Fatwa Forbids Going To Mars

[notme]

http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1621020#bmb=1

2.20.2014, 11:19 AM

Islamic authority issues fatwa forbidding travel to Mars

The United Arab Emirates' Islamic authority has a clear, urgent message for Muslims: Don't go to Mars.

The General Authority of Islamic Affairs and Endowment (GAIAE) has issued a fatwa prohibiting participation or promotion of one-way trips to the red planet, the Khaleej Times reported Wednesday.

“Such a one-way journey poses a real risk to life, and that can never be justified in Islam,” the committee said. “There is a possibility that an individual who travels to planet Mars may not be able to remain alive there, and is more vulnerable to death.”

A non-Muslim friend posted an article about this on Facebook, and I expected to be from The Onion or something like that. I can't stop laughing. My sides hurt.....

I think I'll start issuing fatwas at random

Edited February 22, 2014 by notme

[CLynn]

This is for real?  or a joke?

[notme]

This is for real? or a joke?

Apparently the US media thinks it is real. I think the joke is on them.

[Faithfully999]

Bismillaah ir Rahmaan ir Rahiim  In The Name of Allaah The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful   As salaamu alaykum  The Peace (of Allaah) Be Upon You.

 

 

They're selling something to the people. We'll have to wait and see. 

 

 

 

  Mars One encourages Muslims to join red planet mission despite 'Fatwa'

 

 

 

Muslims have "a rich tradition of exploration" and "Fatwa" on red planet mission should be cancelled, Mars One claims

 

 

 

 

 

Wa salaam.   Faithfully999

 

[notme]

If I didn't have family, I'd have been among the first to sign up to go. I'm still trying to figure out a way to be involved in these projects.

[Little_Socrates]

http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1621020#bmb=1

A non-Muslim friend posted an article about this on Facebook, and I expected to be from The Onion or something like that. I can't stop laughing. My sides hurt.....

I think I'll start issuing fatwas at random

 

(bismillah)

  (salam)

 

In the name of God the most beneficent the most merciful,

 

The General Authority of Islamic Affairs In Athens, going of the verdict passed by the Islamic Authority and Endowment in the United Arab Emirates,

hereby prohibits the travel and stay in all nations having a Muslim majority population. 

 

There is a possibility that an individual who travels to a Muslim majority nation may not be able to remain alive there, and is more vulnerable to death. Such travel poses a risk to life, and that can never be justified in Islam. 

 

-Ayatollah Socrates Athensi 

 

(wasalam) 

[Abu Izrael]

Lol since when does anyone get their fatwas from Dubai?

[notme]

Lol since when does anyone get their fatwas from Dubai?

No kidding! The media sure is having fun with it though.

[Reza]

Yeah, didn't you guys know?  Fatwas are put in fortune cookies there now. 

 

Update:  Fortune cookies are haram. 

[hasanhh]

Dubai ---as I heard on western media a couple of years ago and a couple of brothers have said this is true:

 

"Dubai is wide open".

 

 

 

Oh, and what is the Dubai fatwa on horse racing?

Edited February 26, 2014 by hasanhh

[robbenmessi1010]

The man who made this fatwa is an idiot who has never read Quran. Allah says in surah Al-rahman:

 “O assembly of Jinn and men! If you can pass beyond the zones of the heavens and the Earth, then pass! Not without authority shall you be able to pass!” [Sûrah al-Rahmân: 33]

[Gypsy]

This fatwa is talking about one way trip to Mars. 

 

What if you have a return ticket back to Earth? I assume that should be fine. 

[Marbles]

If science and exploration was left to the religious we'd still be living in the Stone Age. Enough said.

[Brained]

I wouldn't be too surprised if this turned out to be true, considering the precedent the enlightened Wahhabi scholars have set.

[Jahangiram]

If science and exploration was left to the religious we'd still be living in the Stone Age. Enough said.

Nonsense, this is embarrassing coming from you, thought you'd know your history better.

 

You lot don't really have analytical skills either, the man was simply saying if there was a risk to your life its better not to explore mars. A logical analysis any naturalist would consider. 

Edited March 2, 2014 by Jahangiram

[notme]

Nonsense, this is embarrassing coming from you, thought you'd know your history better.

 

You lot don't really have analytical skills either, the man was simply saying if there was a risk to your life its better not to explore mars. A logical analysis any naturalist would consider. 

 

But there is risk to life in EVERYTHING!  Tell me something worthwhile that humans do that doesn't involve ANY risk of death?  I drive a little metal box down a highway at 50 mph with a bunch of other speeding metal boxes every day to go to work in a skys[Edited Out]er that might fall on me in the next earthquake.  I eat things I could choke on or might be contaminated while sitting in a house that might burn down while I sleep. 

 

And don't even get me started on the risks of living in certain predominantly Muslim parts of this planet.

[Brained]

Something something Mickey Mouse dajjal...something something PIkachu shaytaan.

 

[Maryaam]

The fatwa business must be struggling to find new material if the "Islamic" authorities have become this desperate.  

[Reza]

If science and exploration was left to the religious we'd still be living in the Stone Age. Enough said.

 

I thought some pretty top scientific minds in human history have been religious Muslims.  Or is this just another involuntary liberal verbal spasm of yours?

Edited March 2, 2014 by magma

[notme]

^ I think it was a generalization about present-day "religious" leaders.

[Reza]

He needs to be more specific.  It just comes across as a blanket anti-religion rant, kind of like thinking religion and science only cross during the Inquistion or through the words of cave mullahs.

 

He's from a Pakistani background, and his hatred of "mullahism" is very strong, which leads to his anger.  It's a genuine feeling, and I get it.  Religious leaders have become largely poisoned for him.  And guess what, I agree.  I hate the lot of them too.  Especially most of the ones in his country.

 

But the danger is in these sweeping statements and distrust of all who bare religious leadership.  In Iran, under an Islamic system, science has flourished far beyond than it was decades ago.  Iran is first in rate of scientific output.  Even Wikipedia goes into it:

 

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

 

But I guess that is all swept under the rug.  Or a million excuses made that it has nothing to do with Islam or the religious leadership, etc. 

 

So I just think he should be accurate, and say instead:  "If science and exploration was left to the religious unenlightened ones in our societies, we would still be living in the Stone Age. Enough said."

[notme]

Thank you for the clarification, magma.

[Marbles]

Nonsense, this is embarrassing coming from you, thought you'd know your history better.

I thought some pretty top scientific minds in human history have been religious Muslims.  Or is this just another involuntary liberal verbal spasm of yours?

 

There is no denying countless Muslim scientists-cum-philosophers from the middle ages were devout believers but they regularly had to suffer at the hands of established religious authority. The opposition came from bona fide fatwa-issuing ulema not illiterate laymen. Ibn Sina or Ibn Rushd, many if not most major Muslim scientists from the Golden Age of Islam had fatwas of Kufr levelled against them for being dangerous deviants.

 

The situation was even more acute in Christendom. Galileo or Copernicus, we know the stories well.

 

So history doesn't affirm mainstream and bona fide religious scholars really helping science and innovation. Quite the opposite.

 

You lot don't really have analytical skills either, the man was simply saying if there was a risk to your life its better not to explore mars. A logical analysis any naturalist would consider.

 

This discussion could be held within the parameters of general logic and common sense without attempting to cement the legitimacy of an opinion with a religious decree. But contemporary divines see it fit to poke their fatwa-tipped noses into everything even though some topics do not fall within the ambit of their knowledge. They have always done so and thus knowingly or inadvertently hampered discovery and innovation in the name of God. And this is my entire point.

 

"Religious" is an adjective that doesn't always denote positive ideas. Its value is determined by what it is standing against. Sometimes it becomes the source of negativity. This is not a controversial or hateful thing to say. It's just calling a spade a spade.

^ I think it was a generalization about present-day "religious" leaders.

 

It was a generalisation abiout a certain attitude of religious scholars (or those who justify their positions by an Islamic shield) who reject new ideas, and discovery and innovation in the name of God. They existed in the past and they exist today.

Edited March 2, 2014 by Marbles

[notme]

^ Thanks. My knowledge of history of "Islamic" societies is not that thorough, but I knew for sure that a lot of modern day "religious" scholars don't know their tarsals from titanium but are happy to legislate on whatever is the hot topic du jour.

[Reza]

It was a generalisation abiout a certain attitude of religious scholars (or those who justify their positions by an Islamic shield) who reject new ideas, and discovery and innovation in the name of God. They existed in the past and they exist today.

 

Yeah, I agree with this.  But Iran is a modern day exception, and I want you to acknowledge that.  And no excuses.  The Wiki link contains numerous references.  So you're statement from now on should have an asterisk by it. 

[Jahangiram]

There is no denying countless Muslim scientists-cum-philosophers from the middle ages were devout believers but they regularly had to suffer at the hands of established religious authority. The opposition came from bona fide fatwa-issuing ulema not illiterate laymen. Ibn Sina or Ibn Rushd, many if not most major Muslim scientists from the Golden Age of Islam had fatwas of Kufr levelled against them for being dangerous deviants.

 

The situation was even more acute in Christendom. Galileo or Copernicus, we know the stories well.

 

So history doesn't affirm mainstream and bona fide religious scholars really helping science and innovation. Quite the opposite.

 

 

This discussion could be held within the parameters of general logic and common sense without attempting to cement the legitimacy of an opinion with a religious decree. But contemporary divines see it fit to poke their fatwa-tipped noses into everything even though some topics do not fall within the ambit of their knowledge. They have always done so and thus knowingly or inadvertently hampered discovery and innovation in the name of God. And this is my entire point.

 

"Religious" is an adjective that doesn't always denote positive ideas. Its value is determined by what it is standing against. Sometimes it becomes the source of negativity. This is not a controversial or hateful thing to say. It's just calling a spade a spade.

 

It was a generalisation against a certain attitude of religious scholars (or those who justify their positions by an Islamic shield) who are afraid of discovery and innovation. They existed in the past and they exist today.

Its nice you bring those two examples, people who were anathametised because of their peculiar philosophies; a controversy that is totally unrelated to science (i.e. empirical observations of the material world for the advancement of medicine and other fields of knowledge). This is the same trap your Pakistani compatriots and liberal turds fall into as well when they criticize the likes of al-Ghazali (case in point Pervez hoodbhoy): they're always conflating criticism of philosophy with science in general, which is a foolish analysis. This is the same ghazali that encouraged observations in astronomy and cultivating fields of knowledge in general like mathematics.

 

With this foolhardy view of Islamic history we'd have to be sweeping all those orthodox muslims who made advances in engineering and opthamology under the rug - an unforgivable crime.

 

And a fatwa is a non-binding legal opinion, so no facts are going to be hampered.

Edited March 2, 2014 by Jahangiram

[Marbles]

Its nice you bring those two examples, people who were anathametised because of their peculiar philosophies; a controversy that is totally unrelated to science (i.e. empirical observations of the material world for the advancement of medicine and other fields of knowledge). This is the same trap your Pakistani compatriots and liberal turds fall into as well when they criticize the likes of al-Ghazali (case in point Pervez hoodbhoy): they're always conflating criticism of philosophy with science in general, which is a foolish analysis. This is the same ghazali that encouraged observations in astronomy and cultivating fields of knowledge in general like mathematics.

 

With this foolhardy view of Islamic history we'd have to be sweeping all those orthodox muslims who made advances in engineering and opthamology under the rug - an unforgivable crime.

 

And a fatwa is a non-binding legal opinion, so no facts are going to be hampered.

 

This sounds foolish today. It was the exercise in philosophy (of creating ideas, theories, hypotheses, sets of rules, exceptions, and experimentation where required) that paved the way for what we today strictly call science. Even in Europe early scientists were called 'natural philosophers.'

 

In the Golden Age of Islam too, there were no clear boundaries between philosophers and scientists; the conflict existed between two opposing camps, where were, broadly speaking, rationalist thinkers (philosophy, science) and theological worldview (tasawauf, divine law)

 

Al-Ghazali is not really a representative example because of his intellectual trajectory. He took a U-turn on his views later in life and converted from rational thought to tasawauf, which made him chary of philosophy in general. Even with his acceptance of some branches of science, his attacks on Ibn Rushd and philosophy played a significant role in the death of thought. Perhaps al-Ghazali wasn't aware of the import of his works but as a consequence science also suffered.

 

Today it is easy to delineate (empirical) science and philosophy but they overlapped in the past and in some cases still do. Stem cell research and the philosophical debate surrounding it is one example. And some theologians barge in to mediate as if they know what they are doing LOL.

 

For a record, I will say that historical Muslims have a much better record of working together with religion and science, unlike in Christendom. The relationship between religion and science in historical Muslim society wasn't the same as they had in Christendom. So those liberals who project European conflicts onto Islamic Golden Age are indeed guilty of a faulty reading of history. But I think you have fallen into the same trap of interpretation that you say liberals fall into albeit from a religious angle.

Edited March 2, 2014 by Marbles

[Marbles]

Yeah, I agree with this.  But Iran is a modern day exception, and I want you to acknowledge that.  And no excuses.  The Wiki link contains numerous references.  So you're statement from now on should have an asterisk by it. 

 

Lol. I admire Iran's technological achievements. It proved false the textbook secularist's view that religious practice and scientific advancement can't go hand in hand and that one must suffer at the hands of the other. Yet the sort of science Iran has excelled in was already invented and existed 'out there', long overdue to be taken on, implemented, and where possible, improved. To deny yourself established science would be so Talibanically caveman-like.

 

The test will be when a possibility comes along to invent/discover something new which is perceived as sacrilegious. Say some day there's complete and incontrovertible proof of human evolution, what will the response be? Although some religious scholars have accepted evolution and offer reasonable interpretations to reconcile it with the concept of the first man Adam, most still reject it completely in a knee-jerk manner.

[Reza]

Lol. I admire Iran's technological achievements. It proved false the textbook secularist's view that religious practice and scientific advancement can't go hand in hand and that one must suffer at the hands of the other. Yet the sort of science Iran has excelled in was already invented and existed 'out there', long overdue to be taken on, implemented, and where possible, improved. To deny yourself established science would be so Talibanically caveman-like.

 

The test will be when a possibility comes along to invent/discover something new which is perceived as sacrilegious. Say some day there's complete and incontrovertible proof of human evolution, what will the response be? Although some religious scholars have accepted evolution and offer reasonable interpretations to reconcile it with the concept of the first man Adam, most still reject it completely in a knee-jerk manner.

 

I guess a backhanded acknowledgement is all you'll give, eh?

[baqar]

Say some day there's complete and incontrovertible proof of human evolution, what will the response be? 

 

Brother, some theories in science are harder to prove in the laboratory than others.

 

Fortunately for creationists and Muslims, evolution is at the bottom of that list and probably never will be lab-tested.

 

Anyway, even as far as the more easily testable theories are concerned, many thought to be absolutely solid, have later been overturned.

 

Science is, in effect, changing all the time.

 

So there is no such thing as 'a complete and incontrovertible' proof of human evolution'. 

 

In other words, it will never happen.

 

But even if it does, since we already have 'complete and incontrovertible' proof that God created us from the loins of Adam and Eve (I believe that is the case), then there must be a caveat or qualification within the theory that will be waiting in the wings of discovery .

 

Summing up,

• God exists,
• our Holy Prophet was a true prophet and
• everything he said is true for all time to come.

Therefore, science cannot undo the truth that God has already written down.

 

I am pretty sure I was born of Adam and Eve.

 

And that will be the response from Islamic scholarship when evolution is declared to be the absolute truth - if ever . 

Although some religious scholars have accepted evolution and offer reasonable interpretations to reconcile it with the concept of the first man Adam, most still reject it completely in a knee-jerk manner.

 

As far as I am aware, there is no real contradiction.

 

Just because you and I may have been born of Adam and Eve does not necessarily mean that evolution is entirely wrong.

 

The laws of physics break down at the Big Bang, if it did happen.

 

There is no reason why the laws of biology, to which evolution essentially belongs,  should not have their own breaking-points. 

[notme]

"The Big Bang" does not contradict divine creation.

The more immediate issue being discussed here is whether it is ever right to forbid exploration on religious grounds. Did Allah or any prophet ever say "Don't risk your life to explore new lands"?

Of course we can expand the issue to whether religion contradicts science or restricts scientific inquiry. I have a mind like a scientist - show me your evidence and let me decide what makes sense. This mindset is what brought me to Islam. I don't fear it. Do you?

Edited March 2, 2014 by notme

[baqar]

"The Big Bang" does not contradict divine creation.

 

Quite true, and I never said it did.

 

The more immediate issue being discussed here is whether it is ever right to forbid exploration on religious grounds. Did Allah or any prophet ever say "Don't risk your life to explore new lands"?

 

I know, I was just responding to a point made in another post.

[baqar]

show me your evidence and let me decide what makes sense.  

 

Evidence to being born of Adam and Eve?

 

The only evidence we have are the words of the Quran but I am sorry it will not suffice for acceptance in the corridors of science.

 

As far as I am concerned,the word of God (or the Prophet or our Imams) can never be trumped by any contrary announcements from anyone,however smart of knowledgeable.    

[notme]

As far as I am concerned,the word of God (or the Prophet or our Imams) can never be trumped by any contrary announcements from anyone,however smart of knowledgeable.

But is reinterpretation possible? Adjustment of our understanding to align with strong scientific evidence? I'm not talking about outright contradiction, but a change which is within the range of reasonable interpretation.

I've never seen a contradiction between Islam and science. If one were to be produced, I'm not entirely certain which I would believe.

[baqar]

But is reinterpretation possible? Adjustment of our understanding to align with strong scientific evidence? 

 

In general, it is possible, if there is reason to believe that there was a flaw in the earlier interpretation.

 

As far as evolution is concerned, my understanding is that it has been accepted by most of Islamic scholarship, even without the need  for re-interpretation.

 

The only problem for Islam is the exception to the general principle of evolution i-Adam &  Eve, that cannot be reconciled.

 

And as far as Adam & Eve concerned, there will never be a re-interpretation.

 

We are all descended from them  -  it is final.

 

However, my personal view is that there is a small possibility that some of us may have evolved like other creatures while others are from Adam and Eve.

 

In other words, mankind could be a mix of two separate flows.

 

That is just a hunch - a remote possibility that cannot just be ruled out.

 

Please don't ask me for evidence. It is just a hunch.

 

Be that as it may, Adam and Eve just cannot be set aside. 

 

Another point, as I said earlier, is that evolution is not easily lab-testable.

 

Also, it is not easy for science to prove that exceptions to the general principle of evolution must be totally ruled out.

 

Thankfully, theories come and go.

 

Who knows what fate awaits the theory of evolution in time to come ?  

 

If one were to be produced, I'm not entirely certain which I would believe.

 

Indeed, Islam - or rather our understanding of Islam - could also be wrong, because everyone knows that some hadeethes are controversial.

 

The Quran is also susceptible to varying interpretations. 

 

However, as far as Adam & Eve are concerned, it is much too well established - Islam will never compromise on the subject of Adam & Eve.

 

But  let us remember to talk about it again when that day actually comes, that is, when we find yourselves in a quandary.

Edited March 3, 2014 by baqar