Lessons from Saudi Arabia

[Zibago]

Mullah regime or theocratic regime =/= Islamic state.
ISIL has been rejected by vast majority of the ulema themselves. Molvis are not supposed to run a state in any case, a decent honest and foresighted person with a sound knowledge of both deen and duniya is.

What they want is what isil did

 

[Psychic]

What they want is what isil did

Why did they reject them then?

Actually what Anjem Ch and his kind of "ulema" wanted was what they did. These guys have blinders ON and can't see that how the minorities of Medina were treated by Prophet Muhammad SAW or how the Christians of Syria were treated by victorious Muslim armies, or how the jews who fled persecution in Europe were given refuge by the Muslims in Spain and elsewhere. They are Khawarij, the same types who created mischief among sahaba and murdered many of them, they're a fitna of modern times.

 

[Jf Thunder]

Reference from sahih hadith pls. I also heard that hazrat aysha was 9 when she was married. Although not sure about this!

posted above somewhere

Yes he did...

damn.........

Yeah whatever you prefer is not in the Quran. When someone reaches puberty, he/she is allowed to marry regardless of the age. period!

sure dude, like I said, you didnt even reply to my post and are going on and on with your usual rantings
if you want to marry a 9 year old then be my guest
no need to justify your desires using Islam

Why did they reject them then?

Actually what Anjem Ch and his kind of "ulema" wanted was what they did. These guys have blinders ON and can't see that how the minorities of Medina were treated by Prophet Muhammad SAW or how the Christians of Syria were treated by victorious Muslim armies, or how the jews who fled persecution in Europe were given refuge by the Muslims in Spain and elsewhere. They are Khawarij, the same types who created mischief among sahaba and murdered many of them, they're a fitna of modern times.

you had just quoted Abdul Rehman of Cordoba as an Islamic ruler, well these fine "Non Hijabi" women were also of that time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubna_of_Córdoba
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallada_bint_al-Mustakfi

well why dont you reject these as well, just because they do not suit your twisted version of Islam

 

[Psychic]

sure dude, like I said, you didnt even reply to my post and are going on and on with your usual rantings
if you want to marry a 9 year old then be my guest
no need to justify your desires using Islam

I replied in detail.
Provide a sahih hadith and it will be all over.

you had just quoted Abdul Rehman of Cordoba as an Islamic ruler, well these fine "Non Hijabi" women were also of that time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubna_of_Córdoba
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallada_bint_al-Mustakfi

well why dont you reject these as well, just because they do not suit your twisted version of Islam

My version is twisted? I beg your pardon? Am I innovating things out of thin air after 14 centuries?

She also was somewhat controversial, walking out in public without a hijab and in the fashion of the harems of Baghdad, she wore transparent tunics and embroidered her verses on the trim of her clothing.

From your own wiki copy-paste. Do tell me the meaning of controversial. And do tell me whether or not it was a widely accepted norm in Cordoba for Muslim women or not.

 

[Jf Thunder]

I replied in detail.
Provide a sahih hadith and it will be all over.

did you even read it

My version is twisted? I beg your pardon? Am I innovating things out of thin air after 14 centuries?

She also was somewhat controversial, walking out in public without a hijab and in the fashion of the harems of Baghdad, she wore transparent tunics and embroidered her verses on the trim of her clothing.

From your own wiki copy-paste. Do tell me the meaning of controversial. And do tell me whether or not it was a widely accepted norm in Cordoba for Muslim women or not.

so?
why didnt the oh so awesome state stop her?

 

[Psychic]

sure dude, like I said, you didnt even reply to my post and are going on and on with your usual rantings
if you want to marry a 9 year old then be my guest
no need to justify your desires using Islam

Yeah I am trying to fulfill my own desires (marrying a mature woman) by bringing in hadith which doesn't favor my personal taste . Try harder! It is you lot who are trying to be accepted into the "modern world" and are bending Islam according to your own taste.

Anyone can marry once he/she reaches puberty. Bring me any Islamic material which states otherwise.

 

[Jf Thunder]

I replied in detail.
Provide a sahih hadith and it will be all over.

According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha (ra) was born about eight years before Hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari (kitabu'l-tafseer) Ayesha (ra) is reported to have said:


"I was a young girl (jariyah)" when Surah Al-Qamar was revealed. (REF: Sahih Bukhari, kitabu'l-tafsir, Bab Qaulihi Bal al-sa`atu Maw`iduhum wa'l-sa`atu adha' wa amarr)

The 54th surah of the Qur'an was revealed eight years before Hijrah (REF: The Bounteous Koran, M.M. Khatib, 1985). So, it was revealed in 614 CE {Year of Hijrah MINUS year of revelation of Al Qamar (622 CE – 8 = 614 CE)}. If Ayesha started living with Prophet (pbuh) at the age of nine in 623 CE or 624 CE, she was a newborn infant (a sibyah) {Year of Ayesha living with Prophet MINUS age of Ayesha when she started to live with Prophet (623 CE or 624 CE– 9 years=614 0r 615) at the time the Surah Al-Qamar was revealed.


According to the above tradition, Ayesha (ra) was actually a young girl (jariyah), not an infant (sibyah) in the year of revelation of Al Qamar. “Jariyah” means young playful girl (Lane’s Arabic English Lexicon). So, Ayesha, being a Jariyah not a sibyah (infant), must be somewhere between 6-13 years at the time of revelation of Al-Qamar, and thereby she must have been 14-21 years (6-13 + 8= 14-21 years) at the time she married Prophet.


is it all over now?

 

[Psychic]

did you even read it

Yes. No reference (except for the name of the book written by someone in 1992 or 1933).

And if you are going to denounce Sahih hadith narrated by Ayesha RA herself then go and suit yourself .

 

[Jf Thunder]

Yeah I am trying to fulfill my own desires (marrying a mature woman) by bringing in hadith which doesn't favor my personal taste . Try harder! It is you lot who are trying to be accepted into the "modern world" and are bending Islam according to your own taste.

Anyone can marry once he/she reaches puberty. Bring me any Islamic material which states otherwise.

I am bringing you all the material there is to bring
but you are rejecting all the Islamic material
you reject Islam, and then claim to be a Muslim?

Yes. No reference (except for the name of the book written by someone in 1992 or 1933).

And if you are going to denounce Sahih hadith narrated by Ayesha RA herself then go and suit yourself .

you are rejecting Ibn Kathir?
do you even know who he was?

 

[Psychic]

I am bringing you all the material there is to bring
but you are rejecting all the Islamic material
you reject Islam, and then claim to be a Muslim?

You rejected sahih hadith and claim to be a Muslim?
I said earlier that it's either 9 or 14 according to which tradition you follow.

you are rejecting Ibn Kathir?
do you even know who he was?

I'd rather refrain from commenting. You chose him since he suited your narrative. Doesn't change the fact that marriage is allowed when one reaches puberty.

I give the benefit of doubt and accept what he says. Doesn't change the fact that there are Sahih hadith which prove otherwise(contradicting hadith). Neither u are an authority nor am I.Despite the availibilty of contradictory ahadith I accept that Ayesha's age might 've been not 9.


Now since you are so fond of Ibn Kathir, let's see whether you accept this or not;
Here Allah tells His Messenger to command the believing women -- especially his wives and daughters, because of their position of honor -- to draw their Jilbabs over their bodies, so that they will be distinct in their appearance from the women of the Jahiliyyah and from slave women. The Jilbab is a Rida', worn over the Khimar. This was the view of Ibn Mas`ud, `Ubaydah, Qatadah, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Sa`id bin Jubayr, Ibrahim An-Nakha`i, `Ata' Al-Khurasani and others. It is like the Izar used today. Al-Jawhari said: "The Jilbab is the outer wrapper. `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said that Allah commanded the believing women, when they went out of their houses for some need, to cover their faces from above their heads with the Jilbab, leaving only one eye showing.
(and to draw their (Khumur) veils all over their Juyub) Khumur (veils) is the plural of Khimar, which means something that covers, and is what is used to cover the head. This is what is known among the people as a veil. Sa`id bin Jubayr said:

﴿وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ﴾

(and to draw) means to pull it around and tie it securely.

Comes from Ibn Kathir as well. Or is this not as per your taste? I believe in ijma of ummat or something from a scholar of repute, I accepted his version. Do you accept when it doesn't suit you? @Jf Thunder

 

[Psychic]

@Desert Fox
Actually these modern day reformists/apologists are the reason why non-Muslims think that Muslims are liars who practice "taqia". Pick and choose, what suits the "modern" world to fit in. deny jihad, hijab etc.
The hadith which came from Ayesha herself is stating her age yet they find something else so that it is acceptable in the West.

 

[GumNaam]

Well since this is a reference from sahih AL bukhari, so that's final. No reason to disbelief it for any muslim.
Thank you for this reference .
@Psychic

BIG BIG MISTAKE BROTHER. A hadith is NEVER final just by its very nature of having the possibility of being wrong. THE QURAN IS FINAL!

@Desert Fox
Actually these modern day reformists/apologists are the reason why non-Muslims think that Muslims are liars who practice "taqia". Pick and choose, what suits the "modern" world to fit in. deny jihad, hijab etc.
The hadith which came from Ayesha herself is stating her age yet they find something else so that it is acceptable in the West.

ok buddy, this is it, I'm gonna throw the gaunlet down on this and put YOU smack in the center of the spotlight!

You very vehemently claim, like other traditionalists, that "the hadith which came from Ayesha (RA) herself is stating her age"...okay buddy. Let's see your evidence that this hadith DID in fact come straight from bibi Ayesha RA herself. This is what I am demanding from you, either give us all the following OR APOLOGIZE AND DO TAUBA THAT YOU HAVE NO FREAKIN' CLUE AS TO WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT AND HAVE JUST BEEN FOLLOWING MOLVIS AND MUFTIS LIKE DUMB SHEEP:
1. THE HADITH ITSELF
2. The name of the narrators of this hadith
3. Their background
4. The evidence they were 100% good, pious Muslims and not munafiqs
5. Every single name of the Muslim in the chain of these narrations
6. The evidence that every single on of these Muslims in the chain of narrations were 100% pious Muslims and not munafiqs
7. FINALLY AND THE MOST IMPORTANTLY, evidence from the Quran that this marriage was in 100% in accordance with what the Quran says.

I along with everyone else look forward to your answer!!! You no longer get to just claim "its hadith its hadith its hadith" without actually PROVING that it IS in fact an authentic hadith. SO LET'S SEE IT, BRING IT ON!

And here's an interesting read...
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/814332

the push against idle, fake ahadith that give Islam a bad name and obscure Islam's true message has already begun and its not gonna stop. And at the end of the day, just ask yourselves...do you feel comfortable and safe sending your 6 year old daughter to the madrassa run by some mufti or molvi who believes marriage to an underage child is halal? I'm sure that the answer to this question even from our conservative brothers like @Psychic and @Desert Fox and others will feel extremely uncomfortable...they will ALWAYS have a festering fear that what will they do if one day this same 70 year old molvi shoes up at their doorstep with a big basket of mithai and a horse led baraat saying "mubarak ho, we have decided to marry your 6 year old daughter"!!!

Here's the blunt writing on the wall...THE TIME OF "TRADITIONALISTS" IS OVER! There is new, contemporary class of scholars that is emerging throughout the Islamic world and they have started to critically scrutinise the work of traditionalists, NOT in the light of western knowledge, but in the light of The Holy Qur'an and the authentic sunnah. So don't even BOTHER to use that "ultra liberals following the west" excuse over here, the contemporary Islamic scholar is an western ultra liberal's worst nightmare because he succeeds where the traditionalists fail, crash and burn; the contemporary Islamic scholars defeats the western liberals at their own game while the traditionalists loose their temper and ends up making a complete FOOL out of himself in front of the liberals and thus, giving the liberals the excuse to say "see? we told you Muslims are just a bunch of angry terrorists"! The contemporary Muslim scholars have started to either confirm or reject the work of traditionalists in the light of The Qur'an and authentic sunnah. This is gonna turn into a tsunami and its not gonna stop. Many Muslims have just had it up to their necks with this "traditionalist" crap and are now asserting themselves, enough is ENOUGH of this garbage. What some "traditionalist" Muslims consider the years of the nostalgic golden era, other Muslims consider as an extremely controversial period in our history mired with conspiracies, strife and bloodshed.

THE BLOG
01/29/2011 07:42 pm ET Updated May 25, 2011
Rejecting the Myth of Sanctioned Child Marriage in Islam

By Dr. David Liepert


Name one thing Muslims and Christians share? Their level effort pointing fingers elsewhere whenever pedophilia comes up. Catholic priests are an obvious and easy target, but when my 16-year-old daughter raised $26,000 in her high school to combat North America’s growing child-sex-slavery trade, her grandmother complained that she wasn’t doing enough about misogyny and abuse in Somalia, Saudi Arabia and the Sudan. Although she wasn’t very clear how Marley would get there. My pen on the other hand? We’ll see.

Another similarity? Neither Muslims nor Christians blame Christianity for the problem, but the same can’t be said for Islam. You’ve got to give pedophiles their props though. Most sane people consider them something beyond abhorrent, and yet on this issue they have convinced even Christian leaders to climb into bed with them, and with some Sunni and Shiite scholars to boot. And it’s time to pull the sheets back and see what’s really going on for the sake of women and children everywhere.

There are really only three reasons to insist — as so many do — that Aisha was only 9 years old when Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam (PBUH) married her: Either you are such a crazy Islamophile that you are willing to go to your grave insisting Muhammad could do whatever he wanted, or you are such a crazy Islamophobe that you want to insist he did, or you are such a weirdly religious sex-crazed pervert that you hope accusing him makes it OK for you to do it too.

There is absolutely no other reason to either make or repeat that disgusting claim. Aisha was married in 622 C.E., and although her exact birthday is unknown, Abu Ja’far Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari recorded that it happened before Islam was revealed in 610. The earliest surviving biography of Muhammad, Abu Muhammad ‘Abd al-Malik bin Hisham’s recension of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah — The Life of the Messenger of God records that Aisha accepted Islam shortly after it was revealed — 12 years before her marriage — and there is no way she could have done so as an infant or toddler.

Furthermore, it is a matter of incontrovertible historical record that Aisha was involved in the Battles of Badr in 624 and Uhud in 625, in neither of which was anyone under the age of 15 allowed.

Finally, Imam Wali-ud-Din Muhammad ibn Abdullah Al-Khatib, dead for more than 700 years, recorded in the biographical section of Miskat al-Masabih that Asma, her elder sister of 10 years, died at the age of 100, 72 years after Aisha’s wedding. This makes Aisha’s age at the time of her marriage at least 14, and at the time of her marriage’s consummation almost 20.

Although those dates make it obvious that Aisha’s child-marriage couldn’t have taken place, according to Arab tribal traditions of the time it could have, and apparently it can still happen in Arabia today. A case that recently raged through the international press and Saudi courts — of an 8-year-old girl who had been married by her father to a 47 year-old “friend” to settle Dad’s debts — shows how little things there have changed. However, that’s despite Islam, not because of it.

Prior to Muhammad in Arabia, it is common knowledge that females were considered property, and that female infants were often discarded like refuse when born. However, one of Islam’s primary revelations was that men and women had equal status before God, with different though equal rights and obligations. Another was God’s condemnation of Arab female sacrifice, proclaiming that girl-children were just as valuable as boy-children to God and to humankind.

Obviously, those ignorant tribal prejudices and practices persist. However the most important reason Aisha’s child-marriage couldn’t have happened is this: Muhammad couldn’t do anything any more than any other Muslim can. Muhammad was the finest example of true Islamic living there could ever be, and having marital relations with a woman of less than the “age of majority” — an age that varies from culture to culture but presupposes the ability to become pregnant, have children and make decisions for those children as an adult — was, is and always will be completely contrary to the example set by our Prophet, and the message of Islam’s Holy Quran.

The Quran is clear that a divorced woman cannot marry another man until she completes a period of waiting to confirm she isn’t already pregnant, and such an impediment would be unnecessary were pregnancy not possible. However, the roots of Islamic pedophilia lie in exactly what the verse (At-Talaq — “The Divorce” 65:4) about that waiting period says. Yousuf Ali’s English translation is a pretty good approximation:

Waalla-ee ya-isna mina almaheedi min nisa-ikum ini irtabtum fa’iddatuhunna thalathatu ashhurin waalla-ee lam yahidna waolatu al-ahmali ajaluhunna an yada’ana hamlahunna waman yattaqi Allaha yaj’al lahu min amrihi yusran.

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.

Now, I’ve discussed the verse with progressive Islamic scholars and learned that “Lam Yahidna” negates menstruation in the past tense and the jussive mode and means “did not menstruate,” with the expectation that the woman should be menstruating, since that natural cycle is part of her normal state.

Then again, I know that there are Islamic scholars from Arabia and Pakistan — another place with long traditions of both child-marriage and misogyny — and Islamophobes from around the world who interpret it as if it says “has not menstruated yet,” with the jussive mode implying the girl is impatient to begin, ensuring that it seems to perpetuate the pre-Islamic practice of having sex with pre-pubescent girls.

Between those two incredibly divergent positions, how does one choose?

When Muslims face difficult questions, we have the Sunnah, an Arabic word meaning “the acts of Muhammad,” to guide us, and that’s why Aisha’s age is such an issue. But the thing is, whether Aisha was still a child when her marriage was consummated has never been a question: all scholars agree that occurred after Aisha’s menarche. Islamophobes inevitably claim otherwise, but they do so based on a completely fictitious interpretation of events.

And that means the problem that we should be addressing is the root one, that of men devaluing and disenfranchising girls and women: Husbands and fathers treating girls as property and forcing them to marry against their will.

And in that, the condemnation of the Quran and Sunnah are very clear: The Quran states a woman’s consent is essential, and the Sunnah confirms that both Aisha’s betrothal and consummation occurred with Aisha’s enthusiastic agreement. In fact, some even imply she went against the initial wishes of her Dad!

Those guides unequivocally confirm that men and woman have equal status before God, equal though different rights when wed, and that a woman cannot be given in marriage without her express approval. Absent that, the Sunnah also records that Muhammad dissolved marriages on the woman’s testimony alone. That is what Muslims should be proclaiming, rather than the purported right of Muslim men to marry underage brides.

The cause of the confusion is simple. Imam Bukhari, compiler of the famous Hadithcollection (Hadith in this context meaning stories about Muhammad) Sahih Bukhari included one recalling that Aisha said she was 6 when betrothed and 9 when she was wed. However, Bukhari included another recording that Aisha was a young girl and remembered when Surah Al-Qamar was revealed — 9 years before her wedding — as well. Obviously, both Hadiths can’t be true, and that’s the problem with relying too much on Hadiths, and too little on the Quran and common sense.

Even if you believe — as I do — that the Quran is a divinely protected book, the same cannot be said about all Hadiths. In fact, there is even an Ayah in the Quran that warns about the dangers of thinking otherwise. Luqman 31:6 cautions:

Wamina alnnasi man yashtaree lahwa alhadithi liyudilla aaan sabeeli Allahi bighayri aailmin wayattakhithaha huzuwan ola-ika lahum aaathabun muheenun.

But there are, among men, those who purchase idle Hadiths, without knowledge (or meaning), to mislead (men) from the Path of Allah and throw ridicule (on the Path): for such there will be a Humiliating Penalty.

While there are Muslim scholars who claim that Luqman 6 is actually a warning about musical performers like Madonna, there are others who respond that unless those performers are Muslim nothing they do throws ridicule on any path but their own. And personally, I think the Ayah is instead a frank and literal warning about the dangers of trafficking in false and idle Hadiths, just like it says.

I also can’t think of a better set of examples of what it’s talking about than the damage that’s been done by confusion over Aisha’s age of consummation.

I have read a great deal of speculation about why Hadiths that make Aisha seem immature might be wrong. Most of them came out of what is now Iraq, through one specific source named Hisham ibn Urwah. And it’s worth noting that his student Muslim — who collated the Hadiths of Sahih Muslim — specifically chose not to include any from his respected teacher after Hisham went to Iraq. Some say it’s because Hisham’s memory became spotty, others say it was because Iraq was a political hotbed of “anti-Aisha” feeling and some evil men fabricated Hadiths in Hisham’s name.

But none of the speculation matters. The only thing you need to realize is that both the tales Bukhari included can’t both be true. That fact, put together with the Quran’s warning, means that Hadiths can’t be as authoritative to Muslims as the Holy Quran and the Sunnah are.

I’ve been told otherwise by many good Muslims, and I know there are even places in the world where you can spark a riot by saying otherwise, but I think that’s part of what Luqman warns us about. I love Hadiths for the illuminating light they can shine on the interpretation of a difficult passage, or on my own attempts navigating a difficult juncture in my life, but I’ve also participated in Islamic dinner events that have fallen apart discussing the Hadith condemning Muslims who smell their food before they eat it.

Now, the role, authority and validity of individual Hadiths is not an issue that is going to be put to rest by someone like me; there is an entire scholarly science devoted to it. And personally, I think that debate and discussion, both between scholars and “grass-roots” Muslims, is useful and instructive whether the Hadiths being discussed are actually “true” or not, as long as that discussion is respectful of both our religion of Islam and our fellow participants.

But while we’re on the subject of how Muslims settle Islamic controversies, there’s an important question that begs asking. I actually understand the Islamophobic focus on false and embarrassing Islamic interpretations: they’re just trying to score points the best way they know how, with tools we Muslims have given them. But all these facts I’ve shared are just common knowledge that’s easily verifiable and my conclusions little more than simple common sense.

If Muslim scholars are so concerned that Muslim practices follow Islam’s revelation and Muhammad’s memory, and if they truly want to defend Islam and our Prophet, then what have they been doing for the last thousand years?

No question men (and women) can be pigs when it comes to sex and gender issues — when I’m asked to explain why we can’t eat pork I generally explain the problem might be cannibalism — but religion is supposed to help us combat those dark urges not pander to them.

And while we’re on the subject of marriage, the Quran doesn’t condone wife-beating either. In pre-Islamic Arabia, men did not need permission to beat their wives. And although the Arabic root Dzaraba does mean “beat” it also means “heal.” Dzaraba denotes action for a higher purpose, such as “striking (or minting) a coin,” or “striking out on a new path.” Coupled with the Quran’s warning to husbands that God is watching everything we do, and a reminder that we must serve our marriage rather than ourselves, particularly after proclaiming married men to be tasked as providers and protectors rather than rulers all in the same passage, in Muhammad’s day Islam actually took that permission away, despite misogynist Muslim and Islamophobic claims to the contrary.

With all the suffering in Somalia, so much of it caused by misapplied and misinterpreted misreadings of Islam, why are Somalia’s scholars focusing on sexualizing hand-holding?

How is it that Saudi Arabia still allows child marriage when they’ve known Aisha’s real age all along (the biographies I reference are written in Arabic, for Heaven’s sake!), or that Pakistan’s rape laws cleave to British colonial precedent?

In Pakistan, a woman can be punished for being raped if the rapist denies her claims. But when Muhammad was faced with a woman who told him she’d been raped, he had the man in question executed on the testimony of the woman, whom he pronounced blameless, alone.

The simple truth is that all our Muslim scholars since Islam began have been human, limited by the human ability to pander, avoid conflict by bowing to popular opinion, or make mistakes. And when scholars fail their sacred trust, to transmit Islam with fidelity, they lose their right to any authority, Islamic or otherwise, and frankly, it’s up to the rest of us to do a better job of keeping them honest.

Because if any of us care about things like “truth” and “fidelity” as much as so many of us claim, “Too busy to check the facts out for myself” just doesn’t seem like much of an excuse.

What’s my bottom line? The age Aisha attained before she married the Prophet is one issue we have to put to rest — for the sake of children everywhere. There is absolutely no question that Aisha was an adult when she consummated her marriage with Muhammad of her own free will, and she lived out her life in the earliest days of Islam the un-harassed and proudly participatory equal of everyone, just like every other man, woman or child under God.

That is our Muslim legacy that we should be striving to live up to, and anyone who claims otherwise is simply crazy, one way or another.


Follow Dr. David Liepert on Twitter:www.twitter.com/DrDavidLiepert

 

[Desert Fox]

what you state has been crushed by none other than The Qur'an itself. The problem is that the jews and christians also had their share of muftis and molvis with the titles of rabbis and bishops and popes. They too had centuries of wisdom grounded in their own religious principles and examples of the lives of some of who they considered to be the best people to walk on this Earth. But Allah swt scolds these people of the book because, as per The Quran, they took their priests as their gods. You know this is a verse of The Qur'an, it is well known. so I don't really buy this age old ghisa pita argument, when there is nothing left to say, the extremist types always pull out the "best people on earth so you can't dispute them" card. Well I can dispute them. And I will dispute them. And I will dispute them on MERIT based on evidence. Bluntly put, if a simple old grandma can question someone like Hazrat Omar RA then I can dispute these scholars and imams and muftis whether they are alive today or are historical names. I can and I will question their work. I have nothing against either the sunni scholars nor the shia scholars in history. But there work, their edicts and their fatwas shall be scrutinized and the ones that should be disputed SHALL be disputed. But if you want to be one of those who take their priests as their god then knock yourself out, lemme know how that works out for ya in the hereafter, can you spell "shirk"?

Get off your high horse and stop accusing people of shirk.

Secondly, you're a nobody. You haven't studied anything. You think you know everything because you read the English translation of the Quran

Give me a break.

Really? Wisdom? Have you read some of their wisdom? Have you read some of the so called ahadith that they base their "wisdom" on? Or are you so dense that you'll blindly accept anything they say with hands tied and head bowed down?

They're qualified because they have dedicated their entire life to studying Islamic texts from every angle and from every argument.

You should humble yourself.

As I said above, everything shall be scrutinised based on evidence and MERIT. Your mixing Solids with liquids, there is No conversion between the toe. Gravity is science, regardless of how corrupt the child molesting presenter of logic is, 2+2 will always = 4. But am I gonna take lessons from a child molester on morality and I should and should not do? OH DA HECK NOO! So you mixing morality with sciences is a dead on arrival example as it is akin to mixing solid with liquid, the two are just not the same

I'm using your logic though:

If person X's argument is valid, but person X happens to do something wrong, therefore their argument is also wrong.

And finally, to address the "pedophile" claim, as recent as 100 years ago the life expectancy in most of the world was never past 40, maybe 50 years of age. People back then also matured more quickly.

Also some racial groups reach puberty more earlier than others. Some also become mentally mature earlier than others. Early marriages were very common and still are.

You, on the other hand are judging from a position of arrogance without understanding anything.

So who exactly decided to take on the authority to decide whether we are allowed or not allowed to use our own thinking or not?

Who gave the judge the authority to convict criminals?

Who gave the general the authority to command armies?

Who gave the surgeon the authority to operate?

What's the common denominator? They're all experts because they dedicated their lives to that particular field.

Similarly, a Mufti dedicated his entire life solely to the study of Islam, which judging from your posts you know nothing of. Therefore a Mufti's statement carries weight compared to some amateur who makes claims from his computer because he happened to read some online translation of the Quran.

@Psychic

 

[GumNaam]

someone tell this jahil gavaar molvi THAT WE GIVE A RAT'S TAIL ABOUT WHAT THE NONMUSLIMS THINK!!! and this mulla do piaza is gonna sit in "judgement" on the evidence that points to bibi Ayesha RA being 19 at the age of marriage? this mulla do piaza is gonna call MATHEMATICALLY VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE as weak and YET, he'll consider "here say" over the course of centuries as "solid" evidence...give me ONE good reason why the likes of ignoramuses like this mulla do piaza shouldn't be dragged out on the streets and ruthlessly beaten into the dirt until you can't tell the difference between his blood and mud! I can just picture him showing up at the door steps of a 9 year old girl with a marriage proposal for his grand father to a 9 year old girl uttering this same garbage gibberish to convince the father of the 9 year old daughter let his grandpa marry her! And the sad part is, if that father is illiterate and poor, he'll cave in too! PATHETIC! this guy is a vermin, and insect, a parasite that should crushed and eradicated!

the same thing for this guy! WHO GIVE A CRAP IF KING RICHARD THE WHATEVER MARRIED A 6 YEAR OLD FRENCH PRINCES?!?!?!?! The real issue in question is the authenticity of this so called "hadith"? NO one to this day, has been able to prove BEYOND the shadow of a doubt if it was authentic or not!

 

[GumNaam]

@Desert Fox,
Get off your high horse and stop accusing people of shirk.
if equating love for someone or something to the same level as love for Allah is shirk, if obeying someone INCLUDING parents the same way Allah should be obeyed is shirk THEN EQUATING ALLAH'S BOOK TO SOMEONE ELSE'S BOOK IS ALSO SHIRK!!! GET OVER IT! That IS the definition of shirk in The Quran, so why don't YOU get off YOUR high horse and GO LOOK IT UP FOR A CHANGE!
Secondly, you're a nobody. You haven't studied anything. You think you know everything because you read the English translation of the Quran
Aye, you don't know me dude. I don't claim to be scholar even in my OWN line of work but no one gets off telling me that I don't know anything or am a no body and haven't studied anything WITHOUT presenting their evidence. No more empty claims with no evidence...so if I am a no body, if I have NOT studies anything, if the english (and urdu) translation means nothing (as if YOU are fluent in arabic) then present your evidence that proves that I am a no body who knows nothing. If not, then kindly be silent!

Give me a break.
They're qualified because they have dedicated their entire life to studying Islamic texts from every angle and from every argument.

No that crap doesn't fly anymore. Why? The people of the books used this SAME pathetic excuse about THIER scholars; the mushriks of Makkah used the SAME pathetic excuse about THEIR forefathers. But the Quran CLEARLY gives them a SHUTUP call by saying unequivocally stating that most of those who they consider a "pious scholars" because of their so called and SUPPOSED dedication to their faiths of judism or christianity were in fact misguided and changing the faith brought by the prophets and messengers. The same slap across the face is given to the mushriks of Makkah by the Quran when The Good Book quotes them as saying that they shall do what they found there forefathers doing by saying that there forefathers were committing heinous crimes and sins!

You should humble yourself.
maybe you should study The Holy Quran for a change...or are you far too proud to humble yourself in front of Allah's book? I actually AM being humble that I am dedicating all this time and energy to remove wrong from what is right instead of blindly following every two bit mullah or mufti that comes around without verifying what he is preaching!


I'm using your logic though:

If person X's argument is valid, but person X happens to do something wrong, therefore their argument is also wrong.
Read my post again, that was NOT my logic. using your example, if person X is an excellent mechanic who knows cars in and out BUT is ALSO a convict of grand theft auto, am I going to give him my car for fixing? NOPE! But you can feel free and give him YOUR car all you want...good luck gettin' it back! But his knowledge about cars will STILL be sctrutinized based on evidence and merit and will either accepted or rejected none the less.

And finally, to address the "pedophile" claim, as recent as 100 years ago the life expectancy in most of the world was never past 40, maybe 50 years of age. People back then also matured more quickly.
DUDE? I was born and raised in KSA okay? I have never EVER seen a SINGLE 9 year old beduin girl who was hand all the characteristics of a full on developing WOMAN going through puperty! NONE! So save horse crap and stop trying to be an apologist for your long gone so called "scholars" and try to defend the garbage they produced!

Also some racial groups reach puberty more earlier than others. Some also become mentally mature earlier than others. Early marriages were very common and still are.
yeah? Show me ONE. Go on...show me a profile or a picture or a video of an ethnic society where you have 6 to 9 year old girls walking around with full on puberty and mensuration cycles with a firmly made up and mature mind of who they want to marry. GO ON, SHOW ME! I'M WATIING...

You, on the other hand are judging from a position of arrogance without understanding anything.
NEGATIVE. I've presented my evidence that is solidly verifiable while you have given me NOTHING except unverifiable garbage that this how it was in the past and blah blah blah!

Who gave the judge the authority to convict criminals?
Don't judges make mistakes and send someone innocent to the gallows or release the guilty by mistake? Don't judges sell themselves to criminals?

Who gave the general the authority to command armies?
Don't generals make mistakes and loose battles? Can't generals be sellouts to the enemy?

Who gave the surgeon the authority to operate?
So a surgeon can't make misakes? People don't die because of their mistakes and errors?

Now you tell me? Your scholars can't make mistakes or be traitors or issue fatwas for bag full of gold?

What's the common denominator? They're all experts because they dedicated their lives to that particular field.
Similarly, a Mufti dedicated his entire life solely to the study of Islam, which judging from your posts you know nothing of. Therefore a Mufti's statement carries weight compared to some amateur who makes claims from his computer because he happened to read some online translation of the Quran.
Read above. popes and rabbis and bishops too have dedicated their lives to their particular fields of their own faiths. But they all have been labelled as mushriks by Allah in The Holy Quran. The same holds true for YOUR so called scholars. So no, this excuse of "they dedicated their lives to Islam so we should follow them blindly" juuuuust doesn't fly anymore. And nor does this measly little attempt of yours to try an belittle anyone who raises issues on the teachings of these scholars is gonna fly anymore. Yeah, I do study Islam online and YEAH, I maybe an amateur AND YEAH I WILL SCRUTINIZE EVERYTHING YOUR SCHOLARS SAY. YOU just have to get over it, this IS how it is gonna be! DEAL WITH IT!!! Bluntly put, NOBODY cares if they dedicated their lives...and every single thing that they have thought WILL be and SHOULD be scrutinized OVER AND OVER AGAIN UNTIL THE END OF TIMES BY PRESENT AND FUTURE MUSLIMS AND EITHER CONFIRMED AS CORRECT OR REJECTED AS WRONG!