ISIL, Taliban = True Islam??

[TagliatelliMonster]

Appeal to authority.

No. Appeal to expertise.
Which is totally fine.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Its like this. One cannot refute that there are yardsticks. But the problem is, just like anyone who make general comments to dismiss it, there will be general comments with no study. Thats the problem. That is why, it is more important to let those who make the proposition in the OP to come up with their evidence for their proposition.

Not to mention that it makes it easier for you to dodge everything and never having to actually answer anything.

So you can just continue your charade of "that's not islam", "that's not islam", "that's not islam",.... like a true dodgeball professional.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..I merely pointed out the consensus amongst authoritative scholars that the passage is referring to women too young to have started menstruation.
I understand that you don't like the idea, and why you don't like it, but "I don't like it" is not a legitimate argument.
However, if you can find four similarly heavyweight scholars who explicitly state that it is not referring to those too young to have started menstruation, I will obviously change my position.

I agree with you. It is not correct that a man should have sexual intercourse before a girl has reached the age of puberty.

Many scholars of old implied, by the tafsir of verse 65:4, that it was OK. However, they didn't specifically SAY that it was OK.
In my opinion, it is a misunderstanding that this verse refers to immature girls.

I imagine, that due to the different times that they lived in, they didn't have the same concern about the issue. It was probably not seen as a problem, as they didn't see any harm from having sexual intercourse with a willing partner who was young.

I stick to my understanding, that G-d is referring to those women in general, that do not have their menses for any reason. When a girl first starts menstruating, it doesn't follow that their periods are regular.

Commentators, how ever well-respected, can make errors.
Did Ibn Kathir make an error about 65:4?
Not as such. He didn't spend so much time over the issue as it wasn't really necessary. It is obvious that a woman who has no periods was to be treated in the same way as those that have.

 

[muhammad_isa]

"True Islam" is what is contained in the Quran and sunnah. The problem is that no one can agree what they really say.

That's total rubbish. I attend many mosques, and we agree with each other about the most important issues.

 

[England my lionheart]

"True Islam" is what is contained in the Quran and sunnah. The problem is that no one can agree what they really say.

There are many precedents for isis and the Taliban to behave as they do from islams history.

 

[muhammad_isa]

However, that doesn't change the fact that Mohamed never intended them to be written and studied. If he had, he would have said so.

That's a ridiculous argument
The Qur'an is the most important source of knowledge, obviously, as it is literally the words of G-d [claimed to be].

You can't limit knowledge to a few words. The life and sayings of a prophet are very valuable, and we have volumes of authentic knowledge about all kinds of subjects. The hadith are a "goldmine".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. Appeal to expertise.
Which is totally fine.

Evidence and with rationality, that it is totally fine. Or is that a belief without evidence and rationality? Come on, live up to your own standard and do as you claim you can do.

 

[England my lionheart]

Its like this. One cannot refute that there are yardsticks. But the problem is, just like anyone who make general comments to dismiss it, there will be general comments with no study. Thats the problem. That is why, it is more important to let those who make the proposition in the OP to come up with their evidence for their proposition.

It could just be that there is no yardstick to begin with.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It could just be that there is no yardstick to begin with.

Yeah, it is older than Christianity. "Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Protagoras.
Measure is the first personal qualitative evaluation of what matters.
So some people don't personally like that and try to make it universal for all humans. But that is falsifiable and the falsification is simple. Does it matter differently to you and can you act on it differently, than the other personal claim of what matters.
And the rest of Western history is in part one long attempt at making an universal case of what matters with rationality, God and/or democracy. But so far all have failed, because nobody seems able to make a first personal qualitative evaluation of what matters universal for all humans,

 

[England my lionheart]

Yeah, it is older than Christianity. "Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Protagoras.
Measure is the first personal qualitative evaluation of what matters.
So some people don't personally like that and try to make it universal for all humans. But that is falsifiable and the falsification is simple. Does it matter differently to you and can you act on it differently, than the other personal claim of what matters.
And the rest of Western history is in part one long attempt at making an universal case of what matters with rationality, God and/or democracy. But so far all have failed, because nobody seems able to make a first personal qualitative evaluation of what matters universal for all humans,

I agree,all have failed.

 

[firedragon]

It could just be that there is no yardstick to begin with.

OK.

 

[lukethethird]

That's a ridiculous argument
The Qur'an is the most important source of knowledge, obviously, as it is literally the words of G-d [claimed to be].

You can't limit knowledge to a few words. The life and sayings of a prophet are very valuable, and we have volumes of authentic knowledge about all kinds of subjects. The hadith are a "goldmine".

The Qur'an is literature, and not for everyone.

 

[firedragon]

The Qur'an is literature, and not for everyone.

What do you mean by literature? And why not for everyone? Asked out of curiosity.

 

[lukethethird]

What do you mean by literature? And why not for everyone? Asked out of curiosity.

literature
lĭt′ər-ə-choo͝r″, -chər
noun

1. The body of written works of a language, period, or culture.
2. Imaginative or creative writing, especially of recognized artistic value.
3. The art or occupation of a literary writer.

Religion is not for everyone, not just the Qur'an but religion itself.

 

[stevecanuck]

That's a ridiculous argument
The Qur'an is the most important source of knowledge, obviously, as it is literally the words of G-d [claimed to be].

Nope. The logic is inescapable. Mohamed managed to create and run his new religion based on the Qur'an only. It operated that way for a couple of hundred years. Verse 5:3 states clearly that Allah has "COMPLETED his favor upon you". Done and dusted.

You can't limit knowledge to a few words. The life and sayings of a prophet are very valuable, and we have volumes of authentic knowledge about all kinds of subjects. The hadith are a "goldmine".

A few words??? The Qur'an has 6,236 verses worth of repetitive and mind-numbingly boring words. A few????

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Please quote ISIS and Taliban directly where they claim "they have a Godly government".

Irrelevant.

So could you give me a few examples of differences between Classical Arabic and the modern day arabic?

Also irrelevant.

They are called Annisaa. Women. Not babies, young girls, prepubescent or anything. I will repeat a 100 times, you will ignore it a million times.

Correct. It's an unsupported claim. Repeat it all you like. You know the fate of opinions. Or you should by now. Try making a compelling argument that isn't a page of Arabic or a wall of words Gish gallop. You've not convinced me of anything, but your collocutors have. Why? They provide evidence and cogent argument. Nothing else has persuasive power for many, including those you are trying to convince here. You have no chance of doing that with less than a compelling, evidenced, fallacy-free argument.

Are you asking an objective question or what the Taliban or ISIL thinks? To analyse what any of these people think, you have to quote them directly with sources. Direct.

The verse does not say anything about little girls. It is speaking about women. Grown women who are married. Annisaa.

The others have made compelling arguments that it is you who is incorrect. What's your argument? To take a word out of context and claim it supports your position? It doesn't.

I did a little Googling. I know that you hate that, and attempt to exclude any information that you cannot control, but since you provided nothing but claims, I wanted to see if there was any merit in your comment. Not so good for you:

Surah Nisa, Ayat 11 [4:11] in English Translation - Al Quran | IslamicFinder

Yes, I know that you'll object. You routinely attempt to disqualify those who disagree with your unsupported claims, asking for quotes, asking for peer reviewed papers, asking for expertise in Arabic, and rejecting all comment that doesn't rise to your irrelevant standards. But you cannot expect others to just take your word for anything. I wanted to see if you were correct, or even close to correct, since you provide no means of doing that. I suspected that you were just saying whatever you thought effective in mitigating the material others have presented here.

Incidentally, I mentioned to you (although I doubt you read it) that this exercise is very counterproductive for you. What has been accomplished? A few informed skeptics provided good evidence and argument that was unflattering to Islam, and you tried to combat it with confusion and irrelevance, with unsupported claims, and bad faith disputation. What do you think the result of that is? For me, the result is a nice collection of Muslim scriptures that I will be able to use to make those same arguments down the road. I understand Islam better now as you had hoped, but not in the way you had hoped.

As usual, some ad hominem when confronted with the fact that, you are an apologist, with absolutely no knowledge on the subject.

And more attempts at disqualifying critics and excluding their input.

Incidentally, one should never go to the adherent to understand his religion, just how it impacts him - how the religion is rendered in him, how it affects his thinking. This thread is a fine example of that.

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.

Another impotent attempt to disqualify opinions you don't like. Try rebutting them next time. And simple disagreement is not a rebuttal. Nor is specious argumentation, although it's getting closer.

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.

[snip]

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.

TL;DR. I glanced at this and saw references to 17-year olds, pregnant women, and divorce, irrelevant to the discussion, and lost interest in reading further. (I had to abridge it because of length limitations)

Can you make a more focused argument than this? Those disagreeing with you have, like the post with four citations referring to premenstrual females.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Well, it's futile to try and sway those who dogmatically accept unevidenced claims. But it's not futile to have the discussion / argument in public, because those who aren't entrenched that deeply into the dogma's yet, who are still kind of "on the fence" (regardless if they believe or not) indeed read these words. And hopefully they see and realize the intellectual dishonest from the other side and hopefully that makes them step back and think a little.

Agree. If there was nobody involved but the apologist, there is no value in responding. One writes for those who can read an argument dispassionately, recognize a compelling one, and modify his position accordingly - dialectic, or the cooperative effort of two or more people to resolve differences using the principles of critical analysis. The objective in a debate ought to be that both interlocutors (and any audience) leave with better or clearer ideas than when the discussion began. If one is instead dealing only with someone who commits logical atrocities and is guilty of bad faith disputation, there is no purpose in going forward. I'm certain that I made no impact on the theists.

This idea is also relevant in burden of proof discussions. There is no burden of proof when in discussion with people who can't or won't cooperate in dialectic. I like this comment from Sam Harris:

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic? Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, "Well, that's not how I choose to think about water"? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn't share those values, the conversation is over."

Yep.

Religions aren't to blame for terrorism.

Religions allow people to see as good and righteous and holy what others outside of religion recognize is immoral. And this can include secular "religions" like the one we saw in play during the Capitol insurrection, where people were convinced that insurrection was patriotism. Proper religions do the same, especially the Abrahamics, as words like holy war and jihad attest.

Allah SWT is not a person. He is closer to you than your jugular vein. He is "part of you", if you will. So how does G-d "deliberately blind" somebody? "Those whom Allah sendeth astray, there is no guide for them. He leaveth them to wander blindly on in their contumacy"

Do you think that sounds appealing? It sounds like something is in my neck or whole body that is harming me, blinding me, sending me astray and leaving me to wander.

Wow .. so the Muslims have all been "hoodwinked"

Everybody who has believed by faith has been hoodwinked, not just the religious. It's most obvious when the faith-based belief can be disproved, such as that climate change is a hoax, the last US election was stolen, or vaccines are more dangerous than the virus. These ideas are more obviously wrong and harmful than believing that you will have an afterlife, or that there are demons or angels, but their believers are no less hoodwinked.

My experience with you, over the last few weeks, is that you construct arguments that are flawed in some way, but it is not always easy to see why.

You should be able to identify and name the informal logical fallacies to declare something illogical (or logical). I've yet to encounter the religious apologist that can do that, which accounts for the copious number of fallacious arguments they make and present to people who can analyze them critically.

Appeal to authority fallacy. Find a flaw in a scholars writings, and argue it must be true.

And there you go. You have not described an appeal to authority fallacy. It's also a straw man from you. There was no argument that the hadith must be true. The argument claim is that the hadith exists and influences Muslims, not that it contains any truth.

 

[muhammad_isa]

new religion

..new religion?
Are you saying that Jews have never bowed & prostrated in worship of YHWH?
The Bible shows otherwise..

 

[muhammad_isa]

You should be able to identify and name the informal logical fallacies to declare something illogical (or logical). I've yet to encounter the religious apologist that can do that..

Yes .. thankyou.
That is all it is to some people .. a game of cat & mouse

The argument claim is that the hadith exists and influences Muslims, not that it contains any truth.

I wasn't referring to hadith. I was referring to the tafsir of Ibn Kathir.

 

[KWED]

I agree with you. It is not correct that a man should have sexual intercourse before a girl has reached the age of puberty.

Many scholars of old implied, by the tafsir of verse 65:4, that it was OK. However, they didn't specifically SAY that it was OK.
In my opinion, it is a misunderstanding that this verse refers to immature girls.

I imagine, that due to the different times that they lived in, they didn't have the same concern about the issue. It was probably not seen as a problem, as they didn't see any harm from having sexual intercourse with a willing partner who was young.

I agree with much of that.
However, the problem is that many Muslims not only use these tafsir to understand the Quran, they are encouraged to do so. I can't count the number of times apologists have told me that I can't understand the Quran without a tafsir.