated than you are trying to suggest.In answer to your question, you have to consider the fact that Muhammad's position might have undergone a number of changes before we see the emergence of the 'Shahada', the testament of faith, which is the first step to being accepted as a Muslim. At this moment the idea of there being a single God is accepted and Muhammad is accepted as being the messenger/prophet of God. It is quite possible that this was not a central condition to being a Muslim before it was codified as one of the ' Five Pillars' of Islam - the specific wording of the shahada is not found within the Qur'an -although there are variations of the two 'parts' found within the Qur'an expressed in varying ways.

A problem arises once a clear association is drawn between the position of Muhammad and the Qur'an,any further discussion of his position becomes difficult, any attack on Muhammad is seen to represent an attack on the Qur'an (which is accepted by Muslims as the revealed word of God). But remember, the Qur'an is not principally concerned with Muhammad, it is concerned with revealing God.

We don't have any documents that clearly record what Muhammad himself said and thought (again accepting that such an individual existed), and it is not clear that the practice of Islam as it now exists would have been recognised or approved of by Muhammad - this fact helps to explain the importance of the sunna[/I, which help to humanise the Qur'an, and provide information apparently relating to the practice of Islam (as practised by the earliest Muslims). But these collections emerged over a hundred years after the death of Muhammad. It is difficult to assess their reliability, their provenance, and to separate their emergence from the contemporary political conditions in which they emerged.

BB

so what you are saying is that the very basis of Islam (in the material realm) the Qu'ran is the product of cultural specifics and historical processes, so what you could almost say is that Islam itself is culturally/historically specific.

And hence my early point that sparked this whole tangent is actually correct.

 

[Good Intentions]

If you're going to pat yourself on the back, do it hard enough to hit this bullshit out of your system

 

[Boogie Boy]

so what you are saying is that the very basis of Islam (in the material realm) the Qu'ran is the product of cultural specifics and historical processes, so what you could almost say is that Islam itself is culturally/historically specific.

And hence my early point that sparked this whole tangent is actually correct.

No, I am not and have not said that, but you appear to want to reduce everything to a series of easily digestible cliches or black or white certainties.

As I suggested earlier, go and read about Islam. A good basic starting place might be Karen Armstrong's 'Muhammad', and take it from there.


BB

 

[revol68]

i didn't try and reduce anything infact all i pointed out was that religion is not distinct from cultural factors. I also just pointed out that if one didn't accept Mohammed as a prophet (and not a deity to be worshipped) one might have huge problems getting anyone to accept them as a muslim.

 

[Pickman's model]

No, I am not and have not said that, but you appear to want to reduce everything to a series of easily digestible cliches or black or white certainties.

As I suggested earlier, go and read about Islam. A good basic starting place might be Karen Armstrong's 'Muhammad', and take it from there.


BB

what's wrong with starting with the koran?

 

[Joe Reilly]

what's wrong with starting with the koran?

Whats wrong with starting with the subject of the thread?

 

[Pickman's model]

Whats wrong with starting with the subject of the thread?

eh? i thought that the thread had meandered well away from the starting point. and it's my understanding that there isn't a section of the qu'ran which covers female streetwear.