I don't understand what that means!
It describes the Quran and sunnah by its own standards.
You are wrong, Islamic law can change as long as it doesn't contradict morality
Can you name one of Allah's laws that has changed over the last 1400 years?
Isn't this understood?
"
Fiqh is often described as the human understanding and practices of the sharia,[3] that is human understanding of the divine Islamic law as revealed in the Quran and the Sunnah (the teachings and practices of the Islamic prophet Muhammad and his companions). Fiqh expands and develops Shariah through interpretation (ijtihad) of the Quran and Sunnah by Islamic jurists (ulama)[3] and is implemented by the rulings (fatwa) of jurists on questions presented to them. Thus, whereas sharia is considered immutable and infallible by Muslims, fiqh is considered fallible and changeable. Fiqh deals with the observance of rituals, morals and social legislation in Islam as well as political system"
Source
This contradicts your previous claim that sharia can change...
"Islamic law can change"
"
Thus, whereas sharia is considered immutable and infallible"
As I said before, the punishment still stands, but the method might be different.
What you fail to understand is. All punishments in Islam are applied to Muslims, in an Islamic state, and to people who live under Islamic rule
Sorry, but I don't differentiate between victims on the basis of religion or anything else.
A Muslim suffering barbaric punishment is just as worthy of defence as a Christian or Sikh or atheist.
The marriage age in Islam is when a woman reaches the age of marriage,
That is what is known as a "tautology".
she is capable to be married, and it is socially acceptable to be married at that age. If you through numbers here and there to deceive the reader, it doesn't make what you say right
Some societies impose specific numbers. Islam uses a variable - the first period. This could be anywhere between 7 and 15.
Fancy words to avoid the answer - Got it
I have explained it a few times now.
To show you that you can't dictate the age of marriage to people who lived thousands of years before your time. they have their own age of marriage.
But, of course, you changed the subject later because you can't respond to that, and made it about Mohammed, not others LOL
I have never tried to dictate what the age of marriage should have been in 7th century Arabis. That is just your misunderstanding again.
In fact, I have said that it was morally acceptable at the time.
However, Yes, I understand your point. I asked a question that you didn't answer. I ask again
Do you want Muhammed PBUH to follow 2022 social norms while he lived 1400 years ago?
And I have already answered it, but I'll try again in a different way.
No I don't. He was perfectly entitled to live by the cultural and social norms of the place and time where he lived.
The issue is with claiming that he is a perfect example for all those who come after him, and Islam is the perfect system. Which means that people in Europe in 2022 should live by the socio-religious norms of 7th century Arabia.
I don't mean to ignore it
If Mohammed married a woman who reached the age of marriage and was acceptable by society at that time, I have no problem with that. I don't hold Mohammed up to the standards of 2022, I hold him to the standards of his own time
*sigh*
But do you consider him to be the perfect role model and ultimate moral example for all mankind?
That was my conclusion of mine, how can I show you a source?
So you just made up an age? (What
is that age, BTW?)
In which case, you believe that whatever he did in 7th century Arabia is morally acceptable in 21st century Europe,
in principle - even if it is against the law of the land.
(This is the key issue that you seem to be missing).
You got it all wrong
See my Wikipedia quote and how rules can be changable in Islam
Scholars cannot change Allah's divinely revealed, objective morality. No one can. That is a basic tenet of Islam.
"What Allah has made haram, no man can make halal"
What I am saying is, Mohammed did what was acceptable socially at that time. If Mohammed was alive today, He will do what is acceptable in 2022
So you are saying that Muhammad was just a man of his time, not the perfect role model and moral example for all time.
So if Islam hadn't existed and a person was called by Allah to receive his revelation in 21st century Holland, Islam would have all the cultural hallmarks of 21st century Dutch life. Adultery and homosexuality would be acceptable, as would drinking, prostitution and recreational drug use. And all the metaphors would refer to canals, windmills, bicycles, tulips, etc rather than camels and date palms, etc.
The only thing we know about Aisha is, She was married to the Prophet, and she was a scholar. at what age she got married, that is just people's say and we can't be sure
But the same applies to
everything in Islam. All we have are unverifiable accounts.
The accepted records by your own standard (sahih hadith from the Bukhari and Muslim collections) state her age unequivocally.
That is just what others say, they are humans, and there is nothing sure.
Again, that applies to everything in Islam. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
(I am not denying or approving) but, let's think about it logically,
Before she was engaged to the prophet, she was engaged to someone else. If she got engaged to the prophet at age of 6.
- Does it mean that her first engagement was 5 or 4?
Or 6.
- Where is the golden rule in Islam that says the woman must agree before marriage?
- At age of 4 or 5 she can't really make that decision
As far as I can see, until a girl is a woman (first period), her father makes all her decisions for her.
The whole thing doesn't make sense
So a father betrothing his young daughter to their tribal leader in 7th century Arabia makes no sense, but the moon splitting in two, a flood deep enough to cover mountains, a wall of iron and brass between two mountain peaks containing a race of mythical beasts that has remained hidden from humanity for thousands of years, all make perfect sense to you?
I addressed that above. If you don't like the answer, it doesn't mean I have no addressed it
You thought you had addressed it, but you merely addressed your own misunderstanding.
