Dear friends,
What do u think?Should ancient religions like islam and hinduism change with modern trends in society?
Post Ur reply!
Ah.. let us not talk on Hinduism. Otherwise 'What is Hinduism?' is itself an unsettled question. In constitution of India, while telling whom 'Hindu Code Bill" applies, the learned writers have declared something like 'Hindu is a citizen of India who is not a Jew, Christian, Muslim or Zorastrian. People who claim to be Jain, Buddhists, Mahanubhav, Sikhs are considered Hindu. Anyone else will be considered Hindu unless he proves otherwise.' (The quote is not exact since it is from memory.) Definition by ellimination. So reforms in Hinduism is a more difficult question. Not a well defined religion.
The changes like abolition of caste are accepted by Hindu society in principle, you are unlikely to find someone supporting it. Converting it in practice jas not been with desired pace.
About Islam, situation is better. It is a well defined homogeneous religion. There are sects. But differences are not as fundamental as in Hindus. At least in Islam, there is a principle of equality(within Muslims) which all agree and one need not fight for that.
My knowledge of Islam (or of anything) is rudimentary. But I think as far as following Quran is concerned, that does not cause many problems. It is the other tradition that every problem should be solved the way Prophet solved it in his time, causes problem. In a different social, economic set up, Prophet might have seen some solution. Applying same solution everywhere is what causes trouble.
Sorry id I hurt someone's feelings.
Ofcourse Muslims should change with time, And if modifications are required they should be made in religon.
Stud
Queer,
Your question is vague. Be specific, which fundamental principles do you think that are redundant or not practicable in Islam and need changes. Also explain, why do you want the change?
Sincerely
FARID M
Dear queer,
My answer to your question is yes and no. Why No? Things like the fundamentals of religion can’t change. For e.g. you can’t say that we need not to offer Namaz because the times have changed. You can’t ignore zakat etc. Another example is the Dawoodi bohray, they always fast of 30 days in Ramadhan. They never fast for 29 days. Now this is wrong because thats not the way how Islam presented this issue.
why Yes? because issues which are concerned with the daily life and other things can be changed with the time. For e.g. in past people use to see the moon for the Eid but now as the science is advanced we can exactly predict that when the Eid is gonna come. But the Pakistani Dumb and illeterate maulvis are still stuck with the old ways. Those people who sit in the royat-i-hilal commete are so old that they can’t even see the wall infront of them, how are they gonna see a thin and small moon. Secondly, they climb up on the Habib Bank building in Karach or Saudi Pak Tower in Islamabad to see the moon. Its totally an absurd idea. They think that by getting higher we can see the moon clearly. Funny!!! consider the distance of earth and moon and the hieght of Habib Bank building. These things results in conflicts. People celberate two Eids just because of this old idea of watching moon. If they make a calendar of 100 0r 200 years that when Eid should be celeberated, all the problems will end. Secondly, I think that this is just a Zid of pathan or Arab people to celeberate Eid a day earlier. All the 11 months of the year the begining of months are common, No body says that I have seen the moon of rabi-us-sani one day earlier OR we have never seen a conflict on the other Eid. Why not?? This proves that its just a zid. Why always ramazans moon is different not the other 11.
So what I mean is that you have to change with time. The real problem is that all the Maulvis are dumb. In old days people used to give there best son for the Islam. Now what happens is that the weakest son who always fails in school, who is dumb is put in the religious schools to become a maulvi because such people can’t do any other thing in life. When such people come in the religion they show their poor perfomance here too. for e.g. when the first man went to the moon or out of this world, all the maulvis said that scientists are lying because man can’t go out of this world. So things need to be changed as long as they don’t contradict with Quran and Sunnat.
:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
Let me give you a very funny example of such fundamentalism. I am living in Canada, and there is a big Sikh community here. Few months ago, a prominent leader of Sikhs were murdered in Vancouver. The reason is that currently, the sikhs are divided into two groups. One are called “fundamentalists” they believe that chairs and desks can’t be used in a gurdawara. The other group is called “moderaters” they believe that furniture can be used in Gurdawara. On this issue, there has been a lot of bloodshed in India and also here in Canada. As I am not a member of Sikh community so I don’t want to take any side but clearly In all religions such a small issue of furniture shouldn’t be a problem. I personally feel that there is no harm in using chairs in a place of worship because they don’t cause any kind of harm. anywayz this is just a funny but sad example of Fundamentalism and not leaving the old believes. I HOPE YOU WOULD HAVE GOT THE POINT NOW.
:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
MIRZA YASIR
What about stopping requirement of 4 witnesses for rape? In modern times, many circumstancial evidences can be established by medical examination and the culprits won't go scot-free.
What about not allowing polygamy? Now that there are no times of war and males are plenty, there is no reason for it.
What about making divorce difficult and making the person pay for his kids?
There are a lot of things that can be done to change the situation of Muslim women which are in general less educated, have less lifespan, get less opportunities.
So there are things beyond celebrating two or three eids.
As far as relationship with non-Muslims is concerned, that issue does not need much attention since they are not even 2% of Pakistani population.
Assalam Alaikum
PG,
Solving crime isn't the motivation for a Muslim to catch a criminal. In an Islamic society if somebody commits a crime then the sin is upon every muslim in the state. This sin can be removed from their necks if the person who has committed the crime is given punishment. The motivation for catching a criminal is only to take the sin off our necks, nothing else. Justice will be done on the Day of Judgement, punishment is far greater there than it is here and if you are punished in this world then there is no punishment in the next.
The solution that the Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) used was Islam i.e. Allah's (S.W.T.) laws i.e. the Qur'an.
Islam creates a social and economic set up within the Islamic state so you're right when you say that the solutions used by the Prophet (S.A.W.) could only work best there and you're also right that these solutions cannot be applied properly and also the people cannot benefit from these solutions unless Islam is implemented fully. Although I don't think that your intention was to shed a light on this.
However, could you prove that the solutions used by Islam are not better than the solutions used by the non-Muslims.
Assalam Alaikum
Assalamualaikum,
If you're talikng about changing things in Islam, then the answer is no. I agree with part of Mirzayasir's post(the part until he talks about what you can change. I'm not sure if you can predict exactly when the moon is supposed to be seen. But if you can, then I agree with that part too. I didn't read the rest of his post.
I also read PG's post, and I think that the only thing that we can "change" is the requirement of the four witnesses, not because it is a bad idea, but because, if I remember well, one of the requirements for the four witnesses is that they should be pious, reliable. You should know that they wouldn't lie. I think you would not be able to find people like that anymore, or they would be very very rare.
As for the polygamy part, if someone practices it and fulfills all its requirements, then we cannot and should not forbid it, because Allah and His Rasul(S.A.W.) did not, so it's not our place to do it either. I believe that Islam does require a man to support his kids after the divorce.
My opinion is that we should only change with technology, not with modern trends. Islam is perfect, we are not. We should try to change ourselves to be better Muslims, and not try to change Islam to be a "modern religion". Of course we are not perfect, but every little bit of effort we make to follow Islam better will help us.
Please note that I am not sure about the requirements for convicting criminals in Islam, so you should verify what I said on the topic for yourselves.
[This message has been edited by Asif the Macho Man (edited February 07, 1999).]
People
Accha Musalman Bunno Aur Allah say daro.
Too much talk no action makes a person lazy.
Dear Asif Urf macho man sahib,
Thanks for agreeing with my point and for your additional information I would like to tell you that with the modern technology not only you can predict the Eid but you can calculate as accurate as an inch or even less of moon’s movement , So what’s the doubt.
MIRZA YASIR
About religions changing, the way in which it happens could be infered from history.
In Christianity, there were two movements. Protestants who agreed with the New Testament and all that but disagreeing the methods. The second movement was of frontal attack. There were a set of philosophers who argued strongly against christian philosophy. Marxist or socialist philosophers played a role. French revolution played role.
So there were two ways. 1) Agree in principle, but agree on nothing else. 2) Brutal analysis showing how religion has just helped the rich and powerful.
In Hinduism also you see these two trends. One was Ambedkar type asssult on philosophy. Other was Gandhi who was trying to help modern values in the garb of a old fashioned Hindu ("Earthquakes in Bihar are due to sins of untouchability".. Is it a modernist speaking or traditionalist? Difficult to say)
In Islam, both the approaches have been made ineffective. There is little room for interpreting. Learned peple like Maulana Azad tries to use their scholaraship to prove Islam implies secularism and what not. Not much success. At best you argue on date of eid or if Jesus is alive, rather dead issues. Anything more and Fatwa-baaz will sit on your head. Only in Turkey, policy of frontal attack worked.
I do not see any chance of changes in Islam unless some movement from within suddenly comes alive.
Mirz Jee
Doubt tu aap kay demagh mein hey.
Agr uss ko na nikala tu khatray ki baat hey.
Sahih Kalmah per lein sub kuch theek thaak ho jaien ga.
wasalm
App ka Mukhlis Doost