Society Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

[Impel Down]

For us Catholics, we fast the forty days before Good Friday, aka, the day Jesus was crucified. We can only eat the three square meals, but each have to be very small, on Fridays we can't eat meat, and we have to give up one thing we hold dear, but don't truly need. Apparently, you're allowed to take Sunday off, but not that many people do that.

 

[kiddo7]

thank you for the correction.

 

[Impel Down]

No prob. That's why I'm here...sort of. Actually, that is in no way why I am here, but I felt it would be useful to clarify.

 

[gian]

What do Muslims think of Salman Rushdie? It seems all other Muslim beliefs are overshadowed by the bounties on his head.

 

[conan]

hmm, sulman rushdy, well to tell you the truth I simply Dont think about him, apparently when I was very young child and didnt care about much he wrote some really offensive content about certain muslim figures both the the holy scripture and prophet, but I was too young then and didnt care much and I think there are more important things to research myself than that old story, but to make it clearer of the reaction in some muslim countries, I heard there was calling for deaths and so on, I keep saying in this same thread lot of this is political and, and political figures who came out to call for his head were satisfying an angry mob who would follow them without question after that, this my own narrow individual side of the story, so basically I dont think of him much and dont care, if someone really wants to know about the prophet and the quran ( the holy scripture) then they are welcome to ask me and I'll talk to them anytime, and even when I dont know the answer I'll try leading them to someone who does, but if they insult me or my religion in an offensive way, I know most of what I say would come on deaf ears, some people just want insult you becuase they hate what ever reason they give themselves as an excuse, now I said this becuase something similar has happened lately with the offensive cartoons that drew the prophrt in a way that showed him as a terrorist, I wont back fire to something like that, I just wish a muslim artist or writer would publish something as an answer to such a thing, which to my humble knowledge didnt happen, instead angry people were off in the streets shouting and cursing, which doesnt solve anything at all, and expect the boycott of denemark products for a short time nothing really concrete happened on the muslim side of the world, which is a very big side.

 

[xi0]

I personally don't understand the uproar against Rushdie and his novel, The Satanic Verses. Above anything else, the novel is a work of fiction which purpose is to convey an interesting narrative and nothing really else, despite that fact that it is based in some reality by Ibn Ishaq's biography of the prophet Muhammad. I don't get why it is so offensive. Now if it was a work of nonfiction and was stated as fact than the controversy may be valid.

It's sort of the same situation that Christian's have with the novel The DaVinci Code. There is uproar among the most reactionary groups, but these are the same people who condemn Harry Potter because it promotes Witchcraft. No Christian leaders are calling for Dan Brown's assassination.

I'm agnostic, but this is just my point of view on the subject.

 

[amar_kun]

if you dont understand please understand the feeling of those who undestand it.

understand?

 

[xi0]

if you dont understand please understand the feeling of those who undestand it.

understand?

No, that's not an explanation so I can't begin to.

Otherwise, all works of fiction should be considered as factual accounts and the line between entertainment and education would blur. Why call for someone's murder? It's nonsensical to me, sorry.

 

[conan]

well xio, I read a small description to try and understand what rushdie wrote, its not really fiction, to me it seems a blur between fact and fiction, he meddled with an already existing story , and its not just any story its one that certain scholars like (Altabary) spent their lives working to collect and refine, by following each story to its source in a time travelling between countries would be done by walking and riding, or like (al bukhary) and (imam muslim) I am telling you these people spent their youths and lives for this,and rushdy obviously meddled with that, to me thats not acceptable, by the way I have never heard of ibn ishaq at all, I still say it is something really before my time and I was really too young to remeber, but I can see how simple this is, he messed with the most basic and important of facts about the beginning of islam, the result of that cannot be good either way, but I cant even imagine what he wrote to make people that angry, and interesting narrative to me isnt worth angering so many people, my own humble opinion which you could disagree with.
now do you understand ?

 

[helping]

I personally don't understand the uproar against Rushdie and his novel, The Satanic Verses. Above anything else, the novel is a work of fiction which purpose is to convey an interesting narrative and nothing really else, despite that fact that it is based in some reality by Ibn Ishaq's biography of the prophet Muhammad. I don't get why it is so offensive. Now if it was a work of nonfiction and was stated as fact than the controversy may be valid.

It's sort of the same situation that Christian's have with the novel The DaVinci Code. There is uproar among the most reactionary groups, but these are the same people who condemn Harry Potter because it promotes Witchcraft. No Christian leaders are calling for Dan Brown's assassination.

I'm agnostic, but this is just my point of view on the subject.

Well the uproar mostly is caused by hooligans who never read the book but are defensive about their religion, and when the uproar is further amplified by the mass media it really becomes problematic

The uproar not only caused by muslim but also non muslim. why? Let me quote you some of the content of the book. The satanic verse

warning the language below is very disturbing, its not my words im quoting it. P/s mods if you find it againts the rule please dilute it or remove it..

Spoiler: NSFW quote

Called Londoner bastards, “Proper London, here we come! Those bastards” pg 1, “nigger eat white man shit” pg461, used the word fuck 52 times “fucking americans” pg 280, fucking argentinia pg 268, “fucking class” pg 270, “sister-fucking british” pg 80”, called the queen of England a fuck, called the Margaret Thatcher, the british prime minister a bitch, called the only use of fat white women is to fuck her … .and narrated himself having sex with the queen (pg 169)…..and combine all that language and use it to describe the most respected figure in islam, the prophet

so that is where the uproar originated. again sorry for the rude language

 

[PaperYomiko]

This is a very sensitive issue, so I would just like to remind everyone to please continue to respect all sides and opinions. I think one of the biggest problems in keeping this discourse from truly being resolved is misunderstanding on both sides of the issue – people who argue against Rushdie, yet have never read his novel, and people who argue for him, yet do not really see where the offense originates from.

First of all, I believe very strongly in freedom of religion, and the right to have your beliefs respected. I also believe very strongly in freedom of speech and an artist’s right to his creative freedoms.

I don’t know a lot about the religious side of this argument, and I won’t pretend that I do. However, I do know a lot about the literary side, as I not only studied The Satanic Verses in a class last year, but Rushdie happens to be one of my favorite writers, and it one of my favorite novels. Still, I’ll try to remain as objective here as possible.

The Satanic Verses is a work of fiction. There is no question about that. However, in all works of fiction, a writer draws his or her ideas and inspirations from life, previous works of literature, and all other external sources that might influence them.

Unfortunately, the religious controversy over The Satanic Verses has overshadowed its true, and extremely powerful meaning. Rushdie’s intentions in writing this novel were not to offend, or even critique, the nature, history, or theology of Islam. He is working to criticize the nature of extremism - the extreme adherence to belief in singularity of any kind to the point where acceptance and respect of anything else is impossible. A critique on religious singularity does come into the novel – thus, the passage Mahound, which has sparked most of the debate. However, if you read carefully, you’ll notice that nothing is a black or white issue with Rushdie – he is as critical of one side as he is the other, and so, the belief in extreme religious singularity becomes, in his eyes, as fallible as the belief in religious multiplicity. This is shown as the character Mahound struggles to have himself and his beliefs accepted in a city of polytheistic worship. It is important to note, however, this is not a commentary on monotheistic vs. polytheistic beliefs, but rather, the acceptance or rejection of more than one ideal; the unyielding nature of homogeneous beliefs vs the adaptability of heterogeneous beliefs. Still, this is only a side story in a much larger novel, which does unavoidably important work relevant to our modern society – not because of it’s religious themes, but primarily because of it’s much more central theme of racism.

The story opens with Saladin Chamcha, an Indian ex-patriot who has been living in London for most of his adult life, and Gibreel Farishta, an Indian movie star, falling from a height of 29,002 feet in the sky above London, after their airplane has been blown apart by terrorists. As they fall together, both go through a series of physical metamorphoses: Gibreel literally transforms into an archangel, Saladin into a goatish devil (this novel is a great example of Magical Realism, where even the most ludicrous, impossible things are literalized into truth). Though the imagery here is religious in origin, it’s main purpose is to criticize racism and the societal conventions that sustain such beliefs. Both men are transformed into literal manifestations of how society views them – Saladin, a man who has attempted to assimilate into British culture and become British, is viewed in a negative light as he threatens the homogeny and traditions of the society, while Gibreel is seen in a positive, though highly condescending light, as he is a man who could never assimilate, thus is no threat, and is given the persona of a childish, inferior man.

There is racism in both manifestations, as they both embody racial stereotypes - and it is important to note, as well, that although the 'racist body' in this novel is represented mainly as 'Britain', the idea is applicable to any group or agency where such ideas persist - I'm not trying to say here that the British and only the British are racist, because that's just entirely untrue and absurd. However, because Rushdie is very much using his own personal experiences in this novel, it is impossible to deny that racism in Britain towards Indians and other immigrants is the target of much of his criticism here.

The novel continues to follow them through London as they attempt to come to terms with their identities and a society in which they neither belong nor are able to reject. The nature of this racism and its affect on an individual’s identity is one of the most important themes of the novel, and one that I am most interested in in studying this novel. For anyone interested in reading more about it, I wrote a short paper on identity, racism, and Saladin Chamcha, which I would be happy to share if it would help to shed more light on the true themes of The Satanic Verses.

Finally, it was said above that this novel offended more than just Muslims – this is very true. There was a great number of white, non-muslim, primarily British people who found this novel offensive, and I believe they are a large contingency of those protesting Rushdie’s knighthood. However, this is not due to any offensive language in the novel, but because the characters portrayed in the most negative light happen to be, put very blunty, white Englishmen. Why? Because Rushdie is turning every idea upside down in this novel, he does not allow any belief or convention to pass without dissecting it. The white Englishmen are as much a representation of important themes as are Saladin, Gibreel, and Mahound. They are not specific people, they are ideas.

Of course this novel was bound to offend and provoke, but that is part of it’s usefulness. It dissects important, but uncomfortable ideas and conventions of our society – everyone’s society – which must be addressed in our modern world if we are to function as one.

If I have written anything here that offends, please take to heart that it is in no way intentional. This is a highly complicated and emotional topic to discuss, though I believe an extremely important one, and I hope that it can continue here in a friendly and constructive light. Please be aware, however, that if discussion deviates to a more provoking and disrespectful vein, this thread will have to be closed until emotions cool down.

 

[helping]

True PaperYomiko, all in all theres diversity of opinions on it and to continue to discuss it on a forum that promote harmony and entertainment maybe not such a good idea...

Children have been orphaned, wives have been widowed and the writers dead so the damage has been done really. I'm sure it makes an interesting dialogue but perhaps not on a manga forum. thats my opinion

thanks for the kind response anyway, all of you.

Edit - Just to note the position of most muslims, not in any way implying i speak on behalf of muslims, theres difference of opinions to this issue.

the highest muslim sunni legal authority (the Al-azhar in Cairo) and most muslim authority disagree with Khomeini's fatwa.

but to read the newspaper, you would thought that all muslim were determined to cut rushdies throat.

 

[conan]

I agree with helping, I dont think there is really enough information about this, and at paper yomiko's post I have a feeling that all has been said about this and there isnt many more opinions to be represented, in this day of ramadan, I'd rather skip this, by the way to all muslim brothers and sisters, I haven't yet congratulated you on ramadan, being on the 10th day I am a bit late but ramdan mubarak to all of you.

 

[xi0]

FYI conan, Ibn Ishaq is the author of the first known biography of the prophet Muhammad.

I wasn't trying to characterize all Muslims as calling for Rushdie's head, but I was just expressing my inability to understand those that do.

Remember that most great novels or works of literature angered people, and the reason they were great is because of this. Works of art that provoke no response are worse than those that people have an opinion about.

 

[amar_kun]

xio, i hope the explanation from py statisfy you and there is no need to further discuss about this matter..

and for your information, yes ibn ishaq is one of the authors of biography of the prophet, but nowadays there are research done to study back and check the authenticity of his writings. most scholars rather use ibn hisyam's work on biografy of the prophet since the authenticity is better.

happy ramadhan to you as well conan. may this ramadhan will bring taqwa to all of us. ameen.

 

[ddadain]

Oh! A topic about religion~

First off, I'm too lazy to read everything that's been written ._. (For people who knows me a bit, they know I'm lazy XD).

Secondly, I know quite a bit. And if I may state something that you think isn't real, please check it out for yourself first. :|

Another thing is, as has been said, religion is a sensitive topic. And in most cases, it is not open for discussion. As a saying goes, "Oil does not mix with water" so is to the fact that most religion is intolerant of each other.

So I see the recent discussion was about religiously "contexted" literature and authors. For one, I completely agree with what xi0 said about art, but I do understand why people get angry when they think their "beliefs" are being wronged.

The Da Vinci Code is an interesting novel. It has a pseudo-realism to it that some may mistake as truth. Almost everything the book, or to be more precise, Dan Brown conjectures is to form false credibility. From how the first few lines one reads "that the contents of this books is...blah...as accurate as possible...and the figures and art...blah...are all real and historical correct...etc" exudes the |read| statement: BELIEVE! Of course, the book itself is nothing but gibberish from a historical, theological and factual point of view, but that doesn't apply to religion, does it?

That's the thing about religion, it has many "believers", but they stop there. They no longer delve into deeper understanding of their faith. So to speak, they "take what is given" and are "content with what they have" about their faith by those who claim they are knowledgeable and therefore in authority.

It, of course, is understandable for one to defend one's family as vehemently as possible when under attack, especially one that you cannot stop (you can't really do anything to a book that's published). This is made so much more for those whose very core is defined by their beliefs, true believers.

As already been stated, mutually exclusive views of an event, may or may not be complimentary, so to speak.

Forgive me for saying such, but the adaptability of beliefs do not exist. When on believes in everything, and reject nothing, one does not have belief at all. A belief is something that is contradicting the actual circumstance or the evidence of such that are supporting the very opposite. Another thing is that belief is based on something concrete, it SHOULD not change. If you believe something is, then whether or not it is proven not to be, or something more appealing--a good compromise-- comes along, your belief is and should ever be the same. Moreover, when one just think "If I believe the chicken came before the egg," then by matter of logic deduce that "the egg came after the chicken", then one commits something uncharacteristic of your belief. As beliefs are something "baseless" and needs no reasoning, then the reasoning one uses to justify whether or not something is complimentary or to quote I.Robot "does not belong" is total folly.

Now, onto a more sensitive issue about whether or not the person, Rushdie, deserves beheading by Muslim Law. The answer is, as your holy book explicitly states: anything that goes against Islam, should be destroyed, yes. Play by words or meaning, anything that even hints filth on the faith should be eradicated. Much in the same way that the book says kill all infidels if they refuse to convert to the faith. Based on historical facts, an infidel is someone who simply refuses to believe in Islam, so how much more is it for someone who denounces it, even if only by conjecture...

There are many other aspects of religion central to this topic, but the point I wish to make is that:

Belief leaves no room for doubt.​

Now I think I may have sounded a bit critical to Islam, but hey, it was on topic. Though I do not mean to offend anyone.

There's so much more things to talk about... historically, factually, dogma, teachings, inconsistencies...etc. about religion.

Although, much of the talk is about the 3 central monotheistic religions on Earth: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Comments?

---

An interesting question would be:

"Is manga against your faith?"

 

[Optimist]

Oh! A topic about religion~

An interesting question would be:

"Is manga against your faith?"

nonsense
what they are doing in mangahelpers then?

 

[helping]

Oh! A topic about religion~

First off, I'm too lazy to read everything that's been written ._. (For people who knows me a bit, they know I'm lazy XD).

Presumably you are the ddadain that tirelessly scanlated eyeshield no i dont think you are lazy..

Now, onto a more sensitive issue about whether or not the person, Rushdie, deserves beheading by Muslim Law. The answer is, as your holy book explicitly states: anything that goes against Islam, should be destroyed, yes. Play by words or meaning, anything that even hints filth on the faith should be eradicated. Much in the same way that the book says kill all infidels if they refuse to convert to the faith. Based on historical facts, an infidel is someone who simply refuses to believe in Islam, so how much more is it for someone who denounces it, even if only by conjecture...

The quran says in a verse "kill the polytheists wherever you find them". Its in the quran, but its in the bible as well, the old testament says when you go into a village leave nothing breathing, Jesus says i haven't come to bring peace, i come to bring war.
-no offence to any christians intended-

One of the things about religion is its not falsifiable, Karl Popper, you can justify anything you want with religion, but thats why you have a normative tradition in islam and in christianity.

what im saying is theres interpretive ways to look at religion, and that verse doesn’t give muslim the justification to kill any non-muslim they come across.

Final thing… most muslims like most human beings are abhorred by violence and their not this evil group out there, thier human beings that if you tickle them they laugh and if you hurt them they feel pain.

 

[Optimist]

The quran says in a verse "kill the polytheists wherever you find them". Its in the quran,

no ! you are misunderstanding
This verse of the Qur’an is in the context of a battlefield. When the enemies who have broken the peace treaty, when they attack you, don’t get scared in the battlefield, fight them, if required even kill them. Now any army general, any President of any country, or any Prime Minister, to boost the morale of his soldiers he will use these words.

but Quran also says

“Allaah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion nor drove you out of your homes. Verily, Allaah loves those who deal with equity”[al-Mumtahinah 60:8]

 

[amar_kun]

hi ddadain.. of course u r not a lazy person.. u type a lot and that shows that u aint lazy at all at typing and voicing ur opinion.

i would like to take your attention to the fact that the total world population is 6 billion. and out of that there is 1.5 billion muslim. and if all muslim need to kill the other non-muslim, that means 1 in every 4 people is a killer. so do you see that in ur daily life? of course not! coz that is not the interpetation of that verse. and i would agree with the explanation by optimist about that verse.

okay, let me tell you some facts about war during the prophet Muhammad days (i just finish reading some history on islam yesterday). since he received revealation by angel Gabriel, the whole pagan arab go against him thus resulting to several war. the enemy army's strength are ranging from 1000 (meccan quraiys, in battle of Badr) soldier to 100'000 soldier (byzantine army in battle of muktah). how many died during those war? 1018 people from both muslim and non muslim party. that is very very small indeed.
compared to WWI (6.4 million people die) and WWII (30 - 60 million people die) and both of these wars does not start in the name of religion at all.

and i would suggest you to watch the film 'kingdom of heaven'. even though this is a film is not made by a muslim, but the director still shows the heroic of Saladin who conquered jerusalem without killing any civillian of the city. Saladin is a very pious soldier and well verse in alQuran, and he do understand that those verse does not ask to kill any non muslim civillian at all.

besides, one of the meaning of Islam is "as salam" which means "peace". so islam promote peace and not war. maybe there is one or two of those who opt not to peace, but that is not the majority of the muslim believe. however, it seems that most media is trying their best to portray this nominal group who does not really represent islam thus resulting in very very wrong image of muslim to the public.

once i got across a very popular question to detect islamophobia. it goes like this

name 3 muslim that you know? (pls answer in 10 second)







if any of you got an answer like Osama Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Saddam Hussein, it is likely u got the islamophobia.

wallahua'lam