I know I’ve been absent for quite some time and for that I apologize. But this news tip from Jeanine has delivered me from the depths of despair.
A cleric from the prestigious Egyptian university Al-Azhar has issued one of the most asinine fatwas that I have ever heard. First a little background on the matter. Islamic rule forbids Muslim men and women from being alone together. The assumption of course is that an illicit relationship must be occurring if a man and woman are alone whether at work or elsewhere.
To combat this injustice, Ezzat Attiya, head of the Al-Azhar’s Department of Hadith (teachings of the Prophet Muhammad) has decreed that if a man breastfeeds from a woman then a maternal bond is created, thus allowing the two to work together without raising suspicion of an illicit sexual relationship.
Now I’m not passing judgment on anyone, but having an adult male suckling from a woman sounds like an illicit sexual relationship to me or at least a kinky one :)
If you’re reading this one Mohamed I would love to hear you opinion on this one especially since you’re from Egypt. Hey, did you shoot some video on your vacation? I’d like to see it if that’s possible. Take care :)
Related posts:
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:41 am
Welcome back, gasmonso.
Since a man and a woman cannot be alone until she breastfeeds him, doesn’t that mean she has to breastfeed him in public?!?
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:18 pm
I’m trying to think of something clever to say, but I’m just floored by the twisted logic.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:35 pm
sid, don’t say things like that. We don’t want to go there. Just, no, man.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Haha Sid, nice catch!
This is just too bizarre to consider. I think someone has been snorkeling the hookah a bit too much.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:43 pm
What the hell? They let their women work? Damn liberals.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Send all the Christies there and then nuke the place. Repeatedly.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Whoa… I make a post wondering about Gasmonso and Lo and Behold… he appears the day after!!! :) Nice to hear from you again, hope ya doing ok!
Since Angelina Jolie seems to be in a maternal mood lately, anyone think she might let me ‘bond’? :p
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:44 pm
So…to prevent a religiously instilled phobia of male-female social contact based on a fear of supposedly uncontrollable sexual urges…they want to promote sexual activity. I’m surprised, and a bit disappointed that Egypt hasn’t imploded from the paradox.
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Wow,
It’s the first time I hear about that, the only thing I know which it’s the case even in my family in Egypt, I had one of our neighbours, and he is the same age like me, and my mom fed him, therfore he is my borther and he is my sister brother, so he can’t even marry her, but what ever you said I truly never heard it befor.
I shot some videos, it will take me time to edit some of them, and I’m really into the NBA final, since I’m huge fan for Utah jazz( they look like they are going to lose :( ).
I had some picture in my blog is somebody want to take a look, and I will updated it on regular basis, I will put the link here and I hope that’s ok with Gasonmo, and if he didn’t like it, Gosnomo can delete it.
Here is the link, but please if you want to comment, I don’t welcome bad words or comment, since my family shares that blog with me http://egypt.terapad.com/
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:46 pm
I’m planing to put on my blog, one of the paper my wife wrote for her school and mostly she decribe her experince in Egypt, and some of the contradictions that she saw in Egypt.
I really was upset with things going on Egypt, and I can see how the government turned this great country to that shape, it’s really sad, in two years people turned to the worst in horrible way.
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Gosnmo,
I red your topic again, there is no way that would happen, it’s totally forbiden for any adult to get fed by a woman, where did you get this from?
Sorry I didn’t think about it first time, some people think it forbidden if the husband got this milk from his wife, the opinion is arguable though.
I wish if you tell the source of this one.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:36 am
Bukhari, Book 008, Number 3425
May 24th, 2007 at 1:21 am
I’m really sorry I don’t have access to this book.
It’s the first time I have ever heard about something like that, and it doesn’t even make sense.
I don’t get it, it has to be a man and he got breastfed from a woman, and then he tells everbody that he got breastfed from this woman, and then he will have the right to stay with her and that would be ok?
I don’t think Bukahri would say something like that.
I hope if you see this source on the internet, please let me know.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:32 am
Strange, very strange. Oh well, sexual repression does the strangest things. It’s not natural I tell you ;-)
May 24th, 2007 at 5:13 am
Can you fish out that Hadith from this please Jagannath? I couldn’t find it.
May 24th, 2007 at 7:49 am
Sorry it was Sahih Muslim, not Sahih al-Bukhari. Got wrong information from a friend.
May 25th, 2007 at 2:58 am
To be fair, the idiot who made this proclamation is–according to the article–getting censured. Not everyone over there is a rambling schitzo.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:17 am
I love Ezzat Attiya. This man has one /brilliant/ sense for irony.
May 25th, 2007 at 5:44 am
Actually he’s not only censored but fired from what I understand. The fatwa was also recalled
May 25th, 2007 at 8:25 am
[...] you read that right. A cleric from the Egyptian university Al-Azhar has been fired over a controversial fatwa that allowed breastfeeding between unrelated adults in order to deal with Islamic social rules [...]
May 25th, 2007 at 9:03 am
For those asking for the hadith:
Behold, Muhamed! Here is the prophet Muhammad himself commanding a women to breastfeed an adult man.
If you are still not convinced, Aisha used to ask her sisters to breastfeed men in order to meet them alone in her house. Let me know and I’ll dig it out for your convenience.
May 25th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Funny, the rest of the chapter in the hadith repository I linked to clearly mentions that Aisha, Muhammad’s wife and one of the most authoritative figures in Islam, believed that it’s OK for a women to breastfeed an adult. No need to look it up, it’s right there below the first hadith I linked to.
It’s true that Um Salama (another wife of prophet Muhammad) didn’t submit to this point of view. But Aisha did that regularly to allow men to enter her house, and clearly said it was OK. So, if a Muslim questions adult breastfeeding, they question a good chuck of their belief system; the chunk that came from Aisha.
Muhamed, I request a rational explanation of this. Thank you.
May 25th, 2007 at 9:50 am
If an ancient book written by a bunch of fanatics is the basis for your social system, you are just asking for this kind of stupidity.
May 25th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
@Native Arabic Speaker
Wow, gotta run ask my moslem friends about this one:D thanks for the Hadith
May 25th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
@Agony
I find this particular hadith to be the ultimate proof of the falsehood of Islam. It doesn’t require any scientific knowledge, just common sense. A Muslim has 3 choices when confronted with the issue of adult breastfeeding:
1. Deny the hadith altogether: However, the hadith comes from the sunnah, particularly Aisha and Saheeh Muslim. Denying these sources means questioning the authenticity of major sources of Islamic guidelines, including hijab.
2. Saying that breastfeeding is OK, and this is why Aisha used to do it. However, this defies common sense.
3. Saying that breastfeeding an adult is nonsense. However, this clearly contradicts with the teachings of Muhammad and Aisha.
May 25th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
@agony
Remember to mention that it’s not an isolated case as some sheiks claim. Aisha used to do it regularly by asking her sisters to breastfeed men. The page contains another hadith about the issue.
May 25th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Here is the thing that you don’t get, when there is Haddith written, you have to make sure if it is strong or weak.
I’m not really sure and I can’t give an opinion, but most likely this a weak Hadith, which means not a lot of people seen or heard our prophet saying it.
Here is the same section in Arabic with the same number, and I didn’t find any thing in the marriage chapter for Abu Muslim talking about that, so if somebody know Arabic he will know that it’s not about that.
3425 - ÙˆÙŽØَدَّثَنÙÙŠ Ù…ÙØَمَّد٠بْن٠ØَاتÙÙ…ÙØŒ ÙˆÙŽØ¥ÙبْرَاهÙيم٠بْن٠دÙينَارÙØŒ قَالاَ Øَدَّثَنَا Øَجَّاجٌ، Ø ÙˆÙŽØَدَّثَنÙيه٠مÙØَمَّدÙØŒ بْن٠رَاÙÙع٠Øَدَّثَنَا عَبْد٠الرَّزَّاقÙØŒ جَمÙيعًا عَن٠ابْن٠جÙرَيْجÙØŒ قَالَ أَخْبَرَنÙÙŠ عَمْرÙÙˆ بْن٠يَØْيَى بْن٠عÙمَارَةَ، أَنَّه٠سَمÙعَ الْقَرَّاظَ، - وَكَانَ Ù…Ùنْ أَصْØَاب٠أَبÙÙŠ Ù‡Ùرَيْرَةَ - يَزْعÙم٠أَنَّه٠سَمÙعَ أَبَا Ù‡Ùرَيْرَةَ، ÙŠÙŽÙ‚Ùول٠قَالَ رَسÙول٠اللَّه٠صلى الله عليه وسلم —†مَنْ أَرَادَ أَهْلَهَا بÙسÙوء٠- ÙŠÙرÙيد٠الْمَدÙينَةَ - أَذَابَه٠اللَّه٠كَمَا ÙŠÙŽØ°Ùوب٠الْمÙلْØÙ ÙÙÙŠ الْمَاء٠—†â€.†قَالَ ابْن٠ØَاتÙÙ…Ù ÙÙÙŠ ØَدÙيث٠ابْن٠يÙØَنّÙسَ بَدَلَ قَوْلÙه٠بÙسÙوء٠شَرًّاâ€.â€
Here is the link if you know Arabic and you can find, I will like to see it in Arabic.
http://www.al-eman.com/Hadeeth/viewchp.asp?BID=1&CID=56
May 25th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Let’s face it, religion has to go. Atheists of the world unite. The trouble is, we’re a bit like the Church of England - terribly nice, but not a political force. Unlike the Christian Fundamentalists, who are definitely not nice but very militant in their arguments. Maybe it’s time we Atheists got together and beat the s*** out of the deists? I mean this metaphoricaly ); We have never organised or found a way to promote our sensible opinions (although Richard Dawkins is coming close to standing as Saviour of Atheists) so I propose that we write a new Gospel. The Gospel of Dawkins. The man with intellect and commonsense, and who has said what all the rest of us have only dared to think. Power to you, Richard my man! Incidentally, entry to the RD church will only cost 1/10th of your income. My bank a/c number available on application. Hadith? Sunnah? Breastfeeding? Not on my street, mate.
May 25th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Mike@Blackpool UK Says,
You are proving my point buddy, if the Athiest become a political power, only god know what are they going to do next, some of them are going to be extrem like you, and it’s going to be the same like any other religion.
May 25th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
To Native Arabic Speaker:
When you present those three possibilities, the problem I see is that a Muslim could accept choice number two and say that you are wrong in saying that it violates common sense, because you have the wrong belief system. What passes as common sense in one culture doesn’t necessarily translate across boundaries. What is inherently wrong with adult breastfeeding? Biologically speaking, isn’t human breastmilk better for us than the milk of cows? If so, what difference does it matter where it comes from exactly? Actually, wouldn’t it even be purer “straight from the source” so long as the person is of sound physiology? I don’t find cultural reasons much more convincing, either. “Ewww gross!” obviously isn’t sufficient. Perhaps you could say, “Well, people are supposed to stop at a certain age.” Why? I read a most interesting article a while back (can’t remember where, unfortunately) that said that the gene that allows adults to digest lactose was a relatively recent mutation in human history, and it in fact denoted a huge evolutionary advantage. So really, what’s being violated besides a cultural choice? I don’t see harm, perhaps besides an “unhealthy attachment” :)
To Mike at Blackpool:
I’m sorry but I don’t think it will be that simple. After all, they have God on their side (half joking, half not here).
Also, I have to say that Mohamed in the last post has an excellent point. Perhaps South Park said it better. Religion isn’t the problem. People are. People of all stripes do stupid things. This fight should be in the way people think, not in a worldview.
May 26th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Snurp,
You got my point right regarding Mike at Blackpool.
May 26th, 2007 at 2:06 am
True, but religion gives them another excuse to do stupid things, and it’s backed by the word of god.
May 26th, 2007 at 5:53 am
It is not a weak hadith as it can be found in the work of Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawud and Ibn Majah and it has been examined by scholars like Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Hazm.
I find it interesting that so few muslims know of it and when it is taken into open they try to deny it but quran states the following.
so denying it goes against the will of Allah.
It also gets some people very angry, I got a split lip as a reward of asking about it.
May 26th, 2007 at 7:12 am
I must admit, I have no idea what books are being referenced here. Are you referring to sections of the Quaran/Koran as Christians do gospels of the New/Old Testament?
Also, as a side note, but potentially relevant.
Hate Religion? Here’s some music for you. Anti-Theistic Aggro-Tech.
http://www.ironhandonline.com - 2 full albums and 1 mini album free for download
http://www.vampirefreaks.com/ironhandonline - same band, much newer stuff, 3 fully mastered songs free for listening
May 26th, 2007 at 7:18 am
“True, but religion gives them another excuse to do stupid things, and it’s backed by the word of god.”
It also gives people a reason to do many good things. Narrow, uncritical thinking is the problem here. People need to be able to think in terms of others. There are plenty of people, both religious and nonreligious, that can do this, but not enough obviously. Likewise there are utter morons in both religious and nonreligious groups. Fascists are sufficient here for a secular example. A denomination doesn’t make the difference so much as the way you shape your views of individuals and peoples. We should be fighting the “idiocy” part of religious idiocy first and foremost.
May 26th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Muhamed wrote:
Dude, the hadith in Sahih Muslim (among the others). If you question its authenticity, then you have to question every other hadith. It is simple logic, why do you believe that Sahih Muslim was mistaken with this hadith, whereas you take other hadiths from it for granted? What’s your standard for accepting or rejecting a hadith?
You may say that you reject a hadith if it’s against logic. But from what I read in Islamic Sharia, the human brain is unable to find right and wrong on its own, and this is why it needs religion in the first place. So, how do you know that you are making the right choice by rejecting this hadith? What if there is a divine reason behind it?
I don’t know why the page you linked to does not contain this hadith, but it’s Sahih Muslim nonetheless. Perhaps the operators of that website didn’t want to list it. The following page lists the hadiths in Arabic, with links back to an official Saudi site:
http://www.nebras.net/arabic/truth/data/suckling_man.htm
Here is one hadith from the Saudi site:
http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?hnum=2636&doc=1
Still in doubt that the hadith is in Sahih Muslim?
May 26th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Here are all the hadiths in English:
http://www.nebras.net/truth/data/suckling_man.htm
All are declared authentic by various authoritative Muslim sholars.
The links take to an official religious Saudi site, with the original hadith in Arabic.
May 26th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Brian,
People uses religion to show the world that God supporting them in doing such things, and it’s easy to twist words to serve your own interest.
Give you an example, Geroge Bush before the war in Iraq, he uses God to justify his war, do you think God happy about what he has done, do you believe that God came to him and told him ” I’m proud of you”, there is no way that happend, the people who believed him are stupid.
I can apply the same here in Usama Bin Laden, he uses alot fo Quran verse to serve his own interest, and the people who followed him is stupid.
I think Muslim shouldn’t do this kind of fighting, now a days you should be advanced in scince, economy and compete in this field, that’s kind of fighing Muslims should do, and that’s when Muslims was the best of the world, when thy take care of these things, but killing people doesn’t serve any body’s purpose.
Jagannath,
I’m not denying any thing, I just don’t have enough knowledge to confirm your source, I sereched for it by Arabic and that what I found, I didn’t find any thing mentioned about this topic.
I don’t trust English sites sometimes, and that’s why I try to find in Arabic.
The other thing if that’s what our prophet said, I have no problem with it, I’m not going to deny it, I don’t have something to be ashamed of, I just have to make sure that’s correct first.
May 26th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Muhammad wrote:
Muslims often invoke the “Arabic” argument to escape discussions, claiming that no one can understand true Islam unless they read it in Arabic.
I linked to an official Saudi website confirming the hadith in Arabic. What’s your stand now?
May 26th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Before someone says that this was an isolated case. This hadith confirms that Aisha used to do it, and that other wives of Muhammad rejected that:
http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=1&Rec=3383
The hadith is in Arabic.
May 26th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
For the record, the source of the quote by GWB claiming that he was invading Iraq for God is questionable.
Not that I support Bush at all, but I feel that if you’re going to disagree with a man, one should do it with confirmed facts.
May 27th, 2007 at 10:20 am
the hadith is questionable. it contradicts other prominant hadiths and verses from the Quran. this is probably one of the incidants where religious men go wild!
May 27th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
I’m beginning to wonder about all this. The contributors to this forum seem to be dividing up into different factions pretty much like the guys in the Bible or the Dead Sea Scrolls. Yes, I’ve read them (The Scrolls). No, I’m not impressed. There even seems to be some sort of Sectarianism emerging. For God’s sake, let’s not have an Atheist Northern Ireland! Maybe that’s the inevitable fate of all beliefs/non-beliefs - in the words of the Life Of Brian - SPLITTERS! Tell me, please, that we’re all on the same side!? ;)
May 28th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Hello Mike
Both believers and non-believers frequent this site though it is heavy on the non-believers side. Many of us come here for debate. If we all agreed, it wouldn’t be interesting. The great thing about this site is that it usually stays civil.
May 28th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Sorry Mike, but all atheists are most certainly not the same. Snurp != Shaze
May 28th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Sorry Sidfaiwu, I didn’t mean to be un-civil! As a late-comer to the site, though, I seem to remember lots of good-natured banter and even quite a lot of really hard argument (Mohammed!?)but lately the good humour seems to have gone. I have enjoyed the site for months but please, I just want to have a voice. It really worries me when fellow Atheists start to bicker. I hope (no chance really) that in a perfect world Atheists could get together and finally put a stop to the theistic nonsense. But it now seems clear to me that any group of people will eventually splinter and come to different conclusions, even when the original conclusion was simply “There is no God”. Shame on us all. My apology stands.
May 28th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carit%C3%A0_Romana
Breastfeeding a man, usually old often imprisoned, occurs in Roman legend and among Xian depictions of ‘cardinal acts of mercy.’ AKA Roman Charity. Check out Wikipedia URL.
Seems rather civilized to become a milk-brother rather than a blood-brother. No reasonable offer refused. There’s nothing new about MILF.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:12 am
but lately the good humour seems to have gone
Oops! in that case….
Random thought on nomencleture - why should a-thiests be
identified by a word that only has meaning in opposition to something they believe is simply irrelevent?
Given that a-thiests so often subscribe to ideals of reason, which can often be summed up with the Axiom/Thesis/Hypothesis structure of formal logic, might it not often make more sense to identify ourselves as……
Thesists?
:-)
May 29th, 2007 at 7:27 am
Hey Mike,
In no way was I trying to suggest that you have been uncivil. You comments have been a refreshing re-injection of humor and are greatly appreciated. Plus you prompted Recovered Catholic to come up with a great term, “Thesists”!
Written humor is not my strong point, unfortunately, so I’ll have to leave that up to folks like you and Recovered Catholic.
And now I go on to disagree with you on another post. I’ll see you there!
May 29th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Thanks for taking the time to reply to me, guys. It’s good to communicate with people on a similar level, although some of the terms being used are a little academic for my humble education!
Mohammed:
The idea of George Bush using the Christian God to support his invasion of Iraq is as abhorrent to the people of the UK as it must be to you, so I agree entirely. And no, you’re right, nobody believed him. Or Tony Blair. I think that our respective leaders have done us (the electorates of USA and UK) a massive dis-service and lowered our (value? respect?)around the world. Trust me, though, our politicians are not our people! We’re quite an amiable bunch really…
May 29th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
OK Sidfaiwu my friend, I can’t find you on another post. Help! Give me clue!
May 30th, 2007 at 12:48 am
You got it right Mike, and that’s where I want to be, to get me to my point.
You said that Bush and Tony don’t represnt you, the Brits not the Americans, and I know that becasue I live in USA and I see most of the people disgusted with George Bush, but there is people think that he is donig a heck of deal to the humuinity, at the same level Terrorists don’t represent Islam, and most of the Muslims don’t like them, but a few of the Muslims support them.
Terrorist use the religion to get the people do what they want, and you can’t blame the religion, you should blame the people that who went after the wrong ideas.
Do you think Bible say hate and kill and etc, I don’t think so, Islam also like peace and our greeting start with peace not with killing.
May 30th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Mohamed,
Would you please share your point of view on adult breastfeeding, now that it is confirmed that the prophet and Aisha commanded people to do it?
Although very old, this issue resurfaced on the Islamic world recently, and many sheiks confirmed the evidence behind the fatwa. (take this one for example)
Al-Azhar, on the other hand, just pressured its sheik to apologize and withdraw his fatwa, without offering any explanation on why the fatwa is mistaken. If anything, this shows the Islamic mentality of silencing opposing views instead of utilizing logic.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
There is also the division between Sunni and Shi’a, for a Sunni the hadith is legit and should be followed (I wonder how they explain it off) but Shi’a do not agree with the hadith and generally anything concerning Aisha is suspect for Shi’a.
That is just second hand info from a Shi’a so, it might not be that clear cut but it seems to be along the lines at least.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
#mohammed
the bible is not a very peace-loving text. especially the old testament reflects the savage times it was written in.
May 30th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Remember though, Boris, Jesus went in quite a different direction as regards God than those who came before him. I still don’t know myself whether I think that the Old Testament should really even count much for Christianity. His actions also speak in a general direction of peace.
May 30th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
For anyone interested in a clarification about the issue as a whole, do look at this.
From what I can see, it was simply a mistake that a Faqih made.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:27 am
LOL…rather than spam our comments section…lets trade links with http://www.loljesus.com
May 31st, 2007 at 8:20 am
http://www.aqoul.com/images/DifferenceofLove.jpg
May 31st, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Nice one Shaze. It actually makes me see both points of view
(lighten up / get a room)
May 31st, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Well, at least we know the two Muslims are not jealous. I mean, if they were then they would pretty much be going straight to hell it seems…
Nice one indeed.
June 3rd, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Mohammed:
I like your point of view. I suppose that no matter what your religion, or where you are, it’s your own personality that matters. All power to Islam if it works! Certainly, Christianity is looking a litle bit weak right now…
June 3rd, 2007 at 10:42 pm
There is a lot of wasted energy debating and fighting about religions, I hope people put their money and effort devloping Africa, where kids die every day.
It’s really frustrating for me when I hear news about Iraq and Muslims, but I can’t forget about kids in Africa too.
June 4th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Hey Mohamed!
Even many of the problems in Africa have religious causes.
Biggest problem in Africa: AIDS
Leading cause of problem: Unprotected Sex
Largest religion in Africa: Catholicism
#1 agenda of the Church in Africa: Vilify Condoms
Easiest solution: Get the Catholic church to change its position on condoms and promote safe sex for the good of all Africans.
Will this ever happen? Not any time soon. In this situation, religion is in the best position to do an enormous amount of good and end the suffering of millions simply by modifying their dogma. But, as usual with religion, they make dogma more important than human suffering. This is my primary objection to religion; it puts belief before people.
So you see, Mohamed, promoting a secular world view by debating and arguing about religion is putting effort into helping Africa. Though I agree that fighting about religion is fruitless.
June 4th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Last Saturday my youngest daughter was married, and some good friends of ours (my best man and his wife) came along. They are Christadelphians, who are English Christian fundamentalists. Non-trinitarians, they told me. We argued for hours as we always do, me promoting pacifist-militant Atheism and them banging on about God. We had a whale of a time and today I sent them a thank-you note. Not for coming to the wedding, but for the discussion. We remain good friends.
If only everyone else could work that way!
I think we may have set a precedent for a peaceful world.
As for Africa, I’m a big fan of Johnny Clegg and his band(s). (SA). Did you know he came from Rochdale UK? He’s known as the White Zulu and has immersed himself in the culture. Again, live and let live. Sorry if this sounds like rambling but I think the central point is the peaceful co-operation of different peoples, be they religious or ethnic.
I heard tonight that Bush and Putin are going head-to-head for another cold war. Please, guys, just get to the bar and have a few cold ones. Sorry to sound like a redundant 60’s hippie, but peace is probably the better option - in religion, politics, race or whatever. Can’t we just be mates?
June 4th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
So church prohibit sex with condom, and don’t prohibit sex with out marraige, don’t you think it’s little bit werid LOL.
You just mentioned Aids, but you forgot a lot of things, dieasease never has been the crisis of any nation, the lack of education and knowledge is the crisis for any nation, you have poverty too, you have a lack of water.
It’s really shallow to say Aids(I didn’t mean insult), there are a lot of things, not just one.
June 4th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
@mohamed
yes, there are many issues. AIDS is a huge one though. people are uneducated and don’t understand the consequences of unprotected sex. but they listen to the church. so the church is in a position to do a lot of good, and once again does exactly the opposite.
June 4th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
So they will listen to the church in one matter which is not wearing condoms, but they don’t listen to the church when they say don’t have sex without miarrage.
I have no business in defending the church, it doesn’t make sense.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:09 am
http://secularskeptic.blogspot.com/2007/06/my-road-to-atheism-part-1-what-took-me.html
June 5th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Hello Mohamed,
Infectious and communicable disease is the leading cause of death in the world, especially developing nations. Furthermore, HIV/AIDS is the leading cause of death due to disease in Africa (click the link “Deaths by WHO Region [xls 1.47Mb]” for the Excel spreadsheet with the actual numbers).
I was not forgetting Africa’s other challenges. I was limiting my focus on Africa’s largest problem. We can tackle poverty after the economic burden of caring for the sick is removed.
Yep. One message is inline with the desires and natural tendencies of men: not to wear condoms. The other message goes against human nature and is a message men and women don’t want to hear: no premarital sex. It only makes sense that more people will follow the church on one issue and not another.
Poverty is another problem that would be partially alleviated by making the use of contraceptive a moral dictate of the Catholic Church. Most women would cease to have children they cannot afford, less energy devoted to child rearing would mean higher productivity potential, and a lower birthrate would reduce any overpopulation problems.
So I stand by my statement that religion is making Africa’s biggest problems much worse.
June 5th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
sidfaiwu,
It’s not about who is standing by his own statment, and who is wining the argument.
You still trying to stick everthing to religion, and you avoid a lot of valid points for Africa problems. If they have aids, that’s because a lack of religion, and I didn’t want to mention that before, that’s the truth, if they follow what the religion said, they wouldn’t get Aids in first place. Although I didn’t want to mention it in the argument, because it’s too late now to mention it, the solution for their problems is past this point now.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:20 am
@Mohamed,
Iran has a lot of religion, doesn’t it?
from: http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=27489&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs
“The trend of transmission has changed from intravenous drug users to high risk sexual behaviour,” said Minoo Mohraz, a doctor and specialist in Iran’s official AIDS Association, according to AFP.
“People cannot afford to get married so young, and are getting married older. The gap is being filled by more prostitution,” she said.
Just 7,510 people in Iran carry HIV, the virus that can lead to AIDS, according to official figures,
But experts point to a likely figure of at least 40,000, saying this is disguised by a lack of testing facilities and the unwillingness of sufferers to come forward.
“AIDS is still largely a taboo, and policy makers have for a long time been in denial, and people who are infected or fear to have been infected do not come forward because of the social stigma associated with AIDS. In our culture we have a problem with high risk behaviour and extra-marital sexual activity,” Mohraz told AFP in an interview.
Huh. Only 40,000. Perhaps religion does work to stop Aids. I guess time will tell. I hope for everyone’s sake that it does.
June 6th, 2007 at 8:36 am
Hello Mohamed,
I need a little more than that. Do you have an authoritative reference or statistics?
For a more authoritative source, there is this publication from the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization that backs up what Recovered Catholic was getting at:
So religion does not help prevent HIV/AIDS infections, but in fact promotes it.
I know that religion is not the cause of all of Africa’s challenges, but religion is making Africa’s most devastating problem much worse when it could be making it better.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
People can say they are Muslims, but they don’t apply it, so what would happen, they will get Aids or what ever dieases, does the religion help, it depends if the person apply what his religion told him.
What I mean if people applied what religion said, they wouldn’t have Aids.
I don’t care about Iranian and Egyptian, they prohibit what god allowed, and that’s why they ruin themself.
It’s the most diffculit thing to get marry in Egypt, and that’s against Islam teachings, because the girl parents need a lot of money and certain kind of apartment, and that’s against Islam, people should make marraige easier according to Islam teaching, so when people get dieases, that’s because lack of religion, it doesn’t matter if you are Muslim or Christian.
June 7th, 2007 at 7:20 am
Religious bans on premarital and extramarital sex have always and will always fail. I know Christianity expects failure to follow God’s law perfectly, I’m sure Islam has a similar expectation. Thus religion is not sufficient to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS in the first place. Once people have it, it promotes the spread of disease by stigmatizing those who have it. In a ‘perfect’ world where everybody follows one religion without fail (I would call this ‘Hell’), AIDS would not spread, but (fortunately) we live in the real world, were people are going to break the rules, especial with regards to sex.
Opinion time: When religion contradicts human nature, that aspect of religion should be thrown out.
June 7th, 2007 at 9:20 am
My talks with teenagers who don’t use protection in US Catholic schools reveals a interesting viewpoint. The teenagers want to have sex, even though it is forbidden by the Church. They can do it in private, when their parents aren’t home, without any fear of being caught. So they do. However, they are afraid to buy condoms, because they are terrified that someone from school or church will catch them. So they have sex without protection.
Africa is in a even worse situation. Since many of the medical supplies are donated by religious-based organizations, condom availability is low in rural areas. Even in urban areas, condoms are only to be found at clinics and doctors. Shops will not carry them because they are not profitable and they fear being boycotted by the church.
One thing that you are forgetting, Mohamed, is that there are many people in the world who are only claim to be of a religion because they fear the social repercussions of doing otherwise. Teens in Catholic school would be shunned and excluded if they said that they were Muslim, Buddhist, or a secular humanist. What would happen in Egypt if a young man or woman decided to convert to Mormonism, or become agnostic? And what happens in the portions of Africa that are dominated by Catholicism when someone decides to be Jewish, or Taoist, or atheist?
The main point I’m getting at, is that the religions are suppressing condom use at the expense of the non-religious members of their society.
See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10907912&dopt=Abstract
June 7th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
And what would happen if somebody (allegedly) says something bad about the prophet? Well, he clearly gets the death penalty! (see http://www.dailyherald.com/search/searchstory.asp?id=319066 )
That’s what is happening when laws are for the god(s) and not for the men.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Agreed on all points, Andrew.
When I was attending High School, there were three girls in my class who became pregnant. Interestingly, all three of them had previously attended a local Catholic School for the entirety of their previous education. This school teaches the abstinence only approach to sex, and we can see how well that works out.
Abstinence only education in developed nations, or the absence of any sex education as is the case with many developing nations, is absolutely pointless. As pointed out before, people can and will have sex no matter what any silly organization tells them.
June 7th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
When religion contradicts human nature.
Religion always contradicts the bad human nature, when you want to steal, religion tells you don’t steal, when you want to get easy money with our wroking, religion tells you that’s forbiden, when you want to drink and do a lot stupid things because drinking, religion tells you not to do it.
By the way, I have a book now for Karen Armstrong, she is christian nun, and she wrote about Muhammed, I recommend you to read this book if you are interested( which I’m sure you don’t want to)
June 8th, 2007 at 8:14 am
Prove that it is human nature to steal, be lazy, over-drink, etc. I doubt it is true for most individuals. If religion is the only thing keeping people honest, then why does one of the world’s most non-religious societies, Japan, have one of the lowest crime rates of the industrialized nations? Why, as a non-believer, am I not drunk and doing stupid things right now? Is that not my nature?
You have a very dim view of your fellow human, Mohamed, if you assume everyone is a lazy, drunken liar at heart. I, on the other hand, believe that most people are honest, hardworking, and sober.
Oh, and I am eager to learn more about Islam, I only have a couple of things preventing me from doing so. First, I already have a reading list 20+ books long. Second, Islam is such a big subject, it’s tough to know where to start. I’ll look into the book you suggest when I have the time.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Just out of curiosity, sid, what kind of stuff is on your list of books to read? I have a similar issue with books and the getting to them, but I’m always up for something new.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Hello Snurp,
Here’s my current reading list to the best of my recollection:
Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton (currently, but slowly)
Why I am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russel
Just and Unjust Wars by Michael Walzer
Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson
The End of Faith by Sam Harris
Thomas Paine: Collected Writings
The Burning Tower by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle
Flatland by Edwin Abbott
Idlewild by Nick Sagan
American Gods by Neil Gaimon
and a few others that I’m sure I’m forgetting since I don’t have my bookshelves in front of me.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Oh yeah! I forgot to include a book about the philosophy of Spinoza (I’ve been told I would like his theology), I Am a Strange Loop by Douglas Hofstadter, and the last Harry Potter book, of course.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
“Thomas Paine: Collected Writings”
Hell yes!
Other than Paine the only thing off there I can remember reading was American Gods and, of course, Harry Potter. Gaimon is interesting, to say the least. I’ll have to take a look at some of those others, especially Russel, who I’ve been meaning to get to.
I’m trying to remember what I know of Spinoza’s system (his main work being The Ethics). I’ve read a bit, and if I remember right it started out with self-evident axioms and worked down as a deductive system. I was never much for that kind of writing, though, so I sort of started spacing from there. Someday…
I won’t bother putting a list of my own for now, since it mostly just consists of “whatever I can get” (living in a small town is not good in that way), but generally I’m following through the history of philosophy right now (currently reading Leviathan) and mixing in some Dostoevsky for good measure.
June 8th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
If you’re doing Dostoevsky, don’t miss Crime and Punishment. It’s one of my favorite classics. Also, Leviathan was heavily quoted in The Baroque Cycle by Neal Stephenson, which I read last year. Now that is nearly 3,000 pages worth reading!
June 8th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Hah, I’m on Crime and Punishment right now! Dostoevsky keeps me company during those long pauses at my job when there’s little else to do. I’m also looking forward to Brothers Karamazov whenever I get around to it.
I suppose I can put here, while I’m at it, at least an idea of the books that I have collecting dust at the moment. I try to read at least a good 80 to 100 pages of philosophy/literature each day during the summer, and here’s the philosophy currently waiting on my desk:
Locke, Second Treatise on Government
Berkeley, Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonus
Kant, Foundations for a Metaphysics of Morals and The Metaphysics of Morals
Hegel, Reason in History
Mill, On Liberty
Frege, The Foundations of Arithmetic
James, The Varieties of Religious Experience (this is bound to make the discussions here more interesting :) )
Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and Philisophical Investigations
So far this summer I’ve read Nietzsche (pretty much everything), The Tao Te Ching, Augustine’s Confessions, Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy, and Descartes’ Meditations. Add to this some epic poetry, Montaigne, the Abrahamic texts, and some works on early America and you get the jist of it. It all may take a while…
June 8th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Berkeley’s Three Dialogues is one of my favorite philosophical works! Have fun with that one. Let me know if you want to discuss it when you get to it. I think that might be fun.
Descartes’ Meditations is another favorite of mine. It taught me what it means to be a complete skeptic.
June 8th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
To be honest, while it was certainly an excellent work, I started getting a bit irritated while reading the Meditations. “What? When the hell did perfection become reality? I don’t find this in my mind! What? Clear and distinct ideas are true because God is a nice guy? Damn you Descartes!!!” I guess reading too much Nietzsche can do that to you, though. Now there’s a guy I can deign a skeptic. Because, as we all know, and as Hume would like to tell us, ‘causation’ and ‘mind’ are for pansies ;)
June 8th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Oh, don’t get mistake me, Descartes got it wrong by the end of the Meditations. I was referring to the skepticism in the first part, the assumption of an Evil Deceiver. The last couple Meditations are just novel ways of looking at the Ontological Argument. The real challenge Descartes has left us with is how to show that our senses are not systematically fooled; and to do so without reliance on a good God who would not permit such a grand scale of deception.
June 8th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Agreed.
June 8th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
I suppose I should elaborate a little more. The way I look at it, Descartes had the right idea, but was just unable to push it as far as he could have. It seems that rationalism like Descartes’ has difficult going to the utter extreme of skepticism. I consider myself a skeptic, and I see the challenge not as finding solutions to all the doubts we can generate (since we can take those infinitely further than any answers we can come up with), but with understanding the assumptions we make when we think. What do we act on when we make a claim about truth, and what do we already think to be so? It’s only too bad in the case of Descartes that the first meditation was the shortest one by far.
June 8th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
That is so well put, I don’t know what to say. You summed up by skepticism in just one sentence! I guess the only thing I would add is that as a skeptic, I try to keep my assumptions as simple and as few as possible.
June 8th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Ok, tell me one thing, does it mean that we should stop using law to organize our life?
Don’t take my words in general, you shouldn’t think that I meant you or anybody else, there are people who doesn’t need any correction to be good, but there are people needs know what they should do and what they shouldn’t.
Religion is not the only factor in behaving, you have to put in consideration the values and tradition too and the enviroment.
If you went to somewhere in ME, you would see that sometimes religon keep this people going, without religion they would starve and die, because their govener left them poor, the only thing keep them going that you can feel the Islam spirit driving them.
You can’t even imagine that how there is no law in Egypt, somehow these people makes it up by religion.
I don’t want to talk about Egypt, it gets me really mad:)
June 8th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Mohamed, I think that it could be said that religion, law, and customs are all parts of a way of life that is shared within a culture. It is true that many people need these to keep going each day. It is also true that there are people that would do some scary stuff if they didn’t have a “cultural roof above their heads”. However, there are also people who do not need these things. The problem comes when those who do need such restrictions and explanations start to limit those who do not (and the other way around). I have no problem with people who are deeply religious. However, I expect that I will not be discriminated against just because I don’t agree.
There is a problem, of course, in that there is a tension between the two. Those who need a cultural boundary will feel very strongly about it being enforced, and those who don’t want it may look down upon those who need culture. I feel that the American ideal of generally keeping religion and culture (in theory - I know culture is a large part of the American system) out of the law works best. People can have their religion, just don’t hurt others who want their own as well.
Also, to sid:
“I guess the only thing I would add is that as a skeptic, I try to keep my assumptions as simple and as few as possible.”
Absolutely. When I mentioned Nietzsche as my skeptic of choice, I meant it. His effort regarding metaphysics, ethics, and the like was to destroy all the assumptions and dogmas that had piled up over the millenia. Nothing is sacred for him in theory. Likewise, as philosophers we must watch ourselves to see what angle we are looking at an argument from, and I often find myself asking, “Why do I think this is so?” I find that these days my first approach to any argument in philosophy or any topic is to immediately ask, “What is the background? What circumstances could this have come from?” When we can also ask this of ourselves and be unafraid of the answer, then we are doing our job right.
June 8th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Hey Mohamed,
Your thoughtful comments are what makes you one of RF’s most interesting contributors. I don’t respond often to your comments because I know so little about Islam and don’t feel that I can contribute much to discussions about it.
I truly wonder what percentage of the populous needs religions and/or laws to keep them honest. My guess is that it is a small percentage, but I have been known to be overly optimistic.
Also, be aware that I do think religion does have some good qualities. It’s just that the bad qualities overwhelm the good in my opinion. My goal is to help people realize that there are ways of practicing religion that is good. The ideals of fairness and reciprocity that form the moral structure of religion is the very same one that secular humanism is founded on. Religions differ from humanism in it’s immoral emphasis on authority/obedience and the creation of in-groups (and, therefor, ‘evil’ out-groups).
I’m really sorry to hear about Egypt. I’m not sure, but I’ve assumed that you’ve immigrated to the US from there (please let me know if I am mistaken). I can’t imagine being away from my home country and returning to find it had changed for the worse. I would love to go to the ME someday. I’ve heard that the people (by and large) like Americans despite the rhetoric of the governments. I would love to get a feel for what it’s like for the average people actually living in those places.
June 8th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
I hope you can go to Egypt one day, and you will see that Egypt with out religion would be scary place to be in, it’s already turned to a wild place to be in, it really hurt me last time I visited Egypt, People changed to the worse, and I can’t blame them I only can see what the gov turned the peopel into. It was really horrible experince, I think people wants to resist, but they don’t want to face the government in Egypt, everybody scared about his family and afraid that if he dies resisting the gov, who would take care of his family(which is against our religon) to worry about your family if something happend to you, and I’m not going to put my self as an exception. I wished if I could do web site showing the bad things that our gov doing, but I scared they will do something to my family in Egypt, or accuse me as spy when I turn back there.
June 16th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Gasmonso, are you fine? No news from you since a long ago. Please post _anything_ just to let me know you’re ok. ;)
bless you!
June 20th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Sweet titty-fucking Christ Man,
What’s it been, 2 months without an update? What happened to letting sid post in yer absence? I know there has been no shortage of religious freakery, lately; and the people here need fresh public outrages to comment on.
Won’t somebody please think of the children? Also muhammed:
Your views of the Egyptian government are marred by your beliefs; try attaining a perspective from that of someone purely interested in the benefits of the whole population, rather than a religious majority. Only through government, will things like universal healthcare, water/air regulations and many other proven, socialist programs work. You people need Democracy. It takes the power away from the Rich people in countries, and give s it to everyone by means of vote.
June 20th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Agreed, an update is greatly needed.
July 1st, 2007 at 2:25 pm
I’m sure Mohammed means if the woman breastfed the man when he was a child..
July 12th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Goldziher’s suspicions about the authenticity of hadiths sprang from several observations. The material found in later collections makes no references to earlier written collections and uses terms in the isnads which imply oral transmission, not written sources. Moreover, the ubiquitous contradictory traditions, the apparent proliferation of hadiths in later collections not attested to in earlier ones, and the fact that younger Companions of Muhammad seem to have known more about him (that is, they transmitted more hadiths) than the older Companions who presumably knew the Prophet for a greater length of time, suggested to Goldizher that large-scale fabrication of hadiths took place.
As a result, Goldziher provides a significantly different version of the origin and development of hadith literature. Goldziher has no trouble accepting that the Companions preserved the words and deeds of their prophet after his death, and that these might have been recorded in written form in sahifas. In this way he remains very close to the Muslim interpretation of the development of hadith literature. He not only presumes that the Companions tried to preserve the sayings and judgments of Muhammad, but also that some of them likely did so in written form (that is, in sahifas). And, when these Companions passed on what they had heard and recorded to the next generation of Muslims, the use of the isnad began. But for Goldziher, the invention of and interpolation into hadiths also began very early, for both political and paraenetic reasons. And so mutually exclusive hadiths proliferated; “it is not surprising that, among the hotly debated controversial issues of Islam, whether political or doctrinal, there is not one in which the champions of the various views are unable to cite a number of traditions, all equipped with imposing isnads.”
With the rise of the `Abbasids the situation changed significantly, according to Goldziher. `Abbasid rule was more theocratic than the more secular “Arab paganism” of the Umayyads. Consequently, the new dynasty encouraged the development of the shari`a and even employed court theologians to advise the caliphs, some of whom themselves studied and participated in theological debates. This attempt to give public life a more religious character also involved giving official recognition to the sunna. The rise of the sunna had begun during the Umayyad period in part in opposition to the perceived wickedness of the time, but its supporters remained relatively ineffective until the advent of the `Abbasid revolution. The report that the Umayyad caliph `Umar II commissioned the first collection of hadiths must be dismissed as untrustworthy because of the number of contradictions in the account and the absence of references to Abu Bakr ibn Hazm’s work in later literature. For Goldziher, this claim is hagiographic, that is, “nothing but an expression of the good opinion that people had of the pious caliph and his love for the sunna.”
Goldziher maintains that, while reliance on the sunna to regulate the empire was favoured, there was still in these early years of Islam insufficient material going back to Muhammad himself. Scholars sought to fill the gaps left by the Qur’an and the sunna with material from other sources. Some borrowed from Roman law. Others attempted to fill these lacunae with their own opinions (ra’y). This latter option came under a concerted attack by those who believed that all legal and ethical questions (not addressed by the Qur’an) must be referred back to the Prophet himself, that is, must be rooted in hadiths. These supporters of hadiths (ahl al-hadith) were extremely successful in establishing hadiths as a primary source of law and in discrediting ra’y. But in many ways it was a Pyrrhic victory. The various legal madhhabs were loath to sacrifice their doctrines and so they found it more expedient to fabricate hadiths or adapt existing hadiths in their support. Even the advocates of ra’y were eventually persuaded or cajoled into accepting the authority of hadiths and so they too “found” hadiths which substantiated their doctrines that had hitherto been based upon the opinions of their schools’ founders and teachers. The insistence of the advocates of hadiths that the only opinions of any value were those which could appeal to the authority of the Prophet resulted in the situation that “where no traditional matter was to be had, men speedily began to fabricate it. The greater the demand, the busier was invention with the manufacture of apocryphal traditions in support of the respective theses.” The talab journeys which followed, during which the travellers sought to collect hadiths from the various centres of the Islamic empire, helped construct a more uniform corpus of extant hadiths out of the various disparate local collections.
Eventually, however there were reactions to this widespread fabrication of hadiths. Goldziher traces three such reactions to this phenomenon. Ironically, fabricated hadiths began to circulate in which Muhammad is made to condemn those who would fabricate hadiths about him. Others simply rejected the whole corpus of hadiths and referred only to the Qur’an. The third reaction was the one which arose among the traditionalists themselves and came eventually to dominate. They developed a means by which to evaluate the authenticity of any hadith. This method focussed not on the actual contents of the hadith (matn) but on the transmitters of the matn, that is, on the isnad. Goldziher seems to suggest that this critique was in nascent form already around 150 A.H.. Even with this type of examination, forgeries continued to be made through the manipulation of the isnad in somewhat more subtle ways. According to Goldziher, hadiths, which originally had isnads ending with Companions or Successors, were often extended back to the Prophet. That is ahadith mawqufa were transformed into ahadith marfu`a by tacking on the Prophet and any other necessary names to the end of the isnad. Isnads were also “tampered” with by the mu`ammarin—the long-lived ones. For Goldziher these were persons who pretended to have had direct contact with Muhammad even though this might mean that they would have to be well over a hundred years old (and at times hundreds of years old).
July 12th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
FYI, comment #101 is from a different ‘mohamed’ then the regular contributor that we are familiar with.
Plus, as is probably obvious, his comment is nothing more than copy-and-past plagiarism from another website. I managed to find the original webpage. The original source seems to be The Development of Exegesis in Early Islam: The Authenticity of Muslim Literature from the Formative Period By Herbert Berg.
Please, if you are going to quote large excerpts from elsewhere, consider using a hyperlink. At the very least, please credit the source
July 12th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
About breast feeding, i watched a tv show about that thing, and the Sheikh said that it was even in the Quran, but the goat ate that page while Mohammad was sick in his bed. Also i read in and Egyptian newspaper called “Alfajer” that many Muslims are leaving Islam because of this fatwa cause its really nonsense and it is not respectful for women.
Here is the link of the arabic newspaper:
http://www.elfagr.org/TestAjaxNews.aspx?secidMenu=1949 اضغظ على الشمال على اللنك السادسة Ùˆ التي تØمل Ù†Ùس موضوع العنوان
http://info.islamexplained.com/?tabid=548
July 12th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
My friend, this link that you provided is what call Yellow newspaper, you know when you go to wall mart, and you see magazine beside the cashier, that’s exactly what the magazine about, just to make a noise, and thy just telling lies.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
ya well, but the main point is the subject itself… not its results. Since the breast feeding fatwa is not common sense. I mean this is sexual act so how a woman do that with all men around her just not wear the veil in front of them. I guess its better for her to not wear it and wear what ever she wants instead of letting a man suck on her breast… com’on
July 17th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Did you read what some guy name mohamed, but it’s not me, he posted answer above, you can go up little bit and you will find the asnwer you seek.
July 19th, 2007 at 3:27 am
about that subject our egyptian main council present that issue to be a low for all the public and that written at the official newspaper, i see that muslem business not any body else and that will apply for only muslims
July 19th, 2007 at 3:29 am
about that subject our egyptian main council present that issue to be a law for all the public and that written at the official newspaper, i see that muslem business not any body else and that will apply for only muslims
July 20th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
In Islam, anyone can give a Fatwa, whatever their rank, position, opinion etc… In Arabic, the word Fatwa literally means “opinion”.
I will give a Fatwa right now: I like chocolate, so I think that everyone should eat chocolate for breakfast.
It is up to the individual to give Fatwas, and it is also up the individual to obey them.
Allah says: “Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things.†[Sûrah al-Baqarah: 256]
Allah says: “If it had been your Lord’s will, all of the people on Earth would have believed. Would you then compel the people so to have them believe?†[Sûrah Yûnus: 99]
Jazakallah - all thanks to God, and thank you all for this opportunity to post these remarks.
shaanjohri@hotmail.com
Allah says: “Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things.†[Sûrah al-Baqarah: 256]
Allah says: “If it had been your Lord’s will, all of the people on Earth would have believed. Would you then compel the people so to have them believe?†[Sûrah Yûnus: 99]
Jazakallah - all thanks to God, and thank you all for this opportunity to post these remarks.
shaanjohri@hotmail.com
August 16th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Why is that so weird for people? I mean, we have sexual oddities here in the US …there are kink stores dedicated to men who want to act like babies in their adulthood and be breast-fed by their spouses. You have people excrete on one another’s chest, you have orgies, role playing, BDSM, snuff, etc. In Japan, they have woman eat eels, then vomit and then eat the vomit — and that’s seen as sexually satisfying.
While I agree it’s odd, and see it in conflict in Islam (Not all hadiths are authentic or strong — to check their authenticity, you have check consistencies with the Qur’an.), but I also say to the rest of you …those without sin, cast the first stone :).
get over it, guys.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:40 am
First of all,
your full of shit!!! there is no way in hell that a fatwa like that was made. its just ASSHOLESSSSSSSSSSSS like you that make this shit up to give a bad name to islam and make muslims look like there idiots, when the only true idiots are people like you that make up this crap and the ignorant, and obviously uneducated people that believe it. do the world a favor and go kill yourself!!!
September 3rd, 2007 at 2:35 am
Bahahaha!
>.> For fuck’s sake, if they’re breastfeeding, and she didn’t have a child recently, they’ve been having some sort of affair for a while now, most likely.
I mean, you could use breast pumps or the drugs… but not many think of that.
Anyway, what I found particularly amusing is that this guy doesn’t know jack about AdultBreastFeedingRelationships. For the most part, this is something between longtime sexual partners, that they add for an additional layer of intimacy, not in a maternal fashion, just regular-ways.
Kin-ky
April 14th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
.Here is my answer for adult breastfeeding. First it is not allowed. The Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him) has recommended for specific couple according to the scholars as the guy was his adopted son. Last the adult didnt suck the boobs of female but rather she poured her milk into a utensil and then the guy drink it. The above is mentioned in Tabaqat of Ibn Sa’d.It is islamically not allowed to “expose one’s nakedness(awra) infront of non-muharam adult, let alone have him suckled”.
If you want the full story with complete refernces go to this site. http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=179599