Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | halov's comments login

The Messenger of Allah said:

"Gabriel continued to recommend me about treating the neighbors kindly and politely so much so that I thought he would order me to make them as my heirs."

"Your smiling in the face of your brother is charity, commanding good and forbidding evil is charity, your giving directions to a man lost in the land is charity for you. Your seeing for a man with bad sight is a charity for you, your removal of a rock, a thorn or a bone from the road is charity for you. Your pouring what remains from your bucket into the bucket of your brother is charity for you."


Depends on how you think of power: a privilege or great responsibility? Power corrupts those who think they deserve it.

"Two of my cousins and I entered the apartment of the Prophet (ﷺ). One of them said: Messenger of Allah, appoint us rulers of some lands that the Almighty and Glorious God has entrusted to thy care. The other also said something similar. He said: We do not appoint to this position one who asks for it nor anyone who is covetous for the same."

"If a dog dies hungry on the banks of the River Euphrates, Umar will be responsible for dereliction of duty." Umar Ibn al Khattab


"If a dog dies hungry on the banks of the River Euphrates, Umar will be responsible for dereliction of duty."

can you explain what it means? English is not my first language and I'm having difficulty getting the meaning out of this sentence.


Paraphrasing - If a dog starves/drowns, the ruler is responsible for their failure to perform their duties (keep the dog safe).

More or less saying everything is the responsibility of the ruler, no matter how small the task, I think.


Thanks :-)


Dereliction of duty means that the person shamefully abandoned or failed to fulfill their obligation.

In this case, it's Umar letting the dog die of hunger instead of keeping the dog well fed.


I see, thanks for explaining :-)


"If you hear of an outbreak of plague in a land, do not enter it; but if the plague breaks out in a place while you are in it, do not leave that place."


As a Muslim HN reader, I never expected to see one of Prophet Mohammed's sayings in a comment. There's a first time for everything I guess!


What is that from and what does it mean?


It's apparently from a muslim religious text. I found this very interesting because it's a rule that covers both self-preservation ("don't enter the infected zone") and quarantine ("if infected, stay where you are"). It's an early containment protocol.

What seems most fascinating to me is that by proscribing this from a religious channel, you can circumvent psychological mechanisms that would otherwise cause people to act in their own self interest - and in this case it actually works for the greater good.


Somewhat earlier, ~1400 BC, the book of Leviticus chapters 13-14 detail quarantine procedures for infectious disease.


Yes it's Islamic. It's a Mohammad's saying (hadith).

Here's the source in Arabic and English:

http://sunnah.com/urn/53720


I wonder whether the cleanliness discipline of Islam (washing before prayers, etc.) has made any difference to public health in Muslim-majority places? Conversely, does the vast yearly Hajj gathering ever have the unintended consequence of spreading epidemics worldwide?


> vast yearly Hajj gathering ever have the unintended consequence of spreading epidemics worldwide?

Hajj epidemiology is indeed a fairly active field.


I grew up in Derbyshire and remember being taught at a young age about the village of Eyam that quarantined itself when the plague arrived on an infected parcel of damp cloth from London.

"It's hard to imagine that the quiet village of Eyam, off the A623 in Derbyshire, could have such a fascinating, yet tragic story to tell. But .... at the end of August 1665 bubonic plague arrived at the house of the village tailor George Viccars, via a parcel of cloth from London. The cloth was damp and was hung out in front of the fire to dry, thus releasing the plague infested fleas. On 7th September 1665, George Viccars, the first plague victim, died of a raging fever. As the plague took hold and decimated the villagers it was decided to hold the church services outdoors at nearby Cucklett Delf and, on the advice of rector William Mompesson and the previous incumbent Thomas Stanley, villagers stayed within the confines of the village to minimize the spread of the disease. Cucklett Delf was also the secret meeting place of sweethearts Emmott Sydall, from Eyam, and Rowland Torre, who was from a neighbouring village. They would call to each other across the rocks, until Emmott Sydall herself became a victim of the plague. Six of the eight Sydall family died, and their neighbours lost nine family members."

"To minimize cross infection, food and other supplies were left outside the village, at either the Boundary Stones, or at Mompesson's Well, high above the village. The Earl of Devonshire, who lived at Chatsworth House, freely donated food and medical supplies. For all other goods, money, as payment, was either purified by the running water in the well or was left in vinegar soaked holes. The Riley graves, close to Riley House Farm and approximately 1/2 mile from the village house the bodies of the husband and six children of farmer Elizabeth Hancock. All died within a week of each other. Because of the high risk of infecting her neighbours she had the traumatic task of burying them all herself. Even more tragic is that the infection probably came to her family when she helped bury another villager's body. Twelve months after the death of George Vicars, the plague was still claiming its victims, and on 25th August 1666 Catherine Mompesson, wife of the recently appointed rector William Mompesson (aged 28) , died of the plague. She had loyally stayed with her husband and tended the sick, only to become a victim herself."

"The Plague in Eyam raged for 14 months and claimed the lives of at least 260 villagers. By 1st November 1666 it had run its course and claimed its last victim. Eyam's selfless villagers, with their strong Christian convictions, had shown immense personal courage and self sacrifice. They had prevented the plague from spreading to other parishes, but many paid the ultimate price for their commitment."

http://www.beautifulbritain.co.uk/htm/outandabout/eyam.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyam


Here's example of using Arabic script to transcribe an European language:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arebica


From my perspective, it's generally the working culture (long working hours) of the country/city/communities that make people "shut-in" - not the fact they order online. What choice you have if you work from 8 am to 9 pm? I assume delivery guys would be "shut-in" as well if their job obligations wouldn't take them outdoors.


It's important that you are not alone with these thoughts. You need someone to talk with you, the person that would understand how you feel and be willing to listen. Then they can share their views with you as well. As previously mentioned, it doesn't have to be a professional - could be a friend, a family member.

If you feel there is no-one or you need more people - I am willing to give you my contact info.


The original news title says

"Turkish court to block Facebook pages insulting Prophet Muhammad"

http://www.trt.net.tr/english/turkey/2015/01/26/turkish-cour...

"Insulting" and "critical" are not the same thing, so the truth is quite twisted in the NY Times article title.


I think most religious people are going to claim that being critical is the same as being insulting. Can you claim that (for example) being critical about Jesus' deeds is not the same as insulting him?


We all draw a line between "critical" and "insulting", but everyone's line is different. What you consider insulting, I might not, and vice-versa. From your link, it sounds like the banned content was the cover of the latest Charlie Hebdo[1]. Personally, I don't find that insulting or critical of Muhammad. Others may think differently, and they have every right to.

But more importantly: Government-enforced censorship bothers me, even when it's of content I find insulting or offensive. I don't like the state deciding what I'm allowed to see or hear. I'm mature enough to make those decisions for myself.

1. https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-...


If we want any kind of constructive interaction, insults must be avoided. Unlike criticism, insult is always malicious, hostile and harmful.


What makes an image malicious, hostile or harmful is still different for each person. I don't see any of that in the latest cover of CH.


Both muslims and their western apologists have such huge issues over it, that anything critical at all including the most highly legitimate comments or use of any form of parody at all is immediately decried as 'racist' (even though a religion is not a race) or 'islamophobic', their favourite snarl word.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: