Showing posts with label Judaism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judaism. Show all posts

Thursday, 15 June 2017

Muslims and Jews Explain Shomer Negiah: Why Muslim Men Don't Shake Hands With Women (Non Mahram)


This issue may be brought up in the media or by non-Muslim individuals in the West who consider it to be odd. It's the issue of Muslims not shaking hand with strangers of the opposite sex. Our Jewish friends follow the same practice. They call it Shomer Negiah and they say it goes back to the Bible.

In this video, the Muslims (Nouman Ali Khan and Hamza Yusuf), the Jewish lady (Andrea Grinberg) and a Christian preacher (Paul Washer, who laments at our Western society's departure of valuing touch) really help us to value the teaching of not shaking hands or hugging with members of the opposite sex who you have no familial bond with. It's heart warming as well as sad. Sad because this value for touch and guarding against sensual interactions with strangers of the opposite sex has been lost in the West. Watch the video, you'll appreciate and/or understand the Islamic and Jewish teachings on this more.

This vide is also uploaded here and here

Jewish prohibition:

The rule is that people of the opposite gender do not even touch each other, let alone shake hands, unless they are husband and wife, siblings, or children with parents and grandparents.

What is the rationale for the Jewish prohibition on men and women touching, let alone shaking hands?

The prohibition of touching (in Hebrew negiah) goes back to the Book of
Leviticus (18:6 and 18:19) and was developed further in the Talmud. A person who observes this prohibition is often called a shomer negiаh. It applied not only to close contact such as hugging and kissing, but also to shaking hands or patting on the back. The practice is generally followed by traditionally observant Jews, both men and women, including Hassidic Jews, and those who are referred to as Haredim. It is also observed within the Modern Orthodox community depending on how traditional the person is. [Chabad.org]

Muslim scholar teaches the prohibition:

It is not permissible for a man who believes in Allaah and His Messenger to put his hand in the hand of a women who is not permissible for him or who is not one of his mahrams. Whoever does that has wronged himself (i.e., sinned).

It was narrated that Ma’qil ibn Yassaar said: the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “For one of you to be stabbed in the head with an iron needle is better for him than that he should touch a woman who is not permissible for him.”  [IsalmQA]

Jewish explanation:

To remove any myths, it can be said emphatically that it has nothing to do with impurity, or with the social or religious status of people who encounter other people.

The reason is a rather complex, even Freudian rationale. It is felt that touching a person of the opposite gender is essentially a sexual act, or at least the precursor of a sexual act. While it is true that most handshakes between men and women do not lead to sexual relations and are not even contemplated, sexual relations always begin with touching. It is also true that a handshake does communicate feelings albeit on a superficial level.
It has been recognized however, that there are many instances in which men and women can and perhaps even should, touch each other. This would apply to saving a person who is facing a life-threatening danger. Members of the health professions may obviously touch members of the opposite gender in the practice of their discipline, as may hairdressers or physical therapists as a necessary component in the practice of theirs.

Traditional Judaism, unlike some other faiths, regards touching as a highly sensual act. It takes the view that it is not only an important part of marital relations, but one that is only permitted in those relations. To shake hands as a casual courtesy and nothing more is the first step leading to the desensitization of sensuality between husband and wife.
Rabbi Baruch Emmanuel Erdstein of Safed, who holds a degree in anthropology from the University of Michigan, states that "the casual touching of members of the opposite gender can only dull our sensitivity to the sexual power of touch."


А Further Thought

Quite apart from the sexual analysis of some commentators, some commentators point out that an individual's body is personal, and at times to even touch is an intrusion into one's personal dignity. According to this approach, a man should not touch a woman, nor a woman touch a man, out of respect for the space of each other as individuals—especially individuals of the opposite gender who should reserve a certain level of privacy with respect to each other.
[Chabad.org]

The Book Without Doubt - The Quran

Did Peter Believe in the Trinity?

Dawah to Swedish (?) Atheist/Agnostic Wanting to Deport Muslims

Ex Christian: Christian Claims of Miracles Were Fake and Tricks

Refuting Joe Rogan's Comments About Islam







Facebook

Tuesday, 5 January 2016

Re Who is the Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14


A few quick points of reflection for Jonathan McLatchie in relation to his response to my video on the subject featuring rabbi Yisroel, rabbi Tovia Singer and Dr. Shabir Ally.


Jonathan, you seemed to miss the point rabbi Yisroel made [from time frame 1.20] - the Son of Man title is explained in the book of Daniel as a reference to a group of people. A glaring problem you encounter is your own Scripture as it explains the Son of Man reference as 'saints of the Most High' (see Daniel 7:18 also look at 22) . Thus it's clearly not talking about an individual and neither is it expressing the idea of a divine Messiah.

I will quote rabbi Yisroel's written comments, notice his incredulity at the Trinitarian argument as it defies the Bible's explanation:

This is incredible! This is one of the few passages in scripture that come along with a commentary. Scripture itself explains this passage and the “son of man” of Daniel 7:13 is not the Messiah – it is the people of Israel!

The scripture informs us that after Daniel had seen the vision he approaches an angel and asks for a clarification of all that he had seen (7:16). The angel replies that the four beasts represented four kingdoms, and the final dominion will be given to the “holy ones of the most high” (7:18) – a reference to the nation of Israel. The angel elaborates further by telling us that the dominion under all of the heavens is given to “the nation of holy ones of the most high” (7:27) – again a clear reference to the nation of Israel. According to the angel, each of the beasts represents a different kingdom, while the son of man in Daniel’s vision represents Israel. The Christian assertion that this passage refers to the Messiah is plainly refuted by scripture itself.

Thus, the Trinitarian in appealing to this passage in support of the idea of a divine Messiah is arguing against the angel's explanation in the book of Daniel itself.

Jonathan you claimed the earliest exegetes believed the Son of Man title was a Messianic reference. This is not accurate as the earliest explanation is above - it's the explanation within the book of Daniel itself. You also cited the Septuagint, come on Jonathan, what has that got to do with anything here? Deal with the original language of the text.

Similarly in Aramaic, "son of man" is the usual designation for "man," and occurs in the inscriptions in Syriac, Mandaic, Talmudic, and other dialects (see Nathanael Schmidt in Cheyne and Black, "Encyc. Bibl." iv. 4707-4708). In Dan. vii. 13, the passage in which it occurs in Biblical Aramaic, it certainly connotes a "human being." Many see a Messianic significance in this verse, but in all probability the reference is to an angel with a human appearance, perhaps Michael. [Jewish Encyclopaedia]

So the question here Jonathan, where did this misunderstanding come from? It seems the problems and confusion arose due to the Greek translators:

In the Gospels the title occurs eighty-one times. Most of the recent writers (among them being II. Lietzmann) have come to the conclusion that Jesus, speaking Aramaic, could never have designated himself as the "son of man" in a Messianic, mystic sense, because the Aramaic term never implied this meaning. Greek translators coined the phrase, which then led, under the influence of Dan. vii. 13 and the Logos gospel, to the theological construction of the title which is basic to the Christology of the Church. To this construction reference is made in Abbahu's controversial saying in Ta'an. 65b. Indeed, examination of many of thepassages shows that in the mouth of Jesus the term was an equivalent for the personal pronoun "I." [Jewish Encyclopaedia]

Jonathan, just look at the simplicity of the explanation which militates against the Trinitarian interpretation. It's straight forward and Biblical - it's all contained within Daniel 7. Contrast that with the convoluted hermeneutics you are engaging in to convince folk the Son of Man title suggests a divine Messiah. /this contrast is stark and it's telling.

I have previously posted Reza Aslan's comments on the Son of Man title

Look, at the end of the day, there is no skin off my nose, I know Jesus p is not Divine. I repudiate the Trinity idea. An idea which Trinitarian scholars tacitly admit is a failed belief in their affirmation that most Christians are heretics and/or disbelievers in the Trinity. That video is for the benefit of Trinitarians and those who are being courted by Trinitarians. It's clear the title Son of Man is not a reference to divinity. I'd like you to make a concerted and conscious effort to put pride and any other hindrance to objective analysis to one side and  reflect on the points in the video as well as the supplementary material in this blog post. It's absolutely vital one does not associate partners with God. Sure, I know there's a ton of emotional preaching around the idea that Jesus is God and the vicarious atonement belief but emotion does not make something true, right?

Being led by emotion and pride in order to defend an idea (Trinity) which is described as idolatry by Jewish rabbis is really playing with fire - regardless of who you are. You will have to answer to God Almighty if you continue ascribing such beliefs to God. Please look into it sans pride and the emotional baggage surrounding it.

I pray you have a good 2016.


A few miscellaneous points

The picture you used in your blog, Jonathan, of a Caucasian man on what appears to be clouds is of interest as it brings to mind a powerful point. Do you believe that to be a depiction of Jesus? Do depictions of this nature not represent  the artists' idealisation of how a divine human being would look and thus betraying the artists' racial and aesthetic prejudices? Which in turn is a powerful psychological tool for racial superiority and inferiority?

This is another problem in Christian culture. A culture which is immersed in imagery of Jesus p and thus a culture which effectively sends out subconscious messages of racial superiority and inferiority. This would equally apply to cultures depicting Jesus as a Black man too.

This is an elephant at the back of the room when it comes to racial equality within Christian societies.


I skimmed through your article and this comment leapt out:

 A further reason for thinking the son of Man title is probably an authentic reference used by Jesus is the use of it in John's Gospel as well as the Synoptics (thus giving independent attestation)

You appear to intimate you believe material exclusive to John's Gospel is not as credible. Jonathan can explain his reasoning behind the comment, perhaps he was just trying to convince the sceptic. Either way, I'd recommend people to get a taster to some of the issues surrounding the reliability of the Gospel of John.

Lastly, I sensed you took umbrage to my closing comment in the video where I theorised you may well have been indoctrinated in your youth into believing the Christian evangelical interpretation. I don't really recall my thought pattern while writing that into the video - I'd like to think it was not a barb directed at you but was written to assist Trinitarians to question what has influenced them to believe in concepts such as the Trinity and Vicarious Atonement. The underlying subconscious reasons and the confirmation biases that are out there.


Reza Aslan and the Son of Man Title

Prophecies about the Messiah

Is the Gospel of John reliable?

What does the Aramaic word name for Jesus tell us?

Reza Aslan on Gospel Writers, Luke and Matthew

Jews had their versions of AlQaeda and ISIS (Extremists)

Title "Son of God" does not mean Divinity

More about the Paraclete

Sharia Law against terrorism

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam


Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk



Saturday, 22 March 2014

Polygamy in Christianity and Judaism

Polygamy is not a practice limited to the religion of Islam; rather, it is something well-known in the history of the People of the Book, the Jews and the Christians, as well.  It is only in later times that their religious men frowned upon it or forbade it outright.  However, when we look into the early history of these religions, we will find that it was at least an acceptable practice, if not encouraged.
 
Polygamy in Judaism
 
Polygamy existed among the Israelites before the time of Moses, who continued the institution without imposing any limit on the number of marriages which a Hebrew husband might contract. 
 
Let us look at some of the verses from the Old Testament that allow polygamy:
 
In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.
 
In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines.
 
In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
 
In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.
 
In Deuteronomy 21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons...."
 
The Jewish Encyclopedia states "While there is no evidence of a polyandrous state in primitive Jewish society, polygamy seems to have been a well-established institution, dating from the most ancient times and extending to comparatively modern days "
 
Another common practice was the taking of concubines. In later times, the Talmud of Jerusalem restricted the number by the ability of the husband to maintain the wives properly. Some rabbis, however, counselled that a man should not take more than four wives.  Polygamy was prohibited in Judaism by the rabbis, not by God.  Rabbi Gershom ben Judah forbade polygamy in the 11th century yet polygamy is still in practice among the 180,000 Bedouin of Israel. It is also frequent among Jews living in Yemen, rabbis permitting Jews to marry up to four wives.  In modern Israel, where a wife cannot bear children or is mentally ill, the rabbis give a husband the right to marry a second woman without divorcing his first wife.
 
Polygamy in Christianity
 
History says that Polygamy was practiced among the Christians , it seems that there were some human resolutions that stopped it. In the eighth century Charlemagne, holding power over both church and state, in his own person practiced polygamy. St. Augustine seems to have observed in it no intrinsic immorality or sinfulness, and declared that polygamy was not a crime where it was the legal institution of a country. He wrote in The Good of Marriage (chapter 15, paragraph 17), that polygamy …was lawful among the ancient fathers……..". He declined to judge the patriarchs, but did not deduce from their practice the on going acceptability of polygamy.
 
During the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther said, “I confess for my part that if a man wishes to marry two or more wives, I cannot forbid him for it does not contradict the Scripture.” African churches have long recognized polygamy. Early in its history, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints practiced polygamy in the United States.  Splinter groups left the Church to continue the practice after the Church banned it.  Polygamy among these groups persists today in Utah, neighbouring states, and the spin-off colonies, as well as among isolated individuals with no organized church affiliation.
 
According to Father Eugene Hillman, ‘Nowhere in the New Testament is there any explicit commandment that marriage should be monogamous or any explicit commandment forbidding polygamy.’ 
 
The Church in Rome banned polygamy in order to conform to Greco-Roman culture that prescribed only one legal wife.
 
In the Bible , Jesus never rejected the Old Testament but even allegedly said  "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17-18) .
 
There were some situations that imply that Jesus implicitly approved of  polygamy    according to Matthew 5:17-18 above, we clearly see that Jesus honoured the  Old Testament, and forces Christians to follow the unmodified laws of it that have not been replaced by newer ones in the New Testament.  The Old Testament as we clearly see above does indeed allow polygamy without a shadow of a doubt. There is not a single verse from the New Testament that prohibits polygamy. Jesus' parable allows polygamy between 1 man (the bridegroom) and 10 virgins (5 became his wives and slept with him)!  19:1-12  Jesus didn't ban polygamy.
 
No church council in the earliest Christian centuries opposed polygamy. St. Augustine clearl)'[sic] declared that he did not condemn it. Luther tolerated it and approved of the bigamous status of Philip of Hesse. In 1531 the Anabaptists preached polygamy and the Mormons of today believe in it (see Abd al Ati, The Family Structure in Islam, American Trust Publications, 1977, p 114 : Until this very day, the church in some African countries conducts the marriage of men to more than one wife. In Europe, the attempt to legally enforce monogamy and outlaw polygamy took place as late as the late sixth and early seventh centuries.
 
In Matthew 19:3, Jesus was asked " whether or not it is allowed for a man to divorce his wife.  Jesus immediately referred to the Old Testament for the answer in Matthew 19:4. According to this, man becomes a one flesh with his wife in Matthew 19:5-6, this doesn't mean that the man can't be one flesh with another woman.  He can be one flesh with his first wife, and one flesh with his second wife, and one flesh with his third wife and so on.
 
Excerpted with alterations from: Is it Islam alone that allows polygamy? By May Saleh and Magdy Abd AL-SHafy. See here for the entire article:
 
Polygamy is permissible in Islam, it's not compulsory (Sheikh Kamal El Mekki):

 

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/christians-are-having-dreams-and.html

Invitation to Islam

Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim.

Learn about Islam:
http://www.thedeenshow.com