How religions change their mind

[glo]

Perhaps a challenging article and one some of us may disagree with.
Still, I find it interesting to seriously search how and if the understanding and attitudes of our religion or the interpretations of certain religious texts have changed over the centuries and perhaps to continue to change.
Have they?
And if so, was that a good thing or a bad?

Sometimes I hear arguments about how unchanging our religions are.
But are they really? And should they be?

Once upon a time, animal sacrifice was an important part of Hindu life, Catholic priests weren't celibate and visual depictions of the Prophet Muhammad were part of Islamic art. And soon some churches in the UK may be marrying gay couples. How do religions manage to change their mind?

Selected U-turns
*Radios, loudspeakers and telephones were forbidden for Muslims 100 years ago - one story relates how a Saudi king instructed a cleric to recite the Koran down the phone to another scholar to prove the invention was not corrupting

*There were figurative miniatures of the Prophet Muhammad in both Ottoman and Persian art - the 14th Century Turkish epic Siyer-i Nebi features many such illustrations, although the Prophet's face is veiled

*In ancient times animal sacrifice was a core part of Hinduism, as described in texts such as the Vedas and the Mahabharata - it's widely abhorred now, but still practised in some areas

*In the 10th Century most rural Christian priests were married - the Catholic Church cracked down on this in the 12th Century

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22250412

[Muhammad]

Greetings glo,

I find the article hasn't presented anything to show that Islam has changed. There will always be differences in interpretation of some texts, but those texts have remained the same. Moreover, there are many aspects, especially the fundamental issues, that have never been differed over and are very clear and explicit. They have been agreed upon by the consensus of scholars in every generation until today. Someone cannot just invent a new interpretation today and claim that the religion needs changing or that it has changed. This is in stark contrast to the other religions who have major differences in the very fundamentals and foundational scriptures. Allaah has promised to protect the religion of Islam, and anyone who studies it will realise with astonishing clarity how this promise remains fulfilled.

[glo]

Thanks for approving this thread, Muhammad.

[Insaanah]

I actually find the article ill-informed where it speaks about Islam. For example:

visual depictions of the Prophet Muhammad were part of Islamic art.

The article is implying that these depictions were once allowed but are now forbidden. It's using the fact that people did something forbidden in Islam, as "evidence" that it was once allowed. Depictions of the Prophet have always been forbidden and always will be, regardless of whether some people went ahead and did it anyway. That does not constitute proof that the religion has changed.

Similarly, at the time of the Iranian revolution in 1979, the ulama there said that birth control was haraam, but now the use of condoms is encouraged, with state-supported condom factories and pre-marital family planning lessons.

Again, this "u-turn" is not do with Islam, but something specific to Iran.

Despite the "examples" quoted, as brother Muhammad has already pointed out, it hasn't shown that Islam has changed.

Peace.

[truthseeker63]

Good Article.

[glo]

I find the article hasn't presented anything to show that Islam has changed.

Despite the "examples" quoted, as brother Muhammad has already pointed out, it hasn't shown that Islam has changed.

I didn't think the article to set out to claim that religions change per se. The fundamental beliefs and values remain the same.

Instead, what I think the article is trying to do is to explore how certain practices may change, and why.

As followers of certain religions in the 21st Century we can assume (or perhaps be led to believe) that our religious practices have always been the same since the beginning of time. This article is making us think again.

Here are a few examples (not all mentioned in the article):

* I did not know that there had even been a time when Catholic priests married and had families. I had assumed that they were always celibate.

* Creationism in Christianity is another issue which people think has been around since the beginning of the faith. Perhaps it has, but the early Christians on the whole did not consider Genesis a direct account of how God made the world and life on it. They understood it to be prose, a story which tried to describe God's relationship with mankind.
Christian creationism as we know it today stems from the US and is a fairly recent phenomenon.

* I have also often wondered about animal sacrifices in Judaism. The Old Testament is full of accounts of having to slaughter animals to God. To my knowledge that practice is not kept any longer. At some point, somewhere, somebody must have decided that the practice was to change.

* As for depicting the prophet Muhammad (pbuh), I don't know if it was ever permitted - but certainly it seems that at one time it was at least condoned or tolerated. Whereas today people receive death threads for depicting him.

I find the article very interesting.
I don't think it accuses religions of changing their core beliefs or their inner nature - but it highlights that for some reason we sometimes change certain practices. I don't think there is anything wrong with that or we have anything to fear or be defensive about.
Who knows, things may have changed for the better? (Certainly a whole bunch of sheep and goats must think so! )

[Muhammad]

I think the examples they gave for Islam were quite poor, probably because they were struggling to find them. I didn't even understand how urinals and segregation in houses had anything to do with the topic. As you said at the beginning, some of us may disagree with the article and I think we have good reason to when it comes to their limited (or even lack of) understanding of Islam.

* As for depicting the prophet Muhammad (pbuh), I don't know if it was ever permitted - but certainly it seems that at one time it was at least condoned or tolerated. Whereas today people receive death threads for depicting him.

It's not quite as simple as that. Nowadays people only depict the Prophet for the sole reason of ridicule, offence and media attention. In previous times where people may have done it, the culture behind it was probably completely different. It's misinformation like this that makes us defensive and rightly so.

[crimsontide06]

How can anyone create a depiction of the prophet when no one knows what he looks like?

[Insaanah]

The fundamental beliefs and values remain the same.

I don't think it accuses religions of changing their core beliefs or their inner nature

Some faiths have though. Eg the core belief of Christianity was deciphered and thrashed out at a convened council 300 years after Christs (peace be upon him) departure from earth.

The trinity, is something not preached by Jesus (peace be upon him), and not mentioned explicitly anywhere in the Bible, apart from the other issues with it, yet is now the core of Christianity.

Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the nature of God the Son and his relationship to God the Father

The council settled, to some degree, the debate within the Early Christian communities regarding the divinity of Christ

One purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of the Son in his relationship to the Father; in particular, whether the Son had been 'begotten' by the Father from his own being, or created as the other creatures out of nothing

Whether Christ was God (as clearly not everyone thought so), if he was the son what was his relation with the father and was he begotten or created, where did the holy spirit fit in etc etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

The core most foundational beliefs of Christianity were settled over 300 years after Christs departure from earth. That is a significant potential change and that's the kind of things we really need to focus on.

Another example is homosexuality, once a sin, then accepted, and now it's ok for the clergy.

Have the scriptures changed, are they what they originally were?

If the Prophets were to come to earth now, would they recognise the religious beliefs and practices of those who claim to follow them as what they actually originally preached?

These are the things we should be focussing on if we are going to ask have religions changed.

Peace.

[glo]

Nowadays people only depict the Prophet for the sole reason of ridicule, offence and media attention.

I take your point.

[Pygoscelis]

It's not quite as simple as that. Nowadays people only depict the Prophet for the sole reason of ridicule, offence and media attention. In previous times where people may have done it, the culture behind it was probably completely different. It's misinformation like this that makes us defensive and rightly so.

That is an entirely self full filling circle. People who may draw the Prophet in a kind or flattering light are either muslims themselves, and forbidden from doing so, or non-muslims who want to avoid offending muslims. No matter how I draw Mohammed, Muslims are going to be offended by my doing so and call it ridicule, offence and media attention.

And those who do set out to draw him for ridicule, offence, and media attention do so primarily because they know muslims take offence to it. They see Mohammed as a mere historical figure (not a prophet) and the find it ridiculous that people would demand he not be depicted, as if there were people who demanded Ghandi or Napoleon never be depicted, or Jesus. They find it ridiculous, so they ridicule it. It is a perfect target for trolling.

And then when this is met not with people rolling their eyes, ignoring this, or calling these people jerks, but instead with death threats, that actually changes it from mere rude trolling to a pretty important statement on free speech and not bowing to violence. When the Mohammed cartoons were drawn they were drawn in bad taste and I wouldn't have supported them. When people reacted with a murderous response, I started to support them being published. It is like a kid who recklessly plays baseball in the backyard and breaks a man's window and the man then comes out of his house and kills the boy. That baseball becomes a symbol of more than just recklessly breaking a widow.

How can anyone create a depiction of the prophet when no one knows what he looks like?

The same way they do Jesus and Moses and Noah and every other prophet or scriptural figure.

[Muhammad]

Greetings Pygoscelis,

The key point I was addressing in my post was regarding the perceived change in behaviour towards this action, in particular the over-simplified suggestion that what was initially tolerated is now drastically replaced with death threats. Firstly, as already mentioned by sister Insaanah, the action was never allowed in Islam in the first place. This shows we are not talking about a change in ruling in the religion. It also means that anybody depicting the Prophet is automatically doing something offensive and wrong regardless of what their intentions are.

If we say that at one time some Muslims might have drawn the Prophet as part of artwork or for whatever other purpose, then it is not as simple to compare that with what is predominantly the case today and use that as a basis to say attitudes have changed. This is not correct because (1) it was always wrong from the beginning and (2) the two things being compared are very different anyway. The only drawings of the Prophet nowadays seem to be aimed at provoking a negative reaction. If such drawings occurred in earlier times, they would have received a negative reaction then too.

The points you raise seem to be addressing a different aspect to this discussion.

[Mustafa2012]

I think the title of this thread is also inaccurate.

It's not religions that change their mind.

It's individuals that change their mind.

Individual decisions taken by followers of any religion (which are opposed to the mainstream view) are not always representative of the rest of the followers or other leaders of a religion, nor should they be made to seem that way.

[greenhill]

Personally, my experience in the matter is that the laws (for islam anyway) has always been there, unchanged in its essence. As others have expressed, what has varied are the interpretations of these laws.

Bringing the matter up like this prompts my mind to see it from my own experience in the matter. Although (as in another thread 'Lonely in a crowd') Malaysia has been a muslim country for so long, many things became mixed up between tradition and sunnah. It is not that the religion changed, but the awareness in the difference between them and the efforts put in to convey 'findings' to the community will appear as thought he religion has changed to the eyes of the observer.

In fact nothing has changed, but merely the action to 'correct' our errors can be construed as 'change' when in fact it isn't strictly speaking, change.

My 2 cents worth.

Peace