Slate.com has a great Explainer series that I have referenced in several previous posts. Readers can write in with both serious and trivial questions alike, and Slate will find the best answer for them. A recent query inquired about what seems like a question that everyone should know a good answer to: Are Muslims Allowed To Kill Themselves?
The two Saudi detainees who reportedly hanged themselves at Guantanamo Bay must have been the victims of foul play, their relatives said on Monday. Since the men were strict Muslims, the families reasoned, they would never have taken their own lives. “It’s impossible for Yasser to commit suicide,” said the brother of one of the inmates. Are Muslims allowed to kill themselves?
No. There’s a clear prohibition on suicide in the collected sayings of the Prophet, known as the hadith. In particular, anyone who kills himself must spend an eternity repeating the act in the afterlife: “He who commits suicide by throttling shall keep on throttling himself in the Hell Fire (forever) and he who commits suicide by stabbing himself shall keep on stabbing himself in the Hell Fire.”
You won’t find as clear a statement in the Quran. This passage provides the closest thing to a ban: “Do not consume your wealth in the wrong way–rather through trade mutually agreed to, and do not kill yourselves.” But the word for “yourselves” could just as well be translated as “each other”–which would make this a ban on homicide, not suicide. [Link]
I love taking a look at the linguistics of religion. It seems almost amusing (if not for the great consequences) how a mistranslation or misinterpretation of a word (ancient vs. modern) can propogate down through all of history. Remember my earlier quoted reference pertaining to the role of the sacred cow in Hinduism?
The scriptural reason for this obsession with cows and their protection is even stranger. Vedic Sanskrit is not the classical Sanskrit that exists today. It is an older, more difficult form of the language and one of the words for “light” that is used there is “Go.” Now Go primarily meant “light,” but it also meant “cows.” In classical Sanskrit, the word means only the bovine friend. Thus, on the basis of a forgotten meaning of a word, Indian culture has wrapped itself round the protection of the cow and rendered it a sacred taboo. “Protector of the Go,” in the Vedas meant the keeper of the light–not a cowherd! And all the admonitions about protecting the Go mean something else altogether, and makes a great deal more sense, too. However, it was too late, and the word came to mean, with all its nuances, cow protection and cow reverence! A change in language renders a single word archaic, but the impact on a society is amazing. [Link]
Returning once again to the topic of suicide in Islam:
Muslim scholars throughout history have noted this ambiguity but have tended to support the prohibition nonetheless. Eight hundred years ago, Fakhr ad-Din ar-Razi acknowledged that the passage could be interpreted either way but argued that it’s better to assume that it’s about suicide. [Link]
<
p>
<
p>
What about the other major religions of the world? How do they view suicide, and is their view similarly based upon a few choice words in an ancient text? The BBC has a series of web pages on religion and ethics. One question they attempt to explain is what Hinduism states about the concept of Euthanasia and Suicide:
There are two Hindu views on euthanasia:
* By helping to end a painful life a person is performing a good deed and so fulfilling their moral obligations
* By helping to end a life, even one filled with suffering, a person is disturbing the timing of the cycle of death and rebirth. This is a bad thing to do, and those involved in the euthanasia will take on the remaining karma of the patient.
o The same argument suggests that keeping a person artificially alive on a life-support machines would also be a bad thing to do
o However the use of a life-support machine as part of a temporary attempt at healing would not be a bad thing
Suicide
Prayopavesa, or fasting to death, is an acceptable way for a Hindu to end their life in certain circumstances.
Prayopavesa is very different from what most people mean by suicide:
* it’s non-violent and uses natural means;
* it’s only used when it’s the right time for this life to end – when this body has served its purpose and become a burden;
* unlike the suddenness of suicide, prayopavesa is a gradual process, giving ample time for the patient to prepare himself and those around him for his death;
* while suicide is often associated with feelings of frustration, depression, or anger, prayopavesa is associated with feelings of serenity
Prayopavesa is only for people who are fulfilled, who have no desire or ambition left, and no responsibilities remaining in this life. It is really only suitable for elderly ascetics.
Hindu law lays down conditions for prayopavesa:
* inability to perform normal bodily purification
* death appears imminent or the condition is so bad that life’s pleasures are nil
* the decision is publicly declared
* the action must be done under community regulation… [Link]
<
p>
To me all four conditions listed under Prayopavesa seem highly subjective. What is “natural means?” When is “the right time?” It seems pretty clear that Hinduism is not for those who like a shot of Absolut in their faith.
Wikipedia has a good summary of the differences between how the major religions view suicide. Here are some key points from the Wiki page:
- For Buddhists, since the first precept is to refrain from the destruction of life, including oneself, suicide is clearly considered a negative form of action. Despite this view, an ancient Asian ideology similar to seppuku (hara-kiri) continues to influence oppressed Buddhists to choose the act of “honorable” suicide.
- Early Christianity was attracted to death as martyrdom was something they felt called upon by their faith to permit… The most notable pro-suicide group was the Donatists, who believed that by killing themselves they could attain martyrdom and go to heaven. They jumped off cliffs, burned themselves in large numbers, and stopped travellers, either offering to pay them or threatening them with death to encourage them to kill the supposed Donatist martyr. They were eventually declared heretics.
- The 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church indicates that suicide may not always be fully conscious – and thus not one-hundred-percent morally culpable: “Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.”
- The prohibition against suicide is not specifically recorded in the Talmud. The post-talmudic tractate Semahot (Evel Rabbati) 2:1-5 serves as the basis for most of later Jewish law on suicide, together with Genesis Rabbah 34:13, which bases the biblical prohibition on Genesis 9:5: “And surely your blood of your lives will I require…” According to Chassidic philosophy, a soul descends into this world to perform a mission, which cannot be performed in the “spiritual worlds”. This is the Chassidic interpretation of the Talmudic statement “One second in the World-to-Come [meaning both the afterlife and the world of Messianic Era] is more pleasurable than the whole life in this world. But one good deed in this world is more important than the whole eternity of the World-to-Come” (Ethics of Our Fathers, Mishna).
Religion and the way it shapes society fascinates me. I should read up on my Talmud though. 🙂
See related posts: The Long Shadow of Hassan-i-Sabbah, Evolution and Religion: A Science Friday smackdown, What do Hindu Nationalists Smell Like?, “An independent tribute”, My son the fanatic,
Hence we have Catholics and Protestants and a bunch of denominations among Protestants and castes among Hindus and even Jains and Shiites and Sunnis and so onÂ…Interpretation of religion is about as stretched and bent as interpretation of the constitution of the United States. 🙂 You could technically declare yourself an expert on it and start your own brown congregation tomorrow $10 says you’ll get at least 10 people who will join you in your belief system.
then who is a jihadi suicide bomber?
Don’t tempt me. I think I already got a reader request about this a few weeks back. Eventually the ATF would be knocking at my door 🙂
although i’m not one to encourage this sort of thing (interpreting religious texts, that is – you can commit suicide all you want), i guess they’re talking about no external instruments when they say “natural means”. and they’re talking about old age or some kind of debilitatiing illness when they say “right time”. apart from that though, it’s definitely subjective. but then again, what religious interpretation isn’t?
Not if you do a good job of building that bunker 30 feet under. I can hear auuummmm auuuummmm chants of Tripathibaba ringing now.
The go=light argument should be taken with a sackful of salt as it’s one in a long line of Arya Samaji rationalizations of everything about Hindu tradition and beliefs being “symbolic” of light and reason, they do some pretty creative things with their arguments (I’ve even heard one uncle play semantic twister to insist that Allah is an ancient Sanskrit word and then he made some argument about the universality of religious tenets blah blah).
But on a more serious note, it’s a mistake to assume that everyone who belongs to a religious community is completey bound by some sort of unchanging religious tradition. Every time a suicide-militant movement emerges from within a community, people start asking if it’s “something about the religion” or if it’s “against the religion” – witness arguments around WWII about Japanese kamikaze and more recently, curiosity about how a pacific religion like Buddhism could produce violent monks and death cults in Sri Lanka (see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5051652.stm) Claims that a religion requires a certain view of death or opposes it are very useful for partisans of particular political goals within the religious community, but they don’t explain much about the actual behaviour of religionists.
True. I know the BBC has improved a great deal in their depiction of Hinduism, but this still doesn’t cut it. Hindus do not have normative concepts of right and wrong. The Dharma shastras are basic guidelines. When read in the original Sanskrit most of the “injunctions” are in a sort of subjunctive mood. “May people do such and such”. The general idea is to do the appropriate thing, at the appropriate time, with the appropriate attitude.
Islam supports suicide as long as it is in the name of Allah, and at the expense of non-believers lives. You cannot overlook the litany of direct quotes from the Quran which support this stance. It is different from other religions in its willingness to incorporate violence into its own religious doctrine. This is not present (in the same degree) in any other major religion.
Vinay – care to cite the relevant Quranic verses or hadiths? Or are you just going to repeat the tired old arguments of the Sangh/rightwing uncles/Jerry Falwell?
The general idea is to do the appropriate thing, at the appropriate time, with the appropriate attitude.
I think “Jack Baeur” of “24” follows this logic.. He is the ideal one.. 🙂
I don’t know about general Hinduism or Vedic references, but in the Vaishnav traditions the ideal of protecting cows is very clearly and obviously grounded in the Gita and the Bhagavat Purana, and not on mere phraseology, but whole sentences and stories, the meaning of which are pretty clear. Krishna likes cows. The rationale is also pretty obvious–the drinking of milk leading to an obligation to protect the motherly cow and the consumption of grain leadng to an obligation to protect the fatherly bull. I’ve got my salt shaker handy.
“slay them whenever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage …. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion reings supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evil-doers.” (2:190-93.
“fighting is obligatory for you, mucah as you dislike it. But you ma hate a thing although it is good for you ,and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not.” (2:216)
There are more, but these are the only ones i have on my computer right now.
That has nothing to do with suicide, Vinay. There are equivalent religious justifications for violence in the Old Testament and, some would argue, in the Bhagvad Gita.
Vinay, exactly which/what other religions is it distinct from in this regard? (Respectfully) you seem to be under the impression that a religious community needs sanction from a religious text in order to commit violence, forgetting the fact that the texts themselves are an historical product of their communities in crisis. Even if a textual canon is closed, there is a great deal of latitude in which it can be interpreted and experienced — hence Bernard of Clairvaux, a celebrated follower of a Galilean rabbi who preached turning the other cheek, can lead his fellow Christians into a bloody crusade and see no contradiction there.
SP:
Yeah, a ton of salt I think (although the tendency which led later to cow-protection, etc. can be traced to the (very) late Vedic era).
You’re very much on-target here as well, but this does not entail the view that ‘religious ideas’ are (nearly) explanatorily inert in explicating the behavior of “..religionists..”, as you wrote…
…At the least, you will have to do a lot more work to derive the latter from the former (No, I don’t expect you to produce a scholarly monograph on SepiaMutiny–certainly, my comment doesn’t amount to a monograh, either. I’m just noting the points at which I diverge from your comment.)
Your take on this matter is, of course, ascendant inside the academy (as well as outside it; e.g., Razib The Atheist, a frequent commenter on this site, takes a decidely nominalist view of the role of religious ideas in unpacking the behavior of religious folk). I am unpersuaded by the (question-begging) arguments produced to buttress such views.
Regards, Kumar
that article has nothing on Sikhism, which is a bit of a travesty.
Vinay – You probably won’t want to hear this but you’re doing exactly as the jihadis do – take quotes out of context to justify your own prejudice. Hizb ut Tahrir in the UK have been known in the UK to use the bits about “kill Jews where you should find them” to justify their hatred (and took the document down from their website when the heat came on them), but its very contextual. Much of the Qu’ran and most of the Hadiths are what Mohammed said in specific circumstances when he was fighting specific battles.
It is rather like when some bigoted Sikhs use that tired line – “Our Gurus fought against Muslim tyranny, we should do the same”. Its fodder for the stupid. And if you want to avoid being stupid, then learn context. Or you’ll be branded stupid. Now you don’t want to be called stupid do you? There’s a good boy… hands him a biscuit
As far as I’m aware (and SP I’m totally with you on the completely ridiculous statements made by Mr. Aryaji in the past), the cow is a big part of one of the most revered Hindu texts – the Bhagwatham. In the Bhagwatham there’s a chapter on Kamadhenu or the wish-fulfilling cow that gave the ancient seers and rishi’s all they desired for the betterment of the world. This cow was said to be blessed by MahaVishnu as the embodiment of sacrifice and cows thereafter have been revered in the same manner for offering themselves entirely to the Earth…
Most of these Sucides are due to political reasons and they happen to be Muslims. Remember Tamils, Sikhs, Irish and others too gave their lives to further their cause.
Because I have been reading the Gita recently, I thought it would be fun to do a comparative analysis.
Vinay quoting the Quran:
“fighting is obligatory for you, mucah as you dislike it. But you ma hate a thing although it is good for you ,and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not.” (2:216)
“slay them whenever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage …. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion reings supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evil-doers.” (2:190-93.
Quoting the Gita:
Krishna to Arjuna: “Think thou also of thy duty and do not waver. There is a war that opens the doors of heaven Arjuna! Happy warriors whose fate is to fight such a war. But to forgo this fight for righteousness is to forgo thy duty and honour:is to fall into transgression.” (2:31,32)
“If any man thinks he slays and if any man thinks he is slain, neither knows the ways of truth. The Eternal in man cannot kill: the Eternal in man cannot die” (2:11)
Justification for violence? I think so.
Do you folks have censors? My innocuous comment was removed within minutes of posting. Wonder why? Outsiders not allowed I guess.
Making gross generalizations vilifying an entire religion is not “innocuous.” Yes, we have a small army of censors that delete bullshit comments as soon as they go up. They ban upon repeat offenses.
While some people are trying to divide South Asians. This is indeed good news.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5074248.stm
Thanks for citing this, Gaya. It’s always interesting to read the Gita and parse out the parts that I don’t like from the things I can take from it. I think, as with any text, the challenge is to interpret it in a way that makes sense to you. So, for example, if you’re not a big fan of fratricide justified by religious obligation, you might simply reduce the discussion to the need to abide by one’s own sense of obligation to right and wrong even in the face of self-doubt and consequences that are clearly negative. It’s much more pleasant and relevant 🙂
As an aside, some Upanishads that were (I think) written around the same time or slightly earlier are more interesting to me than the Gita because they rely less on the personification and worship of Krishna. When I read portions of several many years ago, it seemed like the Gita takes what was once an abstraction (brahman) and gives that power to Krishna–which is no fun for me.
But I’m a novice at this stuff, so I would love to be enlightened by someone with more knowledge than me.
“Making gross generalizations vilifying an entire religion is not “innocuous.” Yes, we have a small army of censors that delete bullshit comments as soon as they go up. They ban upon repeat offenses.”
Pointing established observations/interpretations oft printed in mainstream media is “generalization”? Apparently you guys have become prisoners of your own P.C.ness. No complaints against that since this is your forum but I was expecting countenance through ideas instead of being hushed up. The way “freedom,” “diversity,” “tolerance” etc. prance in people’s post here, one would have expected a liberal attitude. Nevermind.
I will give it another try. Hopefully this will be palatable to your sensitivities.
“Vinay – You probably won’t want to hear this but you’re doing exactly as the jihadis do – take quotes out of context to justify your own prejudice.”
Can anyone put Vinay’s quotes in “context”? “Out of context” is a usual refrain from apologists and appears too banal as it is not followed by “proper context.”
“Justification for violence? I think so.”
Fighting for justice is violence????I think most religions ask you to fight, make war for justice. The passages Vinay quoted are not deemed to be so by several Middle Eastern scholars. The comparative analysis is, thus, too simplistic and naive.
Some acts of violence are more justifiable than others, since I am no pacifist, nor a relativist. So yes, sharvilak, violence in the name of ‘justice’ is more legitimate.
However the point of quoting the Gita was to refute this point by Vinay:
Now, whatever ur conception of ‘justice’, Hinduism is not really different in its willingness to incorporate violence. Extensive justifications for violence can be found in the Gita.
With all due respect to everyone, this discussion is veering significantly off-topic. The issue is suicide within the context of religious tenets on the matter, not the sanction (or lack) of violence itself.
I understand that in Islam, the principle is similar to orthodox Christianity, in that suicide is a sin full-stop. However, the idea of using one’s own body as a “weapon” complicates the matter, especially via the use of explosives or hijacked planes (in the case of the latter, no escape would have been possible, unless they parachuted out of the aircraft at the last minute.) Thinking laterally, presumably this would be permissible as a last resort.
Hinduism has precedents for ritualistic suicide, for example the “jauhar” ritual amongst Rajputs. The women would burn themselves to death in a huge, mass funeral pyre while their menfolk rode out to battle and to certain death, if defeat was an inevitable outcome. Chittorgarh in Rajasthan is particularly famous for this.
As far as I know, suicide is also generally a no-no in Sikhism. However, giving your life for a righteous cause is a different matter, if one is doing it for the right reasons and sacrificing one’s own life really is going to make a difference. One notable example is Guru Tegh Bahadur, who was aware he would not come back alive when he went to Delhi in response to the Kashmiri Pandit’s request for assistance due to Aurangzeb’s harrassment. One is not, however, supposed to kill oneself out of despair or (if it involves some kind of warfare or general physical confrontation) purely because one aims to use it as a way to get into Heaven. Simply dying in battle will not automatically result in “entry to Paradise” — it depends on one’s motivations for fighting (and dying), the attitude towards the opposing combatants, the righteousness of the cause itself, and God’s will.
In all cases (especially Sikhism), the idea of one’s own death simultaneously killing innocent bystanders/civilians is not sanctioned, although as we all know members of some religions have used various loopholes in order to rationalise/justify/excuse this.
Jai:
No, really? Who wld have thunk it? 😉
Regards, Kumar
Re the Gita – sounds more like a justification for critical thinking to me. At the end of the last chapter in the Gita, Krishna says to Arjuna words to the effect that “I have given you my advice, reflect on it carefully, and do what you think best.” There is a huge difference in explicit instructions to do something, and leaving the door open for reflection and alternative decisions depending on circumstance.
As for context. Yes, it would be a great idea to study the context of the Islamic conquests. You will find it to be quite arbitrary after the intitial struggle.
Divya,
Generally, I agree that the I prefer the format of the Gita to other religious texts I have encountered because it is somewhat Socratic. It encourages the reader to reflect seriously about both sides of the issue. However, the debate is kind of rigged in Krishna’s favor, him being divine and all. And generally, such dialogues are ‘rigged’, even Plato’s ‘Republic’, which is why it is a stretch to say that the Gita is a justification for critical thinking. But I like that. Cool.
Gaya:
Well, Krishna and Arjun were also cousins and friends so there could not have been much formality between them. Besides there were many divine beings of all sorts at the time, some of whom Arjun even faught against and won (Lord Shiva for example), so there’s nothing unique about Krishna’s divinity.
Gandhi quoted from the Gita all the time but rejected the message to take up arms. The contemporary generations are indoctrinated in the normative mode of thinking and see the message in black and white – completely rejecting Krishna’s message to use one’s head. So much for rigging influence of divinity 🙂
Umm, doesn’t Krishna show Arjun his Viratroop, reveals to Arjuna that he is the prime mover, parambrahma, greatest cosmic force in the entire universe? Hardly a case of cousins chatting with each other. The Gita is entirely normative in its articulation. The narrative of the Mahabharata in which it is located is much more ambiguous in its moral and ethical lessons. Some people believe that that is precisely why the Gita was needed since everything else was so fuzzy.
Divya,
I suppose you’re right. Krishna and Arjuna do have a comradely relationship, although it’s also a disciple- student relationship too, wouldn’t you say? Hence, my comparison to Socratic dialogues.
Anyway, I don’t doubt that there were critical thinkers within Hinduism. Your example of Gandhi is a good one. But of course, this is not unique to Hinduism. Critical thinking religious people have existed in all faiths.
I guess that’s the thing with religious texts, they’re too fluid for stability.
“Some acts of violence are more justifiable than others, since I am no pacifist, nor a relativist. So yes, sharvilak, violence in the name of ‘justice’ is more legitimate.”
‘Justice’ is what separates legitimate struggle from ‘violence.’ Violence by definition is abusive use of power. You are bundling everything into same package. If your stance is that every piece of fight is violence then I’ve nothing much to say. Such a stance is useless in real world though as demonstrated by daily events.
“But of course, this is not unique to Hinduism. Critical thinking religious people have existed in all faiths.”
It kinda is. Everyone, be they sects, cults, groups, allow critical thinking to an extent but it is not the same. Some typically restrict it to a certain defined bound. In a sense we can differentiate them as bounded and unbounded, a huge difference in the extent and expanse of limitless thought.
Before I get into Hinduism’s view of suicide, let me get into the concept of suicide itself…
Some say that building dams, bridges, planes etc are man’s way of conquering physical nature. Some also say that controlling one’s breath(pranayama), postures(HathaYoga), heartbeat rate, desires etc are also a conquest of Nature. But the very first, and the ultimate conquest of Nature happened when the first man/woman contemplated suicide.
Indeed, suicide is the single most important trait that distinguishes man from animals/insects. No matter how dire the circumstances, a lion will not jump to its death. Even if it loses all its children/partner to a snake, a bird will not kill itself. Neanderthal man could not contemplate suicide, because his intellectual level was the same as that of animals.
I suspect that the first “invention” of man was suicide. It was his/her way of telling Nature that he/she had the power to control the ultimate gift of Nature: Life. It was his way of telling Mother Nature that there is something more important than Life: Free Will. It was the concept of suicide that made the post-Neanderthal man realise that he could control his own destiny, and that he could modify his state of being as he wished. It was the next step in the evolution of man. Soon after the concept of suicide took root, I suspect, he invented fire, tools etc.
If one day you observe a kangaroo committing suicide, watch out. Pretty soon they will have cellphones, brokerage accounts and short all your company stock!
Hinduism, in general, tolerates suicide as long as there is a good purpose. The view is that you cannot escape your Karma through suicide – you will have to repay it in your next birth(s). Vedas/Upanishads talk about suicide without any external aids (poison etc). Rishis, who realised that their work in this birth was completed, would tell their followers/bhaktas to prepare a funeral pyre. They would sit in the Padmansana posture, and simply stop their heart through a superb muscular control. In addition, people who were wronged in this birth by someone and knew that they could not get justice would end their life with the view that they wanted to hasten justice (that they would get in subsequent births).
M. Nam
as fasr as i was taught at university, cattles was needed for traction to plough fields etc.ie food. When the aryans came they ate all the beef, so farming had problems. So to solve this the braham caste banned the khtri warriers from doing so. ie there is a practical root to the belief. later it turned into religious belief, and food abhorance. afterwards modern hinduism further strenghtend the notion
that’s what they taught at oxford brookes anyway.
Mr M Nam have you heard of lemmings.. They are not for mass suicides.. Does that mean they are even more intelligent. Your ideas on suicide are frightening to say the least 😉
I meant “They are all for mass suicides”
People have found justification for murder, genocide and hatred in religious texts.. So why not suicides? Religious texts can be twisted if one is ingenious enough or brainwashed enough. We all know of holy crusades, witch burnings, religious riots … havent we?
i believe that lemmings committing mass suicide is considered a myth.
don’t we
See here:
Damn Disney.
That is why the wink. Though wikipedia says that “lemmings become too tired to avoid cliff edges”… Maybe they just give up and commit suicide 😉
Also “termite soldiers explode their bodies, which are filled with sticky guts, immobilizing their enemies in goo” which could be analogous to jehad.. now what? 😀
My point is… certain animals behave in ways due to chemical influences or biological imperatives. Their acts are not considered suicides. Similarly, majority of humans who commit suicide also act that way because of certain outside factors which override their instinct for self preservation… “Free Will” is debatable in their cases.
The only cases that I feel show complete free will would be someone renouncing the world and taking up “samadhi” or something analogous.
Someone above said:
Dude, read up! Do I have teacher stamped on my forehead? Its obvious that internet warriors everywhere use quotations selectively to justify their hatred. Its not unusual. I’ve seen literature sent around by Sikh and Muslim websites and lists that make stupid ignorant generalisations about Hindus. Unless you know something properly you are in no position to pass judgement.
All these angry religious fanatics who go around quoting verses from their own texts, they are the same – using religion as a political football. This is not a reply from an apologist since I have a known track record of openly insulting religious bigots (incl. Muslim ones, search ‘sunny hundal’). It is an obvious and known fact that every single religious text has its own context and history. They are not documents without cultural baggage. Hence if you want to make up your mind, do some reading. Don’t just find and use random rubbish to justify your prejudice. Or you will get dissed.
Homie, reading is what I’ve been doing. Tons of it. Since you’re a self-confessed dissing champ (biting “angry” fanatics) I will call you snake-oil guru. So, someone up there mentioned those quotes were taken out of context. I can give dozen references from Ivy scholars, whose books fill Borders and BN shelves, where the said quotes mean exactly the way they are translated. Your simpistic equal-equal explanation flies flatly in the face of evidence there and else where. If you can put it in context fine; if not, no one is forcing you. I merely asked the guy/gal who claimed it was out of context to put it in context. Rather than selling snake oil why don’t YOU go and read up?!
Man, this is a great post about religion. I feel that because religion plays the most significant role in “birth” and “death”. These two are the most important events of “life”. I love the compilation of different religious views on death.
The above sounds like grounds for Assisted Suicide ??? !! I think only Oregon passed assisted suicide law and it is quite controvertial all over the US from what I have heared.
Ur no, stop reading books from Borders, read the Qu’ran itself before declaring yourself a reading champ.
Literalism is the domain of the stupid: http://akramsrazor.typepad.com/islam_america/2006/06/literalism_and_.html
I have to note how in some ways this is another example of the robotic literalism of many contemporary Muslim intellectuals in action. As the Taliban did in Bamiyan, these thugs are taking the most superficial but eminently literal interpretation of the relevant sources in Islamic tradition and applying it to the letter. … Mecca did not have a multitude of mosques and temples–the Haram Al-Sharif was the center of Meccan religion–for one to choose from when practicing one’s religion. The idols in the Kaaba that the Prophet smashed did not represent an ancient, respected religious tradition that some scholars have even categorized as Ahl al-Kitab like Hinduism. The devotees of the Meccan idols weren’t a weak and downtrodden minority that the Muslims as the dominant community had an obligation to protect and treat with honor, either.
But such petty details don’t matter when literalism is prized above all else and where legitimate differences of opinion concerning complex issues are tarred as kneejerk rationalism or rebellion against God’s message. … If you object as a Muslim to these outrageous actions, remember that the cult of literalism is ultimately what fuels these problems by dumbing us down to the point where it seems intellectually respectable to, in the name of Tawhid , sack the houses of worship of peaceful neighbors and fellow citizens. Now the Quran makes it clear that violence is permissible only in self-defense and implies unmistakably that all houses of worship are sacred, to the extent that one could argue the Quran enjoins jihad to protect churches and synagogues.
As the saying on the cigarette packet says – Literalism is bad for your health. Call me a snake-oil guru if you wish, at least I’m not joining the cult of the stupid.
The italics didn’t work all the way. The two paragraphs above the last one are also from that blog entry. The last para is my writing.