I think it's mentioning it to make people aware that there are people claiming to believe but are treacherous towards Muslims. And this shows people can disbelieve and plot against Muslims. It happened the past and happens now.
-
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
I think it's mentioning it to make people aware that there are people claiming to believe but are treacherous towards Muslims. And this shows people can disbelieve and plot against Muslims. It happened the past and happens now.
Where did I say that those issues aren't problems, at least to an extent, in other groups? I didn't say that. But we're discussing Islam here, not African Christians (polygamy is practiced by various African ethnic groups regardless of religion as it's a tribal practice to them; I don't know where the child marriage stuff comes from).
That doesn't mean anything to me, coming from you. Like I care what some fundie Muslim online thinks of me. It's just makes you look hypocritical, but that's your choice.
Ghazaly
Member
- That's exactly anarchy.
- Women do in fact do X & Men do in fact do Y. Why force the same law on women & men in marriage. That's strictly unjust to one of them, & in this case strictly unjust to the woman –systematic injustice.
- You have it backwards. In Sharia, women DO have the option –& NOT the constraint like in the West– to chose the burden of work & opt out of maintenance. Then again –in your words– why even have laws? Why not let people decide how & what their contracts contain? Why have things like labour law or contract law..? Why not let the employer & the employee decide how & what their contracts contain? Without boundaries, it's the law of the jungle that rules. Boundaries are a legal support to balance out both sides of the party, for constraint-free contract. This principle is paramount in Sharia, where the West direly lacks.
- Was this an attempt to put down "the West" even further?! So your women are at the mercy of their men for provision while birthing & nursing their children, else having to work to provide for themselves & their children. What are men good for anymore! Which brings me back to my previous post, women in the West are not having enough children, the population is going extinct. Case in point.
- As to your childcare strawman composition fallacies; you're abusively conflating husband–wife relationships with parent–child relationships. The husband–wife contractual relationship in Sharia relates to potential reproduction, hence sexual stated benefits for the husband, in exchange for guaranteed security to the wife. Contrastingly, the child–parent natural relationship, however, is permanent & irrevocable. It's the widest in scope & scale care relationship (Riaya) in Sharia, for the parent must guarantee care & security in virtually all life aspects to the child, in exchange the child must be filial to their parent (Bir). Both parents are obligated to care for their children, in accordance with their ability, with no possibility of repudiation. Willingly & knowingly renouncing parents or children in Sharia is minor apostasy (kufr asghar), i.e. you are barred from entering Paradise even if you die a believer unless you repent.
- Absolutely revolting! This actually makes me furious. What an absolutely horrible legal system. "Children's rights" LMAO! There are no children's rights in the West, how can there be any with the ubiquitous break-up of family!! Under the pretext of "freedom", they kill babies, leave babies without mothers or fathers, abandon children, orphan others, take them from their families, separate them, raising them as single parent... In Sharia, one of 6 sacred rights is Nasl – Progeny. A child has a sacred right to lineage & other obligatory rights as enjoined by Allah & His prophet (pbuh):
- Mother – Um = choosing best wife
- Father – Ab = choosing best husband
- Wedlock – Nikah = not growing to be a *******
- Conception – Jimaa = with best intention & best practice
- Health – Siha = healthy pregnancy
- Birth – Wilada = no abortion beyond 40 days unless for just cause
- Lineage – Nasab = named after their biological parents
- Life – Hayat = guaranteeing their life
- Inheritance – Mirath = share in inheritance upon birth
- Name – Ism = giving them a good name
- Announcement – Aqiqa = celebrating their birth
- Nurishing – Ridaa = breastfeeding them
- Nursing – Hadana = nurturing them
- Maintenance – Nafaqa = provision for them
- Shelter – Sakan = providing shelter for them
- Safety – Aman = protecting them
- Custody – Kafala = caring for them
- Treatment – Dawa = treating them in case of sickness
- Fairness – Adl = treating children fairly
- Enjoyment – Layib = playing with them (in kid years)
- Safeguard – Hifdh = preserving them from bad influences
- Discipline – Adab = teaching them discipline & good behavior
- Education – Talim = educating them in the necessary basics
- Companionship – Suhba = befriending them (in teen years)
- ...
- DIFFERENT biological function, positively relevant to society, thus entailing appropriate legal considerations.
- The amazing thing about the above is the depressingly low standards that you have to defend, because let's face it, it's all you got. Why are you even trying to defend this?! The family breakdown in your West is as good as over. Your values are not in the sanctity of family, they are in the sanctity of degeneracy. Try making your case from there.
- The persistent attempts to strawman this to exercise your composition fallacies are not helping your case.
- It strictly does. A MOTHER.
- We are back to denying reality with sheer fantasy. You seem to have a lot of hate for women & more particularly for children! It's starting to get really distasteful.
- No. Consent laws then had to do with preserving chastity, for it was seen as a commodity; because their chastity was seen as particularly precious, young girls were felt to be especially in need of protection. Thus it was a crime to tempt them into sex, unless the female is your wife. What you're probably referring to is majority age, of legal liability, which wasn't too different from consent age, between 7 & 10. In the 19th century, a 7 year old could hang in Britain for committing a crime. Chastity defense died out in the legal framework with the coming of 2nd wave feminism in the 1980s, for obvious reasons, with the introduction instead of age-span provisions.
- The stunning argument is preposterous. Inflicting more pain (shock, spasms, paralysis...) to achieve less pain (few conscience seconds) is absurd. Besides, pain numbness =/= unconsciousness. You don't have to be unconscious to be numb to pain. Cutting the arteries stops blood flow to the brain numnbing pain sensitivity. Stunning also has other bad effects.
- Stunning is not a new debate. It was discussed by the Prophet (pbuh) & it's mentioned in the Quran "Forbidden to you are carrion, blood, and swine; what is slaughtered in the name of any other than Allah; what is killed by strangling, beating [mawqutha], a fall, or by being gored to death; what is partly eaten by a predator unless you slaughter it; and what is sacrificed on altars." (5:3). Mawqutha is the animal who died by a blow to the head. This should answer your inquiry about the issue. The animal needs to be slaughtered in the name of Allah while alive, then drained of blood. Stunning can at times lead to death (cardiac arrest), which would render the animal unlawful even with slaughter; It also impedes blood drainage. The ulama allowed stunning when it is the only way to slaughter an animal, that it must be rendered unconscious prior (too wild or too strong to control), as long as it stays alive. Unless the animal can be checked for life at slaughter & be properly drained of blood, its stunning is not justified in Sharia.
- This isn't about animal rights, it's about mob rule & secular tyranny, which is standard practice in the West. All the abhorrent treatment of animals in these farms up to their slaughter is unlawful is Sharia, & yet they dare act all high & mighty about a disputed & harmful practice like stunning. Yours isn't born from genuine care for life & animals, rather from a sense of self-righteousness.
- Animal rights in Sharia under right of creatures are far more expansive & genuine than the stupid slogans professed in the West. The Prophet (pbuh) enjoined treating animal with kindness, feeding them if they are neighbors even if just ants, saving them from death even if not yours, releasing the quarry if otherwise her children will die; he prohibited the killing of predatory animals or insects in their shelters, or killing animals for no just cause (for sustenance), or for experimentations, or cursing them, or over-feeding them by force, or inciting fights among them, or cutting or maiming any part of the animal for no just cause (except ear holes), or overworking them, or separating them from their mothers, or even killing them in war...etc.
- Finally, there were virtually no animal rights in Europe since ancient Greeks. Aristotle thought animals were soulless tools for humans, Church fathers thought of them as property, & Descartes thought them simple automata. The first proponents of animal rights in Europe who spoke against the consensus of their time, like Locke & especially Rousseau, were heavily influenced by Muslim thought. Locke's professor in Oxford Pococke studied in Syria & supplied more than 400 Islamic works to the institution & helped study & translate them; Rousseau's father was a watchmaker in Istanbul, his cousin an ambassador to the Turks, & his companion a priest from Jerusalem. His novel Emily –a journey to Algeria– got him into trouble with the French authorities for its unacceptable –"Islamic"– content, he had to flee to Switzerland pretending he was Persian with Armenian attire. There he met his patron, Lord Keith, who was fond of Islam, & Emetulah, a Turkish Muslim. Their ideas thus born from influence in thought & enchantment with the Islamic world & Islamic knowledge. Yet, even today, animal rights in the West are mostly nominal & discriminatory. What is good about the West today originate in true prophetic tradition, especially from Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) –else it's abominations.
Ghazaly
Member
- That's a truistic definition. Then what?
- This is fallacious. "It is possible that, therefore it is true that" is a fallacy.
- Bare assertions. You're offering zero justification & zero objection to make your case. Regardless, your contentions are more appropriate to the liberal-capitalism apostates persecuted in the West. You're being an obvious hypocrite.
- Either way that's unjust. Qadda in Islam (Islamic judiciary) relies on perfect proof in penalties. No perfect proof = no penalty, as the Prophet (pbuh) sanctioned. This still is a non-starter, wrongful conviction does not inform legitimacy or otherwise of the nature of penalty, nor is the opposite true. At best this is a question of proof & evidence.
- Bare assertion. Dismissed.
- That's not a point of contention at all in Sharia. Any doubt whatsoever about the offense revokes penalty.
- AGAIN, what's your moral basis to make such assertions? & why should we believe your assertions true or even relevant anyways?
- This is just a bunch of words stuck together, where is the rationale?? It's like I'm talking to a robot. If you really believe in the truth of what you're saying then establish it.
- "A particular premise, therefore a general conclusion" is a fallacy, false generalization. Validly establish your conclusion first, then you can illustrate it with an particular example.
- You've really given up on defending your case, haven't you. Where are you getting this from? Why is anything you say relevant at all?
- Prevent & discourage transgressions, in order to protect individual's inviolability & insure public safety.
- No! Yours is a strawman however. Your argument was a sci-fi Minority-Report case for neurological based criminal tendencies, in the absence of which the Penal Code would be obsolete, for criminal tendencies would simply disappear. This is irrelevant to death penalty. You haven't even thought this through haven't you. That's why I said your ideas are all incoherent. A sci-fi argument, really?!!!
- False, this does not inform death penalty's justification one way or another at all. This exclusively informs US capital punishment laws, for more or less leniency. I've seen studies for the opposite as well, not all murders are equal.
- LMAO! Another fantasy argument. Are you for real?! You can't honestly believe your fictions are actually any grounds for any argument!!! Your entire case is a nirvana fallacy. Come back to reality & start over.
- Dude, what is wrong with you?! You're literally advocating for a system concerned with the wellbeing of the criminal over the wellbeing of the victim.
- False. It's Western Secular Liberal system vs. Islamic system. We are not cherry picking here.
- No such thing. Notwithstanding, it's irrelevant to Sharia's 'a soul for a soul' principle.
- Now you're playing dumb. The region is unstable because the West, & particularly the US, is constantly destabilizing it to maintain control; by military interventions – against virtually all countries in the ME (& elsewhere)–, wide support for tyrannical military regimes & colonial occupations (like Israel), pillage of local wealth & resources, & constant foreign interference into the internal affairs of these countries. Wherever the West interferes, instability ensue, wherever their interference stops stability rebounds, such as the case for Southeast Asia.
- Blahblahblah... No such thing. I see you love to fantasize, but you need stop saying very obvious lies to my face please. It's shameless. Western systematic institutions are, by design, EXCLUSIVE. Period. No non-secular non-liberal & non-western worldview or rationale is allowed, EVER. You have conceded, moving on.
- Yeah, don't. Qualification in education is a Muslim invention, which the West adopted when they adopted university systems from the Islamic world.
- You dodging this by an appeal to ignorance? LOL! This clearly shows your position is born purely of hate & bias. If these were Muslims who did this (like kill their own little children) you would've had something different to say.
Ghazaly
Member
- Where are your 'qualification' claims just a moment ago? In the Islamic Tradition, one must be qualified to express opinion about a subject, otherwise irrelevant. One must be qualified to issue rulings in any other Law, like French Civil Law, or US Common Law or else. Likewise, one has to master a great many disciplines before one can be qualified to issue rulings in Islamic Law. It is categorically prohibited in Sharia to speak for the religion without qualification, like the Prophet (pbuh) said "whoever interprets the Quran with his opinion without knowledge let him take his seat in Hell Fire".
- Wow! Such stronk arguments! Much power! I'm defeated X-d . Bare assertion... I take this as a concession. Since you refuse to offer any argument or proofs for your fantasies, let's actually compare the community faith based Islamic system (IS) with the democratic secular Western system (WS) in minority rights which you so profess:
- In principle of freedom of religion
- IS – minorities are allowed & protected by divine decree based on the sacred right of faith (Deen), a perpetual irrevocable right to guarantee freedom of faith to establish accountability for souls to uphold or reject their covenant of Allah.
- WS – minorities are allowed & protected by constitutional decree subject to supermajority whims &/or revolutionary changes.
- In religion of the state
- IS – explicit affirmation of 'Islam is state morality', with recognition of other minority sources of moralities. [non-Muslims are not subject to Sharia]
- WS – concealment of 'Secularism is state morality' to seem “neutral”, with subjugation all minorities to secular morality, under the pretext of “neutrality” & the slogan of “freedom”. [Separation of Church & State is in truth Subjugation of Church to State – the Church has no power over the State or from it, unless granted otherwise]
- In inviolability for humans
- IS – all humans, Muslims or non-Muslims, in the Abode of Peace (not at war with Muslims), whether in Muslim land or elsewhere, are granted inviolability (Ismah) in the 6 sacred rights: faith, life, reason, progeny, property & honor.
- WS – only nationals are granted inviolability, all extra-national humans are not inviolable, thus granted no rights.
- In religious beliefs
- IS – positive tolerance of minorities’ beliefs with recognition of their exclusive claims.
- WS – intolerance of minorities’ exclusive beliefs with aim to change them under harmony by annihilation pressure (melting pot). [the 1300 years of Islamic rule it took Christianity to fall 30 points in the Middle East, took only 30 years in France under secular rule]
- In religious practices
- IS – virtually unconditional freedom of practice to act according to one’s beliefs & morality granted to minorities [Christianity in the Middle East fell less under 13 centuries of Islamic rule (~60%) than it did under the past century alone of secular rule adopted since Colonial times (~75%)].
- WS – none granted unless with the leave of secular law (in practices of worship for instance), minorities acting thus against one’s beliefs & morality in favor of secular morality. [no practices are allowed in most aspects of morality]
- In justice
- IS – freedom to establish courts, issue rulings & solve disputes according to their beliefs & morality granted to minorities.
- WS – none whatsoever [in the rare case of minority courts, they are simply non-binding].
- In law
- IS – freedom to legislate local laws & issue regulations according to their beliefs & morality is granted to minorities in their territories & communities.
- WS – none whatsoever, in favor of majority rule – only secular rationale is ever allowed in legislation.
- In administration
- IS – freedom to enact local policies & establish local fiscal system & tax collection granted to minorities.
- WS – none whatsoever, in favor of majority rule – only secular rationale is ever allowed in policy.
- In government
- IS – freedom to establish local administrations, elect local representatives & govern own territories are granted to minorities within their communities.
- WS – none whatsoever – only majority representatives & state administration are enabled.
- In defense
- IS – exemption granted to minorities from fighting & dying for causes not congruent with their beliefs against maybe peoples of similar faiths.
- WS – enslavement of soldiers under coercion to fight for the state against their own faiths & die for causes they don’t believe in against potential brothers in faith.
- In education
- IS – freedom granted to parents to teach own children & to minorities to establish own education system without interference from the state [unless to undermine its integrity].
- WS – systematic indoctrination in accordance with liberal secular western values,
- under the tyranny of the slogan of “freedom”, with strict exclusion of any & all minority incompatible worldviews.
- In thought & speech
- IS – freedom of participation & exchange of challenging ideas & non-Muslim worldview & granted to minorities in academic sphere, with ban of propaganda & proselytization in public sphere [where it’s easy to prey on weak-minded & impressionable people].
- WS – ban of participation & exchange of non-secular non-liberal non-western worldview from any minority in academic sphere, with freedom granted to propaganda & proselytization in public sphere [where ideas are irrelevant to academia & Thought]
- In language
- IS – preservation of minority languages is natural in a community based system, where language never dies [Berbers in North Africa still speak Berber despite 13 centuries under Islamic rule, even though their language was not a written language]
- WS – native languages disappear within 3 generations under the amazing “melting pot” tyranny.
- In culture
- IS – local customs & minority cultures is conserved in a community based system [there are more than 50 different millennias-old native ethnic groups in the Middle East today with their own languages & customs & territories conserved thanks to 13 centuries of Islamic rule, (knowing many have disappeared during the last century because of secular rule)]
- WS – harmony by annihilation, aka “melting pot”. No native cultures or customs can be conserved.
=> In conclusion, Western system is far inferior to the Islamic system & sucks in the worst possible ways. As I said before, the West is all about degeneracy, nothing else.
- You're missing the point. If your enemy knows his life is not in danger upon capture, the martial edge systematically tips in his favor.
- An accusation is a claim too. Dismissed.
- Tell me more about this western state giving free citizenships to spies. If you were going to lie, don't make it too obvious.
- I'm sure that's what your wishful thinking is telling you. Islamic empires dominated global economy, trade, political dominion, science, innovation, & thought for over 10 centuries. The West has been at his for barely 2 centuries & they are already ceding their dominion back to pre-19th powers.Perhaps this demonstrates the superiority of western states to Islamic states
- I will admit this is true when it comes to degeneracy. Anything pertaining to degeneration the West leads by leaps & bounds.
Last edited:
Ghazaly
Member
- Adoption entails embracing a non-biological child as your own biological child. Guardianship entails caring for a non-biological child as is, until they reach maturity. Parent–Blood-child in Islam is a natural irrevocable care relationship, whereas Guardian–Dependent is a conventional care relationship subject to circumstance.
- Breastfeeding in Sharia generates a natural relationship, that of Milk-parent–Milk-child. Milk relations & blood relations are equivalent in Sharia in prohibitions, but not in obligations. For instance, if blood siblings can not marry each-other, then so is the case for milk siblings. Though, a milk-parent is not obligated to care for or maintain his/her milk-child, as he/she would for his/her blood-child.
- Embracing a non-biological child as a biological child is categorically prohibited, for that is a transgression against the 4th sacred right of Sharia: Progeny (Nasl). Adoption leads to mixture of lineages. Biological relationships entail a number of obligations & prohibitions pertaining to maintenance, inheritance, marriage, incest, modesty...etc – not present in non-biological relationships. A non-biological daughter, for instance, can marry her guardian ("step-father") but not her biological father. However, a Guardian–Dependent relation being similar to Parent–Child relation in obligations (maintenance, care, protection...), & a Milk-parent–Milk-child being similar to Parent-Child relation in prohibitions. The two combined –of a guardian who's also a milk parent– can be similar to a Parent-Child relationship, thus seem as if it is embracing a non-biological child as a biological one.
- In that case, a woman–woman or man–man sexual relationship is also categorically prohibited in Sharia, for the same reason. It is a transgression against the sacred necessity of Progeny (Nasl) [sometimes also translated as Family]. You'll probably going to ask why, so I might as well answer here. I've mentioned something about this before. So here we go.
- Islam is solely about submission to Allah. Our souls established a covenan (Ahd) with Allah to worship only Him. Then brought to this life as delegates ((Khilafa) to Allah in this Earthly domain to settle, cultivate the land & prosper (Istimar). In this life our yearning for God is actually the memory of our covenant, as if something we miss we are incomplete without. This memory is our innate state of being (Fitrah), which manifests in our faculty to seek the divine & recognize it when we see it. This faculty is reason (Aql), gift entrusted to us. We are responsible (Taklif) to uphold that trust (Amana) by preserving our innate state of being (Fitrah) -thus our covenant- until we return to Allah again after death, by worshiping only Allah. Worship is in essence the recognition of the divine –in His absolute, thus recognition of the self –in its self-annihilation, i.e. submission to Allah (Islam) manifesting in gratitude & .
- Since transgression is to infringe on the right of another, & since the Earth –& all things– is the domain of Allah, any exercise of rights therein is therefore transgressive, unless within the boundaries set for us by Him to act as His delegates on Earth – hence Sharia. Therefore, Sharia –as a divine guideline– must seek to preserve our innate state of being (Fitrah) while empowering us to settle & prosper on the Earth. Sharia must remove impediments to the soul's purpose of finding Her Lord in the temporal life while prospering on the Earth. It follows, sacred boundaries must be set to safeguard these purposes & transgression against these boundaries must be penalized, hence the sacred rights: Faith (Deen), Life (Nafs, i.e self), Reason (Aql), Family (Nasl, i.e progeny), Property (Mal, i.e. material wealth), & Honor (Ird, i.e. moral wealth). Progeny is sanctified, for only through stable & nurtured progeny would future souls have the chance at finding He who they missed & prospering on Earth, so they can return to their Lord. Any impediments to this sanctity must, thus, be blocked by Sharia, hence transgressions against Family integrity are prohibited. Among which is all extra-marital relations, including homosexual relations.
- This is true for Islamic system, it's not true for Western system at all. The Western system is closest to a tribal system, laws are customary & changing according to changing norms & mob rule, yet are made to be universal, leading thus to systematic injustice. Minorities outside sexual minorities get hardly any consideration in the Western Secular system, for the only meaningful qualifier in the Liberal West today is depravity –self-gratification within customary acceptance. A human being is more than just what's between their legs, yet that's the paramount qualifier of identity in the West. In Islam, a person may be involved in dozens if not hundreds of relations, some more important than other yet each entailing rights & dues within the boundaries of Allah: with their parents, children, siblings, spouse, landlord, employer, neighbor, imam, merchant, doctor, teacher, student, family member, friend, officer, partner, client, debtor, handyman, pet...etc, while being in a state of worship towards Allah. What strictly defines a human their origin as a creature of God, – not what hole they lust for.
- That is not true at all. A systematic endorsement of extra-marital relationships inevitably leads to breakdown of Family hence collapse of fertility, thus demographics. There is no need to deny this, it's a fact we live everywhere & see everywhere. In fact, the official global policy to lower demographics in non-Western countries is female emancipation, which then naturally leads to breakdown of Family & cessation of births. To achieve this they start with removing all obstacles to "sexual freedom" (aka promiscuity) which constrain women to a future of Family. Such as: lack of contraception or abortion ban. In an environment where intercourse mostly leads to pregnancy & birth, a woman will only anticipate her future as a mother settled with a husband, i.e. in Family. Removing these "risks" towards an equation where intercourse never leads to pregnancy & birth, it's easier for women to become promiscuous, & thus needing to maintain themselves by themselves, for non-husbands can not commit to taking charge of them as husbands would. Hence, "emancipation". You probably don't know much about this because you live in the West, but this is how the West is f*cking everyone else & their societies using conventions like CEDAW.
- These qualifiers are meaningful locally, not globally – within a single population, or similar populations. The true catalyst of fertility rate is break down of family. The Arabs consist some of the richest ethnicities in the US, yet they espouse the highest fertility rates. This is true for Muslims in general anywhere in the world, because of preservation of Family. Qatar is the richest country in the world; yet Qatari women, despite being among the highest educated (~45% tertiary education), have a fertility rate comparable to Subsaharan African countries (4.0). This stuff very obvious.
- Maybe something will happen. No one knows. But as long as this system & this culture is in place, it will not change. It hasn't changed no matter how much they tried, that's why they can't but important immigrants as workforce.
- I don't know your type, he talks about a lot of topics. Maybe his autobiography: Al-Muqithu Mina Dalal – Deliverance From Error, where he talks about his intellectual & spiritual journey.
Ghazaly
Member
- I see you can't handle generalization, yet you are committing to it. Very typical of a western hypocrite. There is no such thing as neutral, either you're with or against. If you're not against, then you're with – which is amply manifest in your attitude. Besides, what is relevant here is you & your hostility. If you were compassionate & kind we would be having an entirely different conversation. A great many people in the West are indeed kind & seek justice, the "against" ones. You're clearly not one of them. If you had shown respect & kindness, I would've accorded you the same courtesy & more, even with disagreement.
- Is this some propaganda slogan they teach you?! Honest advice, if your people do not wake up to the reality of the world, it will come a day when it shall be too late. Yours are actual invasions, with millions of dead, many more displaced, & trillions pillaged. Power expires, but injustice is never forgotten. Immigration is not invasion. So childish!
- You're talking about court marriage, the legitimate type. I'm talking about illegitimate marriage among teens & pre-teens which are prevalent in your country –& the West in general. Marriage is essentially consent to sexual engagement. The difference is that these illegitimate marriages come with no guarantees or rights or benefits or family support or stable prospect, just for pure unadulterated depravity.
- My rational mind can not hear you over this cosmic distance from the asininity of someone who believes the entire Universe came from nothing & Life came from pure arbitrary chance. No wonder you believe immigration is invasion.
- Tell these lies to those Islamophobes ready to swallow them. I notice a lot of your type believe their own propaganda actually works outside of their circles & countries! Thanks to the Prophet (pbuh) you have equal rights to men, you can go study in school, you can divorce, you can own your own property, you have the freedom to adopt the faith of your own conviction, you can claim inheritance, you can vote, you can live without being subject to the whims of your man, or be sold to prostitution...etc, none of which were granted to your foremothers –contrary to their Muslim counterpart, until a great many European intellectuals influenced by then the Islamic world & Islamic ideas slowly & painfully introduced these concepts & rights into your backwards societies. Women didn't get full propriety rights in France until 1939. Women in 1880s were still being sold in England. The Swiss Law which Ataturk borrowed from your crude country in 1926 legalized honor killing & banned divorce, in the name of "civilization", until the Swiss realized that's bad & switched the gear to more Sharia compliant laws. Disgusting! You people are utterly clueless about your history, only preoccupied with depravity & self-gratification. Get off your high unicorn, it's not doing any good, just embarrassment.
- That's actually funny. It's a report about the maturity of Aisha at age 9.10?
And by the way, your link about reaching maturity points to a prescription of my doctor. Or it looks like one.
- You clearly don't know anything about the Bible, & what the prophets there were up to; Incest, rape, pedophilia, sex slaves... Hence, your abhorrent history.
*********
- Tyson needs to stay on his lane –astrophysics– & leave things about which he has clue to those qualified. This moron is defusing the theory that the Islamic Golden Age lasted until 1100, or at most until the Fall of Baghdad in 1258. A theory promulgated late 19th century - early 20th century to as part of revisionist campaign to erase any & all Islamic origins of European coming to civilization, inventing fantasies like 'European Miracle' & 'Scientific Revolution'. The stupid thing about this quote of Neil Tyson is that Ibn al-Hazen (Ibn al-Haytham) himself belonged to the same Ashaari school which Imam al-Ghazali adhered to (sharing co-great-teachers) –an anti-Greek theological school. & that's precisely the reason why both scholars & others like al-Biruni & Fakhrdeen Razi heavily criticized the Greeks & moved away from their paradigm, created a new paradigm & from it new theories about the cosmos & nature & life, in astronomy & mathematics, & mechanics, & medicine... Classical Physics is a Islamic invention, not a European one. The Greeks had no Science, they had Natural Philosophy. Thanks is indeed due to great geniuses like al-Ghazali & Ibn Haytham who, conceptually & methodologically, excised Greek Philosophy from the practice of Science, to open the door to experimenting-hypothesizing based discoveries. The Muslims took their systemization of mathematics into a purely formal language (Algebra) to Natural Science, in inferring mathematical models from observations & experimentations (Tanthir). Until al-Qushji (died in 1474) who separated the practice of Physics from any philosophical assumptions or implications, finalizing the cosmological models of his predecessors (Tusi, & Ibn Shatir, & Uleg Bey & others), –then plagiarized by Copernicus & falsely credited to him. This also applies to the Scientific Method falsely attributed to Bacon (even though he himself quotes Arabs in his own essay). Centuries before Newton, al-Biruni (d. 1048) had established that gravitation is inversely proportional to altitude, Abu Barakat (d. 1166) had proven that force is proportional to acceleration, & Ibn Baja (d. 1138) had shown that for every action there is an opposite reaction... In fact, Fakhrdeen Razi (d. 1210) discusses all these laws of motion in his book Mabahith. The laws of refraction, reflection, refraction, & geometric optics in general already established by scientists from Ibn Haytham himself, founder of Optics, to Taqiydeen Shami (d. 1585). Oh! By the way, all the aforementioned polymaths are ASHAARIS like Imam al-Ghazali (with the exception of Nasr Tusi). In truth, the Europeans never took anything from the Greeks. Their access to Greek knowledge came exclusively through the Arabs and the Muslims. What the Europeans seized from Muslims was never Greek philosophy or Greek sciences! It was rather in fact Islamic philosophy & Islamic sciences, which sometimes also contained commentary on Greek philosophy & Greek sciences. This stuff is known among relevant Muslim circles & even European circles, but it's not mainstream, for obvious reason. But it will become mainstream once the West declines, which is already happening. Neil Tyson outside of astrophysics is a dummy, just embarrassing himself. This is coming from someone trained in Fundamental Physics.
*********
- Sure, I will. Anything other objections?
- What do you propose?
First of all, thanks again for another detailed response. I have not quoted a majority of the beginning portion because it is mostly informational, such that any response I would say to those portions would be "thank you for the information."
I would say that an identity like being homosexual is not about "what hole they lust for." This can be true of any human, heterosexual or otherwise. Romantic affection is emotional, different in scope and quality from Platonic/friendly affection, and is felt deeply by some homosexuals between each other the same as romantic affection is felt between some heterosexuals. So, I don't think that characterizing it as mere lust is fair. (Whether or not a person opposed to homosexuality believes these feelings are natural, it is still true that they exist regardless).
I think the question I was implicitly asking is whether homosexuals born into a country with Sharia have anything to worry about if they are not Muslims? Obviously, if they are Muslims, then they are consciously deciding that they will abstain from their affections (and yes, their lust; but again, I do not think it's fair to characterize things as "lust only"), and that is hopefully their choice. What of those who were just born in the "wrong" country? (Maybe it's not "wrong," if they are able to live their lives loving whom they will. Perhaps that was presumptuous. We will see what you say).
It seems to me as though people should have the choice. There are some heterosexual people that don't seek to have children. If I weren't attracted to women, or were at least attracted to men sexually (I still love men Platonically), I probably would still have no desire to have children.
So this probably gets bundled up into my question above: if someone chooses to be a Muslim, then obviously they are deciding they want to follow tenets such as this. Is there room under Sharia for people that do not agree, such that they can still obtain birth control?
Also, I use an IUD (sorry if TMI) to help control periods; that has been a great boon. Why shouldn't that be available?
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the scale you're using for fertility rate. If I look at the fertility rate for Qatar, according to Google it appears to be 1.87 births per woman in 2018 (lower than Saudi Arabia, higher than United Arab Emirates). I'm not sure what your point is here, I'm not trying to be obtuse.
It does raise the question though: aren't very high fertility rates ultimately going to be destructive if they're universal? There are finite resources on the planet. Sometimes having lower birth rates is good.
Edit: I think I understand your point to mean this on further reflection: that despite higher education, Qatari women still have high fertility rates; this is an objection to my comment about low fertility rates being connected to education in some cases. Is this the right interpretation?
Well, I am a scientist first; but I engage in a lot of analytical philosophy as a hobby. I am most interested in analytical argument, ontology, epistemology, ethics, and so on. A journey might be interesting; but I'm interested in argument and reasoning to get a taste of how the man operated (operates?).
I would say that an identity like being homosexual is not about "what hole they lust for." This can be true of any human, heterosexual or otherwise. Romantic affection is emotional, different in scope and quality from Platonic/friendly affection, and is felt deeply by some homosexuals between each other the same as romantic affection is felt between some heterosexuals. So, I don't think that characterizing it as mere lust is fair. (Whether or not a person opposed to homosexuality believes these feelings are natural, it is still true that they exist regardless).
I think the question I was implicitly asking is whether homosexuals born into a country with Sharia have anything to worry about if they are not Muslims? Obviously, if they are Muslims, then they are consciously deciding that they will abstain from their affections (and yes, their lust; but again, I do not think it's fair to characterize things as "lust only"), and that is hopefully their choice. What of those who were just born in the "wrong" country? (Maybe it's not "wrong," if they are able to live their lives loving whom they will. Perhaps that was presumptuous. We will see what you say).
It seems to me as though people should have the choice. There are some heterosexual people that don't seek to have children. If I weren't attracted to women, or were at least attracted to men sexually (I still love men Platonically), I probably would still have no desire to have children.
So this probably gets bundled up into my question above: if someone chooses to be a Muslim, then obviously they are deciding they want to follow tenets such as this. Is there room under Sharia for people that do not agree, such that they can still obtain birth control?
Also, I use an IUD (sorry if TMI) to help control periods; that has been a great boon. Why shouldn't that be available?
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the scale you're using for fertility rate. If I look at the fertility rate for Qatar, according to Google it appears to be 1.87 births per woman in 2018 (lower than Saudi Arabia, higher than United Arab Emirates). I'm not sure what your point is here, I'm not trying to be obtuse.
It does raise the question though: aren't very high fertility rates ultimately going to be destructive if they're universal? There are finite resources on the planet. Sometimes having lower birth rates is good.
Edit: I think I understand your point to mean this on further reflection: that despite higher education, Qatari women still have high fertility rates; this is an objection to my comment about low fertility rates being connected to education in some cases. Is this the right interpretation?
Well, I am a scientist first; but I engage in a lot of analytical philosophy as a hobby. I am most interested in analytical argument, ontology, epistemology, ethics, and so on. A journey might be interesting; but I'm interested in argument and reasoning to get a taste of how the man operated (operates?).
Ghazaly
Member
- There are several proof for God established in the Ashaari school, the most important of which is Burhan al-Huduth (proof from eventuality/occurrence/change), a version of which is sometimes translated as the Kalam Cosmological Argument ['Kalam'= 'Islamic theology']. Ashaaris reject most of the philosophical arguments for God, like the ontological argument, for being unsound or invalid. The basic Huduth argument goes:
Pu. Whatever event necessitates a cause for its eventuality,
Pp. The world is an event,
C. Therefore, the world necessities a cause for its eventuality.
*********
- Wut?! Ijab = offer, Qubul = approval. I don't understand what you're saying.
*********
- Make a counter argument, how can an altered book faithfully inform us of the true message of its author?
- To establish the truth of the Quran, we must know first the claim of which we are ascertaining the truth. The claim is: the Quran we have today is actually the Word of Allah, i.e. revealed from Allah. Thus:
The Quran is true – if & only if – the Recited Quran [today] is the Revealed Quran [from Allah].
- The argument elaborated thus:P1. The Recited Quran [today] is the Conveyed Quran [from Muhammed (pbuh)]
P2. The Conveyed Quran [from Muhammed (pbuh)] is the Revealed Quran [from Allah].
Ci. Therefore, the Recited Quran [today] is the Revealed Quran [from Allah].
Cf. Therefore, the Quran is true.
- To establish (P1) we must show that there is perfect preservation between the Recited Quran [today] & the Conveyed Quran [from Muhammed (pbuh)]. To establish (P2) we must show that Muhammed (pbuh) is a true prophet from Allah. According to the following chart:
- Cut the childishness. I was being courteous.
- I'm an Arab.
- Do you know what Sunni means? It means in accordance with the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh). That is, his teachings & legacy in all three dimensions of faith:
- Morality – of Islam = his teachings pertaining to the body, in acts & practices – aggregated into the Fiqh tradition (Islamic Law).
- Rationality – of Iman = his teachings pertaining to the mind, in convictions & beliefs – aggregated into the Kalam tradition (Islamic Theology).
- Spirituality – of Ihsan = his teachings pertaining to the soul, in intentions & emotions – aggregated into the Tasawwuf tradition (Islamic Mysticism/Sufism).
- I agree with this. But it's not the case in Islam. Madhahb (school of thought) is a method of interpretation of scripture (Quran & Sunnah), not a school to legislate new morality & law; for that is innovation (Bidaa), which is categorically prohibited in Islam. The true legislator is of course none other than Prophet Muhammed (pbuh), by the decree of Allah. The Maliki madhhab (similar to others madhhabs) is merely a school to interpret the moral dimension of Prophet Muhammed's (pbuh) tradition (Sunnah) & the Quran, according to the principles & methodologies set by Imam Malik (or the others). To appreciate the vastness of the prophetic tradition, consider one of the largest digital encyclopedias of Hadith today Jawamii al-Kalim. The encyclopedia indexes 1400 Hadith collection by 487 collectors scholars of Hadith (like Bukhari, Muslim Nasai...etc) containing >1.2 million hadiths. It total, it lists 468,110 variant narrations of 50,054 unique reports by 2377 companions about 20,744 unique stories pertaining to the Prophet (pbuh). [in comparison, the Bible – OT & NT – has around 700 stories, most with no moral or rational or spiritual worth]. These >50 thousands reports –amounting to some 7 million words in total– are the Sunnah; alongside the Quran, forming the foundation of Islamic law, theology & mysticism, & all the other Islamic sciences.
*********
- You obviously haven't got the faintest idea of what Ilm Rijal is. I'll make a new thread about this & I'll let you know.
*********
- I see no objections.
*********
- The Jews say the Quran is taking from their scriptures, the Christians too, & the Zoroastrians, & the Hindus, & others saying it's taking from the Akkadians & the Sumerians & God knows who... Let's just say the Quran is from Allah, & all these also share a divine origin.
*********
- Ibn Hazm. I don't believe Tabari's position to be tenable. The Torah contains actual texts which go against the strict teachings of the Quran. Such as, degrading stories about the prophets (pbut), who we believe are infallible & exemplary beings; or blasphemous statements against Allah; or just details contrary to what the Quran says. For instance: Joseph's mother dies in the Torah, she doesn't in the Quran. Aron is the one with the calf in the Torah, not in the Quran. David sends his general to take his wife in the Torah, he gives someone's goat to someone else in bad judgement in the Quran. Lut has sex with his daughters in the Torah, he doesn't in the Quran...etc.
*********
- Who knew your adoration of depravity is so profound. It's starting to be revolting. You can't stand decency, it petrifies your sick mind. 22 million pre-teens & teens involved in sexual debauchery is your holy grail. Absolutely disgusting! Less than 3% of them (600k) have the decency to get married & commit to family & genuine love & sacrifice. But I know this agitates you because it's not depraved. These married teens have all my respect, they chose a life of decency & commitment instead of lewdness.
- A similar thing was said to me, so I'll give the same response. Thanks to the Prophet (pbuh) women have equal rights to men, women can go study in school, women can divorce, women can own their own property, women have the freedom to adopt the faith of their own conviction, women can claim inheritance, women can vote, women can live without being subject to the whims of their men, or be sold to prostitution...etc, none of which were granted to your foremothers –contrary to their Muslim counterpart enjoying their prophetic rights, until a great many European intellectuals influenced by then the Islamic world & Islamic ideas slowly & painfully introduced these concepts & rights into your backwards societies. Women didn't get full propriety rights in France until 1939. Women in 1880s were still being sold in England. The Swiss Law which Ataturk borrowed from your crude country in 1926 legalized honor killing & banned divorce, in the name of "civilization", until the Swiss realized that's bad & switched the gear to more Sharia compliant laws. Disgusting! You people are utterly clueless about your history, only preoccupied with depravity & self-gratification. Get off your high unicorn, it's not doing any good, just embarrassment.
- False. The invaders & destroyers are the West, since the Crusades then the Reconquista, the Holy alliance, Colonialism, & now American imperialism. Your history is bloodier than the rest of the world combined. Centuries ago, Europe was a backward region of the world, the poorest continent. Even in 1700, the Ottoman Empire's GDP was comparable to that of all of the Europe combined, with four times (2500) the income (GDP/capita) of a "rich" European country like France (650).
- Of course they became "your" countries after genociding their native peoples. Muslims controlled –at one point or another– a third of Europe, from Spain to France, from Tour to the West to Metz to the East, Southern Italy & all the Mediterranean islands, to the East from Greece in the south or Ukraine to the north, & all the Black Sea region. Much of European countries were at some point tributary states to the Ottomans (or before them the Abbasids), including countries like Poland & England. Some 9 million native Muslims lived in Spain (majority) & some 11 million in the Balkans (close to majority). They were all purged –by death or expulsion– by your savage ancestors. Just like what they did with the native Americans & everywhere else they went, to claim "our countries". Sickening!
- Europe has the highest rates of sexual abuse in the world, oftentimes orders of magnitude higher than in Muslim countries. What else can you expect when depravity in your society is so prevalent. By far, the most sexualized society in human history.European women have suffered a loss of safety and rights. So way to go. You finally got to have an impact on Western rights.
Disagree, I'm not responding for anyone other than myself.
According to @Tiberius they said "the word of disbelief and did disbelieve" whereas according to Yusuf Ali they "uttered blasphemy" which makes it less clear that they were formally apostatising.
In my opinion.
I look forward to it. As I said, to me words of light and insight from the Prophet (s) should not be subject to human made systems that have no basis. I believe Ilmel Rijaal has no basis in Quran. It's a cheap way to avoid insights, proofs and light in Quran - that the hadiths are meant to give to people.
Last edited:
Lol, I've seen enough from you. Great job making your religion look like garbage. I'm just enjoying your nonsensical rants and ridiculous attempts to insult me (which are violations of the forum rules but I'm not reporting you as I prefer to let you embarrass yourself, so if you get reported - it ain't me). They're not even worth debating because they're so dumb, like your rambling about Europeans "stealing" "Muslim land", as if Muslims didn't invade all those countries in the first place - the Reconquista was literally Christian Spaniards reclaiming their country - the hint is in the term itself! I don't debate people who think marrying children is acceptable, anyway. There's nothing to debate. If you're a good representative of your religion, that alone is cause to be wary.- There are several proof for God established in the Ashaari school, the most important of which is Burhan al-Huduth (proof from eventuality/occurrence/change), a version of which is sometimes translated as the Kalam Cosmological Argument ['Kalam'= 'Islamic theology']. Ashaaris reject most of the philosophical arguments for God, like the ontological argument, for being unsound or invalid. The basic Huduth argument goes:
Pu. Whatever event necessitates a cause for its eventuality,
Pp. The world is an event,
C. Therefore, the world necessities a cause for its eventuality.
*********
- Wut?! Ijab = offer, Qubul = approval. I don't understand what you're saying.
*********
- Make a counter argument, how can an altered book faithfully inform us of the true message of its author?
- To establish the truth of the Quran, we must know first the claim of which we are ascertaining the truth. The claim is: the Quran we have today is actually the Word of Allah, i.e. revealed from Allah. Thus:
The Quran is true – if & only if – the Recited Quran [today] is the Revealed Quran [from Allah].- The argument elaborated thus:
P1. The Recited Quran [today] is the Conveyed Quran [from Muhammed (pbuh)]
P2. The Conveyed Quran [from Muhammed (pbuh)] is the Revealed Quran [from Allah].
Ci. Therefore, the Recited Quran [today] is the Revealed Quran [from Allah].
Cf. Therefore, the Quran is true.
- To establish (P1) we must show that there is perfect preservation between the Recited Quran [today] & the Conveyed Quran [from Muhammed (pbuh)]. To establish (P2) we must show that Muhammed (pbuh) is a true prophet from Allah. According to the following chart:
*********
- Cut the childishness. I was being courteous.
- I'm an Arab.
- Do you know what Sunni means? It means in accordance with the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh). That is, his teachings & legacy in all three dimensions of faith:
- Morality – of Islam = his teachings pertaining to the body, in acts & practices – aggregated into the Fiqh tradition (Islamic Law).
- Rationality – of Iman = his teachings pertaining to the mind, in convictions & beliefs – aggregated into the Kalam tradition (Islamic Theology).
- Spirituality – of Ihsan = his teachings pertaining to the soul, in intentions & emotions – aggregated into the Tasawwuf tradition (Islamic Mysticism/Sufism).
- I agree with this. But it's not the case in Islam. Madhahb (school of thought) is a method of interpretation of scripture (Quran & Sunnah), not a school to legislate new morality & law; for that is innovation (Bidaa), which is categorically prohibited in Islam. The true legislator is of course none other than Prophet Muhammed (pbuh), by the decree of Allah. The Maliki madhhab (similar to others madhhabs) is merely a school to interpret the moral dimension of Prophet Muhammed's (pbuh) tradition (Sunnah) & the Quran, according to the principles & methodologies set by Imam Malik (or the others). To appreciate the vastness of the prophetic tradition, consider one of the largest digital encyclopedias of Hadith today Jawamii al-Kalim. The encyclopedia indexes 1400 Hadith collection by 487 collectors scholars of Hadith (like Bukhari, Muslim Nasai...etc) containing >1.2 million hadiths. It total, it lists 468,110 variant narrations of 50,054 unique reports by 2377 companions about 20,744 unique stories pertaining to the Prophet (pbuh). [in comparison, the Bible – OT & NT – has around 700 stories, most with no moral or rational or spiritual worth]. These >50 thousands reports –amounting to some 7 million words in total– are the Sunnah; alongside the Quran, forming the foundation of Islamic law, theology & mysticism, & all the other Islamic sciences.
*********
- You obviously haven't got the faintest idea of what Ilm Rijal is. I'll make a new thread about this & I'll let you know.
*********
- I see no objections.
*********
- The Jews say the Quran is taking from their scriptures, the Christians too, & the Zoroastrians, & the Hindus, & others saying it's taking from the Akkadians & the Sumerians & God knows who... Let's just say the Quran is from Allah, & all these also share a divine origin.
*********
- Ibn Hazm. I don't believe Tabari's position to be tenable. The Torah contains actual texts which go against the strict teachings of the Quran. Such as, degrading stories about the prophets (pbut), who we believe are infallible & exemplary beings; or blasphemous statements against Allah; or just details contrary to what the Quran says. For instance: Joseph's mother dies in the Torah, she doesn't in the Quran. Aron is the one with the calf in the Torah, not in the Quran. David sends his general to take his wife in the Torah, he gives someone's goat to someone else in bad judgement in the Quran. Lut has sex with his daughters in the Torah, he doesn't in the Quran...etc.
*********
- Who knew your adoration of depravity is so profound. It's starting to be revolting. You can't stand decency, it petrifies your sick mind. 22 million pre-teens & teens involved in sexual debauchery is your holy grail. Absolutely disgusting! Less than 3% of them (600k) have the decency to get married & commit to family & genuine love & sacrifice. But I know this agitates you because it's not depraved. These married teens have all my respect, they chose a life of decency & commitment instead of lewdness.
- A similar thing was said to me, so I'll give the same response. Thanks to the Prophet (pbuh) women have equal rights to men, women can go study in school, women can divorce, women can own their own property, women have the freedom to adopt the faith of their own conviction, women can claim inheritance, women can vote, women can live without being subject to the whims of their men, or be sold to prostitution...etc, none of which were granted to your foremothers –contrary to their Muslim counterpart enjoying their prophetic rights, until a great many European intellectuals influenced by then the Islamic world & Islamic ideas slowly & painfully introduced these concepts & rights into your backwards societies. Women didn't get full propriety rights in France until 1939. Women in 1880s were still being sold in England. The Swiss Law which Ataturk borrowed from your crude country in 1926 legalized honor killing & banned divorce, in the name of "civilization", until the Swiss realized that's bad & switched the gear to more Sharia compliant laws. Disgusting! You people are utterly clueless about your history, only preoccupied with depravity & self-gratification. Get off your high unicorn, it's not doing any good, just embarrassment.
- False. The invaders & destroyers are the West, since the Crusades then the Reconquista, the Holy alliance, Colonialism, & now American imperialism. Your history is bloodier than the rest of the world combined. Centuries ago, Europe was a backward region of the world, the poorest continent. Even in 1700, the Ottoman Empire's GDP was comparable to that of all of the Europe combined, with four times (2500) the income (GDP/capita) of a "rich" European country like France (650).
- Of course they became "your" countries after genociding their native peoples. Muslims controlled –at one point or another– a third of Europe, from Spain to France, from Tour to the West to Metz to the East, Southern Italy & all the Mediterranean islands, to the East from Greece in the south or Ukraine to the north, & all the Black Sea region. Much of European countries were at some point tributary states to the Ottomans (or before them the Abbasids), including countries like Poland & England. Some 9 million native Muslims lived in Spain (majority) & some 11 million in the Balkans (close to majority). They were all purged –by death or expulsion– by your savage ancestors. Just like what they did with the native Americans & everywhere else they went, to claim "our countries". Sickening!
- Europe has the highest rates of sexual abuse in the world, oftentimes orders of magnitude higher than in Muslim countries. What else can you expect when depravity in your society is so prevalent. By far, the most sexualized society in human history.
Last edited:
epronovost
Well-Known Member
What makes you say that women don't have the choice to choose their family arrangement in the West? There are housewives in the West just like there are working mothers (either full time or part time). There are also housemen in the West just like there are working fathers (either full time or part time). Someone has to work of course unless both are financially wealthy and can afford not to because of their personal wealth and that of their family, but very, very few people are in that situation.
There are constrained in western countries as to how a child or family can work. For example, the child MUST be provided for. He or she MUST be educated. He or she MUST be safe from physical and psychological harm. Who does the providing, who does the educating and who provides love, tenderness and attention isn't specified, but the parents MUST provide those things. They HAVE to make it work. The law in western country doesn't concern itself so much on the "how" the results are achieved, but are centered on the result. Are the children well taken care for? If yes, then the law doesn't care.
C'mon, be serious for a second. Women in all western countries, except the US for some reason where it's State dependent, have what we called "guarantied paid family leave". That means that a woman who cannot work or doesn't want to work while pregnant or nursing a young child cannot be fired from her prior employment and will receive her full pay. In almost all western countries, fathers have a similar treatment with paid paternity leave. The time during which they benefit from it varies from countries to countries, but overs generally around 1 year for a mother and 6 months for a father. Governments also provide child allocation to help provide for children's cost too and there are specific programs for single mothers or fathers or even stay at home parents to make up for the lack of revenue and superior expanses that comes with a child. We don't rely solely on "good men" for not all men are "good men" we rely on "good men", "good women" and "good government and social services" to care for children. It's safer to rely on a successive system where multiple people are tasked with the same role as to limit the number of times where the system doesn't work.
Of course there are children's rights. In fact they are basically the same in every country in the world, including yours, since there is a UN charter for children's rights. A child has the right to a family, but that doesn't say it must be the family of its birth since it's impossible for that to be guarantied. People die, some parents are abusive, cruel or just criminally negligent and stupid. You can't say to a child that he must stay in an abusive family because its the family of his birth nor can you prevent people from dying in which case single parents and recomposed family are basically unavoidable. The same is true for child abandonment. While it's technically illegal to abandon a child in most circumstances, it might very well still happen and in some cases, usually legal ones, it might be better for the child to be abandoned and be adopted by people who will be able to be good parents.
A divorced family isn't a broken family either, at least not in the sense that a child stops having two parents since both parents retain obligation of care toward a child despite divorce. There must be arrangement as to with whom the child will live with and when (most divorced parents have joint custody and its rare for a parent to not have any custodial rights, usually due to abuse or incompetency). Parents also have provider's responsibility. Even a parent with no custody rights will have to pay child support money as to not deprive the child from financial resources and in many case spouse support as to not hold their partner hostage in a bad marriage using money as an incentive for them to stay. Furthermore, most divorced couples form new couples within two to three years meaning that there are recomposed family too. Divorces can be traumatic experience in some instances though the trauma is linked, not so much to the separation as it's linked to infighting between the parents prior and during the divorce. A "united", but divided family where both parents are dissatisfied and in conflict with one another or even worst, a family in which one parent is abusive or violent toward the other are very traumatizing and it would be best for them to divorce.
Children in abusive situation need to be rescued from their abusers and will be placed in foster families until they are either adopted or become adults. This is rare and often difficult for children, but its better than leaving them be abused by their own parents. The same goes if both parents are found guilty of serious crimes and must be imprisoned. You will have to have the child be taken into foster care. This is also the case in all Muslim countries. Parents don't have immunity toward being condemned for their crimes and children cannot be raised in detention centers.
Infanticide is illegal in all western countries. I don't know where you got this idea that it's legal to kill a child in the West.
All children have progeny rights in the West. They have to have a legal tutor or parent and they have to have a name.
Nice little ad hominem there, but reality is unflinching and doesn't care about your notion of sanctity and purity. The truth is that homosexual parents are just as good as heterosexual parents and adoptive families no less loving or good than biological families. That's simply not in question. It has been proven numerous time. That you don't like it is not my problem, but it's still the truth. You simply can't deny that. Plus, I found hypocritical this defense of the sanctity of family all the while denying or insulting the families of people. It seems to me you are defending the sanctity of the families you like and not those you don't.
Neither. An adoptive mother is just as much a mother than biological mother. That's why we call them both "mothers". A woman who births a child and gives it in adoption isn't a mother either. She's the genetic sire of the child and that's pretty much it. Whoever will take care and adopt the child will be the mother/father.
That's yet another fallacious ad hominem argument. The reality is undeniable. Birthing a child doesn't mean you are apt to take care of it or the best out of two parents. Some women aren't as patient, tender, constant and nurturing as their husbands. Their husbands are thus more apt at being primary caregiver for a child. Some women who birth children are inapt to take care of them either due to a variety of factor that ranges from being too young and immature to be proper mothers to being antisocial or even sociopathic. Being able to birth a child doesn't make you de facto a good mother and never did. It doesn't even make you a mother in the sense that you are the person with that social role since a woman might abandon her child or give it in adoption. It's sheer fantasy to deny those facts. Once again, that it hurts your sense of propriety and purity doesn't make it less true. You can't model reality on your beliefs.
Last edited:
epronovost
Well-Known Member
The forms of stunning practiced for humane slaughters are by definition a type of stunning that is either painless (like carbon gas intoxication) or instantaneous (bolt stunner or spinal electrical discharges). They thus don't cause pain. These type of stunning also render the animal insensitive to pain for a few minutes or dozens of seconds, well enough to then kill the animal either by destroying the brain with a bolt rifle or exsanguination. Stunning methods, if properly applied of course, are painless and make the death completely painless. The spasm some animal can experiment after shocking is a form of seizure caused by reflex action and aren't a symptom of pain. Without stunning, an animal will suffer and will be in a state of panic as they know they are mortally injured since they are conscious as the knife slice through their neck. Yes, the stop of blood flow does rapidly numb the pain, but not completely and does nothing for the terror the animal feels for his last minute of life or so.
Would you like me to link you some video from Temple Grandin, the world's foremost specialist in humane slaughter? You might find the entire thing quite instructive and humane slaughter goes far beyond execution method too. I will give you that though, most industrial farms in the West are a far cry from the best practice of humane slaughter and humane raising.
That's just an extensive genetic fallacy. That the idea that some practice and view on animals is derived from the Muslim world doesn't make it less true that the standard of best practice for humane slaughter in the West have now exceeded that of the Halal requirements. It might have been built upon a foundation given to the Western world by their Muslim neighbors, and thank you for that btw (but also for all the math, astronomy, engineering, medicine, etc.), but it has grew beyond it in the contemporary era.
Last edited:
Ghazaly
Member
- I take this as a concession. You got nothing. Dismissed.
- More nonsense. Your extreme lack of historical knowledge is showing! Muslims went into Spain at the behest of the Count of Ceuta & the Lord of Sevilla to take revenge for his daughter Florinda who was raped by the Visigoth king when she was sent to the palace for cultivation, & to rid the country from these foreign oppressive invaders (Visigoths are Germans). They settled there & built one of the most prosperous & enlightened countries in history: al-Andalus. Most natives in Andalusia adopted Islam by the 12th century. The Reconquista was an invasion by the northern people to take the southern regions, it was never theirs to begin with. [It's like saying Germans taking back Italy, or Mongols taking back China]. They didn't just invade, they massacred 7 million people & removed the rest from their homeland, exactly as they did when they went to the Americas & Africa & India & the Indies. Literally everywhere they go, the first thing they do is massacre natives & plunder the land, then take it for their own.
- This weak attempt from you to save a tiny bit of face does not help your case a single iota. White flag recovered.
Danielle Dark
New Member
Well, I would first doubt your claim that the Qur'an is the only scripture which has been perfectly preserved. For most religions which came into existence after the invention of the printing press, their books have arguably been perfectly preserved, as with almost any other book which was published through printing. But even if you want to restrict the discussion to ancient texts, I’m not sure how we could even know that the Qur'an is "perfectly preserved," much less that it’s the only religious text which has been so preserved. We just don’t have the originals to compare. We don’t have recordings of Muhammad’s recitations, nor do we even have Uthman's Qur'an. It is the same with most ancient texts; we don’t have the originals. Now, you might say that we have evidence of other texts not being perfectly preserved because of significant variation in the manuscript traditions, but while this might be true for some texts, it would not be true for all of them. Some religious texts are only preserved in a single manuscript, so we don’t have that kind of evidence.
As for your question, that's simple. If I publish a book, and then edit it, and release a second edition, then both versions, even if they might be contradictory, will have faithfully communicated my intentions at the time of publication. It’s perfectly possible that God could reveal a book and then allow humans to change it if he wanted to say something different at a later time.
And I would say that it's just impossible to demonstrate this for reasons I have addressed above.
Your image is missing.
You can think what you want. You're about the last person whose opinion of myself I care about. You pulled this discussion between you and I off of its original topic, anyway. We were talking about your support of child marriage, not historical conquests and battles.
Last edited:
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Seems quite clear to me that you just use those words "seems to me" to put your hatred into something and intentionally misrepresent it.
And it seems to me, you lived your life, like a candle in the wind. Tell me mate. Your favourite verse of the Quran says "9:74 "They swear by Allah that they said nothing", and that's from your own cut and paste. Who is this swearing by Allah?
Despite all your posturing, it is clear from reading the Koran that Allah considers non-believers to be the enemy, and promises them fire and a painful doom. Islam's attitude towards those who do not share the faith is clear.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Yep. Thats known by every muslim. Just so that you dont have to repeat this, Ijab means offer. Qabool means acceptance.
The question I asked is "So who is doing the ajwizah and who is doing the taqbal?" Do you understand the question?
- Status