• 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!

ISIL, Taliban = True Islam??

ISIL, Taliban. Do they represent the correct interpretation of Islam in your opinion?

  • Yes.

  • No.


Results are only viewable after voting.

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
@KWED
In "CLASSICAL ARABIC", a young woman is called Jariyah. A girl of playful age is called Jariyathu Alabu. Even in Bukhari, he refers to Aisha in one hadith as Jariyathu Alabu. Same Bukhari reports in the book of commentary, book 58, hadith number 1784 that a Surah or chapter (chapter 54) has a verse that was revealed when she was in mecca (Before the Hijra) and she was a "Jaariyathu Alabu" which means "a girl at playful age". When you look at the time this so called verse was given to her family, What does that mean? It means that Aisha was a young girl, who was of a playful age when this chapter 54 was revealed. Bukhari reports that she was of Akal age. Akal means the age of reason. So Aisha supposedly narrated this as she remembered and narrated the verse as well, and what age do you think she would have been in order to remember a verse of the Quran and to remember the day it was revealed or time period in Mecca? She would have been what age? 10? 8? And when was chapter 54 revealed?? It was revealed in 614 (10 years before the supposed marriage). Then how old do you think she would have been? 20? 18? There is no way she was so young "even according to ahadith" when she married because of this one factor. There are many. If you check a good Arabic lexicon which I presume you can easily do, a phrase like "Jaariyah" will mean "Young woman". Annisaa are older than them. this is Fusha Atthuraath.

Because you love this hadith so much I am giving you this explanation, if you care to read and understand. There are many ahadith about the sister of Aisha who was 10 years older to her. This is of course a very well known thing though. There is a book called Al Bidhayah wa al Nihayah which would mean the beginning and the end that speaks of Asma who is the sister of Aisha. This is a pretty large amount of work but it contains certain narratives that state this Asma's age in comparison to Aisha's. She was 10 years older.

Asma, Aishas sister is supposed have died in the 73rd year of Hijri which is reported by a scholar in traditional islamic circles had more respect in his sophisticated scholarship of Islam even in comparison to historian and scholar Ibn Kathir. His name was Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani. He reported in his book called Fine Tuning. 100-73 = 27. So at the time of Hijri, Asma was 27 years old. Which would mean Aisha was 17 years old. So this marriage which would have taken place in the 1st or 2nd Hijra makes Aisha 18 or 19. Is that another contradiction?

1. It is said that Asma, the sister of Aisha was ten years older. - (Atthabari)
2. And it also says that Asma died when she was 100 years old when she died, and it was the 73 Hijra. - (Tahzibut Tahzib)
3. Abu Bakr wished Aisha to be married 8 years before Hijra. So in the proponents logic, Aisha would have been just born, which is not.
4. That means obviously 100-73 = 27. So at the time of Hijri, Asma was 27 years old.
5. So it is only simple mathematics to understand that Aisha was 17 years old.
6. So this marriage which would have been taken place in the 1st or 2nd Hijra makes Aisha 18 or 19.
7. If you look at the hadith Aisha is referred to as Bikr, Not Jariah. Which means a woman of adult age, not a childhood or early teen age which is Jariah.


And we know that Jariyathu Alabu refers to a young girl at playful age, where as in Arabic, Annisaa is not word used for such young children. A young girl of growing up age is called Fathaaya. Annisaa is only grown women. It is not used for young girls. This verse says "Women", Annisaa. Not Fathaaya, Jariyah, or any arabic word used for girls of young ages.

I told you that you were appealing to authority. You told it was deferring to authority. But you are not giving the methodology used by these authorities. You dont allow any analysis. You want them to be as it is. No thinking. Just "appeal to authority". So you should understand that difference.

Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses [it is the same]: for those who carry [life within their wombs], their period is until they deliver their burdens: and for those who fear Allah, He will make their path easy. – Quran 65:4

There are some translations which would say “Not yet menstruated” instead of “No courses”.

Take a holistic approach. Not just one cherry picked verse that suits your personal sentiment. Quran is one book.

This verse is speaking of women who go through a divorce where it stipulates certain conditions before the lady is to leave the premises where they had their marital life. So please understand that first, you are married because you are already fully grown, mature enough to manage your finances, balaghul nikaha and so forth. You are already married meeting these criteria and now you are going through a divorce.

Chapter 65 verse 4

1. Premise: In case of divorce (To get a divorce, you are already married. To be married, you are already old enough as spelled out earlier)

2. Wa allathi ya ishna minal maheedhi. Those who are done with their menstruation. Which means Ya Ishna, your menstruations are over. This is menopause. For them, at the time of a divorce their interim period is three months.

3. Wa allathi yaa hidhna means the ones who have not menstruated. Now this is the verse a lot of people use to insult the whole system of islam. But it’s a cheap trick. You will understand why.

It does not say “Never menstruated” and in classical Arabic this could never ever mean one who has not achieved puberty. It is completely illogical. As a non-muslim you could use this this maliciously to insult but also as a Muslim you could use this for your perverted intentions. But none of this is logical if you take the context of the Quran and you should see that its illogical.

You are talking of a girl who is already married because she has reached the right ripe age of marriage. Balagul nikaha. Now she is going through a divorce. And now she cannot be thrown out of where she is living for three months. Both, those who don’t get periods and those who have not got their periods yet after the decision is made, whoever they are cannot be sent out of their abode for 3 months AFTER THE DIVORCE IS CONFIRMED.

4. Hamal or pregnant women if you find them to be must be allowed fully to stay in the same premises until the delivery.

Cheers.
So you subscribe to the "Aisha was 12/14/16/18/21" argument?
You are probably aware that this argument has been thoroughly refuted, by Muslims as well as sceptics.
"Thus, it would be reasonable even for one with primitive knowledge of Islam and the ḥadīth sciences to accept this ḥadīth as authentic and as a part of Islamic history." ;)
The Age of Aisha (ra): Rejecting Historical Revisionism and Modernist Presumptions | Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research

Sorry you wasted all that time.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
:tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy:
Of course you do!
:tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy:

Maybe you don't trust others because of your own personality is such. Haha. Cant blame people for that I suppose.

Anyway, this whole interaction just shows how hyper evangelical and bogus some of these atheist apologists like you are. Cut and paste artists with nothing but cheap insults to get away from the fact that you have no clue, no education, nor the kindergarten level knowledge of these topics you engage in. That is why you have not answered a single question, not one single post with any analysis.

Thats good enough. Cheers.
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
As usual, some ad hominem
Oh, come now!
People have repeatedly explained what an ad hominem argument is, and why you are using the term incorrectly.
What possible reason could you have for continuing like this?

when confronted with the fact that, you are an apologist, with absolutely no knowledge on the subject. ;)
So now we can add "apologist" to the ever increasing list under the heading "Stuff Firedragon Likes To Think He Understands, But Doesn't".
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
If you want, you can research this. I know that you will try to insult and brush it off and go onto something. But well, I thought why not. You can ask anyone, you can do your research.

In "CLASSICAL ARABIC", a young woman is called Jariyah. A girl of playful age is called Jariyathu Alabu. Even in Bukhari, he refers to Aisha in one hadith as Jariyathu Alabu. Same Bukhari reports in the book of commentary, book 58, hadith number 1784 that a Surah or chapter (chapter 54) has a verse that was revealed when she was in mecca (Before the Hijra) and she was a "Jaariyathu Alabu" which means "a girl at playful age". When you look at the time this so called verse was given to her family, What does that mean? It means that Aisha was a young girl, who was of a playful age when this chapter 54 was revealed. Bukhari reports that she was of Akal age. Akal means the age of reason. So Aisha supposedly narrated this as she remembered and narrated the verse as well, and what age do you think she would have been in order to remember a verse of the Quran and to remember the day it was revealed or time period in Mecca? She would have been what age? 10? 8? And when was chapter 54 revealed?? It was revealed in 614 (10 years before the supposed marriage). Then how old do you think she would have been? 20? 18? There is no way she was so young "even according to ahadith" when she married because of this one factor. There are many. If you check a good Arabic lexicon which I presume you can easily do, a phrase like "Jaariyah" will mean "Young woman". Annisaa are older than them. this is Fusha Atthuraath.

Because you love this hadith so much I am giving you this explanation, if you care to read and understand. There are many ahadith about the sister of Aisha who was 10 years older to her. This is of course a very well known thing though. There is a book called Al Bidhayah wa al Nihayah which would mean the beginning and the end that speaks of Asma who is the sister of Aisha. This is a pretty large amount of work but it contains certain narratives that state this Asma's age in comparison to Aisha's. She was 10 years older.

Asma, Aishas sister is supposed have died in the 73rd year of Hijri which is reported by a scholar in traditional islamic circles had more respect in his sophisticated scholarship of Islam even in comparison to historian and scholar Ibn Kathir. His name was Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani. He reported in his book called Fine Tuning. 100-73 = 27. So at the time of Hijri, Asma was 27 years old. Which would mean Aisha was 17 years old. So this marriage which would have taken place in the 1st or 2nd Hijra makes Aisha 18 or 19. Is that another contradiction?

1. It is said that Asma, the sister of Aisha was ten years older. - (Atthabari)
2. And it also says that Asma died when she was 100 years old when she died, and it was the 73 Hijra. - (Tahzibut Tahzib)
3. Abu Bakr wished Aisha to be married 8 years before Hijra. So in the proponents logic, Aisha would have been just born, which is not.
4. That means obviously 100-73 = 27. So at the time of Hijri, Asma was 27 years old.
5. So it is only simple mathematics to understand that Aisha was 17 years old.
6. So this marriage which would have been taken place in the 1st or 2nd Hijra makes Aisha 18 or 19.
7. If you look at the hadith Aisha is referred to as Bikr, Not Jariah. Which means a woman of adult age, not a childhood or early teen age which is Jariah.


And we know that Jariyathu Alabu refers to a young girl at playful age, where as in Arabic, Annisaa is not word used for such young children. A young girl of growing up age is called Fathaaya. Annisaa is only grown women. It is not used for young girls. This verse says "Women", Annisaa. Not Fathaaya, Jariyah, or any arabic word used for girls of young ages.

I told you that you were appealing to authority. You told it was deferring to authority. But you are not giving the methodology used by these authorities. You dont allow any analysis. You want them to be as it is. No thinking. Just "appeal to authority". So you should understand that difference.

Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses [it is the same]: for those who carry [life within their wombs], their period is until they deliver their burdens: and for those who fear Allah, He will make their path easy. – Quran 65:4

There are some translations which would say “Not yet menstruated” instead of “No courses”.

Take a holistic approach. Not just one cherry picked verse that suits your personal sentiment. Quran is one book.

This verse is speaking of women who go through a divorce where it stipulates certain conditions before the lady is to leave the premises where they had their marital life. So please understand that first, you are married because you are already fully grown, mature enough to manage your finances, balaghul nikaha and so forth. You are already married meeting these criteria and now you are going through a divorce.

Chapter 65 verse 4

1. Premise: In case of divorce (To get a divorce, you are already married. To be married, you are already old enough as spelled out earlier)

2. Wa allathi ya ishna minal maheedhi. Those who are done with their menstruation. Which means Ya Ishna, your menstruations are over. This is menopause. For them, at the time of a divorce their interim period is three months.

3. Wa allathi yaa hidhna means the ones who have not menstruated. Now this is the verse a lot of people use to insult the whole system of islam. But it’s a cheap trick. You will understand why.

It does not say “Never menstruated” and in classical Arabic this could never ever mean one who has not achieved puberty. It is completely illogical. As a non-muslim you could use this this maliciously to insult but also as a Muslim you could use this for your perverted intentions. But none of this is logical if you take the context of the Quran and you should see that its illogical.

You are talking of a girl who is already married because she has reached the right ripe age of marriage. Balagul nikaha. Now she is going through a divorce. And now she cannot be thrown out of where she is living for three months. Both, those who don’t get periods and those who have not got their periods yet after the decision is made, whoever they are cannot be sent out of their abode for 3 months AFTER THE DIVORCE IS CONFIRMED.

4. Hamal or pregnant women if you find them to be must be allowed fully to stay in the same premises until the delivery.

Cheers.
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
Done and dusted. No one can do anything someone ignorant but pretends. ;)

Anyway. that's done.

So, anything else? Any other book you wish to quote with out knowing what it is?
So you aren't going to bother to try to show that Ibn Abbas' tafsir does not contain that interpretation of 65:4.
Fair enough.
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
Maybe you don't trust others because of your own personality is such. Haha. Cant blame people for that I suppose.

Anyway, this whole interaction just shows how hyper evangelical and bogus some of these atheist apologists like you are. Cut and paste artists with nothing but cheap insults to get away from the fact that you have no clue, no education, nor the kindergarten level knowledge of these topics you engage in. That is why you have not answered a single question, not one single post with any analysis.

Thats good enough. Cheers.
Yes, I understand that apologists such as yourself consider yourselves to be intellectually superior to those who challenge them and thus get mighty salty when people dismantle your arguments.
Your attempted red herrings do not constitute responses to the arguments presented, as well you know. It is quite amusing though that you persist in dragging them out.
And the delicious irony of one who consistently refuses to answer questions and address points complaining about others not responding to their transparent attempts at deflection and diversion, of course.
 

Azrael Antilla

Active Member
Jesus wept, you are a glutton for punishment.

You'll find a whole load of scientists and philosophers of science who would disagree with you on that point. It basically reflects a naive pop-culture misunderstanding of the sciences. I know you hate reading, but if you are interested in being less wrong, look up the "demarcation problem" if you think it is simple to define what science is and is not.

Nobel winning physicist Steven Weinberg (also, usefully, he notes the changing standards of science over time which you wish to deny):

Not only does the fact that the standards of scientific success shift with time make the philosophy of science difficult; it also raises problems for the public understanding of science. We do not have a fixed scientific method to rally round and defend.

I remember a conversation I had years ago with a high school teacher, who explained proudly that in her school teachers were trying to get away from teaching just scientific facts, and wanted instead to give their students an idea of what the scientific method was. I replied that I had no idea what the scientific method was, and I thought she ought to teach her students scientific facts. She thought I was just being surly. But it’s true; most scientists have very little idea of what the scientific method is, just as most bicyclists have very little idea of how bicycles stay erect. In both cases, if they think about it too much, they’re likely to fall off.




Why are you so sure that there was no degree of scientific support for the idea that biology impacts human behaviour and thus society? Seems very odd to me.

One of us has posted evidence from multiple peer-reviewed journals or scholarly texts, the other has pompously declared himself right based on no evidence and obvious ignorance of the topics he/she is discussing.

Dismissing scholarship with TLDR and "tedious blather" rather than an actual rebuttal seems to illustrate your desire to remain as ignorant as possible which is the usual response of the RF "rationalist" when presented with scholarly evidence of their errors on topics they know nothing about.



Of course you did, cognitive dissonance is a powerful feature of human cognition after all and out of hand dismissal is easier than reading, critical thinking and the rational interpretation of evidence.

You're intellectually cowardly evasive and offensive. I shall not be engaging with you in future.
You can post all the copy and paste irrelevant garbage you like. It won't detract from your abject failure to understand that science is not as ambiguous and undefined as you try so hard to present.
The scientific method. Is above reproach. It cannot be wrong about anything. The only error is that of mis interpretation of data or error in the data itself.

Your blathering sophistry does not fool anyone with a modicum of understanding about the scientific method and it's practical and theoretical applications.

You obviously clearly don't know the difference between scientifically derived evidence, testable hypothesis, and mere popular opinion.

Now take your ***, that's been handed to you, and get over it. Stop wasting my damn time, and yours.
 
Last edited:

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
You're intellectually cowardly evasive and offensive. I shall not be engaging with you in future.
You can post all the copy and paste irrelevant garbage you like. It won't detract from your abject failure to understand that science is not as ambiguous and undefined as you try so hard to present.
The scientific method. Is above reproach. It cannot be wrong about anything. The only error is that of mis interpretation of data or error in the data itself.

Your blathering sophistry does not fool anyone with a modicum of understanding about the scientific method and it's practical and theoretical applications.

You obviously clearly don't know the difference between scientifically derived evidence, testable hypothesis, and mere popular opinion.

Now take your ***, that's been handed to you, and get over it. Stop wasting my damn time, and yours.
If the theory of evolution, gravity, or Newtonian Physics were proven false beyond a shadow of a doubt tomorrow, would it cease being science?
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Because if you look closer evidence, truth and proof are not the same in some cases. So I can't know what you mean by these words, because they mean different things to different people.
I was asking this poster, who seems to think science = truth, if evolution etc. were proven wrong tomorrow, would those theories cease being science. I'm trying to say that science =/= truth.
 

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
This thread is opened to discuss ISIL/ISIS/Dais or what ever you wish to call them, and the Taliban, which are the most prominently caricatured representation of Islam by some of the hardline atheistic polemicists in this forum. Not all, but some. It is also prominently used by some Christians, and since of late, by Hindus too, and maybe even others.

What do you think? Is this a true Islam or a false Islam. What are the evidences for this equation?

I personally think we need to know what “true”Islam Is to make a comparison imo.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Because if you look closer evidence, truth and proof are not the same in some cases. So I can't know what you mean by these words, because they mean different things to different people.

She means "false". Like the emission theory that was proven false. The point is, though one was superseded, it does not mean the one that was superseded seizes to be science. It was still science. Like the newtons law of universal gravitation.

Its science. So truths are not really science. You know what that means Mikkel.
 
Top