More questions

The apologists for Islam say that although certain things are allowed by shariah, they are not enforced any more, things like cutting off hands, stoning, polygamy, etc. So although it is legal, it is not morally or socially acceptable. Which brings me to the question, if religion is not giving the guidelines to morality, what is it good for anyway?

Please note this is different from the Taliban and other friends, who want to implement the shariah in the spirit and letter.

What side are you on?

Damn, there goes yoga!

I am not a yoga person, although I hear that its a really good exercise. All the breathing in and out and stretching must be good. Apparently using the word Om is an integral part of this workout, which led to some Malaysian mullahs declaring Yoga to be un-Islamic, since it would subconsciously convert all yogis (those practicing yoga, I assume) into Hindus. Now that can have pretty dangerous consequences for Muslims, in Malaysia for example, this means being sent to an institution which tries to teach you things that convince you to stay a Muslim. In other more zealous parts of the Islamic world, this could mean a death sentence, that being the punishment for apostasy.

So be it!

Last year in May, Professor Ezzat Atiya of the Al-Azhar University Cairo found a novel solution to a problem faced by today's working women. As per some zealous Islamic societies, a woman cannot be alone with a man since the devil will make them fornicate. He looked at Hadees, and found the following

Sahih Muslim, Book 8, Number 3425 states:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hadhaifa, lived with him and his family in their house. She (i. e. the daughter of Suhail came to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Salim has attained (purbety) as men attain, and he understands what they understand, and he enters our house freely, I, however, perceive that something (rankles) in the heart of Abu Hudhaifa, whereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said to her: Suckle him and you would become unlawful for him, and (the rankling) which Abu Hudhaifa feels in his heart will disappear. She returned and said: So I suckled him, and what (was there) in the heart of Abu Hudhaifa disappeared.

Based on the above, he declared that if a woman breast feeds all the males in her surroundings, they would become mehrams (in a non-sexual way) and thus solving the problem.

Give the guy some points for thinking out of the box! Unfortunately, he was fired from his position and this was not made into a law of some sort.

I am very fond of the argument put forward by some apologists that "these are different times and some things don't apply anymore," which is a very slippery slope. If certain things are not applicable anymore, who decides what those things are. Getting married to a nine year old, for example is obviously not allowed anymore. What about certain other practices that the followers zealously undertake? Fasting, praying five times, not shaving, etc. etc. Just because some of these totally outrageous things make us look like idiots, we claim that they are not for today's age. Why not re-look at all of them?

I forget, its about faith, which dictates that we do not question them. So be it, and let the faithful do whatever they want and not expect reason. I, for one, will give it all a miss.

Back to square one

This one is dedicated to my friend Faran.

The argument that is frequently brought up by many people while defending religion is that its the people who practice it that are to be blamed rather than the dogma they follow. I feel that is a total cop out.

Lets try out the reverse. Lets say we start appreciating people for doing good deeds rather than the religion they follow. So every welfare act that is done by the missionaries, be it Muslim/Christian/Hindu/Buddhist/etc. should be attributed to the individuals rather than the platform that is being used for those good things. They open up schools, hospitals, feed the poor because they are good people, not because of their faith. Religion becomes irrelevant. The point being if religion is incapable of turning society into a better place, then what is the point of it anyway?

The Muslims of Saudi Arabia punish a women for being alone with a man after she is gang raped by a group of men. So what if Islam's injunction is used to justify this punishment? Is it the followers or Islam? A Pakistani Muslim man strangles his daughter for not wanting to wear the hijab in Canada. What is to be blamed here? The fact that Islam/some school of thought believes that women should wear hijab or the man who can actually strangle his own flesh and blood because of what he believes in? Where does one draw the line?

I don't think the argument holds any substance, as I said earlier, its a cop out. For those who haven't heard of Epicurus, here is something that he wrote a long time ago

Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able, then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing, then he is malevolent.
Is he both willing and able, the whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing, then why call him god?

And so society struggles. The problem with the monotheistic religions as I see it is their refusal to change with times. There are no absolute truths, its all relative my dear Faran.