5 ms·

> (answer to that islam instructs muslims to fight) The goal here was to show an example that Muslims must NOT fight each other. They must not overthrow their

by azth 11y ago

> (answer to that islam instructs muslims to fight) The goal here was to show an example that Muslims must NOT fight each other. They must not overthrow their rulers, much less fight and kill each other. > This is supposed to refute that sharia has the death penalty ... No. I mentioned elsewhere that the death penalty in Islam only applies to 2 or 3 very specific cases, and none of them include living in a non-Islamic state. > For instance, Aisha was sold to him in trade for a contract that Ali would be his successor I think this shows your ignorance, because Aisha was not related to Ali. Aisha was AbuBakr's daughter. Again, please cite your source for this claim. You're arguments are all over the place. I mentioned that Daesh/ISIS are not a legitimate Islamic group, and the Prophet Peace be upon him warned us of people that have their ideologies. Ask a well-educated scholar today and he will tell you the same thing. You also keep ignoring my requests for listing citations for your incorrect claims (e.g. that Aisha had something to do with Ali's position as a successor, or that the death penalty must be enforced for Muslims living in non-Muslim lands, etc.). I'm still waiting.

waps 11y ago
> Prophet Peace be upon him You're a muslim ? Ah ... > I think this shows your ignorance, because Aisha was not related to Ali. Aisha was AbuBakr's daughter. Again, please cite your source for this claim. Heh so I got the name wrong. I confused Ali and Abu Bakr. Whoops. I notice you don't disagree with the premise : that her marriage was based on a contract. As to what Aisha has to do with the caliph succession ... (Aisha who was raped by the prophet as a child) (because I know you'll argue : rape is the act of having sex with someone against their will, which you will find in the hadith was the case, she was either 6 or 9 at the time (and he "liked to fondle her" - also against her will - before that - need a reference ?). Hence describing the prophet as a paedophilic rapist is simply a fact) As to the succession issue, have you seriously never read the story of the split between sunni and shi'a ? Or are you simply a sunni muslim and pretend not to know ... Here's the question : why did Abu Bakr succeed the paeophile prophet, when sharia is so very clear on the issue of succession ... do father-in-laws inherit things ? To be honest : I've always wondered that about sunnis to be honest. I mean their whole raison d'etre is a blatant violation of sharia. I'd be interested in your answer to the question : why did the "empire" go to Abu Bakr ? The "election" thing somehow only applied in that one case ... which means it's a lie. > No. I mentioned elsewhere that the death penalty in Islam only applies to 2 or 3 very specific cases, and none of them include living in a non-Islamic state. "2 or 3 specific cases" - heh I know why you don't want to name them. Ashamed about the apostasy laws perhaps ? http://islamqa.info/en/13363 http://islamqa.info/en/13363 "The basic principle is that it is not permissible for the Muslim to settle among the mushrikeen. This is indicated by evidence from the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and on the basis of common sense." There is no shortage of references at the link. As for the death penalty ... do tell, what is the punishment for knowingly violating sharia and not correcting yourself when this is pointed out ? Historically, this is seen as apostacy, and well, it kind of is, of course. Both the Ummayyads and the Ottomans massacred muslim populations for living outside their borders (not as a matter of policy though, but this is the reason given for 3 massacres they committed. Granted, there isn't a hair on my head that believes that to be the actual reason).
- azth 11y ago
  > I notice you don't disagree with the premise : that her marriage was based on a contract His marriage to her was never based on a contract. This is purely made up on your part. When we discuss history, specifically Islamic history, we rely on sound narrations, which have been inspected in order to remove any falsities from them. So yes, by stating that you mixed up people and not knowing what you were talking about, I was implicitly disagreeing with your premise. While this is not the place to discuss her age at marriage, it is sufficient to know that she had already been engaged to another person prior to her marriage to the Prophet, Peace be upon him. Not one of the non-Muslims at that time mentioned anything about Aisha's age being different from the norm when she wed the Prophet, Peace be upon him. You should know that the non-Muslims were waiting for the Prophet to do anything non-conventional to criticize him. > have you seriously never read the story of the split between sunni and shi'a ? The (unfortunate) split happened due to several reasons, most, if not all, mainly politically motivated. That being said, both groups are Muslims, who are forbidden to fight each other. There are attempts (even today) to bring them closer, instead of drive them apart. > when sharia is so very clear on the issue of succession Succession happens by a form of voting. AbuBakr (and the four Chaliphs after him -- Omar, Othman, Ali, and AlHassan) were all voted in to the Chaliph position. This era spanned 30 years, after which we had the first king, and power was inherited thereafter. > I mean their whole raison d'etre is a blatant violation of sharia. Are you saying that according to Shariah, power must be inherited? It is not the case: http://quran.com/42/38 http://quran.com/42/38 (and whose affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves). Shura is a form of election. Where is the contradiction in what Sunnis did? > heh I know why you don't want to name them. Ashamed about the apostasy laws perhaps ? Because they are not the point of debate here. This can stay for another time if you're honestly interested. > http://islamqa.info/en/13363 http://islamqa.info/en/13363 I fail to see where it says that the death penalty is involved here. Please point out explicitly where it says that the penalty for living in a non-Muslim country is death. The fact remains that in most Western countries today, Muslims are free to practice their religion. I think the deduction is clear. You're free to drop by any Muslim Community Association in your area and ask them about this issue. > what is the punishment for knowingly violating sharia ... It depends on what was violated. Shariah means "law" or "rule". There are some violations that have penalties in the Shariah, and some that were left open (e.g. murder, vs. crossing a red traffic light). If you're trying to say that any violation of Shariah incurs the death penalty, then, you are simply wrong. No Companion or scholar had this opinion in the entirety of Islamic history. > Both the Ummayyads and the Ottomans massacred muslim populations for living outside their borders And who says they were right? Even Muslims admit that bad things happened during the rules of these empires. We point out these bad things, and we do not follow their footsteps. I prefer to settle one point at a time (there are two to which I responded above), instead of being all over the place. It seems you have so many misconceptions, not based on the Quran or sound Hadith narrations, which you try to bring up each time. And I assure you that most of them are easily refuted.

by azth 11y ago

waps 11y ago

> Prophet Peace be upon him You're a muslim ? Ah ... > I think this shows your ignorance, because Aisha was not related to Ali. Aisha was AbuBakr's daughter. Again, please cite your source for this claim. Heh so I got the name wrong. I confused Ali and Abu Bakr. Whoops. I notice you don't disagree with the premise : that her marriage was based on a contract. As to what Aisha has to do with the caliph succession ... (Aisha who was raped by the prophet as a child) (because I know you'll argue : rape is the act of having sex with someone against their will, which you will find in the hadith was the case, she was either 6 or 9 at the time (and he "liked to fondle her" - also against her will - before that - need a reference ?). Hence describing the prophet as a paedophilic rapist is simply a fact) As to the succession issue, have you seriously never read the story of the split between sunni and shi'a ? Or are you simply a sunni muslim and pretend not to know ... Here's the question : why did Abu Bakr succeed the paeophile prophet, when sharia is so very clear on the issue of succession ... do father-in-laws inherit things ? To be honest : I've always wondered that about sunnis to be honest. I mean their whole raison d'etre is a blatant violation of sharia. I'd be interested in your answer to the question : why did the "empire" go to Abu Bakr ? The "election" thing somehow only applied in that one case ... which means it's a lie. > No. I mentioned elsewhere that the death penalty in Islam only applies to 2 or 3 very specific cases, and none of them include living in a non-Islamic state. "2 or 3 specific cases" - heh I know why you don't want to name them. Ashamed about the apostasy laws perhaps ? http://islamqa.info/en/13363 http://islamqa.info/en/13363 "The basic principle is that it is not permissible for the Muslim to settle among the mushrikeen. This is indicated by evidence from the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and on the basis of common sense." There is no shortage of references at the link. As for the death penalty ... do tell, what is the punishment for knowingly violating sharia and not correcting yourself when this is pointed out ? Historically, this is seen as apostacy, and well, it kind of is, of course. Both the Ummayyads and the Ottomans massacred muslim populations for living outside their borders (not as a matter of policy though, but this is the reason given for 3 massacres they committed. Granted, there isn't a hair on my head that believes that to be the actual reason).

azth 11y ago
> I notice you don't disagree with the premise : that her marriage was based on a contract His marriage to her was never based on a contract. This is purely made up on your part. When we discuss history, specifically Islamic history, we rely on sound narrations, which have been inspected in order to remove any falsities from them. So yes, by stating that you mixed up people and not knowing what you were talking about, I was implicitly disagreeing with your premise. While this is not the place to discuss her age at marriage, it is sufficient to know that she had already been engaged to another person prior to her marriage to the Prophet, Peace be upon him. Not one of the non-Muslims at that time mentioned anything about Aisha's age being different from the norm when she wed the Prophet, Peace be upon him. You should know that the non-Muslims were waiting for the Prophet to do anything non-conventional to criticize him. > have you seriously never read the story of the split between sunni and shi'a ? The (unfortunate) split happened due to several reasons, most, if not all, mainly politically motivated. That being said, both groups are Muslims, who are forbidden to fight each other. There are attempts (even today) to bring them closer, instead of drive them apart. > when sharia is so very clear on the issue of succession Succession happens by a form of voting. AbuBakr (and the four Chaliphs after him -- Omar, Othman, Ali, and AlHassan) were all voted in to the Chaliph position. This era spanned 30 years, after which we had the first king, and power was inherited thereafter. > I mean their whole raison d'etre is a blatant violation of sharia. Are you saying that according to Shariah, power must be inherited? It is not the case: http://quran.com/42/38 http://quran.com/42/38 (and whose affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves). Shura is a form of election. Where is the contradiction in what Sunnis did? > heh I know why you don't want to name them. Ashamed about the apostasy laws perhaps ? Because they are not the point of debate here. This can stay for another time if you're honestly interested. > http://islamqa.info/en/13363 http://islamqa.info/en/13363 I fail to see where it says that the death penalty is involved here. Please point out explicitly where it says that the penalty for living in a non-Muslim country is death. The fact remains that in most Western countries today, Muslims are free to practice their religion. I think the deduction is clear. You're free to drop by any Muslim Community Association in your area and ask them about this issue. > what is the punishment for knowingly violating sharia ... It depends on what was violated. Shariah means "law" or "rule". There are some violations that have penalties in the Shariah, and some that were left open (e.g. murder, vs. crossing a red traffic light). If you're trying to say that any violation of Shariah incurs the death penalty, then, you are simply wrong. No Companion or scholar had this opinion in the entirety of Islamic history. > Both the Ummayyads and the Ottomans massacred muslim populations for living outside their borders And who says they were right? Even Muslims admit that bad things happened during the rules of these empires. We point out these bad things, and we do not follow their footsteps. I prefer to settle one point at a time (there are two to which I responded above), instead of being all over the place. It seems you have so many misconceptions, not based on the Quran or sound Hadith narrations, which you try to bring up each time. And I assure you that most of them are easily refuted.