Re: Praising the Prophet Muhammad, and our world views
mr EaZy said:
MoonlightSonata said:
This is understandable - we do the same thing for many of our respected citizens. For judges we call them "your honour", etc.
Although, we respect them for their contributions to society, not for religious reasons...
dont be soo naiieve.
lol. Well that's a new one. "Naive" isn't a word often attributed to me, I must say.
There's no need to be so presumptuous, particularly when you're alleging something improbable. Indeed, with respect, the chances are that my knowledge of the judiciary is far superior to yours.
mr EaZy said:
that statement is of varying truth in here and the USA. A report this year also cast doubt on the integrity on judicial appointments- ill try to get it if u want but i prob threw it away. US judges are popularly elected.
1. I mentioned "we", being Australia. Your remarks on US judges are irrelevant.
2. You claim that there has been criticism of the method of appointing judges. Again, irrelevant. My claim was that one of the reasons judges are addressed as "your honour" is because of their important contribution to society. The extent to which they actually do contribute is neither here nor there.
3. Notwithstanding point two, judges
do play an important role in society. Aside from their decisions regarding private matters between citizens, there is no denying the fact that judges allow one of the most fundamental parts of our system of government function properly.
4. You make a vague reference to a report dealing with the integrity of judicial appointments. Without seeing the report, or even hearing an argument from the report, such remarks are utterly useless.
mr EaZy said:
we praise the prophet Muhammad because Allah praises him in the Quran and that HE has ordered us to praise the prophet as he deserves to be praised- so its a religious thing in the sense that we get rewarded for what we say.
That is exactly what I implied --
MoonlightSonata said:
Although, we respect them for their contributions to society, not for religious reasons...
You just agreed that you praise him for religious reasons. I don't see how my point is incorrect.
mr EaZy said:
Now we dont just blindly praise anybody- part of our understanding of islam is that we understand the contributions that the great and noble prophet did for society and humanity in general. WE are not alone in this... You can ask Jews like Jules Masserman or Christians like Geroge Bernard Shaw and others and they will also praise the prophet more than what you say to the judges "your honor"
Okay, now you have a more credible argument.
Your argument is, "We praise Muhammad for religious reasons
and because of his contribution to society."
Even so, my assertion was that we don't address judges as "your honour" for religious reasons, but because of their contribution to society. So it still stands.
mr EaZy said:
You praise judges in front of them- but what is the possibility that every litigant comes before a judge knowing the contributions the judge did for society? none- its institutionalised and the very negative of what you were trying to suggest.
It doesn't matter what every single litigant believes. Just because someone (or a number of people) believes something doesn't make it true. Besides, anyone with any knowledge of what judges do knows that judges contribute to society. If they don't know, in general, what judges do then they are a poorly informed citizen. The institutions which demand this of us are not governed by poorly informed citizens.
mr EaZy said:
At the moment islam and christianity are the only relgions with a sense of universality about them. Islam is unique in that it had this notion from day one. So you can see to what extent Muhammad played in transforming the perceptions of muslims to the world around them.
No idea what you are talking about here, and obviously how it is relevant.
mr EaZy said:
referring to my management text book- it quotes Therborn. G from the journal: international sociology on contemporary globalisation (2000).
The guy checked the major dictionaries of the 1980s of German, French, English and other European and Asian languages.
this is the 1980s- and we find that the European dictionaries didnt have one word that connoted a sense of globalisation. The japanese had one term for business globalisation... but the arabic language had 4 words that connoted the notion.
So you all have to check your own built in notions of this world. Its much bigger than yourselves
Of course. No-one is suggesting otherwise.
mr EaZy said:
You will have to examine this with Heideger's philosophy- the idea of throness- we are born into cultures: eg: you were born here... in a christia/athiest society/family, with the language of English- this is very significant to who you are and you have to recognise not just this - but that other people have been raised in other countries with other philosophies and religions underpinningt\ their society... and until we all question why we behave the way we behave and travel to countries that would challenge our accepted notions - then there will be no way fully understanding who we really are and not just what our society has wanted us to be.
There is some truth in this, but it would be grossly incorrect to allege that "until we have been to other countries and experienced their cultures then we cannot falsify their arguments or beliefs".
mr EaZy said:
Muhammad was a man who recognised this and this is why he was challenged by the power brokers of his society who hated what he was doing. the arabs were into female infanticide and stuff liek that - he was against that... and it is surprising that female infanticide in recent times has been on the increase with the advantage of untrasound in 2nd world countries.
What we recognise as Great in Muhammad was his determination to rid society of these evils and strive to create a utopia that would rival the romans. It takes great strenght to maintain such a struggle for over 10 years, to be just, to maintain a high standard of character...
This is just reiterating your point that Muhammad contributed to society. I talked about that above.
mr EaZy said:
But above that Muhammad was also a king and a judge- now he didnt wear a crown or a wig like how we view such officials but thats what he was
if you want to study islamic contracts -you look at how he judged between people from across arabia- interstate contracts, simple or complex, trusts etc... the islamic state was the first to allow females the rights of inheritance, a right to legally divorce, a right to be looked after(enforceable in court- not even we have this law ) - now the english didnt have this not even 600 years later... so he brought reforms hundreds of years before his time... and you cannot deny the greatness of what he did... surely i havent come across a person of respectable academic credentials doing such a thing.
More of the same point. Discussed above.