6 ms·

> 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 m

by 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.

waps 11y ago
> His marriage to her was never based on a contract How many times do I need to point out references to the "agreement" in the text that is constantly talked about ? > it is sufficient to know that she had already been engaged to another person prior to her marriage to the Prophet Do you like to tell yourself that that justifies the rape of a 6 year old ? Do you have a daughter ? Do you think an agreement with the girl's father makes paedophilic rape moral ? Because your religion clearly is of that opinion. Note that your prophet has a lot of opinions on what he, personally, should be given, and something to fuck is often among the things he "gets" from his invisible friend, this is not a lone occurence. So answer this simple question : was Muhammad an immoral paedophilic rapist ? Or not ... And to be honest, since Abu Bakr is a "rightly guided caliph" and made this agreement with the prophet, that means that BOTH the prophet AND the first ever muslim where paedophilic rapists. One organising the rape, one committing it. Muhammad, of course, claims this agreement was blessed by allah : so you can't even make the pathetic argument that it was just him, "not allah". Note that not even Aisha believed the revelations [1]. To be honest, actually reading the hadith you find a lot of that : verses that make it crystal clear none of the muslims with the prophet believed in his revelations. You should try it, reading those texts around book 60. > 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 penalty for consistently refusing to comply with sharia, when you know the law and how it applies to you, is death. As you very well know. Believe it or not, you do not just get to violate sharia whenever you want according to islam. The punishment for violating something haram knowingly, repeatedly or continuously ... is death, because this constitutes apostasy. I can't say I recall the full set of requirements, but do you seriously argue otherwise ? Knowingly not following sharia is considered apostasy, advocating not following sharia is proselytizing. Do you disagree with that ? Do I really have to dig up fatwas saying so ? > We point out these bad things, and we do not follow their footsteps. Reading this in a post that starts off by justifying the rape of a 6 year old girl, that is very reassuring. [1] http://www.sultan.org/books/bukhari/060.htm#006.060.248 http://www.sultan.org/books/bukhari/060.htm#006.060.248
- azth 11y ago
  > How many times do I need to point out references to the "agreement" in the text that is constantly talked about ? You haven't pointed out any references so far. > Do you like to tell yourself that that justifies... You should hear what today's scholars say about this issue. Marriage is not to be forced upon the girl, and if a person (male or female) is not able to tolerate it (physically and mentally), then the marriage contract cannot go through. Back in the day, marriage at a young age was a norm, and the Prophet Peace be upon him did not commit anything foreign to the culture in this regards. Other people at that time, Muslims and non-Muslims, married young. Even in Western cultures up to a few hundred years ago, we see similar behavior. I take it it is clear now that Islamically, the ruler is to be elected, and not passed down as you were trying to imply before. > Note that not even Aisha believed the revelations[1] The link you pasted was about Fatimah and Ali, Peace be upon them. Please link to the appropriate Hadith. > verses that make it crystal clear none of the muslims with the prophet believed in his revelations Claim needs citation. It is quite an absurd claim, as if that were indeed the case, then Islam would never have caught on. > penalty for consistently refusing to comply with sharia, when you know the law and how it applies to you, is death. Again, citation needed. This is beyond a doubt not the case. Please cite your reference. A Muslim person can, for example, drink alcohol, knowing that it is not permissible, and knowing that there is a punishment if he is caught (lashing). The death penalty will never come into action here, regardless of how many times he repeats this sin. > I can't say I recall the full set of requirements, but do you seriously argue otherwise ? I do. Citation needed. > Knowingly not following sharia is considered apostasy There are different degrees of apostasy (Kufr), and only one or two of them have the death penalty (e.g. Treason). Furthermore, not any action that constitutes apostasy will result in the person automatically becoming a non-Muslim (much less get the death penalty). For instance: http://quran.com/5/44 http://quran.com/5/44 The last part of the verse is: "And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Kafirun" (i.e. disbelievers - of a lesser degree as they do not act on Allah's Laws).

by azth 11y ago

waps 11y ago

> His marriage to her was never based on a contract How many times do I need to point out references to the "agreement" in the text that is constantly talked about ? > it is sufficient to know that she had already been engaged to another person prior to her marriage to the Prophet Do you like to tell yourself that that justifies the rape of a 6 year old ? Do you have a daughter ? Do you think an agreement with the girl's father makes paedophilic rape moral ? Because your religion clearly is of that opinion. Note that your prophet has a lot of opinions on what he, personally, should be given, and something to fuck is often among the things he "gets" from his invisible friend, this is not a lone occurence. So answer this simple question : was Muhammad an immoral paedophilic rapist ? Or not ... And to be honest, since Abu Bakr is a "rightly guided caliph" and made this agreement with the prophet, that means that BOTH the prophet AND the first ever muslim where paedophilic rapists. One organising the rape, one committing it. Muhammad, of course, claims this agreement was blessed by allah : so you can't even make the pathetic argument that it was just him, "not allah". Note that not even Aisha believed the revelations [1]. To be honest, actually reading the hadith you find a lot of that : verses that make it crystal clear none of the muslims with the prophet believed in his revelations. You should try it, reading those texts around book 60. > 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 penalty for consistently refusing to comply with sharia, when you know the law and how it applies to you, is death. As you very well know. Believe it or not, you do not just get to violate sharia whenever you want according to islam. The punishment for violating something haram knowingly, repeatedly or continuously ... is death, because this constitutes apostasy. I can't say I recall the full set of requirements, but do you seriously argue otherwise ? Knowingly not following sharia is considered apostasy, advocating not following sharia is proselytizing. Do you disagree with that ? Do I really have to dig up fatwas saying so ? > We point out these bad things, and we do not follow their footsteps. Reading this in a post that starts off by justifying the rape of a 6 year old girl, that is very reassuring. [1] http://www.sultan.org/books/bukhari/060.htm#006.060.248 http://www.sultan.org/books/bukhari/060.htm#006.060.248

azth 11y ago
> How many times do I need to point out references to the "agreement" in the text that is constantly talked about ? You haven't pointed out any references so far. > Do you like to tell yourself that that justifies... You should hear what today's scholars say about this issue. Marriage is not to be forced upon the girl, and if a person (male or female) is not able to tolerate it (physically and mentally), then the marriage contract cannot go through. Back in the day, marriage at a young age was a norm, and the Prophet Peace be upon him did not commit anything foreign to the culture in this regards. Other people at that time, Muslims and non-Muslims, married young. Even in Western cultures up to a few hundred years ago, we see similar behavior. I take it it is clear now that Islamically, the ruler is to be elected, and not passed down as you were trying to imply before. > Note that not even Aisha believed the revelations[1] The link you pasted was about Fatimah and Ali, Peace be upon them. Please link to the appropriate Hadith. > verses that make it crystal clear none of the muslims with the prophet believed in his revelations Claim needs citation. It is quite an absurd claim, as if that were indeed the case, then Islam would never have caught on. > penalty for consistently refusing to comply with sharia, when you know the law and how it applies to you, is death. Again, citation needed. This is beyond a doubt not the case. Please cite your reference. A Muslim person can, for example, drink alcohol, knowing that it is not permissible, and knowing that there is a punishment if he is caught (lashing). The death penalty will never come into action here, regardless of how many times he repeats this sin. > I can't say I recall the full set of requirements, but do you seriously argue otherwise ? I do. Citation needed. > Knowingly not following sharia is considered apostasy There are different degrees of apostasy (Kufr), and only one or two of them have the death penalty (e.g. Treason). Furthermore, not any action that constitutes apostasy will result in the person automatically becoming a non-Muslim (much less get the death penalty). For instance: http://quran.com/5/44 http://quran.com/5/44 The last part of the verse is: "And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Kafirun" (i.e. disbelievers - of a lesser degree as they do not act on Allah's Laws).