Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Are there any Muslim converts on here preferably from a judea-christian background? watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    One would have to view the teachings of Allah based on their context. During the era of Adam, incest was permitted. But incest is no longer permitted. The teachings therefore are subject to external influences, and in this case it was due to there being no other option.

    During the time of Muhammad, homosexuality was not permitted, but this would not be an applicable teaching for our modern era. During the era of Muhammad, babies and young children often died and the world's population was rather small, the Muslim population even smaller. Encouraging procreation would enable the continuation of the human race and the spread of Islam. We are now at a time however where we have an impending issue of overpopulation and where baby and child deaths are at an all time low and so such a stipulation would no longer be relevant.

    Lut was therefore offering his own daughters in marriage as an indication of how important procreation was.
    Not all muslims believe that incest was permitted. Some say that Allah (swt) created spouses for the children of Adam and Hawwa in the same way he made Adam and Hawwa themselves.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    Not all muslims believe that incest was permitted. Some say that Allah (swt) created spouses for the children of Adam and Hawwa in the same way he made Adam and Hawwa themselves.
    There doesn't seem to be any evidence to support this view. But even if this was the case, their children would all be very closely related. All the next generation would be first cousins. Many would still regard relationships involving first cousins as incestuous, and it is about as close as you can get to incest.


    Then we also have the issue of Sahih Hadith stating the Eve was created from a rib. The assumption one would make here is that this is none other than Adam's rib, which would imply that Eve is made from Adam and thus shares his genetic material, which would imply incest is at play again.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    There doesn't seem to be any evidence to support this view. But even if this was the case, their children would all be very closely related. All the next generation would be first cousins. Many would still regard relationships involving first cousins as incestuous, and it is about as close as you can get to incest.


    Then we also have the issue of Sahih Hadith stating the Eve was created from a rib. The assumption one would make here is that this is none other than Adam's rib, which would imply that Eve is made from Adam and thus shares his genetic material, which would imply incest is at play again.
    Cousin marriage is still permitted in Islam, so I don't consider it to be incestuous. Also, I don't believe that Eve was made from Adam's rib in any way - most of the hadiths found in sunni books are considered da'eef by our historians, and I have found the same in my own analyses. The shia scholars interpret the quran's verse on 'from the same nafs' to mean 'from the same essence', which refers to the spiritual creation of humanity. Many shia accept the theory of evolution and believe that Adam and Eve were physically born to spiritless human parents after the events in Eden. The story of Adam and Eve, to us, is a spiritual creation rather than a physical one. There were other humans being born who were also capable of spiritual awareness/capacity, and these were the spouses of Adam's progeny.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    Cousin marriage is still permitted in Islam, so I don't consider it to be incestuous.
    Verse 4:23 states that one cannot marry wives of your sons. Such women would in many cases not be related. So this ruling in the Quran does not deal explicitly with incest alone but a number of different issues also. Also, there is nothing that says that this verse contains a complete list of whom are considered the prohibited. The same logic is applied to issues over what items are halal or haram to consume. Many would consider cigarettes haram, despite there being no explicit condemnation of cigarettes in the Quran. But one can apply logic and see that smoking is an activity that can cause harm. The same is pretty much true of first cousin marriage. So I would argue that verse 4:23 is not a complete list and also that firs cousin marriage is not permissible because of the harm it can cause.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    Verse 4:23 states that one cannot marry wives of your sons. Such women would in many cases not be related. So this ruling in the Quran does not deal explicitly with incest alone but a number of different issues also. Also, there is nothing that says that this verse contains a complete list of whom are considered the prohibited. The same logic is applied to issues over what items are halal or haram to consume. Many would consider cigarettes haram, despite there being no explicit condemnation of cigarettes in the Quran. But one can apply logic and see that smoking is an activity that can cause harm. The same is pretty much true of first cousin marriage. So I would argue that verse 4:23 is not a complete list and also that firs cousin marriage is not permissible because of the harm it can cause.
    Muhammad had his daughter married to his cousin Ali, and himself married his own first cousin Zaynab bint Jahsh. :/
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    Muhammad had his daughter married to his cousin Ali, and himself married his own first cousin Zaynab bint Jahsh. :/
    Ali and Fatima were first cousin once removed. Muhammad and Zaynab had no children. So neither would be an example of Muhammad personally practising or permitting procreation between first cousins, which is the major problem posed by first cousin marriage.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    Ali and Fatima were first cousin once removed. Muhammad and Zaynab had no children. So neither would be an example of Muhammad personally practising or permitting procreation between first cousins, which is the major problem posed by first cousin marriage.
    The argument cannot be made that 'marriage between first cousins is fine if you don't have children' using these facts, this would be overreaching. This was never established by muhammad in word, and from a shia point of view, nor did any of the Ahlulbayt say such a thing. From a sunni point of view, Umar ibn al Khattaab also maried his cousin Akitah bint Zayd, and received no complaint.
    Besides that, children born from first cousin marriages have the same risk of genetic defect as a child born to a mother in her middle age, and is only 1-2 % higher than non consanguine reproduction.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    Lut was therefore offering his own daughters in marriage as an indication of how important procreation was.
    That's speculation -- the Koran makes no mention of that being his primary motivation. There's no point speculating to try to make it read like an acceptable story from a modern viewpoint.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    The argument cannot be made that 'marriage between first cousins is fine if you don't have children' using these facts, this would be overreaching. This was never established by muhammad in word, and from a shia point of view, nor did any of the Ahlulbayt say such a thing. From a sunni point of view, Umar ibn al Khattaab also maried his cousin Akitah bint Zayd, and received no complaint.
    Besides that, children born from first cousin marriages have the same risk of genetic defect as a child born to a mother in her middle age, and is only 1-2 % higher than non consanguine reproduction.
    I'm going based upon science firstly. Muhammad never explicitly said to not smoke cigarettes, although I am sure many prominent Muslims have used tobacco based products. But many would also consider it to be something that causes harm, based upon scientific evidence.

    Where does the Islamic ruling lay if it were discovered tomorrow that dates actually cause significant harm to your body and can lead to early death? Would you, based upon the teachings that state not to cause harm to your body, refrain from eating dates? Or would you continue to eat dates when breaking your fast?


    What was the definition of 'middle age' in the studies that concluded that they have the same risk of genetic defects?



    (Original post by Hydeman)
    That's speculation -- the Koran makes no mention of that being his primary motivation. There's no point speculating to try to make it read like an acceptable story from a modern viewpoint.
    I never said that was Lut's primary motivation. However, at the same time, there is no verse that explicitly states that the issue was homosexuality either. In fact, it is debatable whether Muslims have always taken the stance that homosexuality is prohibited in Islam.

    The Islamic world has largely throughout history been far more accepting of homosexuality than has been the European/Christian world, and it is only in recent times that the roles have reversed. In fact, it would appear to be a result of colonialism and the adopting of European/Christian ideals by the Islamic world during colonial rule. Right up to the era preceding colonialism, homosexuality was largely an acceptable practice in the Islamic world.

    For example, a British sailor called Joseph Pitts, who in the 17th century, was captured and sold into slavery in Algiers, had this to say about the people of Algiers in his autobiographical work "A True and Faithful Account of the Religion and Manners of the Mohammetans":

    [T]his horrible sin of sodomy is so far from being punish'd amongst them, that it is part of their ordinary discourse to boast and brag of their detestable actions of that kind. 'Tis common for men to fall in love with boys, as 'tis here in England to be in love with women.
    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...sodomy&f=false


    Charles-Nicolas-Sigisbert Sonnini had similar comments to make in the late 18th century on his visit to Egypt which he documented in his book "Travels to Upper and Lower Egypt":

    The passion contrary to nature which....dishonoured the Greeks and Persians of antiquity, constitute the delight, or, to use a juster term, the infamy of the Egyptians. It is not for the women that their amorous ditties are composed : it is not on them that tender caresses are lavished ; far different objects inflame them.
    http://archive.org/stream/travelsinu...1sonn_djvu.txt

    And likewise, similar things were said by travellers from the Muslim world when they visited the West. For example, the Moroccan scholar Muhammad al-Saffar, who visited Paris in the 19th century said:

    Flirtation, romance, and courtship for them take place only with women, for they are not inclined to boys or young men. Rather, that is extremely disgraceful to them and punishable by law.
    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...0women&f=false

    Not to mention the prevalence of homoerotic themes within early Islamic poetry also.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    I'm going based upon science firstly. Muhammad never explicitly said to not smoke cigarettes, although I am sure many prominent Muslims have used tobacco based products. But many would also consider it to be something that causes harm, based upon scientific evidence.

    Where does the Islamic ruling lay if it were discovered tomorrow that dates actually cause significant harm to your body and can lead to early death? Would you, based upon the teachings that state not to cause harm to your body, refrain from eating dates? Or would you continue to eat dates when breaking your fast?


    What was the definition of 'middle age' in the studies that concluded that they have the same risk of genetic defects?
    Women over 40. Article on it here:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mot...cientists.html

    And I'd stop eating dates because I know the dates would have to be different from those eaten by the Prophet (sawas) since he wouldn't have eaten them if they were bad for him.

    Muhammad was not just a 'postman' delivering the quran to the arabs. He was a masuum/infallible individual whose every action with an importance in regards to what would be taught to successive generations of muslims, including what he ate, was guided by wahi (divine inspiration).
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    Women over 40. Article on it here:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mot...cientists.html

    And I'd stop eating dates because I know the dates would have to be different from those eaten by the Prophet (sawas) since he wouldn't have eaten them if they were bad for him.

    Muhammad was not just a 'postman' delivering the quran to the arabs. He was a masuum/infallible individual whose every action with an importance in regards to what would be taught to successive generations of muslims, including what he ate, was guided by wahi (divine inspiration).
    Newspapers reporting of science tends to be rather poor. It is always best to refer to the actual paper. Of which, there is an interesting point raised in the actual paper by Diane Paul and Hamish Spencer:

    statistics on the risks associated with cousin marriage are necessarily averages across many traits, and they are likely to be different for different populations, which will often vary in the frequency of particular deleterious alleles. In the Pakistani immigrant population, for example, the quoted high average rate of birth defects may mask a single trait (or small number of traits) at very high frequency

    whether first-cousin marriage is an occasional or regular occurrence in the study population matters, and it is thus inappropriate to extrapolate findings from largely outbred populations with occasional first-cousin marriages to populations with high coefficients of inbreeding and vice-versa. Standard calculations, such as the commonly cited 3% additional risk, examine a pedigree in which the ancestors (usually grandparents) are assumed to be unrelated. In North America, marriages between consanguineal kin are strongly discouraged. But such an assumption is unwarranted in the case of UK Pakistanis, who have emigrated from a country where such marriage is traditional and for whom it is estimated that roughly 55%–59% of marriages continue to be between first cousin. Thus, the usual risk estimates are misleading: data from the English West Midlands suggest that British Pakistanis account for only ~4.1% of births, but about 33% of the autosomal recessive metabolic errors recorded at birth
    http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology...l.pbio.0060320
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    Newspapers reporting of science tends to be rather poor. It is always best to refer to the actual paper. Of which, there is an interesting point raised in the actual paper by Diane Paul and Hamish Spencer:


    http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology...l.pbio.0060320
    The problem is not cousin marriage but traditions of repetitive first cousin marriage over many generations. I'm hoping to go into genetics bruh, I've read quite a few papers on this haha.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    The problem is not cousin marriage but traditions of repetitive first cousin marriage over many generations. I'm hoping to go into genetics bruh, I've read quite a few papers on this haha.
    It's not too different from alcohol consumption. Alcohol in moderate consumption doesn't seem to cause any significant problems, but excessive consumption can cause harms.

    How does one go about prescribing what is a 'safe' amount of first cousin marriage? At least with something like alcohol, we can effectively say "above x amount of units on a daily/weekly basis is considered harmful"..
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    It's not too different from alcohol consumption. Alcohol in moderate consumption doesn't seem to cause any significant problems, but excessive consumption can cause harms.

    How does one go about prescribing what is a 'safe' amount of first cousin marriage? At least with something like alcohol, we can effectively say "above x amount of units on a daily/weekly basis is considered harmful"..
    With some things, muslims need to exercise Qiyas (common sense).
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hilrho)
    Hey there! Really? The entire family? 🙎🏻 Thats so interesting! 💁🏻Are you muslim too then?
    not all of my family :O and nope am not :P
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    A friend of mine is a recent convert
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by PrincessZara)
    not all of my family :O and nope am not :P

    That's very interesting. So do you celebrate religious festivities with them? And do they celebrate christmas and stuff with you? Do you know why they converted?

    (Original post by Synchyst)
    A friend of mine is a recent convert
    Did you know he/she before they converted?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hilrho)
    That's very interesting. So do you celebrate religious festivities with them? And do they celebrate christmas and stuff with you? Do you know why they converted?



    Did you know he/she before they converted?
    Yh and I don't ask
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hilrho)
    That's very interesting. So do you celebrate religious festivities with them? And do they celebrate christmas and stuff with you? Do you know why they converted?



    Did you know he/she before they converted?
    Yes i knew her before she converted
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PrincessZara)
    Yh and I don't ask
    Did their conversion at all make yourself curious about Islam and what it might offer? Lol.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 12, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.