I wonder whether people would care more about infrastructure if all buildings required this kind of annual, public, participatory maintenance? Could a less durable structural design on paper produce a higher quality of upkeep in practice?
Reminds me of a problem with the Kindle e-readers. Anecdotally, when the battery life was closer to a month or more, customers would forget that the device needed charging and ultimately let the battery run down. When the battery life was closer to a week, the need to charge it would stay fresh in their minds and they’d keep it from running all they way down.
No, most mosques admit both sexes all the year, although some segregate. Segregation during prayers has no real Islamic basis, unlike segregation in social life, which is covered in Quran in detail.
I don't get on hacker news much, so I just noticed about a month ago you accused me of posting flamebait. I can't reply to that comment because it's too old, so I will reply here.
My comment is not flamebait. Go ahead and ban me, this forum is not a place I care about. Enjoy your curated bubble devoid of real dialog, faggot.
I have been invited to many mosques as part of multi faith, in the UK anyway, most I found women stayed at the back or were not allowed in the prayer hall
Not quite, segregation during prayers is compulsory and this is well established, it is the creation of physical separators that you're probably referring to, which while permitted is not required.
One such example:
"I offered the funeral prayer behind the Prophet (PBUH) for a woman who had died during childbirth and he stood up by the middle of the coffin." [Bukhari 1331]
The hadith you quoted says nothing about seggregation during prayers. It is about Janaza, the Islamic funeral ritual, which is a very short passage of stand-up prayer.
External accounts say segregation during prayer did not exist when Quran was being authored, not even when being compiled; in stark contrast to segregation during regular social life, which was well documented, and was part of nomadic Arabic culture well before Quran, though not as far as practiced by Muslims. Hadith books are not completely reliable; authentic narrations are intermingled with made-up passages (even authors themselves state that), Quran is the only fully reliable source of Islam (although more than 30 variants are found, the constitutional parts are consistent with each other, and variations are minor literal differences, some of which affect core theology).
I provided one example, there are countless other hadith indicating the same thing. Also, Quranism is not a widely held belief, please stop trying to pass off something fringe as if its what most Muslims would be inclined to believe. If we were to discard the hadith we simply could not practice a number of tenants of our religion, since they contain explanations for things like how to perform hajj, janaza and prayer. You shouldn't discard something that's been so well authenticated (as the sahih have been) simply because there are 3 hadith in their entirety over which there is slight doubt (which most have scholars have concluded was unwarranted).
Why do all hadith chains and Quran compilation stories start at 9th century if Islam arose in 7th century? Deliberate omission of recordings is the only sound explanation, because common Arab slave owners and traders were not illiterate (Muhammad, or who used that name, was definitely not, in fact, same hadith books -also verified by external accounts- say he avoided peace treaties and forced remove his name from one such treaty). I am well aware you cannot practice Islam so far without hadith, but as a former Muslim, it's their problem, not mine. In addition, hadith as a source has its limits, e.g. you cannot invent a crime out of hadith, unless it is already hinted at Quran; because that would be equivalent to inventing a new Quranic verse, which is forbidden by Quran.
>Why do all hadith chains and Quran compilation stories start at 9th century if Islam arose in 7th century?
Because the Arabs before then primarily transmitted information via oral tradition, while Arab slave owners and traders were literate the majority of people were not so it would have been useless to primarily transmit in writing back then. Secondly the idea that the Qur'an didn't exist in written form in the 9th century is patently false [0] and every authentic hadith transmission chain must go back to the time of the Prophet (PBUH) or it wouldn't be authentic.
>I am well aware you cannot practice Islam so far without hadith, but as a former Muslim, it's their problem, not mine.
It's no one's problem because almost no one subscribes to the belief system you're arguing in favor of.
>you cannot invent a crime out of hadith, unless it is already hinted at Quran; because that would be equivalent to inventing a new Quranic verse
Anything a hadith says is valid by virtue of us being told to follow the instructions of the Prophet (PBUH) in the Qur'an.
The source you cited at [0] is incomplete. They analysed it and found only the part with violent verses (so-called Medinan ones), not the part which resembles Biblical passages.
> every authentic hadith transmission chain must go back to the time of the Prophet [Muhammad Abdullah]
The thing is, we cannot prove his real identity (e.g. Mecca, where he had been allegedly born, has no historic traces apart from Kaaba), and some of the members, hence not a real chain up till 9th century. That was what I meant there were no hadith chain going before. You cannot cite a narration chain to an imaginary hero and call it authentic.
> Anything a hadith says is valid by virtue of us being told to follow the instructions of [Muhammad] in the Qur'an.
Hanafi and Jafari sects would not arise if that were the commonly held belief. The verse exists, but it does not automatically mean all hadith are as valid as they were in Quran. See where stoning penalty applies, reckon that thing is documented in hadith but thrown away from Quran. Hence we conclude stoning penalty does not exist. (according to Islamic precedence, Quran always prevails Sunnah)
The norm in mosques is: Women & Men pray separately. In Islam, men praying in congregation get more reward then praying at home (and are sometimes required to pray at the mosque). For women, it's the other way around (more reward when prayed at home and it's not obligatory). Most mosques have a prayer hall for men & women. Usually less women come anyway because of the reason just explained, which usually means mosques have larger prayer hall for men than women. Some, due to lack of area they can build on, don't have space to build a prayer hall for women and thus just use the maximum capacity for the men because these are obliged to go pray at the mosque at least once a week on Friday. For women it's not obligatory to pray at the mosque.
Another reason for less women might be difficulties in going outside, I understand that in some regions controlled by Islamists it's expected (required?) that women are always accompanied by an adult male relative if they go out.
This constraint alone seems like it would almost always lead to Mosques having fewer females present; but I haven't properly modelled it.
Perhaps, but that is an extreme exception, so it follows that it has basically zero impact on why mosques are segregated.
In the early days of Islam, women were fairly independent. For example, the Prophet’s first wife was a prominent merchant and much wealthier than he was. One of his other wives, Aisha, was an extremely respected narrator of Hadith, even after his death.
Things changed slightly over time as: (1) local cultures mixed with the religion and (2) different branches of thought arose, each with their own interpretations and understanding of the religion. This, combined with the dominance of patriarchal societies in the region, led to women having fewer chances to participate in the workforce.
Still not entirely clear to me how this account is still allowed posting on HN.
359 posts so far - all of them links to articles on bbc.com, where the poster just happens to be a travel editor or some such thing. And no engagement: Never once has any of these many postings prompted a comment form their submitter.
It may well be me being unreasonable here, but this pattern of sort-of-automated sort-of-spamming does repeatedly annoy me.
Yesterday's Nat Geo's article on Timgad got a bunch of things wrong. Today's BBC article is downright click-bait: the mosque isn't rebuilt once a year. They simply do renovation.
Though nowhere near the epic event this is, one of the things I enjoy about watching Japanese shrines is when they go around and rebuild stuff. Sometimes they even tear the whole thing down and build it again. The first time I saw it, I was in shock -- Why are they tearing down the shrine? But, no. They built it again. Sometimes they build it differently than before. I'm not sure if this is due to finances or other constraints, or if there is some other reason. The one thing that is constant is the trees. You can almost always spot a shrine in Japan -- you see this weird outcropping of 500 year old trees :-) Especially in the city it's a bit like an oasis of nature -- an anchor to a more stable world. Though I say more stable, really it changes all the time, but looks like it's been like that forever.
I really enjoy these things. I am not a religious person and I have next to no education in various religions. However, these kinds of activities really speak to me. I'm always lost as to how to express that side of my nature in my very secular lifestyle.
29 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 52.7 ms ] threadhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00llpvp/episodes/guide
The video has other examples like this mosque and asks the question of how to preserve art for future generations.
Reminds me of a problem with the Kindle e-readers. Anecdotally, when the battery life was closer to a month or more, customers would forget that the device needed charging and ultimately let the battery run down. When the battery life was closer to a week, the need to charge it would stay fresh in their minds and they’d keep it from running all they way down.
Is this practice generally considered normative in the Muslim community?
For 5 years, I lived within walking distance of the largest mosque in my city and it never once struck me that this was a thing.
> Segregation during prayers has no real Islamic basis
Self Appointed Cleric: challenge accepted
My comment is not flamebait. Go ahead and ban me, this forum is not a place I care about. Enjoy your curated bubble devoid of real dialog, faggot.
One such example:
"I offered the funeral prayer behind the Prophet (PBUH) for a woman who had died during childbirth and he stood up by the middle of the coffin." [Bukhari 1331]
External accounts say segregation during prayer did not exist when Quran was being authored, not even when being compiled; in stark contrast to segregation during regular social life, which was well documented, and was part of nomadic Arabic culture well before Quran, though not as far as practiced by Muslims. Hadith books are not completely reliable; authentic narrations are intermingled with made-up passages (even authors themselves state that), Quran is the only fully reliable source of Islam (although more than 30 variants are found, the constitutional parts are consistent with each other, and variations are minor literal differences, some of which affect core theology).
Because the Arabs before then primarily transmitted information via oral tradition, while Arab slave owners and traders were literate the majority of people were not so it would have been useless to primarily transmit in writing back then. Secondly the idea that the Qur'an didn't exist in written form in the 9th century is patently false [0] and every authentic hadith transmission chain must go back to the time of the Prophet (PBUH) or it wouldn't be authentic.
>I am well aware you cannot practice Islam so far without hadith, but as a former Muslim, it's their problem, not mine.
It's no one's problem because almost no one subscribes to the belief system you're arguing in favor of.
>you cannot invent a crime out of hadith, unless it is already hinted at Quran; because that would be equivalent to inventing a new Quranic verse
Anything a hadith says is valid by virtue of us being told to follow the instructions of the Prophet (PBUH) in the Qur'an.
[0] https://www.livescience.com/51638-quran-manuscript-oldest-kn...
> every authentic hadith transmission chain must go back to the time of the Prophet [Muhammad Abdullah]
The thing is, we cannot prove his real identity (e.g. Mecca, where he had been allegedly born, has no historic traces apart from Kaaba), and some of the members, hence not a real chain up till 9th century. That was what I meant there were no hadith chain going before. You cannot cite a narration chain to an imaginary hero and call it authentic.
> Anything a hadith says is valid by virtue of us being told to follow the instructions of [Muhammad] in the Qur'an.
Hanafi and Jafari sects would not arise if that were the commonly held belief. The verse exists, but it does not automatically mean all hadith are as valid as they were in Quran. See where stoning penalty applies, reckon that thing is documented in hadith but thrown away from Quran. Hence we conclude stoning penalty does not exist. (according to Islamic precedence, Quran always prevails Sunnah)
So what? It's still evidence it existed.
>hence not a real chain up till 9th century
This is obviously nonsense historical revisionism.
>The verse exists, but it does not automatically mean all hadith are as valid as they were in Quran
Firstly I didn't say that and secondly neither hanafism nor jafarism are sects.
Another reason for less women might be difficulties in going outside, I understand that in some regions controlled by Islamists it's expected (required?) that women are always accompanied by an adult male relative if they go out.
This constraint alone seems like it would almost always lead to Mosques having fewer females present; but I haven't properly modelled it.
In the early days of Islam, women were fairly independent. For example, the Prophet’s first wife was a prominent merchant and much wealthier than he was. One of his other wives, Aisha, was an extremely respected narrator of Hadith, even after his death.
Things changed slightly over time as: (1) local cultures mixed with the religion and (2) different branches of thought arose, each with their own interpretations and understanding of the religion. This, combined with the dominance of patriarchal societies in the region, led to women having fewer chances to participate in the workforce.
Continuing on from this she is termed the 'Mother of the Believers' and was a military commander during The First Fitnah.
Were you responding to a different comment, I made no mention of, nor does my comment relate to, segregation.
It may well be me being unreasonable here, but this pattern of sort-of-automated sort-of-spamming does repeatedly annoy me.
I learned a lot about Jewish genealogy by googling that name.
Also it's le crépissage.
I really enjoy these things. I am not a religious person and I have next to no education in various religions. However, these kinds of activities really speak to me. I'm always lost as to how to express that side of my nature in my very secular lifestyle.
do we really need another reddit here?