Abdul Sattar Edhi is recognized in the Google Doodle today

[MillCreek]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/02/28/abdul-sattar-edhi-89-birthday-pakistan-angel-of-mercy-father-teresa/

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/02/abdul-sattar-edhi-google-honours-angel-mercy-170227140720826.html

http://www.vox.com/technology/2017/2/28/14751504/abdul-sattar-edhi-pakistani-doctor-google-doodle

I had never heard of the man before today, but he was certainly a friend to his fellow man.

[Perd Hapley]

A Muslim by birth, Edhi said in 2009 that he had “never been a very religious person”. When asked why he helped people of all creeds, casts and religions he replied: “Because my ambulance is more Muslim than you.”

Interesting. Also, the Telegraph can't spell "castes"? 

[230RN]

 
    

[agricola]

Interesting. Also, the Telegraph can't spell "castes"?  

The amount of hacks that they have laid off in the past ten to fifteen years is frightening.  

edit:  as for Edhi, he came up with one of the best quotes about religion - well, modern religion anyway - in an interview he did with the British journalist Peter Oborne a few years ago:

Once again, this practice brought him into conflict with religious leaders. They claimed that adopted children could not inherit their parents' wealth. Mr Edhi told them their objections contradicted the supreme idea of religion, declaring: "Beware of those who attribute petty instructions to God."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8440920/The-day-I-met-Abdul-Sattar-Edhi-a-living-saint.html

[230RN]

The amount of hacks that they have laid off in the past ten to fifteen years is frightening.  

edit:  as for Edhi, he came up with one of the best quotes about religion - well, modern religion anyway - in an interview he did with the British journalist Peter Oborne a few years ago:

Once again, this practice brought him into conflict with religious leaders. They claimed that adopted children could not inherit their parents' wealth. Mr Edhi told them their objections contradicted the supreme idea of religion, declaring: "Beware of those who attribute petty instructions to God."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8440920/The-day-I-met-Abdul-Sattar-Edhi-a-living-saint.html

Good one !

[Perd Hapley]

Beware of those who excuse sin by thinking God won't care about something so "petty." (Hint: name something humans do that isn't petty in the eyes of God.)

[Angel Eyes]

Once again, this practice brought him into conflict with religious leaders. They claimed that adopted children could not inherit their parents' wealth.

Those leaders appear to be correct:

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

In Islamic law, only relatives with a legitimate blood relationship to the deceased are entitled to inherit. Thus, illegitimate children and adopted children have no shares in inheritance.

I'm curious as to what other parts of Shariah law were considered "petty" by Ehdi.

[agricola]

Those leaders appear to be correct:

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

I'm curious as to what other parts of Shariah law were considered "petty" by Ehdi.

One would imagine the issue there is not that Edhi was saying that adopted children were entitled to inherit, its that the religious leaders were saying that adopted children couldn't inherit even if they were specifically left property.  Given that most of those children he rescued would go to childless couples, and given that those couples' property would probably default to "the state" on their death (represented by the local leadership, religious and otherwise) in the absence of any "valid" heirs, it is an important issue and there is not clear guidance on it in the Quran (though the suggestion in other parts of that sura is that something that is good is approved of by God).  

[230RN]

Could a corporation be a valid heir?

Could the "cut off" adoptees be principals in that corporation?

Beware of those who excuse sin by thinking God won't care about something so "petty." (Hint: name something humans do that isn't petty in the eyes of God.)

I'm tempted to answer fistful's question --which I'm not sure I understand anyway -- with "Eating a clam."

Or a lobster.

Trouble is, fistful always comes back with a boatload of citations from various theocratic sources... which I automatically dismiss anyhow.  

However, I came here not to change Scripture, but to point out that what goes into a man's mouth is not unclean, but what comes out might be.    

Terry, 230RN

[Perd Hapley]

Terry,

What I'm saying is, a lot of commands found in the Bible (and I assume also in the Quran) may seem like petty concerns. The gentleman in question seems to be saying that, if something seems petty, then God must not care about it.

Scriptural arguments aside, how is anything too small for God to notice or care about? It's not as if He only has the time or mental capacity to care about the really big stuff. He's God, right?

It's like the argument that, if there is a God, he's obviously not concerned with a few backward little creatures on some unremarkable planet. It might be a realistic argument, if God were as limited, or as uncaring as we are.

[230RN]

The gentleman in question seems to be saying that, if something seems petty, then God must not care about it.

Without reading his mind (or examining his other writings), I rather think he's actually saying that many proscriptions are generated by the proponents of ______________ religion and not necessarily by a deity.

Mainly, to my way of thinking (and possibly his), for control purposes, but that's just been my long term observation of the whole religious phenomenon.

He seems to be cautioning about that rather than stating "if something seems petty, then God must not care about it."

But that's a difference in perspective between you and me, and we've gone over things like this before to no particular conclusion, even though we both respect each others' viewpoints.

Terry

Edited to add italics

[Hawkmoon]

Given that most of those children he rescued would go to childless couples, and given that those couples' property would probably default to "the state" on their death (represented by the local leadership, religious and otherwise) in the absence of any "valid" heirs, it is an important issue and there is not clear guidance on it in the Quran (though the suggestion in other parts of that sura is that something that is good is approved of by God).  

Well, there you go. Adoption is bad. End of discussion.

(Says me, whose brother must be extremely "upset" that I adopted late in life so he won't inherit anything from me even though my wife predeceased me.)

[agricola]

Without reading his mind (or examining his other writings), I rather think he's actually saying that many proscriptions are generated by the proponents of ______________ religion and not necessarily by a deity.

Mainly, to my way of thinking (and possibly his), for control purposes, but that's just been my long term observation of the whole religious phenomenon.

He seems to be cautioning about that rather than stating "if something seems petty, then God must not care about it."

But that's a difference in perspective between you and me, and we've gone over things like this before to no particular conclusion, even though we both respect each others' viewpoints.

Terry

Edited to add italics

Well exactly.  If God wanted to go after cartoonists, He could quite easily do it himself.

[230RN]

It may be true that people might use the "excuse" that G-d doesn't care about petty things.  "Therefore I can do them."  So the point fistful made has not been missed.

But that's why at least one religious system has "mortal" sins and "venial" sins.  Committing the former condemns one to hell if it absolution (cleansing) is not obtained, and the latter gets one a term in the heavenly pokey called purgatory --again, if the sin is not absolved.

I suppose the civil parallel is the classification of felonious crimes versus misdemeanors.

But I don't think that's what was meant in the subject quotation.  I think what he meant was beware of people falsely claiming the authority of G-d.

Which to me, is itself a mortal sin.

Terry