-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Debate a Muslim
- Thread starter Ghazaly
- Start date
- Status
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Yeah, miracles as well as other similar claims and stories for which it does not provide any proof.
Shakeel
Well-Known Member
According to Islam aminals are created for human beings and we have been told to eat some of them.
Vegetarians tend to think of animals as something similar to human beings. That they would suffer like you, that they would "miss their life" like you. But animals aren't that intelligent and such sentimentality is a waste of time.
Qur'an 22:28 '"That they may witness the benefits (provided) for them, and celebrate the name of Allah, through the Days appointed, over the cattle which He has provided for them (for sacrifice): then eat ye thereof and feed the distressed ones in want.'
That's a vague question.
Qur'an 16:126 "And if ye do catch them out, catch them out no worse than they catch you out: But if ye show patience, that is indeed the best (course) for those who are patient."
First things first, it is a command and that's enough of a reason to do it. The scholars say it is for the purpose of keeping Muslims united, for one, but there may well be other reasons besides that.
Is there an unworldly direction?
There is certainly multiple prostrations in every prayer. I don't know what you mean by a full prostration. We pray the way we do because that's how the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) prayed and how he taught us to pray.
The word ritual submission sounds wrong, because Muslims are supposed to submit to Allah at all times.
I don't know what is yogic asana's.
Most Muslims don't meditate because it isn't from the sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ). Some do and I have yet to find one who does and adheres to the sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ), however, people may mean different things when they say meditation so whether it is permissable or not depends on what exactly it entails, in my understanding.
Again, it's because we're commanded to do that. One might as well ask, why do Muslims have to do anything? Islam is not something that is only in the heart. Rather it encompasses the entire life of a Muslim - well it should encompass, but some people neglect their Islam.
Muslims don't worship kaaba nor the black stone.
The biggest issue I have with that statement is ignoring the fundamental statement in the New Testament about the primacy of love.
The first greatest commandment to me is nothing other than the same as bhakti. Now if you similarly disparage bhakti then you'll be consistent.
The second greatest commandment to me is identical to karma yoga with the primacy of love as being highlighted. Do you disparage karma yoga?
The statement of sowing and reaping in the Bible is identical to the action of karma in the East. Do you deny karma?
Is this true according to Quran? Animals, atoms, chairs, everything glorifies God and has spiritual reality that is sustained by God and they return to God. Also, heaven/earth could've submitted to God unwillingly, they could've hated submitting to God and were given the choice. They chose to love God. This choice occurs with all creation, in my view. Things perceive us, for example, the places you remember God and glorify God will testify for you and pray for you in this world and on the day of judgment.
Even atoms have souls and intelligence from my understanding of Quran. Your organs, skins, legs, etc, all have a soul, they will testify for you or against you on the day of judgment.
The Quran says they will say he has made all things speak. This means everything can speak and if we open the 3rd eye, we can listen, and everything can speak. Whether they will or not, is up to God, but often the miracles of Mohammad (a) was him asking trees, or items or animals speaking to humans. This how intelligent they are.
Mountains also glorified God with Dawood (a). This shows they have intelligence and can speak.
epronovost
Well-Known Member
Because they are an example of a Muslim country (we were talking about Muslim country and immigration/emigration) that forces immigrants in forced labor condition. This is specifically a problem in countries like Qatar and the UAE (but also others). This is correct because unlike many other countries where modern slavery is in effect, the people held as slaves aren't local poor people, but almost exclusively foreign workers. Both these countries are also extremely rich, the UAE being richer than any other country I compared it to in post 553 (The US, China, Russia, South Africa and Eritrea). Qatar though is significantly richer the UAE and about as much as the US. I also named those two countries because they aren't in a State of war or civil strife and don't have unstable or recovering governments which might be too weak to enforce laws properly like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria or Libya which all have terrible human's rights record and enormous problems of slavery. It would have been unfair to point the finger at those countries since they have very limited resources and bigger problems. It's not the case of the UAE and Qatar.
Why can't you quote my supposed Islamophobic comment and simply assume islamophobia each time a non-Muslim criticizes Muslims? Consider it carefully.
leroy
Well-Known Member
ok and based on that definition why would you claim. that the Gospels are not history?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, I don't claim it as me alone. I have read more that a few accounts of how to understand if the Gospels are history or not and according to the sum of historians, the Gospels are not history. That doesn't mean that you can't hold the Gospels as history. It just means that we do it differently. I consider the Gospels religion and leave it as a question of faith or not.
So to your actual question. The Gospels are a biased source and have no cooperation other than there was a Jew by the name of Jesus. That doesn't make the Gospels history.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
1. Yes, Sun Rise. I am very consistent, and I always try to be consistent. I am an a strong atheist and I do not worship any God or Goddess. So, no question of Bhakti.
2. I will love those who should be loved and will fight with those who should be fought with. I am a practical person and do not think it is necessary to love everybody in the world. That is neither possible nor prudent.
3. My 'dharma' is my duty in this life. That, as a Hindu, is obligatory upon me. I do not believe in reincarnation, so the common meaning of 'karma', a transference of the result of good and evil actions in a 'next life' does not work with me.
Last edited:
Shakeel
Well-Known Member
That actually is not an Islamic belief.
Shakeel
Well-Known Member
I think you're confusing a miracle with a thing being intelligent. Which is aching to Christians thinking Jesus (peace be upon him) made the miracles happen.
But I'm not interested in your opinions. If you can show something from the Qur'an that contradicts something I said, I'd be happy to see that.
And they shall say to their skins: Why have you borne witness against us? They shall say: Allah Who makes everything speak has made us speak, and He created you at first, and to Him you shall be brought back.
The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation
Ghazaly
Member
- You seem to have a lot of BS to spout. I will create a thread just for you. & you can tell me more about all this BS. What don't you tell me your main contentions so I can make a thread (threads) accordingly?
Ghazaly
Member
- So you're going for a question not an objection. Define exactly what you mean by 'natural selection' then I will respond with approval or otherwise.
- That's a mountainous feat to achieve –unachievable if you do practice law.
- Then demonstrate. If your point of contention is in confinement vs. death penalty, then so it is among the ulama as well, as to whether convicted apostates are sentenced to death or prison.
- No-sequitur. Reason of conviction does not necessarily follow from type of sentence, or the contrary.
- You're just saying things now. Where is your argument? An argument ends with a conclusion which follows from a supported premise. Regardless, confinement is literally a form of coercion.
- Non-sequitur. Individual action =/= state action.
- You're making a lot of bare assertions & jumping to unrelated conclusions. On what moral basis or value are you making sense of confinement's "betterness"? Based on your own assumption from which you argue against "killing", it makes no sense to confine someone for doing what's part of their nature, the same was –in your example– you wouldn't confine a lion & starve them just for being a lion. You insane defense case is an appeal to example –it too a fallacious argument.
- None of what you're saying makes any sense whatsoever. "we'll find this out in the future, therefore now" is not a valid argument, all you're saying is literal fantasy. You don't have to fantasize about this to understand the efficacy of punishment: abolish the penal code & watch the "perfect-brain" people's actions! You are also begging the question, you assume confinement is good & proceed to argue against life-confinement!! If you're arguing for reform, there is already such a thing as repentance; but that's not a viable defense in court. You're not going to say to the judge: "I learned my mistake, I won't do it again", like when Blinken was asked about the war in Iraq he said "democracy is a beautiful thing because we learn from our mistakes". Further, on what basis do you justify punishment? According to you we might as well let people do what they want without punishment, what's the difference between a death or a life sentence, if your moral basis no-punishment. If you're so worried about the life of the murderer, you should be more worried about the life of the victim.
- Red herring! The point was to expose hypocrisy not compare penal codes. Also, achieving similar crime rates does not follow from adopting similar penal codes. Even if we assume that is the case, your conclusion is still false –given that the penal codes in most of these Muslim countries are inspired from the Civil Code & that these countries are generally less stable than western countries today.
- Strawman. Friend, you're confirming what I said just to deny it afterwards! Self-contradiction?! As I said, this is NOT a question of events or qualification, it's a question of institutional worldview, which is strictly exclusive in the West. All the western "scholars" of Islam combined are not as qualified as a single 'alim (religious savant) in Sharia. Will Imam Malik himself (the founder of the Maliki school of jurisprudence) be allowed to teach Sharia in a western university. No. If you imagine otherwise then you're completely delusional. This also extends for anything systematic in the nation, you're not allowed to use other than a secular rationale for the administration of the state, or for enacting policies, or for legislating laws. You're not allowed to practice anything except what the secular law imposes on you, without a possibility for alternative. This much is obvious.
- What citation! We do watch the news you know! Out-of-this-world revulsion level. A simple google search would have sufficed:
- man shot for saying he does not believe in God
- neighbor shot for not believing in God
- This one is insane: couple kill own children believing they joined Satan... WTF!
- You're giving up on argument from example now?! There is so much incoherence in your positions.
- Strawman! We both know exactly what I meant. Your weak defense tactics are too obvious.
- I don't have a position on this or anything else for that matter, for I'm not qualified to. I'm not a Alim. I'm sharing the positions (generally the majority ones) of ulama from the Four Madhhabs on these matters, from different perspectives. Islamic legal tradition branches out into 8 main disciplines of jurisprudence (jrsprd):
- Fiqh Usuli (fundamental jrsprd) = legislation theory – ethical theory – legal theory – constitutional jrsprd – legal maxims...
- Fiqh Madhhabi (scholastic jrsprd) = Hanafi jrsprd – Maliki jrsprd – Shafi'i jrsprd – Hanbali jrsprd – & others...
- Fiqh 'Am (general jrsprd) = debate science – topical jrsprd – consensual jrsprd – differential jrsprd comparative jrsprd...
- Fiqh al-Furu' (branches of jrsprd) = of worship – of habits – of rights – of contracts – of property – of transactions – of relations – of care – of wills – of emancipation – of commerce – of trust – of companies, of endowments...
- Fiqh al-Qadaa (judiciary jrsprd) = procedural jrsprd – lawsuit jrsprd– dispute jrsprd – proof jrsprd – criminal jrsprd – penal jrsprd...
- Fiqh as-Siyasa (political jrsprd) = political theory – administrative pltcs – judiciary politics (pltcs) – fiscal pltcs – public good pltcs – defense pltcs – international pltcs – social pltcs...
- Fiqh al-Fatawa (advisory jrsprd) = case jrsprd – methods of jrsprd – mutfi decorum...
- Tarikh at-Tashri' (history of jrsprd) = origins of jrsprd – developpment of jrsprd – biographies of jurists – of jurisprudents – of judges – of political theorists –
- That's a fair question, understandable given where you're coming from. You have to step into an Islamic paradigm for this to make sense. The traditional state hinges on allegiance to faith within national communities, whereas a modern state hinges on allegiance to flag within national borders. In this respect, an apostate –thus leaving his community & faith– is effectively a traitor. In Sharia, 'murtad' can mean anything from someone who stopped believing in the faith, to a militant apostate, to a rebel to an ex-Muslim traitor. In fact, in the Maliki school, a secret apostate (practices Islam but hides his disbelief) is deemed a spy until otherwise proven. You can't have people come
,
- Yeah, nope.
- You're straw-maning your own strawman. Without the option for execution for 'safely isolated' enemies the war is as good as lost.
- I don't see the part where you actually make the argument? You're saying things expecting them to support what you think. They don't. Regardless, as I said, building a temple then having growing a following as an apostate is obviously an alarming situation for the state, if it can't control it, then it will have to crush it. Citizenship in an Islamic system, unlike in a Secular system, is not contingent on territorial borders (by blood, birth or naturalization), it rather hinges on faith & communitarian fellowship. Anyone can become de-facto citizen just by saying the Shahada, without the need of any naturalization process. It's the opposite case for Secular system, where a long winded process (several years or decades) of sifting & conditioning to weed out any potential undesirables or threats is required to achieve naturalization (if even). Under Islamic system, the process of sifting & weeding out is done not on entry, but on exist. If anyone who wishes to come in, infiltrate the Muslim society, penetrate its ranks, is allowed by the state to leave as they please & do as they please, then that state will crumble in record times., it might simply mean that those apostates you described in the upper post where either having no following or not useful to the state. I think such an omission qualifies you for a marketing/apologetics award
Ghazaly
Member
- That's your legal systems.
- If you are you arguing for individual-specific laws, that's anarchism –not more Law. If you're arguing for laws relevant to differences, that's Sharia. If you're arguing for equal laws, then you're back to square one, systematic injustice –otherwise you are self-contradicting.
- Women & men share humanity, but are different genders. No man can give birth & no woman can produce sperm. That's the difference which is relevant to Sharia. While wives give birth & rear children, Husbands maintain & protect them. If the woman or the man does not wish to do this, then they can just not get married.
- I could list like 20 fallacies here but that would be draining. A womb is not an aggregated average.
- I'm speaking from a systematic perspective & you're taking about cases! You wish to blot birth-giving by force of law, inevitably this will result in the cessation of human kind. We can already see the effect of having gender-neutral laws in the West today, where native fertility rate is half replacement rate, meaning every birth cycle (life-expectancy span) the population is halved. If this trend continues, in a 150 years, the white population in the world will drop to 120 million, in 600 years to only 2 million. Earth 20th century, 4 in 10 people were White (there were 7 times more Whites than Blacks), today less than 1 in 10, in a few decades half in 10 will be White (& there will be 7 times more Blacks than Whites). That's just sad!
- If you had spent time checking the context before you butt in into the conversation you wouldn't have needed to say any of this. The discussion was about *historic* age of consent, not current. Maybe this response should be addressed to my interlocutor because she/he thinks age of consent is actually age of betrothal... somehow!
- You have it backwards. Thanks for admitting the abysmal level of western laws, & yet despite all this time they still lag so far behind. Indeed, it was bad for Western women back then. Contrary to your wishful thoughts, Women were granted, by Sharia, propriety rights -the kind western women don't have yet today- since the onset of Islam. Women didn't just participate in university studies, they achieved some of the highest levels of mastery & taught great scholars. Rarely do we find no women in mashyakha books (biography booklet about the scholar's own credentials, teachers & academic career), even of Islamic history's most prominent scholars: Ibn Asakir mentions 80 women among his teachers, Ibn Hajar mentions 54, Suyuti mentions 44... The polymath Ibn Hazm had virtually only female teachers. In fact, 1 to 6 is the ratio between female scholars & male scholars in Islamic biographical encyclopedias. From the prophet's (pbuh) ~12,300 recorded companions, ~1550 were women. From ~70,000 extant biographies of narrators & scholars of hadith for instance, over >9,000 of them are for women. That's a similar ratio to today's English Wikipedia, despite all the agenda & the wild female overrepresentation from entertainment & social media background. Voting to women –just like men– is not a right in Sharia, it's an obligation [according to Sharia principles]. The Prophet (pbuh) when made chancellor of Medina, he took the oath from all the men & all the women: "O Prophet, whenever any believing women come to swear allegiance to you [...] then accept their allegiance" (60:12). They didn't just vote, they effectively ruled, either through the harem faction of the state, or as head of state –like Shajarat Dur. Half of schools & hospitals in the Muslim world then were endowed by women –the oldest university in the world extant today was founded by a woman (Fatima al-Fihri).
- More nonsense! Statutory rape –then– is having intercourse with under age of consent girl who isn't your wife, regardless of her consent.
- It doesn't. The point is: investigation ends with other faiths & starts with Islam, for among all the book the Quran is the only one which has been perfectly preserved. If God's message is somewhere, it must be in the Quran. As to the truth of the Quran that's established on its own.
- Sure. Does not change the fact that women give birth & men don't, which is what is relevant here.
- & down syndrome & other genetic disorders. There are >200 billion atoms in DNA in two 3-billion bases, combining two different strings together & copying them trillions of times over is bound to have a couple mishaps.
- Depends on what people. Some relations are not permissible in Sharia, for instance: parent–adopted child. Adoption in Sharia can only occur with breastfeeding, otherwise deemed guardianship (of an orphan).
- OK?
- You're saying incoherent things! You contend that someone who does not wish to participate in marriage, thus not subject to Sharia marriage stipulations, must also have these stipulations contorted in accordance with their wishes!!?
- You said "none of this system [marriage in Sharia] describe my life", suggesting a systematic adoption of your life-type... it naturally follows in such a system birth-giving will cease, or at the very least be restricted. Refer to my reply to epronovost above, 5th response on this post.
- Imam al-Ghazali of course. It would a long story to explain, but al-Ghazali didn't just master his mind, he also mastered his self. His words are from someone who reached the epitome of power & fame then let go of all of it; from someone who reached the epitome of intellect & reasoning then purged all of it; from someone who mastered most disciplines of his time, & praticularly reached the finalities in all 3 dimensions of the faith [ the moral dimension for the body, expressed in Islamic Law – the rational dimension for the mind, expressed in Islamic theology – the spiritual dimension of the soul, expressed in Islamic sufism]; therefore, he was able to consolidate all these dimensions into a single coherent shared base. His critique of Greek philosophers was so profound it –along with Ibn Haytham methodological critique– engendered a new paradigm of human knowledge, where Science is excised from Philosophy (natural philosophy), efficient causation is inductive, perception makes substance, matter is quantized, time & space are relative, & accidents are probabilistic.
Ghazaly
Member
- The Western/Christian obsession over this only speaks of their own degenerate culture, it's projection. The topic of Hur is a tiny sub-topic in the topic of companionship in Paradise, which in itself is tiny topic of description in Paradise. Of Ibn Qayyim's book's Hadi Larwah 70 chapters, only one is about companionship, much of it about earthy wives & husbands in Paradise. & YET, it's the be-all-end-all topic for these people, it's disturbing. What's bred in the bones comes out in the flesh.
- As to your question, Huri –& anything pertaining to Paradise for that matter– are generally understood in the tradition to be categorically inconceivable, descriptions thereof thus are nominal, aimed at approximating imagery & pleasure. What Huri truly are is beyond conception, but the nominal description is infinitely beautiful untouched maidens. What you probably do not know, these are, along with Ghilman –male counterpart–, servants to the man & his earthly wife (wives), whose beauty is made to eclipse even that of Huris. I've never actually encountered in my life a Muslim who spoke of Paradise mentioning Huris, it's only you people. The prime yearning among Muslims about Paradise is Rueya, that is witnessing the Lord Himself without veil, with varying frequency according to one's closeness to Allah. It is the greatest prize of being to witness your own Creator, & it is the greatest loss to never witness your Creator. The rest of pleasures of Paradise, despite how magnificent & otherworldly they are, is a distraction to numb the want left from witnessing Allah until next turn.
- Bravo! & the Earth is flat, & I'm the queen of England, & there be dragons. Please spare me your childishness.
- That's like saying I haven't heard of Aristotelian school while speaking of Greek philosophy. Here is an intro:
- Maliki is a Sunni legal school founded by Imam Malik (d. 795), it's the second school to emerge in Medina (Arabia) after Abu Hanifa's school in Kufa (Iraq). It's the legacy & culmination of the Ahl-athar school initiated by Imam Malik's teachers. It's also the second most propagated madhhad, after Hanafi, & was historically the state madhhab for much of Maghreb-Andalusia history. Imam Malik is highly revered among Muslims, credited with many contributions, in legal theory like consequentialism (Sed-tharai'i), in logic like analogical reasoning (qiyas), & in law, as one of the greatest legislators of Islamic history, famous for his 2-million words encyclopedia of law –al-Mudawwana, & his hadith collection al-Muwattaa.
- Ashaari is a Sunni theological school founded by Imam Ashaari (d. 936), it's the predominant theological school in the Muslim world, & has been for the past 10 centuries. It is the school to which Imam al-Ghazali subscribed & supported, his school which influenced most Enlightenment thinkers like Hume, Hobbes, Locke...etc. Imam Ashaari is one of humanity's genuine geniuses, his thought was original & profound, credited with major metaphysical, cosmological & theological concepts, such as al-Kasb, & refutal of efficient causation, & the relativity of time & space...etc. –Ideas which would later be promoted by Hume & others.
- Junaidi is a Sunni mystical (sufi) school founded by Imam Junaid (d. 910), a major figure of sufism &, along with his teacher al-Muhasibi, he is credited with establishment of the principles & terminology of Sufism.
- Strange indeed, given you're invading their countries, bombing their people, & pillaging their wealth... & on top of all this, imposing the most brutal & disgusting regime on them while convincing them of the great freedoms they are having ad nauseam. If it wasn't for propaganda, top-notch PR & dominance, no one would buy this BS, –which most don't indeed in much of the rest of the world.
- Clearly it is still 935 Frankia in there, a wealthier version though. Same barbaric attitude, disguised as "civilization". I do like Switzerland though, gorgeous country, super neat.Well, it is not 935. At least on this part of the world
- You're lying. You actually are, just not in a decent way. Bottom line, it's all about degeneracy. Wherever there is degeneracy you adore it, wherever there is decency you abhor it.
- As expected from someone like you, vile & disgusting behavior. You don't disappoint. Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) is the greatest human being in history, he is adored & emulated by billions of Muslims, in their everyday lives. Thanks to this man you have rights today. He taught justice & mercy & all virtues, spread peace & prosperity to the world, he elevated women to the highest degree & erased racism.
You pitiable comments are pebbles on a mountain range. What did you do for humanity? Nothing except hate & denigration of other human beings.
- As to your poor attempt, an abject failure. Pedophilia is defined as primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) waited for Aisha to reach maturity at 10 to marry her (3 years after betrothal). He is an example for all times & all peoples, hence we see this even in his marriages. He epitomized monogamy by staying loyal to his first marriage was Khadija at 25 (when she was 40 & twice widowed) until her death, despite this going against the local customs. With the exception of Aisha, all other wives were widows &/or divorcees, –normalizing thus marriages with older & non-virgin women. Among the 12 he married in his life, 3 were older than he was (15, 30, & 9 years older) & others from every age group from 10 (Aisha) to 80 (Sawda) –encompassing all cultures, some were very White & some were Black, & every shade in between, exemplifying tolerance. Even his types of marriages are diverse: – Family marriage from which he had all his daughters, with Khadija. – Love marriage with whom he shared exclusive intimacy & deep love, with Aisha. – Affinity marriages with the daughters of his closest friends (Aisha & Hafsa...) & his daughters to them, all of whom (Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman, Ali) became his successors – Alliance marriages with daughters of leaders of other tribes to establish alliances (Safya, Juwayrya...) – Charity marriages with estitute widows or divorcees who needed care (Sawda, Rayhana...).
- As to your Christian claim, the Bible does indeed prescribe pedophilia: "And now, slay every male among the infants, indeed, slay every woman knowing a man by the lying of a male, and all the infants among the women who have not known the lying of a male you have kept alive for yourselves." (Numbers 13:17-18)
- Do they make you memorize this stuff or what? It's always the same 20-something bits they repeat like robots. Answer – Maliki school: you fast the hours you do in your home country, like you would do in prison without daylight – Hanafi school: you don't fast.
– This isn't as clever as you imagine it is. More interestingly, what would do inside the Kaaba...?
- I'm not sure what you getting at with this. A case can be made for the written Torah, but not the oral Torah. The majority opinion among Muslim scholars, led by Ibn Hazm, is that the alteration in the Torah is textual, whereas the minority, led by Tabari, claim the alteration is not textual, rather interpretational.
- No. That's not a contract... LMAO! This is a new one.
- You mean the US military & intelligence with their "infinite justice" crusade!
- Who are you kidding?!!! With more than 700 military bases around the world, the US has conducted more than 90 military interventions since WWII (invasions, genocides, occupations, bombings, raids...& nuclear), & more than a 100 interventions in foreign elections, supporting brutal military regimes all over the world –especially in the Muslim world–, & oppressive occupations –such as Israel–, conducting assassinations, orchestrating coups, & executing drone strikes, killing 20 million people while displacing many times more in their wake, & pillaging trillions of dollars in the process. Save yourself the embarrassment & let it go! Why do Americans think other people elsewhere in the world actually buy into their propaganda!!! You don't have to support the US government to be a good American.
epronovost
Well-Known Member
In you dichotomic strawman worldview, I would be arguing for "anarchy". Why have a law relevant to differences when those differences are basically almost infinite. Why say, women in marriage must do X and men must do Y? Why not let men and women decide how and what their marriage contracts and vows will contain?
In "the west", there is no law that states that a woman is and must be the primary caretaker of a child. There is no law that makes the husband the primary source of income of the household. What exists is a Chart of Children's Rights that guaranty that all children will be provided for by their family and if their family prove to be inadequate, the children will be removed from their care and given in adoption to others either for a period of time as the prior caretaker "clean up their act" or for the rest of their childhood should they be incapable of it or their lack of care or mistreatment are so severe they can't and won't be afforded another chance.
Where did you get the idea that producing sperm and giving birth were social roles. They are biological function like breathing or digesting fructose, not roles.
You are making a fallacy of false equivalence there. Giving birth is a necessary biological function of women and only they can perform it, but raising children isn't. Anybody can raise children. A women must give birth for a child to be born, but a women isn't necessary to raise a healthy child. Many healthy children were raised without their biological mothers or no mothers at all. In the same way providing and protecting a family isn't a function that can only be exercised by a man. A woman can provide for her child by working and protect them from harm by doing what mother's do. Many healthy children were provided for by a woman alone, mainly a woman or by another woman beside his or her mother. This is undeniable. Why confine men as maintainer and protector and women as child caretaker? Why not let them decide who will do what and in what quality.
Neither is a womb a woman. A woman is a human being and a womb is only one of her organs. She's no more defined by a her womb than she is defined by her nipples. It doesn't define what role she can play in society or in her family. It only makes her capable of being pregnant and capable of giving birth. It doesn't say she must be or is most apt to raise and educate a child or that she should be a primary caregiver. It doesn't even mean that she must have children.
It was considered rape specifically because girl that young were considered incapable of giving consent to sexual activity as they were too ignorant and immature due to their age. That's why there is a minimal age for consensual sexual intercourse. Consent needs to be positive and informed to be legally valid. It was true back then and now. A young child isn't "informed" thus cannot provide sexual consent.
Last edited:
Ghazaly
Member
- You're still here! Dude, you're in a burning ship. In the US, contractual marriage involves some 600k "children", & non-contractual marriage (sexual relationship) implicates some 21 million "children" (the situation is worse in Europe)! Either you're ok with this, in which case be in your merry way, you are being a hypocrite. Or, you're not ok with this, in which case be in your merry way just the same, concern yourself with your own before coming to me, you're being a hypocrite. Thank you, Mr. in burning ship.
- You can insult me & deny reality till the cows come home it is not going to change to fit your fantasy, no matter how earnestly you insist. The age of consent has nothing to do with betrothal. That doesn't even figure in law. The age of consent has to do with statutory rape:
The age of consent is the age at which a person is considered to be legally competent to consent to sexual acts. Consequently, an adult who engages in sexual activity with a person younger than the age of consent is unable to legally claim that the sexual activity was consensual, and such sexual activity may be considered child sexual abuse or statutory rape.
- None of this is true. Your denial is in your head I'm afraid. 12-13 was probably the norm for urban girls, not for rural girls.
- It definitely didn't feel disgusting to them... I'm sure you fantasied about having sex then as well, tough not to once biology kicks in. Plus, you do allow sex, therefore you must allow marriage, for it is –on all counts– less harmful & more beneficial –"disgusting" is not a moral qualifier, & even if, marriage is less disgusting that sex. You should get going, 2 million so-called pre-teens are having sex in the US, lots to be disgusted about. You know what's actually disgusting though, sex among teenagers that you & your likes endorse. It's all about degeneracy to you people. Always! Jumping to embrace out-of-wedlock open sex with no legal guarantees or protection for "freedom" & "rites of passage", yet hasten their pretentious "ew" when it comes to marriage, which is about commitment & sacrifice & protection. It's just that marriage is not degenerate enough for you to embrace. It will never be, probably...
- Naturally. They are already having marriages, just illegitimate ones. A marriage is in essence consent (ijab wal qubul), though needs more things to be valid, namely: two witnesses, permission from the father, maybe a gift as dower, & a commitment for compensation or parental guarantee in case of progeny –even just an oral guarantee.
- Indeed. I'm not sure I understand your point though, do you any particular questions?
- There are 10 Mutawatir Recitation (i.e. perfectly transmitted) of the Quran. Any specific questions?
- Yeah these quotes are from different sound hadiths indeed.
- Do you have a problem with me or something...?
- It doesn't. Regardless, the contention is omniscient, thus beyond the scope of history. The Quran says someone was crucified, it just wasn't Jesus (pbuh) it just looked like him [according to dominant interpretation]. According to both accounts, someone Jesus looking died on the cross. You say it's Jesus, I say it's not. It ends there.
- Some of us do have lives...
- Status