69 million page views

being clear

Reader comment on item: Destroying Sculptures of Muhammad
in response to reader comment: Taj: A nice line in obfuscation

Submitted by Taj (United States), May 16, 2008 at 14:16

Because the concept of purity pre-dates Islam, is it to be accepted? In Hinduism the concept of purity, probably older than Judaism, has the concept of impure humans who cannot be touched. Should this practice be continued on the basis of its antiquity?

No, nor did I say it should.

Boundaries?? The caste system is also about boundaries. About all those theories of animal uncleanness that you refer to can you tell about one that seems convincing to you?

I already did: boundaries

You seem unsure of so many things in your religion.

I am glad you used the word "seem".

You got that right, Taj. There is no rhyme or reason for considering dog's unclean. You can find so many other Islamic practices like animal sacrifice, wudu which also seem to have no rhyme or reason.

Bad editing. Go back and notice my use of "with regard to hygiene"...

In the context of establishing boundaries for practice, it makes perfect sense.

Gabriel was frightened of dogs, not pigs. Maybe because they are likely to bite unwelcome strangers, angels not excepted?

Where do you assume the term "frightened"? And notice your use of "maybe"...

How about food cooked by, say Hindus, many of whom make a supplication, if only in their minds, to the deity who presides over the destiny of cooks? Or whose kitchens will have innumerable pictures of gods looking down benignly on the food that is being cooked?

How would you know that they made such a supplication if only in their minds (without the use of telepathy)? That a kitchen has pictures doesn't render the food prohibited.

It is obvious that the purpose behind all that obfuscation was to justify sticking with archaic religious laws. What I can also extrapolate from this complicated bit of obfuscation is that since the original considerations for slavery in Islam have nothing to do with ‘temporal' contexts Muslims also unsuccessfully opposed the attempt to alter the law on slave keeping ‘for the sake of modern consideration'. So too now for the status of women in society. For the eye-for-an-eye laws, for animal sacrifices etc.

Nothing I stated was complicated - that you "extrapolated" anything indicates to me the propensity to go off on tangents...I was commenting to B Williame about dietary and purity laws in Islam - how you tie this to slavery, women's rights or eye for an eye is curious if not a bit non-sensical

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to being clear by Taj

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List
eXTReMe Tracker

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2021 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)