8ball
World is a fuck
I'm not defeatist, and have read some bits.
It's just that it's really boring, as is the Bible for the most part.
The Qur'an
- Thread starter goldenecitrone
- Start date
I'm not defeatist, and have read some bits.
It's just that it's really boring, as is the Bible for the most part.
It is not difficult to detect Meccan aristocracy reaching out to regaining their lost power. Caliph Uthman, member of the banu abd shams, started this trend by distributing influencal posts among relatives. Reason why he was accused of nepotism in the end. It is impossible to assess how much that was the mere result of necessity to have reliable men at difficult posts and if such excluded other pressure and/or influences.
Among them was the appointment of Mu'awya ibn abu sufyan. Abu sufyan on his turn had been the leader of the abd shams and one of Muhammed's greatest enemies. Among the most powerful men of Mecca, with vested interests in the Ka'aba in its function as shrine for tribal gods - installed and maintained to serve as incentive for caravan trade and hence the local economy - his conversion to Islam is by some historians described as being “bribed into” (not the only one). Maybe that is distortion of fact or maybe it is merely a logical conclusion (as historian I would go for the logical conclusion).
When Caliph Uthman was murdered, Mu'awya opposed the appointment of 'Ali, accusing him of being complicit in the crime and the rest is history. It is in that light interesting to notice that Mu'awya managed to establish de facto hereditary succession. A measure with long-term consequences for the further development of Islamic history, both in law and practice, and up to this very day.
salaam.
Some may see it as similar but it isn't. There is no ground nor is there incentive (let alone support or command) for removal of one shred of a women's genitals in Islam.
As for you idea that removal of the foreskin causes loss of sensitivity, I think not
I had a few times the occasion to talk about this with men who converted to Islam as adult. Some said they feel no difference, some said it led to greater sensitivity.It is. Yet there is a religious foundation for it, although in Islam it isn't explicitly prescribed as a command, the convenant is mentioned in Al Qur'an and therefore the interpretation that circumcision is indeed a requirement for a Muslim man.
It's not such madness where the chance of infection and other problems is greater with non-circumcised than with the circumcised.
Prescriptions in religions (various religoins) concerning body care or dietary law have health care as their foundation.
salaam.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
This. I'm not a supporter of circumcision for boys, but it is not as grotesque or as damaging a procedure as FGM and there are medical benefits (especially with respect to cancer and sexually transmitted diseases). There are no such benefits (and considerable harms) associated with FGM, which is probably why it does not have a similar justification in religious practice.
Homeless Mal said:
One way to think of it may be to compare chaucer in the modern and in the original middle english. The Wife of Bath in modern sounds like this:
Now in the olden days of King Arthur,
Of whom the Britons speak with great honour,
All this wide land was land of faery.
The elf-queen, with her jolly company,
Danced oftentimes on many a green mead;
This was the old opinion, as I read.
I speak of many hundred years ago;
But now no man can see the elves, you know.
For now the so-great charity and prayers
Of limiters and other holy friars
That do infest each land and every stream
As thick as motes are in a bright sunbeam,
Blessing halls, chambers, kitchens, ladies' bowers,
Cities and towns and castles and high towers,
Manors and barns and stables, aye and dairies -
This causes it that there are now no fairies.
For where was wont to walk full many an elf,
Right there walks now the limiter himself
In noons and afternoons and in mornings,
Saying his matins and such holy things,
As he goes round his district in his gown.
Women may now go safely up and down,
In every copse or under every tree;
There is no other incubus, than he,
And would do them nothing but dishonour.
And in middle english:
In th'olde dayes of the Kyng Arthour,
Of which that Britons speken greet honour,
All was this land fulfild of fayerye.
The elf-queene, with hir joly compaignye,
Daunced ful ofte in many a grene mede.
This was the olde opinion, as I rede;
I speke of manye hundred yeres ago.
But now kan no man se none elves mo,
For now the grete charitee and prayeres
Of lymytours and othere hooly freres,
That serchen every lond and every streem,
As thikke as motes in the sonne-beem,
Blessynge halles, chambres, kichenes, boures,
Citees, burghes, castels, hye toures,
Thropes, bernes, shipnes, dayeryes,
This maketh that ther been no fayeryes.
For ther as wont to walken was an elf,
Ther walketh now the lymytour hymself
In undermeles and in morwenynges,
And seyth his matyns and his hooly thynges
As he gooth in his lymytacioun.
Wommen may go saufly up and doun.
In every bussh or under every tree
Ther is noon oother incubus but he,
And he ne wol doon hem but dishonour.
They both say roughly the same thing but not exactly. The difference in phraseology means that certain words or sentences may have different stresses. A reader in chaucer's time would probably have a slightly different understanding of it than a modern reader.
Aldebaran said:
Well the salafists try to follow the "path of the prophet" as exactly as they can rejecting anything they see as new innovations, including (among the saudis) all of sufiism. That's about as good a fundamentalist ideology as you're going to get.
I think of them more as reactionaries. Radicals favour new fresh innovations in an ideology whereas reactionaries reject all new innovations and are more conservative. You say that they make their own rules but they would say that they are merely returning to the original rules not making new ones.
One way to think of it may be to compare chaucer in the modern and in the original middle english. The Wife of Bath in modern sounds like this:
Now in the olden days of King Arthur,
Of whom the Britons speak with great honour,
All this wide land was land of faery.
The elf-queen, with her jolly company,
Danced oftentimes on many a green mead;
This was the old opinion, as I read.
I speak of many hundred years ago;
But now no man can see the elves, you know.
For now the so-great charity and prayers
Of limiters and other holy friars
That do infest each land and every stream
As thick as motes are in a bright sunbeam,
Blessing halls, chambers, kitchens, ladies' bowers,
Cities and towns and castles and high towers,
Manors and barns and stables, aye and dairies -
This causes it that there are now no fairies.
For where was wont to walk full many an elf,
Right there walks now the limiter himself
In noons and afternoons and in mornings,
Saying his matins and such holy things,
As he goes round his district in his gown.
Women may now go safely up and down,
In every copse or under every tree;
There is no other incubus, than he,
And would do them nothing but dishonour.
And in middle english:
In th'olde dayes of the Kyng Arthour,
Of which that Britons speken greet honour,
All was this land fulfild of fayerye.
The elf-queene, with hir joly compaignye,
Daunced ful ofte in many a grene mede.
This was the olde opinion, as I rede;
I speke of manye hundred yeres ago.
But now kan no man se none elves mo,
For now the grete charitee and prayeres
Of lymytours and othere hooly freres,
That serchen every lond and every streem,
As thikke as motes in the sonne-beem,
Blessynge halles, chambres, kichenes, boures,
Citees, burghes, castels, hye toures,
Thropes, bernes, shipnes, dayeryes,
This maketh that ther been no fayeryes.
For ther as wont to walken was an elf,
Ther walketh now the lymytour hymself
In undermeles and in morwenynges,
And seyth his matyns and his hooly thynges
As he gooth in his lymytacioun.
Wommen may go saufly up and doun.
In every bussh or under every tree
Ther is noon oother incubus but he,
And he ne wol doon hem but dishonour.
They both say roughly the same thing but not exactly. The difference in phraseology means that certain words or sentences may have different stresses. A reader in chaucer's time would probably have a slightly different understanding of it than a modern reader.
Aldebaran said:
Well the salafists try to follow the "path of the prophet" as exactly as they can rejecting anything they see as new innovations, including (among the saudis) all of sufiism. That's about as good a fundamentalist ideology as you're going to get.
I think of them more as reactionaries. Radicals favour new fresh innovations in an ideology whereas reactionaries reject all new innovations and are more conservative. You say that they make their own rules but they would say that they are merely returning to the original rules not making new ones.
Similar threads
