Turkey: eating left-handed is demonic

[Chessmistress]

An exception is made for physically disabled people who cannot comply with the guidance.

Either it's a sin or it isn't a sin, therefore there cannot be exceptions.
Someone who is into those religious principles could explain me how it works with the exceptions?

[Al-Ismailiyya]

An exception is made for physically disabled people who cannot comply with the guidance.

Either it's a sin or it isn't a sin, therefore there cannot be exceptions.
Someone who is into those religious principles could explain me how it works with the exceptions?

Uh... What? They can't realistically expect a person with no right hand to not eat with their left. Just like how a Muslim can eat pork when they have no other option.

[Chessmistress]

Either it's a sin or it isn't a sin, therefore there cannot be exceptions.
Someone who is into those religious principles could explain me how it works with the exceptions?

Uh... What? They can't realistically expect a person with no right hand to not eat with their left. Just like how a Muslim can eat pork when they have no other option.

Other option being that someone else bring the food into their mouth, using the proper hand. That is very realistic, unless you think that following a religion should be always comfortable and without minor inconvenients.

A muslim eating pork while there aren't other options, is then supposed to take step to purify herself from her sin?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

An exception is made for physically disabled people who cannot comply with the guidance.

Either it's a sin or it isn't a sin, therefore there cannot be exceptions.
Someone who is into those religious principles could explain me how it works with the exceptions?

No, there are exceptions. Allah (SWT) makes this Deen easy for us not hard. 2 examples are what Al-Ismailiyya stated. Others are when a Muslim is ill, he/she can break the fast of Ramadan earlier, and does not have to pray in the conventional Muslim fashion (we can pray sitting or laying down when ill or hurt).

[El-Amin Caliphate]

A muslim eating pork while there aren't other options, is then supposed to take step to purify herself from her sin?

There's no sin of eating pork if there's no other food around and you're starving.

[Al-Ismailiyya]

Uh... What? They can't realistically expect a person with no right hand to not eat with their left. Just like how a Muslim can eat pork when they have no other option.

Other option being that someone else bring the food into their mouth, using the proper hand. That is very realistic, unless you think that following a religion should be always comfortable and without minor inconvenients.

A muslim eating pork while there aren't other options, is then supposed to take step to purify herself from her sin?

Yes. But, as it states in the article, it is not haram to eat with your left hand. It is makruh. Islam has 5 levels of permissibility. Things are not just sin or not sin.

[Chessmistress]

Either it's a sin or it isn't a sin, therefore there cannot be exceptions.
Someone who is into those religious principles could explain me how it works with the exceptions?

No, there are exceptions. Allah (SWT) makes this Deen easy for us not hard. 2 examples are what Al-Ismailiyya stated. Others are when a Muslim is ill, he/she can break the fast of Ramadan earlier, and does not have to pray in the conventional Muslim fashion (we can pray sitting or laying down when ill or hurt).

Therefore the act have a relative importance, what it matters is intentions: I'm wounded at the right hand, then I could use the left hand to take food.
Right?

[Al-Ismailiyya]

No, there are exceptions. Allah (SWT) makes this Deen easy for us not hard. 2 examples are what Al-Ismailiyya stated. Others are when a Muslim is ill, he/she can break the fast of Ramadan earlier, and does not have to pray in the conventional Muslim fashion (we can pray sitting or laying down when ill or hurt).

Therefore the act have a relative importance, what it matters is intentions: I'm wounded at the right hand, then I could use the left hand to take food.
Right?

Sure. You can also use the left hand to take food anyhow.

[Bakery Hill]

Finally some sense.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Finally some sense.

Eh, sense has been going in and out of this topic

[The South Falls]

Finally some sense.

Eh, sense has been going in and out of this topic

Mostly out. Anyway, I believe that people can do whatever, it's their country, but it's stupid that they think that 200 million left-handers are demonic. Yeesh, why are some people in the population forced to be ambidextrous because of something that they cannot control? Many things don't make sense in the world, and another one was just created. I'm just saying that trying ban things that people can't control, like who they love, is wrong.

[Al-Ismailiyya]

Eh, sense has been going in and out of this topic

Mostly out. Anyway, I believe that people can do whatever, it's their country, but it's stupid that they think that 200 million left-handers are demonic. Yeesh, why are some people in the population forced to be ambidextrous because of something that they cannot control? Many things don't make sense in the world, and another one was just created. I'm just saying that trying ban things that people can't control, like who they love, is wrong.

I'm starting to think people aren't actually reading the OP...

It literally says that the fatwa is not legally binding. No one is banning eating with your left hand. Not to say that the fatwa is not ludicrous. Just correcting false info.

[Bakery Hill]

Mostly out. Anyway, I believe that people can do whatever, it's their country, but it's stupid that they think that 200 million left-handers are demonic. Yeesh, why are some people in the population forced to be ambidextrous because of something that they cannot control? Many things don't make sense in the world, and another one was just created. I'm just saying that trying ban things that people can't control, like who they love, is wrong.

I'm starting to think people aren't actually reading the OP...

It literally says that the fatwa is not legally binding. No one is banning eating with your left hand. Not to say that the fatwa is not ludicrous. Just correcting false info.

Of course, so what does the fatwa actually mean?

[The United Remnants of America]

I'm left-handed, I can confirm I'm a Satan-worshipping demon.

Turkey is both accurate and correct

[Al-Ismailiyya]

I'm starting to think people aren't actually reading the OP...

It literally says that the fatwa is not legally binding. No one is banning eating with your left hand. Not to say that the fatwa is not ludicrous. Just correcting false info.

Of course, so what does the fatwa actually mean?

Fatwas are recommendations. Legally, it holds no actual bearing. Still idiotic for a state body to spew this nonsense, though.

[Bakery Hill]

Of course, so what does the fatwa actually mean?

Fatwas are recommendations. Legally, it holds no actual bearing. Still idiotic for a state body to spew this nonsense, though.

Isn't there the implication that according to the clerics involved, refusal to follow such a recommendation means Bad News in the hereafter?

[Al-Ismailiyya]

Fatwas are recommendations. Legally, it holds no actual bearing. Still idiotic for a state body to spew this nonsense, though.

Isn't there the implication that according to the clerics involved, refusal to follow such a recommendation means Bad News in the hereafter?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Like I said, eating with your left hand is makruh, not haram, iirc.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

God is somewhere above and beyond, that even entertaining the thought that it isn't just an obsolete superstition. A being as mighty as the believers would have it has no need for the adulation and prayers of mortals, no more than a man has need for the worship of bacteria. The nation, however, is here and now, always in need of your two hands and mind.

Someone who places superstition above duty towards nation cannot be trusted to carry it out without question when it might conflict with his religious beliefs.

I'm not here to get into a discussion on whether there is a god or if they should be prayed to. I am asking why Muslims are called out specifically for holding a belief that is not at all uncommon even among Western "heroes" such as Chris Kyle, a man who was worshiped as a god by many Americans and had a movie created about him. He specifically says that he holds the order of importance to be "God, country, family". This is a man who was a chief petty officer in the Navy, served 4 tours in combat, and received a silver star and 4 bronze stars. Is he to be criticized in the same manner that you are doing so to Muslims? Or is it different because he is a Christian white man?

I do not necessarily approve of silly superstitions that even fellow Western white men of distinction hold. Organized religion of any kind shouldn't have a place in modern society, being a silly superstition at best and a dangerous delusion at worst.

Mind that it's not God whom I have a problem with, but his fan clubs, and especially the leaders of those fan clubs.

[Al-Ismailiyya]

I'm not here to get into a discussion on whether there is a god or if they should be prayed to. I am asking why Muslims are called out specifically for holding a belief that is not at all uncommon even among Western "heroes" such as Chris Kyle, a man who was worshiped as a god by many Americans and had a movie created about him. He specifically says that he holds the order of importance to be "God, country, family". This is a man who was a chief petty officer in the Navy, served 4 tours in combat, and received a silver star and 4 bronze stars. Is he to be criticized in the same manner that you are doing so to Muslims? Or is it different because he is a Christian white man?

I do not necessarily approve of silly superstitions that even fellow Western white men of distinction hold. Organized religion of any kind shouldn't have a place in modern society, being a silly superstition at best and a dangerous delusion at worst.

Mind that it's not God whom I have a problem with, but his fan clubs, and especially the leaders of those fan clubs.

So, you believe that anyone who "whose primary loyalty is to their creed rather than the secular state and Western civilization" is not "part of Western culture or loyal to it"? So, literally a good majority of the West? Good to know. Makes no sense whatsoever but good to know.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

I do not necessarily approve of silly superstitions that even fellow Western white men of distinction hold. Organized religion of any kind shouldn't have a place in modern society, being a silly superstition at best and a dangerous delusion at worst.

Mind that it's not God whom I have a problem with, but his fan clubs, and especially the leaders of those fan clubs.

So, you believe that anyone who "whose primary loyalty is to their creed rather than the secular state and Western civilization" is not "part of Western culture or loyal to it"? So, literally a good majority of the West? Good to know. Makes no sense whatsoever but good to know.

The majority of Westerners belong to a religion only nominally, observing religious rites only at weddings and funerals. For them, religious rites are merely an atavistic relic still practiced only in deference to long-standing tradition, but the broader religious practice holds little relevance or meaning to them in everyday lives. The West is for most part a thoroughly secularized society retaining only nominal trappings of religion, so there is little reason to suspect most Westerners of placing religious loyalties above those towards the state. The few who still sincerely follow such archaic practices are, however, suspect as far as I am concerned, the only reason to tolerate them being the resistence against alien influences that their faith might coincidentally bring.

I do concede that religion, however distasteful, can bring order to the ideological and moral anomie of the modern world. Western nations should, however, endeavor to instead instill their citizens with a firm faith in proper secular ideologies rather than archaic superstitions, and guard sternly against proliferation of alien creeds in their realms.

[Al-Ismailiyya]

So, you believe that anyone who "whose primary loyalty is to their creed rather than the secular state and Western civilization" is not "part of Western culture or loyal to it"? So, literally a good majority of the West? Good to know. Makes no sense whatsoever but good to know.

The majority of Westerners belong to a religion only nominally, observing religious rites only at weddings and funerals. For them, religious rites are merely an atavistic relic still practiced only in deference to long-standing tradition, but the broader religious practice holds little relevance or meaning to them in everyday lives. The West is for most part a thoroughly secularized society retaining only nominal trappings of religion, so there is little reason to suspect most Westerners of placing religious loyalties above those towards the state. The few who still sincerely follow such archaic practices are, however, suspect as far as I am concerned, the only reason to tolerate them being the resistence against alien influences that their faith might coincidentally bring.

I do concede that religion, however distasteful, can bring order to the ideological and moral anomie of the modern world. Western nations should, however, endeavor to instead instill their citizens with a firm faith in proper secular ideologies rather than archaic superstitions, and guard sternly against proliferation of alien creeds in their realms.

Alright. I want to end this threadjack with this question: does this make the mentioned Chris Kyle, a decorated war hero and exceptional soldier, disloyal and not a true Westerner because he firmly placed God before country?

[Imperium Sidhicum]

The majority of Westerners belong to a religion only nominally, observing religious rites only at weddings and funerals. For them, religious rites are merely an atavistic relic still practiced only in deference to long-standing tradition, but the broader religious practice holds little relevance or meaning to them in everyday lives. The West is for most part a thoroughly secularized society retaining only nominal trappings of religion, so there is little reason to suspect most Westerners of placing religious loyalties above those towards the state. The few who still sincerely follow such archaic practices are, however, suspect as far as I am concerned, the only reason to tolerate them being the resistence against alien influences that their faith might coincidentally bring.

I do concede that religion, however distasteful, can bring order to the ideological and moral anomie of the modern world. Western nations should, however, endeavor to instead instill their citizens with a firm faith in proper secular ideologies rather than archaic superstitions, and guard sternly against proliferation of alien creeds in their realms.

Alright. I want to end this threadjack with this question: does this make the mentioned Chris Kyle, a decorated war hero and exceptional soldier, disloyal and not a true Westerner because he firmly placed God before country?

I suppose he simply never happened in a situation where his religious convictions would contradict his ideological and political ones, or at least he was able to set his religious beliefs aside whenever they did.

So Chris Kyle was a good Westerner as far as I am concerned. If he did have questionable beliefs, he certainly did not let them get in the way of his duty and carried it out admirably well.