Fresh start :D

[warghaha]

I can't fully follow a thread in CF nowadays. And when I've time, usually the thread had grow to a HUGE thread full of posts(in and off topics) and been closed .

I usually don't make thread. But the thread had been closed and a week old discussion is still relevan I guess . Hope I didn't resurect a dead thread or I'm sorry.

Muhammad's marriage oof Aisha in summary.
It's well known in several hadith that Aisha was 6 when he engaged and 9 when the marriage was consumated. Even though Aisha's age is still debatable among scholars(but this thread intension is not to debate what was Aisha's age), in this thread, we'll use "Aisha was 9" as most Muslims believe.

- Here are some arguements against this marriage from the thread:

- Peaceful Soul stated "In God's eyes, wrong is wrong, whether it is today or 200 years ago. God's moral standards don't change; otherwise God would be relativistic as well."

First of all, what do you mean by "God's moral standard" in this case.
All religion (that existed on Quranic time) allowed a marriage when a girl reached puberty regardless of her age. Does God changed now? It's the same as slavery. Does God changed now? All the arguements that is based on any religion POV can't be used against this. It's today moral standard that stated it's wrong (I'm not implying that today's moral standard regarding this should not be followed).

-Moltalban: "Nothing you've said shows that Moslems are forbidden to do this now. Your best bet would be saying Moslems within a western-influenced legal enviornoment would not be able to do so."

And of course, Christians are also not forbidden to marry their children when they reached puberty. But as Christians also do, we Muslims also abide to the law. Muslims follow God, law and self-conscience.

- Montalban: "However you've done nothing to show that Muhammed is not an example for Moslems."

Yes. Muhammad is an example to all Muslims.
But on this case, this is not the sole example (i.e: from this marriage, we can take several example such as, there's not forbidden to marry to a child of sworn borther, no bad omen on the months of Syawal, etc).

But of course, it also shown that Muslims marital age is when they reached puberty. Yet, in Islam, one verse of Quran is always related to other. Same like one hadith doesn't picture all the view on certain case.

So MUslims are allowed to.
In Islamic law, when a man/woman reached puberty, they are held accountable for all their actions (there's no juvenille acts in Islamic Law ). So they can make their own decision (to marry or not to marry) which no one can force her to accept (there's hadith/quran confirmed this). In todays environment, it's not likely newly-reached-puberty girls will aggree to marry any man.
But 1400 years ago, they might be. (I know several aboriginals here in Malaysia that would accept this kind of marriage. If we can look how fast they mature(physically and mentally), the cultural demand, the survival demand, etc, I'll not question why they would accept that.)
Besides, they should also reflect the constitutional law regarding the minimal age of marriage (there's Quranic verses regarding this).

The Aisha's marriage should not be used as a wild card to permit marriage under today's standard marital age as Islam had laid svereal things to consider before marriage. Besides, a marriage is consicdered haram(forbidden) if the marriage will do harm to the spouse. All Muslims aware of this.

1400 years ago, it's a normal tradition which reflect their needs (cultural, survival, etc), they're capable physically, mentally and intelectually at early age (there was a 17-year old boy that led a war) and as human progress, a 14 year old nowadays is incapable to mentally serve their marriage even though they'd reached puberty.

Hope I got time to view and respond to this thread, Insya Allah (God willing).

 

[Montalban]

Warghaha, you don't know that all religions of the time allowed it.

 

[Montalban]

warghaha believes in starting a thread to selectively deal with argument presented before.

If a Moslem girl upon reaching puberty is considered 'responsible' (ie. an adult) why then don't Moslem nations give her the right to drive, or to vote AT THE SAME TIME?

The reason is simple, she's considered to be an adult simply so she can be married off (I choose to say this rather than saying so an older man can have relations with a girl).

Further you've offered no evidence that a person who has just begun a process (puberty) by which she CAN have babies SHOULD have babies.

Therein is a difference your religion doesn't account for. You immediately confer upon her 'responsibility' she may not yet be ready to accept.

Islam is a very 'body-orientated' religion. In Islamic heaven you get to feast, to drink wine, and if you're 'lucky' have lots of sex with lots of virgins. There's nothing spiritual about it. Likewise Islam is overly concerned with virginity of women/girls. You don't take into account that we are also mental and emotional beings - for you peg her 'adulthood' solely on her being three months past her first period. Nothing there about her emotional/psychological/mental readiness to be married. Your god simply didn't consider that.

 

[Montalban]

Where'd warghaha go?

 

[Secundulus]

The real problem isn't Muhammed's marriage. The problem is the Muslim idea that everything that Muhammed did was right and something to be emulated.

Why is this belief necessary?

None of the OT Jewish or NT Christian prophets were perfect. They were all human and made mistakes. David, one of the greatest of the OT characters was a murderer and adulterer. Moses himself murdered someone; Paul was an accessory to murder. Peter demonstrated cowardice at Jesus' arrest. Abraham himself made plent of stupid mistakes that are recorded in the Jewish scriptures. They were all human just like us.

Prophets are not set apart because of some special conduct. They are set apart because they proclaim God's message and rely on God's mercy.

Worship God and not Muhammed. Did Muhammed ever claim to be sinless? If not, then why do you try to copy him in every way?

 

[Montalban]

Islam is a religion that allows a great deal of the 'passions' to run wild.

If someone hits you, it's against 'nature' not to hit back, so al-Lah allows it.

 

[Nooj]

The real problem isn't Muhammed's marriage. The problem is the Muslim idea that everything that Muhammed did was right and something to be emulated.

Why is this belief necessary?

None of the OT Jewish or NT Christian prophets were perfect. They were all human and made mistakes. David, one of the greatest of the OT characters was a murderer and adulterer. Moses himself murdered someone; Paul was an accessory to murder. Peter demonstrated cowardice at Jesus' arrest. Abraham himself made plent of stupid mistakes that are recorded in the Jewish scriptures. They were all human just like us.

Prophets are not set apart because of some special conduct. They are set apart because they proclaim God's message and rely on God's mercy.

Worship God and not Muhammed. Did Muhammed ever claim to be sinless? If not, then why do you try to copy him in every way?

Actually they don't believe Muhammad was spotless in everything he did. He was infallible in religious matters however, like Jesus was. If you go to Surah 80 for example, God rebukes Muhammad for turning away a blind man to go talk to someone of more importance. I'm also sure that he made some mistakes in military matters, although someone can correct me here if I'm wrong. The reason why Muslims try to emulate Muhammad is that on religious matters, which overlap significantly with everyday life, he was perfect (according to them).

 

[Secundulus]

The reason why Muslims try to emulate Muhammad is that on religious matters, which overlap significantly with everyday life, he was perfect (according to them).

Right. And in this he was different than every other prophet described in the tradition that they claim to follow.

In that tradition, why did God use imperfect humans to proclaim his word for over 2000 years and then suddenly change his modus operendi and make a perfect human?

Either
- God changed his way of choosing prophets or
- Muhammed wasn't really perfect or
- Muhammed was speaking to someone other than God whose idea of perfect was different that the God's of creation.

 

[Montalban]

Actually they don't believe Muhammad was spotless in everything he did. He was infallible in religious matters however, like Jesus was. If you go to Surah 80 for example, God rebukes Muhammad for turning away a blind man to go talk to someone of more importance. I'm also sure that he made some mistakes in military matters, although someone can correct me here if I'm wrong. The reason why Muslims try to emulate Muhammad is that on religious matters, which overlap significantly with everyday life, he was perfect (according to them).

Sorry but my reading of Surah 80 shows no rebuke for Muhammed. I may have missed it.

It says Muhammed frowned
080.001
YUSUFALI: (The Prophet) frowned and turned away,
PICKTHAL: He frowned and turned away
SHAKIR: He frowned and turned (his) back,

080.002
YUSUFALI: Because there came to him the blind man (interrupting).
PICKTHAL: Because the blind man came unto him.
SHAKIR: Because there came to him the blind man.

But anyway, on a matter of scale your best argument here is that the Islamic god 'rebuked' Muhammed for ignoring a blind man, but gave him the thumbs up for years of murder?

 

[Nooj]

Sorry but my reading of Surah 80 shows no rebuke for Muhammed. I may have missed it.

It says Muhammed frowned
080.001
YUSUFALI: (The Prophet) frowned and turned away,
PICKTHAL: He frowned and turned away
SHAKIR: He frowned and turned (his) back,

080.002
YUSUFALI: Because there came to him the blind man (interrupting).
PICKTHAL: Because the blind man came unto him.
SHAKIR: Because there came to him the blind man.

But anyway, on a matter of scale your best argument here is that the Islamic god 'rebuked' Muhammed for ignoring a blind man, but gave him the thumbs up for years of murder?

My Pickthall:
10: From him (the blind man) thou art distracted.
11: Nay, but verily it is an Admonishment.

The rebuke is implicit. Muhammad turned away from the blind man, God corrects him by saying that the blind man could have grown in grace whilst Muhammad doesn't care if the important man does the same.

But anyway, on a matter of scale your best argument here is that the Islamic god 'rebuked' Muhammed for ignoring a blind man, but gave him the thumbs up for years of murder?

My argument is that Muhammad is not perfect in earthly affairs. I have given evidence of that.

Right. And in this he was different than every other prophet described in the tradition that they claim to follow.

Was Jesus perfect in his religious matters? Did he ever falter from the Law? Was he ever wrong when he preached? When he applied his religious teachings to earthly affairs, was he ever wrong?

In that tradition, why did God use imperfect humans to proclaim his word for over 2000 years and then suddenly change his modus operendi and make a perfect human?

Either
- God changed his way of choosing prophets or
- Muhammed wasn't really perfect or
- Muhammed was speaking to someone other than God whose idea of perfect was different that the God's of creation.

Muhammad wasn't really perfect.

Here's also another example of a mistake that Muhammad made, as told in the hadith collection of Sahih Muslim:

Book 030, Number 5830

Musa b. Talha reported: I and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) happened to pass by people near the date-palm trees. He (the Holy Prophet) said: What are these people doing? They said: They are grafting, i. e. they combine the male with the female (tree) and thus they yield more fruit. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: I do not find it to be of any use. The people were informed about it and they abandoned this practice. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) (was later) on informed (that the yield had dwindled), whereupon he said: If there is any use of it, then they should do it, for it was just a personal opinion of mine, and do not go after my personal opinion; but when I say to you anything on behalf of Allah, then do accept it, for I do not attribute lie to Allah, the Exalted and Glorious.

 

[Montalban]

My Pickthall:
10: From him (the blind man) thou art distracted.
11: Nay, but verily it is an Admonishment.

The rebuke is implicit. Muhammad turned away from the blind man, God corrects him by saying that the blind man could have grown in grace whilst Muhammad doesn't care if the important man does the same.

My argument is that Muhammad is not perfect in earthly affairs. I have given evidence of that.

As noted he gets 'admonished' (which can mean anything) for this one thing, but he's allowed to murder people, to incite murder, to encourage people to lie, to sleep with a child, to sleep with a kinswoman, etc.

Hardly worth noting his admonishment

 

[Nooj]

As noted he gets 'admonished' (which can mean anything) for this one thing, but he's allowed to murder people, to incite murder, to encourage people to lie, to sleep with a child, to sleep with a kinswoman, etc.

Hardly worth noting his admonishment

I really don't know why you're trying to attribute an argument to me that I'm not using. I never said that his other actions were good.

My argument is about whether Muhammad was admonished at all, a direct response to Secundulus: "The problem is the Muslim idea that everything that Muhammed did was right and something to be emulated."

Please stop trying to put words into my mouth, as you did here:
But anyway, on a matter of scale your best argument here is that the Islamic god 'rebuked' Muhammed for ignoring a blind man, but gave him the thumbs up for years of murder?

It is not my argument. It reeks of dishonesty.

 

[Montalban]

I really don't know why you're trying to attribute an argument to me that I'm not using. I never said that his other actions were good.

My argument is about whether Muhammad was admonished at all, a direct response to Secundulus: "The problem is the Muslim idea that everything that Muhammed did was right and something to be emulated."

And that's true.

I've not heard any Moslem criticise Muhammed

 

[Nooj]

And that's true.

I've not heard any Moslem criticise Muhammed

I don't like to use tu quoque, but it applies here. Christians don't generally criticise Jesus. Muslims don't generally criticise Muhammad. Jews don't generally criticise Moses.

Muslims do acknowledge faults if you press them on it. They don't make it a habit to criticise their greatest prophet however.

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by warghaha

I can't fully follow a thread in CF nowadays. And when I've time, usually the thread had grow to a HUGE thread full of posts(in and off topics) and been closed .

It is really difficult to stay on topic, especially when others try to argue moral equivalence or tu quoques. That seems to be trendy.

I usually don't make thread. But the thread had been closed and a week old discussion is still relevan I guess . Hope I didn't resurect a dead thread or I'm sorry.

Hopefully we can have a good discussion and avoid this one being closed. I thank you for continuing. It is good to see and understand other's POVs.

Muhammad's marriage oof Aisha in summary.
It's well known in several hadith that Aisha was 6 when he engaged and 9 when the marriage was consumated. Even though Aisha's age is still debatable among scholars(but this thread intension is not to debate what was Aisha's age), in this thread, we'll use "Aisha was 9" as most Muslims believe.

OK. The majority of evidence supports her being 6 when married and 9 when consummation occurred. The most direct evidence is presented by Aisha herself. From what I have read or should I say, heard, her age only became an issue with Muslims recently (maybe within 100 years). Anyways, I won't belabor that issue.

- Here are some arguements against this marriage from the thread:

- Peaceful Soul stated "In God's eyes, wrong is wrong, whether it is today or 200 years ago. God's moral standards don't change; otherwise God would be relativistic as well."

First of all, what do you mean by "God's moral standard" in this case.

You believe that God has rules such as no murder, no lying, etc. These do not change over time; therefore, a murder committed in A.D. 600 is still murder in A.D. 2008.

All religion (that existed on Quranic time) allowed a marriage when a girl reached puberty regardless of her age.

Just as Montalban has stated, we would have to examine this one for being factual.

Does God changed now?

You are confusing what God tolerated opposed to what God's standards are. Throughout the OT, people had harems and plenty of concubines. These were not God's allowances; rather man's implementation of acceptable relationships. This is precisely why Christians and Jews are told not to emulate prophets or any other people who may look pious in our eyes. That is why Christians have issues with Mohammad. Muslims don't have that kind of compass guiding them. Muslims are more compliant to obedience through actions, whereas Christians are to be more discerning of the actions that they practice because all people are imperfect in their spiritual nature, so, we should examine them by God's standards--not by what a presumed prophet says necessarily. We must have an outside means of judging. This is lacking in Islam. It is either follow Mohammad or else suffer the consequences of not being obedient to his example. In my eyes, that is not something that I would trust. I am sorry to go beyond the question, but I felt it necessary to comment.

It's the same as slavery. Does God changed now?

This is the same as I just mentioned. There were lots of cultural and societal wrongs that God tolerated that weren't His will. God worked through an imperfect creation (man) to accomplish His will. He used them despite their imperfect spiritual nature.

All the arguements that is based on any religion POV can't be used against this. It's today moral standard that stated it's wrong (I'm not implying that today's moral standard regarding this should not be followed).

This ties into what I have already stated.

I know that these quotes are not directed to me, but I feel the need to add my [FONT=&quot]2¢[/FONT].

-Moltalban: "Nothing you've said shows that Moslems are forbidden to do this now. Your best bet would be saying Moslems within a western-influenced legal enviornoment would not be able to do so."

And of course, Christians are also not forbidden to marry their children when they reached puberty. But as Christians also do, we Muslims also abide to the law. Muslims follow God, law and self-conscience.

The main difference here is that Christians don't emulate what men do, even if that person is considered a prophet. We follow Jesus, who is God incarnate. Even when following Jesus, we not seek to emulate his actions; for, that would be just what you do with Mohammad. We follow his teachings which are relational to God and man. They are not based on customs and traditions.

- Montalban: "However you've done nothing to show that Muhammed is not an example for Moslems."

Yes. Muhammad is an example to all Muslims.
But on this case, this is not the sole example (i.e: from this marriage, we can take several example such as, there's not forbidden to marry to a child of sworn borther, no bad omen on the months of Syawal, etc).

There lies the problem--you get to pick and choose what actions you can partake in. You can selectively choose what is politically correct for a specific time and ignore his other actions that are not in good taste today. Regardless, those other actions are still part of Mohammad's example. They can be practiced if chosen.

But of course, it also shown that Muslims marital age is when they reached puberty. Yet, in Islam, one verse of Quran is always related to other. Same like one hadith doesn't picture all the view on certain case.

It really wouldn't matter if the part of the basis of your faith is to emulate your prophet. He did x,y, and z; so, that gives you permission to do x,y, and z unless there is a ayat that shows Allah has forbidden this for you.

So MUslims are allowed to.
In Islamic law, when a man/woman reached puberty, they are held accountable for all their actions (there's no juvenille acts in Islamic Law ). So they can make their own decision (to marry or not to marry) which no one can force her to accept (there's hadith/quran confirmed this). In todays environment, it's not likely newly-reached-puberty girls will aggree to marry any man.
But 1400 years ago, they might be. (I know several aboriginals here in Malaysia that would accept this kind of marriage. If we can look how fast they mature(physically and mentally), the cultural demand, the survival demand, etc, I'll not question why they would accept that.)
Besides, they should also reflect the constitutional law regarding the minimal age of marriage (there's Quranic verses regarding this).

As Montalban has stated, puberty is not the sign that a woman or man is mature for marriage and other decisions that a more mature adult should be equipped to make. There is also the emotional/psychological and spiritual aspects that need to be mature.

The Aisha's marriage should not be used as a wild card to permit marriage under today's standard marital age as Islam had laid svereal things to consider before marriage. Besides, a marriage is consicdered haram(forbidden) if the marriage will do harm to the spouse. All Muslims aware of this.

The bottom line is that you are left with Mohammad's examples to follow; so, there is a lot of gray area to use to practice exactly what he did. Is there anywhere in the Qu'ran where Allah tells you not to follow Mohammad's actions and use scrutiny as well as use your best or better judgment on issues of life? Does Allah allow you to ignore any of Mohammad's actions?

1400 years ago, it's a normal tradition which reflect their needs (cultural, survival, etc), they're capable physically, mentally and intelectually at early age (there was a 17-year old boy that led a war) and as human progress, a 14 year old nowadays is incapable to mentally serve their marriage even though they'd reached puberty.

Hope I got time to view and respond to this thread, Insya Allah (God willing).

I don't discount that times are different, but my issue has to do with your perfect example for all time, Mohammad. As far as I can see, there is no distinction between his actions and Allah's moral standards. Allah's standards are restricted to a large degree by an imperfect creature--Mohammad.

There is more that I could say, but I will let this be it for now. I am looking forward to your responses once you get time, of course.

 

[Montalban]

I don't like to use tu quoque, but it applies here. Christians don't generally criticise Jesus. Muslims don't generally criticise Muhammad. Jews don't generally criticise Moses.

Then that proves peaceful soul's point! Not yours!

Muslims do acknowledge faults if you press them on it. They don't make it a habit to criticise their greatest prophet however.

Really? Cite me some criticism...

 

[Nooj]

Then that proves peaceful soul's point! Not yours!

Please explain?

Really? Cite me some criticism...

Obviously I can't cite you my friends, but they have said to me that it's likely that Muhammad broke wudu whilst praying once in a while, after all he's only human.

Otherwise:

Did the Prophet (pbuh) Ever Commit a Mistake?

The Qur’an has clearly pointed out some incorrect decisions of the Prophet (pbuh), which, if uncorrected could have effected the message of God. For instance, in Surah Al-Tahreem 66: 1 – 2, the Prophet has been directed by God to dissolve such oaths through which he had resolved to refrain from something, which was not unlawful according to the Shari`ah. Because such a refrain of the Prophet (pbuh) could have caused the ordinary Muslims, in their desire to follow the Prophet’s footsteps in all matters, to be inclined towards refraining from such a lawful acts, the Prophet (pbuh) was therefore, immediately corrected in the matter.
Besides this matter, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him has also been corrected for some minor errors in Al-Taubah 9: 43, `Abasa 80: 1 – 16, Al-Kahaf 18: 23 – 24.

 

[Montalban]

Please explain?

He said no Moslem critices their prophet. You disagreed, then said that none do - and then added Chrisitans don't criticse Jesus, Jews don't criticise Moses, as if to strengthen the point you're not making.

Obviously I can't cite you my friends, but they have said to me that it's likely that Muhammad broke wudu whilst praying once in a while, after all he's only human.

So now which argument are you making?

 

[Montalban]

Prophets and messengers were all normal human beings according to the Qur’an, which says what means:



*{And in no way did We send before you any of the Emissaries, except that surely they indeed ate food and walked in the markets.}* (Al-Furqan 25:20)



*{And in no way did We send before you except men to whom We revealed [the Message].}* (Al-Anbiyaa’ 21:7–8)



*{And whomever of them should say, “Surely I am a god apart from Him,” then that one We recompense with Hell; thus We recompense the unjust.}* (Al-Anbiyaa’ 21:29)



*{Say [O Muhammad], “Surely I am only a mortal the like of you: it is revealed to me that surely your God is only One God. So whoever hopes for the meeting with his Lord, then let him do righteous deed(s) and not associate anyone in the worship of his Lord. }* (Al-Kahf 18:110)



Yet, the chosen prophets were endowed with such moral, spiritual, and intellectual merits to be trustworthy of delivering Allah's guidance:



*{Allah elects of the Angels Messengers and of mankind; (Messengers); surely Allah is Ever-Hearing, Ever-Beholding.}* (Al-Hajj 22:75)



*{Those are they whom Allah has favored among the Prophets of the offspring of Adam, and of the ones We carried with Nuh, and of the offspring of Ibrahim and Israel [Jacob] and of the ones We guided and selected. When the Ayat [Verses or signs] of the All-Merciful were recited to them, they collapsed constantly prostrating and weeping.}* (Maryam 19:58)



Further, they vary in their esteem and quality:



*{Those are the Messengers; We have graced some of them over some others; of them [there are some] to whom Allah spoke, and some He raised in degrees.}* (Al-Baqarah 2:253)



Among them are a more eminent group described as ulu-l-`azm *{those endowed with resolve.}*



*{So [endure] patiently, as the Messengers endowed with resolve [endured] patiently.}* (Al-Ahqaf 46:35)



These are Nuh (Noah), Ibrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses), `Isa (Jesus) and, on top of them, Muhammad
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...agename=Zone-English-Discover_Islam/DIELayout

 

[Nooj]

He said no Moslem critices their prophet. You disagreed, then said that none do - and then added Chrisitans don't criticse Jesus, Jews don't criticise Moses, as if to strengthen the point you're not making.

Secundulus: Muslims think Muhammad is spotless.
Me: Actually they don't believe Muhammad was spotless in everything he did.
You: I've not heard any Moslem criticise Muhammed
Me: Muslims do acknowledge faults if you press them on it. They don't make it a habit to criticise their greatest prophet however.
You: Really? Cite me some criticism...
Me: Did the Prophet (pbuh) Ever Commit a Mistake?

I never said that 'none do'. I didn't say that no Muslim criticised Muhammad, I said that they didn't make it a habit. Do you have some reading comprehension problem or do you make a habit out of misrepresenting other people's arguments?