Islam Isma'ili

[Ishna]

Introduction to Isma'ili here: http://www.ismaili.net/Source/0583.html#16

I found this particularly interesting:

Chapter V



Implementation of Faith by Action

The real aim of religion, is the good action in being useful to others, and not only in repeating prayers (66)...
...

Islam means not only faith but is also means works. It means creating the world in which you can practise your faith to the best of your ability.

In short, all the religious articles of faith and rites are means and not ends in themselves, because the end is the good deed, they good word, and the progress and elevation of human society and of the individual within that society.

That is why, these means can be varied and adapted to the time and place and to the needs of man and society according to the possibility of realizing the human ends by them.

 

[Archived_member15]

Dear sister Ishna ji mundahug

Thank you for this thread and for the introduction.

I see much that is worthy and progressive in it, however I detect also (and this is the only part I disagree with) a certain bias of the author towards Christianity as being a closer counterpart to Islam and a very blatant, unfair and generalized account of Judaism which does not match up with the true majesty of this independent, world religion - and is I fear even a coded, latent form of anti-semitism that is still sadly rife in the Islamic world and was too in Christianity until the horrors of the Holocaust in Europe.

In fact I would say that Islam and Judaism share more in common than do Islam and Christianity. Islam and Judaism both have dietary laws, whereas Christianity has none. Islam and Judaism both have rules on dress and clothing, whereas Christianity doesn't. Jesus in fact did not create or promulgate a religious law at all.

The Pope explained this in his address to the German Parliament last year:

"...Unlike other great religions, Christianity has never proposed a revealed law to the State and to society, that is to say a juridical order derived from revelation. Instead, it has pointed to nature and reason as the true sources of law – and to the harmony of objective and subjective reason, which naturally presupposes that both spheres are rooted in the creative reason of God. Christian theologians thereby aligned themselves with a philosophical and juridical movement that began to take shape in the second century B.C. In the first half of that century, the social natural law developed by the Stoic philosophers came into contact with leading teachers of Roman Law. Through this encounter, the juridical culture of the West was born, which was and is of key significance for the juridical culture of mankind. This pre-Christian marriage between law and philosophy opened up the path that led via the Christian Middle Ages and the juridical developments of the Age of Enlightenment all the way to the Declaration of Human Rights and to our German Basic Law of 1949, with which our nation committed itself to "inviolable and inalienable human rights as the foundation of every human community, and of peace and justice in the world..."

- Pope Benedict XVI, Reichstag Building, Berlin
Thursday, 22 September 2011

Christianity does not propose a law grounded in a particular revelation. Rather, it grounds Law in universal Natural Law discovered through reason. Judaism has Halakha and Islam has Sharia, divinely revealed laws taught by Moses and Muhammad for society. Jesus never taught a legal system. He left his diciples only one command. JOHN 13:34 NKJ 34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another".

Islam and Judaism both have circumcision, whereas Christianity does not. I could go on, but I think that you get the point already.

The author writes:

1) Judaism:


The Jews had gone astray when they claimed that they are the chosen people of God, hence they believed in a National God, who belongs only to Jews.

As E. M. Burnes in his book Western Civilization points out, at the beginning Jews even acknowledged the existence of other Gods belonging to other nations, just as Yahwah was the God of Israel (17)

The Jewish theology deviated in a manner that they reached to reject the existence of any God save their special God (Yahwah) Not only did they make themselves the chosen people of God, but they rejected the teachings of Moses, their prophet, as represented in the old Testament, and adopted a special interpretation of their teachings reprinted in the book the Talmud (18) This Talmud, includes two Hakhamite Jewish interpretations, Al-Mashna and Al-Jumara which, moreover, represent a grave deviation from the real teachings of Moses.

Thus after this deviation, Judaism could not meet with the teachings of Christianity and Islam and other heavenly religions. Because it became after these aspects of deviation and interpretation, some thing like a special religion made by its later followers.
Finally, Judaism applied in the world as a racial odd creed limited to a particular group, cannot be universal or human, and is no more a Religion (19)

This is an unacceptable, unfair and unscholarly description of another faith. I find it very rich that Muslims often decry generalizationa of Islam and unfair criticism (of which there are sadly plenty), when they also do the same with Judaism and Jews, as this introduction demonstrates.

Point-by-point:

The Jews had gone astray when they claimed that they are the chosen people of God, hence they believed in a National God, who belongs only to Jews.

This is a common misinterpretation of Judaism that the Nazis used as a propaganda tool during the Third Reich. Jewish tradition teaches that all peoples were called by God and that the Jews were the only ones in the earth in that time that answered the call. Their "Chosen-ness" is to be a blessing and a light to all other nations, as the Tanakh describes:

Isaiah 49:

Israel's Mission

Listen to me, O coastlands,
pay attention, you peoples from far away!
The Lord called me before I was born,
while I was in my mother’s womb he named me.
2 He made my mouth like a sharp sword,
in the shadow of his hand he hid me;
he made me a polished arrow,
in his quiver he hid me away.
3 And he said to me, “You are my servant,
Israel, in whom I will be glorified."....
5 And now the Lord says,
who formed me in the womb to be his servant,
to bring Jacob back to him,
and that Israel might be gathered to him,
for I am honored in the sight of the Lord,
and my God has become my strength—
6 he says,
“It is too light a thing that you should be my servant
to raise up the tribes of Jacob
and to restore the survivors of Israel;
I will give you as a light to the nations,
that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”

Furthermore Jews do not teach about a "National God" who belongs only to Jews. Again let me refer to the Tanakh:

Psalm 117:1

Praise the LORD, all nations! Extol him, all peoples!

Psalm 86:9

All the nations you have made shall come and worship before you, O Lord, and shall glorify your name

Furthermore Judaism teaches that all people, from every nation and religion, can have a share in the Olam Haba (world to come). Judaism, unlike Islam and Christianity, has never restricted salvation to only Jews, but recognises that all people of good will can go to heaven. Judaism believes that those who do not feel compelled to convert to Judaism can just as well achieve a share in the World to Come by following the moral principles of the Seven Laws of Noah as well as the tenets of their own faith. That is far more enlightened than traditional forms of Islam and Christianity, and Judaism is a FAR older religion from a more primitive culture - so shame upon Muslims and Christians!!!!

The Tanakh expressly recognises that people of all religions worship God and that God accepts their diverse worship of him:

"...For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name is great among the nations; and in every place incense is offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the LORD of hosts..."

- Malachi 1:11

Not only did they make themselves the chosen people of God, but they rejected the teachings of Moses, their prophet, as represented in the old Testament, and adopted a special interpretation of their teachings reprinted in the book the Talmud

The exact same can be said about Islam's use of spurious Hadiths written CENTURIES after the lifetime of Muhammad. The Qur'an Alone Muslims continually point out that the Hadiths often contradict the Qur'an and bear no historical relation to the actual Muhmmad. And what makes this more laughable is that the Qur'an uses the Talmud as one of its sources! No kidding.

For example, God forbids Moses from suckling from a foster mother in both the Qur'an and Talmud:

And We had already forbidden foster suckling mothers for him, until [his sister] said: Shall I show you a household who will rear him for you and take care of him?

~The Qur'an 28:12

The Holy One, Blessed is He, said: "Shall the mouth that will one day speak to me suckle from anything unclean?"

~The Talmud

This isn't mentioned at all in the Bible.

Both the Qur'an and the Talmud tell the story of God raising a mountain over the Israelites:

"We raised the mountain over them as if it had been a canopy, and they thought that it was going to fall on them. (We said): "Hold firmly to what We have given you."

~The Qur'an 7:171


The Holy One, blessed is He, raised a mountain over Israel as though it were a dome. And He said to them: if you hold to the Torah all is well, but if not you will be buried here!

~The Talmud

Once more this isn't biblical! It comes from the Talmud, the Oral Torah which both Jesus and Muhammad seemed to take for granted as having genuine truths about Moses and the Torah.

Targum of Jonathan-ben-Uzziah

"Adam and Eve, sitting by the corpse, wept not knowing what to do, for they had as yet no knowledge of burial. A raven came up, took the dead body of its fellow, and having scratched at the earth, buried it thus before their eyes. Adam said, 'Let us follow the example of the raven,' so taking up Abel's body, buried it at once."

Qur'an- sura 5:31


"Then Allah sent a raven, who scratched the ground, to show him how to hide the shame of his brother. 'Woe is me!' said he; 'Was I not even able to be as this raven, and to hide the shame of my brother?' Then he became full of regrets."

That's another story from the Oral Torah mentioned in the Qur'an. There are many more:

The Qur'an relates a Talmudic parable about the value of human life in its account of the murder of Abel by Cain.

Quran

“ On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. [Qur'an 5:32] --Translated by Yusuf Ali ”


This is mentioned nowhere in the Tanakh (Old Tetament). It actually makes no sense in the Qu'anic context of the passage above. It makes sense only in the Talmud, where it is a Rabbinic interpretation of a word used in Genesis referring to the murder of Abel by his brother Cain in which a "plural" word in Hebrew is used for "blood" ie the spilling of Abel's blood is not singular but plural. The Jewish Rabbis interpreted this as being a reference to all humanity and thus came up with this interpretation, which the Qur'an used after the Talmud and got from the Talmud:

Mishnah

"...We find it said in the case of Cain who murdered his brother, 'The voice of thy brother's bloods crieth' (Genesis 4.10). It is not said here blood in the singular, but bloods in the plural, that is, his own blood and the blood of his seed. Man was created single in order to show that to him who kills a single human being it shall be reckoned that he has slain the whole human race, but to him who preserves the life of a single human life it is counted that he hath saved the whole human race..."

(Mishnah Sanhedrin, 4.5, Talmud)

In another edition of the Mishnayot, the wording is: "Whoever destroys the life of a single human being [nefesh a`hat mi-bnei adam] ... it is as if he had destroyed an entire world; and whoever preserves the life of a single human being ... it is as if he had preserved an entire world".

Thus a teaching often attributed to Muhammad about the inestimable value of a single human life, was actually first taught by the Jewish Rabbis who wrote the Talmud before Muhammad.

The story of the Raven and the Burial of Abel in the Qur'an also has no precedent in the written Torah but is mentioned in the Talmud.

I am appalled by this outrageous attack upon Judaism. I am very dissapointed that I - a non-Jew - am actualy having to defend another world religion.

It demonstrates ZERO attempt at trying to actually understand Judaism in a considerate and open-minded fashion.

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

Vouthon Ji...I notice you said....

<< I am appalled by this outrageous attack upon Judaism. I am very dissapointed that I - a non-Jew - am actualy having to defend another world religion.>>>

Well you are NOT alone...The SIKHS have always and consistently..defended the RIGHT to Freedom of Religion...in fact GURU TEG BAHADUR ji gave His head in Chandni Chowk Delhi to DEFEND the Right of the Hindu to wear his Janeau and practise his rleigion... so YOU are in GOOD honourable Company sir !! Earlier Guru Arjun Ji was also martyred defending the Right to practise ones own religion and holy books etc..

Just imagine this sceanrio....In a Majority MUSLIM Country Malaysia it was the SIKHS who fought for Right to wear DASTAAR....and got the Majority population...Muslims the "free right" to wear the Hajj Cap (ref Motorcycle laws on rider + pillion) Earlier the Hajjis had to remove their hajj caps and wear a helmet to ride a motorcycle..)...and this Right is being fought in FRANCE too and once the SIKHS win it..its the Majority MUSLIMS that will benefit as it will have to allow the Burka which is actually REASON for the SIKHS being denied the dastaar !!!-Burka HIDES/CONCEALS while the DASTAAR IDENTIFIES !!! YET the FRENCH see BOTH as same...but once the dastaar case wins..the burka wins automatically)

IN Punjab..the SIKHS fought a LONG battle for their language state..Punjabi..and when it was conceded..a HINDI state of Haryana, himachal were created free of charge without even asking...again the Sikhs fought for HINDI in haryana/Himachal as well as Punjabi in Punjab...

After 9/11 you will have noticed that its the SIKHS (each hate killing has been a SIKH) are bearing the brunt of ANTI-MUSLIM hatred..BUT SIKHS have scrupolously AVOIDED having campaigns that would ostensibly declare that SIKHS are NOT MUSLIMS..implying that if you hate muslims..target muslims..not Sikhs..and this stand is not as per SIKHI...so its OUT....no matter if SIKHS get targetted and even killed...we refuse to take that stand. Very very FEW Mulsims have actually come out to defend the SIKHS in these hate crimes...:happysingh:

 

[Ishna]

Hmm, I'm not very interested in Judaism so I only skimmed that section. A religion that teaches a woman is unclean to the point of hysteria when she experiences a perfectly natural menstrual cycle isn't worth my time right now.

Leviticus 15

19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
20 And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.
21 And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
22 And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
23 And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.
24 And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.
25 And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean.
26 Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation.
27 And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
28 But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean.
29 And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
30 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the Lord for the issue of her uncleanness.

So, apparently her period is a sin. Go god! lol This religion business is getting more and more hilarious while looking at it from this side of the fence!

 

[Archived_member15]

Hmm, I'm not very interested in Judaism so I only skimmed that section. A religion that teaches a woman is unclean to the point of hysteria when she experiences a perfectly natural menstrual cycle isn't worth my time right now.

Leviticus 15

So, apparently her period is a sin. Go god! lol

I think that it is unfair to judge an entire belief system in this way. Jewish people have contributed much to science and human endeabour throughout history, inspired by this religion that you so easily seem to dismiss and mock. I would be greatly offended if I were a Jew.

Equally irrational things could be affixed to Christian and Islamic teachings. I mean Islam believes in Jinn and Christianity in angels. There is one Hadith which Muhammad taught that the devil sleeps in a person's nose and another in which Satan urinates in our ear:

Volume 4, Book 54, Number 516:
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “If anyone of you rouses from sleep and performs the ablution, he should wash his nose by putting water in it and then blowing it out thrice, because Satan has stayed in the upper part of his nose all the night.”

— Volume 4, Book 54, Number 492:
Narrated ‘Abdullah: It was mentioned before the Prophet that there was a man who slept the night till morning (after sunrise). The Prophet said, “He is a man in whose ears (or ear) Satan had urinated.”

What do you consider more rational:

Ancient Jews living 1,000 years BC who thought that an emission of blood from a woman's vagina was a sign of uncleanliness and had to be washed away in a ritual bath, or the devil residing in a person's naval cavity and urinating in his ear?

It should also be noted that "sin" in the Torah does not carry the connotations of later Christian theology. It simply meant to "transgress the law", the law being in this case to wash oneself in a ritual bath after (If one is a man) one has an nightime ejaculation, or if a woman a menstrual period. There is no concept of hell or heaven in the Jewish Tanakh, or of original sin, or even "sin" as it is commonly understood in Christianity.

You declined to mention the male ejaculatory equivalent purity law right above the section you quoted above:

Leviticus 15

When any man has a discharge from his body,a his discharge is unclean. 3And this is the law of his uncleanness for a discharge: whether his body runs with his discharge, or his body is blocked up by his discharge, it is his uncleanness. 4Every bed on which the one with the discharge lies shall be unclean, and everything on which he sits shall be unclean. 5And anyone who touches his bed shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening. 6And whoever sits on anything on which the one with the discharge has sat shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening. 7And whoever touches the body of the one with the discharge shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening. 8And if the one with the discharge spits on someone who is clean, then he shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening. 9And any saddle on which the one with the discharge rides shall be unclean. 10And whoever touches anything that was under him shall be unclean until the evening. And whoever carries such things shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening. 11Anyone whom the one with the discharge touches without having rinsed his hands in water shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening. 12And an earthenware vessel that the one with the discharge touches shall be broken, and every vessel of wood shall be rinsed in water.
13“And when the one with a discharge is cleansed of his discharge, then he shall count for himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes. And he shall bathe his body in fresh water and shall be clean. 14And on the eighth day he shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons and come before the Lord to the entrance of the tent of meeting and give them to the priest. 15And the priest shall use them, one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. And the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord for his discharge.
16“If a man has an emission of semen, he shall bathe his whole body in water and be unclean until the evening. 17And every garment and every skin on which the semen comes shall be washed with water and be unclean until the evening. 18If a man lies with a woman and has an emission of semen, both of them shall bathe themselves in water and be unclean until the evening.

At least these ancient Jews were "clean" and had good sexual hygiene. I wouldm't want personally to leave my semen on my bed, underpants or lying around my house lol! Not exactly safe for other people either ie infections being transmitted.

Both are to do with matters of purity. But at least the Jewish teaching has nothing supernatural in it, merely a matter of staying clean as perceived through ancient eyes and practice (nearly every part of life was ritualized and made into a rite by ancient cultures, just consider all the various sexual rites).

All ancient belief systems contain irrational (by our standards) teachings influenced by time and culture. But they also have profound teachings that never change and can teach us even now because humanity inner life rarely changes. Humans have had the same basic needs and urges throughout history.

I do not think that either Judaism or Islam deserve to be rejected on the basis of certain time-bound understandings of reality. What of the profound teachings of the Tanakh that you haven't quoted? You seem to focus only on the bad.

Do you reject Greek philosophy and Roman Law because of the irrationality of Roman and Greek polytheism? No, even modern Secular Humanists trace their movement back to the genius of Plato and Aristotle and the the later Renaissance Humanists! Indeed ancient Greek philosophy and Roman Law are two of the foundations of our modern Western society, which demonstrates my point about ancient belief systems and their enduring validity for us today despite being time-bound in some areas.

 

[Archived_member15]

An example of some obvious good and enlightened teachings for the time in which they were delivered (because I am wearied with anti-Judaism, anti-Old Testament bashing as I see it):

Love for enemies taught in Book of Proverbs of the Old Testament (Tanakh):

"...If your enemies are hungry, give them bread to eat;
and if they are thirsty, give them water to drink..."

- Proverbs 25:21

"... Is such the fast that I choose,
a day for a person to humble himself?
Is it to bow down his head like a reed,
and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him?
Will you call this a fast,
and a day acceptable to the Lord?
6 “Is not this the fast that I choose:
to loose the bonds of wickedness,
to undo the straps of the yoke,
to let the oppressedb go free,
and to break every yoke?
7 Is it not to share your bread with the hungry
and bring the homeless poor into your house;
when you see the naked, to cover him,
and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?
8 Then shall your light break forth like the dawn,
and your healing shall spring up speedily..."

- Isaiah 58

I may also put up a thread up in interfaith with quotations from the Jewish Talmud, their mystical writings, even the Tanakh and particularly the the "Pirke Avot" section of the Talmud, to cast light on more good points of the Jewish faith which has in my eyes been disproportionately cast in a bad light by some recent postings on their primary Sacred Scripture, the Tanakh.

 

[Ishna]

I'm sorry if I offend you by pointing out the nastier passages in scriptures. It's hard to tell sometimes which parts people choose to believe in and follow and which ones they don't since they're all there together in a volume for all time.

If you like, I'll balance it out with this passage about the potential and ability of women, from the Old Testament:

Proverbs 31:

10 [b]A wife of noble character who can find?
She is worth far more than rubies.
11 Her husband has full confidence in her
and lacks nothing of value.
12 She brings him good, not harm,
all the days of her life.
13 She selects wool and flax
and works with eager hands.
14 She is like the merchant ships,
bringing her food from afar.
15 She gets up while it is still night;
she provides food for her family
and portions for her female servants.
16 She considers a field and buys it;
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
17 She sets about her work vigorously;
her arms are strong for her tasks.
18 She sees that her trading is profitable,
and her lamp does not go out at night.
19 In her hand she holds the distaff
and grasps the spindle with her fingers.
20 She opens her arms to the poor
and extends her hands to the needy.
21 When it snows, she has no fear for her household;
for all of them are clothed in scarlet.
22 She makes coverings for her bed;
she is clothed in fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is respected at the city gate,
where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them,
and supplies the merchants with sashes.
25 She is clothed with strength and dignity;
she can laugh at the days to come.
26 She speaks with wisdom,
and faithful instruction is on her tongue.
27 She watches over the affairs of her household
and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children arise and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her:
29 “Many women do noble things,
but you surpass them all.”
30 Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
31 Honor her for all that her hands have done,
and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.

 

[Luckysingh]

An example of some obvious good and enlightened teachings for the time in which they were delivered (because I am wearied with anti-Judaism, anti-Old Testament bashing as I see it):

As followers of sikhism this ''anti'' behaviour is not sikhism in any way.

Due to my upbringing and childhood with the bible, I find it offensive if any old or new testaments are being verbally bashed !

 

[Ishna]

Which part was the bashing part?

Look, Vouthon, Lucky, and any other readers of the thread: I apologise for my slavish criticism of holy texts in this and other threads. I'm sorry to have caused offence and it won't happen again.

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

Ishna Ji...I too felt offended...even though i am not a Jew..!!

Btw..Talk to any "Taksali" or Baba form any DERA...you will find thsair variety of SIKHISM almost similar...thats why they DONT ALLOW women to do paath, take part in Kirtan..etc etc...and certianly not be part of the PANJ !!!

At least the Jews have their beleifs based on a written text..the Taksalis and Babas base all their prejudices on "THIN AIR" that exists between their ears. Becasue the SGGS condemns all these prejudices...JION jorru sir navhan aveh varo vaar...says Guru nanak Ji..its a natural biological process that occurs every month and is part of the reproduction process......so comparably the Jews are on more solid ground....

Lets be more kinder to others...

Jarnail Singh

 

[spnadmin]

Which part was the bashing part?

I do not see any bashing on the part of Ishna ji. Listing texts that say what they say is not bashing. Neither is disagreement or hard questioning. Where, Ishna ji, you may have run aground in in the statement, "not worth my time right now."

When one compares and contrasts, it is natural to see areas where there are major differences and hard questions about religious texts can lead to discovery and deeper understanding. Within Roman Catholicism women may not serve as priests, and hard questions are asked by women within Roman Catholicism who feel they are battling a patriarchy that oppresses them. Reform movements have led to modern branches of Judaism that have re-interpreted Biblical texts; women are not constrained in Reform Judaism as they are in more traditional understanding. They serve as rabbis and play a full role in services.

And, vouthon ji, many Jews today do not adhere to literal meanings of Biblical texts, but others do. Hasidic Jews take these texts very seriously and apply them literally. Because of literal application, practices such as levirate marriages, or refusing higher education to girls, raise controversy within and among Jews themselves. And some fundamentalist sects of protestantism apply literal meanings to old and new texts to assign inferior status to women.

I think when Sikhs do not ask questions, we lose sight of some very good reasons for why we have chosen to follow the path we are on. And the same must be true for adherents of other religions. That is not "anti" behavior in my opinion, but evidence of a mind at work.

 

[aristotle]

* They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you. Truly Allah loveth those who turn unto Him, and loveth those who have a care for cleanness.
(Qur'an 2:222)

* Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if there be women more than two, then theirs is two-thirds of the inheritance, and if there be one (only) then the half.
(Qur'an 4:11)

* Unto the male is the equivalent of the share of two females.
(Qur'an 4:176)

* And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them.
(Qur'an 2:228)

(Wonder how women are "equal" in the Qur'an)

 

[Archived_member15]

* They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you. Truly Allah loveth those who turn unto Him, and loveth those who have a care for cleanness.
(Qur'an 2:222)

* Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if there be women more than two, then theirs is two-thirds of the inheritance, and if there be one (only) then the half.
(Qur'an 4:11)

* Unto the male is the equivalent of the share of two females.
(Qur'an 4:176)

* And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them.
(Qur'an 2:228)

(Wonder how women are "equal" in the Qur'an)

To even it out though, some passages which do lend themselves towards a more balanced view of gender equality:

[16:97] Anyone who works righteousness, male or female, while believing, we will surely grant them a happy life in this world, and we will surely pay them their full recompense (on the Day of Judgment) for their righteous works.

[33:35] The submitting men, the submitting women, the believing men, the believing women, the obedient men, the obedient women, the truthful men, the truthful women, the steadfast men, the steadfast women, the reverent men, the reverent women, the charitable men, the charitable women, the fasting men, the fasting women, the chaste men, the chaste women, and the men who commemorate GOD frequently, and the commemorating women; GOD has prepared for them forgiveness and a great recompense.

I particuarly love the above passage, since it goes through a series of couplets saying the exact same for men and women believers.

 

[Archived_member15]

Where, Ishna ji, you may have run aground in in the statement, "not worth my time right now."

I agree with everything you say brother Spnadmin ji peacesign

I think that I spoke in the heat of the moment, enraged particularly by that comment and the idea that Judaism was not worth her time at all because of its perceived backwardness. I thought that this was patently unfair since people can say exactly the same with Christianity and Islam.

I really appreciated your insights into the different forms of Judaism (Reform, Orthodox, Conservative, Hasidic). As with any religion, there is diversity of opinion. The Reform Jews interpret Torah according to modern standards, the Conservative have also made amendments etc. In every faith there is traditional and progressive elements.

It is far more complex than black-and-white, "the text says this and so this is what we believe".

I would like also to apologize to Ishna ji if I accused her to rashly of bad intent, however I still do not see why Judaism should be dismissed because of its scripture's teachings on menstruation and ejaculation when other religion's also have similar purity laws. I still consider that to be unfairly dismissive. And the introduction which she quoted in this thread is blatantly anti-Jewish to my eyes, giving not one ounce of a balanced view of that religion.

Thank you!

 

[aristotle]

'To even it out'???
What does that mean? First condemn the women to a life as second class citizens and then throw a few sugar coated passages praising the believers in general. I don't think the passages you quoted serve any good in this regards. Apologies, sincere apologies, but that's the truth..

 

[Archived_member15]

'To even it out'???
What does that mean? First condemn the women to a life as second class citizens and then throw a few sugar coated passages praising the believers in general. I don't think the passages you quoted serve any good in this regards. Apologies, sincere apologies, but that's the truth..

Thank you brother Aristotle ji kaurhug

My point was not to suggest that women do not suffer in Islamic countries as a result of traditional readings of such ayats as you quoted. I have the deepest solidarity with these women, which is why I was involved two years back in a campaign with the group, "Iran Solidarity" led by Maryam Namazie. We campaigned to stop the stoning of women for adultery according to Sharia law. It was concerning the Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani case. This is therefore an issue close to my heart, and I hope that my quoting of Qur'anic ayats that I see as exhibiting a more balanced view of gender relations does not obscure that.

I simply think that there are statements in the Qur'an which could lend themselves to a recognition of a more considerate understanding of the value of women in society.

Consider this ayat for example from one of the Meccan suras:

When one of them gets a baby girl, his face becomes darkened with overwhelming grief. Ashamed, he hides from the people, because of the bad news given to him. He even ponders: should he keep the baby grudgingly, or bury her in the dust. Miserable indeed is their judgment.(16:58-59)

As you can see, the Arabia into which Muhammad was born practised wiespread infanticide of baby girls. Muhammad spoke out against this practice, whereas he could have stayed silent and accepted it carte blanche.

He didn't and I think that this is an example of humanity and even progess within his own culture/region/time-frame

I'm not trying to be politically correct. The ayats you quoted are in our modern eyes offensive to the dignity of womanhood, and this is the problem that they are applied in Islamic countries without recourse to advancements in human rights because they are seen as divinely inspired. In their own time however, they may have been the standard, patriarchal understanding of the role of women accorded in heritage, for example, in that society.

However I do not think that the Qur'an is wholly comprised of negative passages concerning women. There are positive ones also. The first Muslim was Muhammad's wife Khadijah, and consider how highly the Virgin Mary and Fatimah Zahra are revered in Islam.

Peace be with you and you have no need to apologize I can see this completely from your perspective.

 

[aristotle]

@Vouthon Ji,
I didn't mean to spread negativity about any religion. I am not an Islam-basher, at least not that. But I do think Islam stands on sandy soil when it comes to women rights and feminism, even when compared with Christianity or Judaism.

Interestingly, the ayat you quoted:

When one of them gets a baby girl, his face becomes darkened with overwhelming grief. Ashamed, he hides from the people, because of the bad news given to him. He even ponders: should he keep the baby grudgingly, or bury her in the dust. Miserable indeed is their judgment.(16:58-59)

This ayat is from Surat-al-nahl, and was revealed before hijrah, at a time when Muhammad was still struggling to establish his religion. The ayats I quoted were from Surat-al Baqarah and Surat-al Nisa, and were revealed after hijrah, when Muhammad returned as a politically powerful man, with the terror of his growing number of followers. This is a general trend in the Qur'an...
After all, who needs to be politically correct when he/she has the power to silence(= kill/maim) the critics?
The moderate ayats are but an eyewash...
Enjoy the correlation...!

 

[Archived_member15]

@Vouthon Ji,
I didn't mean to spread negativity about any religion. I am not an Islam-basher, at least not that. But I do think Islam stands on sandy soil when it comes to women rights and feminism, even when compared with Christianity or Judaism...!

peacesignkaur

Brother you are not an Islam basher, and I was wrong to accuse Ishna ji of Judaism-bashing even if I do think that she has expressed offensive (for some unknown reason) comments towards Judaism in particular on areas where it doesn't really differ all that much from what other religions also teach. I heartily regret using the word "bashing" at all - it is haunting me now! And I've just read her apology and nice quotation from the Tanakh.

I have heard of the doctrine of abrogation in the Qur'an whereby latter revealed suras superscede earlier ones. Since I have no qualifications in Islamic theology, nonetheless, I do not wish to pass judgment.

I do not know of any later sura which contradicts the Meccan one I have quoted. As far as I am aware it is accepted that this Qur'anic injuction helped bring an end to the Arab infanticide of girls. Whatever one thinks of other laws revealed in the Qur'an, I do regard this as progress at least in that respect.

Thank you for your enlightening thoughts.

 

[aristotle]

@Vouthon Ji...
I think you're saying 'something is better than nothing'...right? (oversimplification again, that's my forte..)
:noticemunda:

 

[Archived_member15]

Which part was the bashing part?

Look, Vouthon, Lucky, and any other readers of the thread: I apologise for my slavish criticism of holy texts in this and other threads. I'm sorry to have caused offence and it won't happen again.

I had not checked the previous page until now. Thank you for the apology! peacesignkaur

I certainly feel bad about accusing you of "bashing". That was a sweeping accusation made in the heat of the moment.

I have no opposition to anyone pointing out areas of another belief system that they disagree with or even are perturbed by. I have made criticism of other religious beliefs in my time but I would hope that I have always used a considerate tone when doing so, mindful that other people are devoted to their faiths. I expect always that religions be spoken of with a respectful tone since they are the cherished beliefs of millions of human beings and have created whole civilisations, or had wide ranging influence in socities or in individual lives. This demands a tone of compassion even if negative elements are highlighted. I got the impression of mockery and unfair dismissiveness from one of your posts which is what really upset me. However I was wrong to say that you are bashing Judaism. You are fully within your rights to critique it or any other belief system.

I would like to give you a :hug: and put this tustle as a storm in a teacup.

I want to thank you again for quoting a positive passage from the Tanakh. I really appreciated that. It was a lovely sentiment.