[QUOTE="frazzle00"]

[QUOTE="Stranger_4"]2) If only you knew that abu bakr was an extremely rich man...

3) Becasue in Islam a sexually adult man and woman with no blood relation are not allowed to be very close friends.

4) Becasue on some matters, there arent any good hadith due to the contradictions thus the differences in muslims.

5) You havent read history of muhammad's life have you? There is absolutely no way that a "smart" guy would be confident of surviving in muhammad's shoes.:|

Stranger_4

1) What has wealth got to do with anything? Are you telling me wealthy parents are ALWAYS good parents? ROFLOL.

2) Why couldn't he have adopted her? Or are you telling me adoption does not exist in Islam. And even if he married her. Why did he have to consumate the marriage if lust WASN'T an issue?

3) Shouldn't the Quran be enough?

4) Where did I say Muhammad was confident of his survival? I said that he balanced out risk against reward, and it looks like he chose right.

2) She had both parents alive.:|:|

Because it was her right?

3) No it cannot provide information about A-Z of life!

4) WTF, he choose risk according to you which shows he was confident of his survival.:lol:

You are now trying too hard, already you got caught in the irony with your post and trying to twist things. I wonder why I bother to even argue with such a biased person!

1) I never said Abu Bakr sold Aisha. Can you prove that I did? All I said is that bad parents exist. One such example of bad parenting would be to sell your child into sexual slavery. Now people sell things not just for money. Power, status and politics are just as viable motives.

2) I never said that both of Aisha's parents were alive when she was married. Once again you are obviously misreading my posts. You were trying to suggest that Abu Bakr having money made him a good parent. I replied that rich parents aren't necessarily good ones. And excuse me but you have not provided proof that Aisha was in any legal way able to give consent or for that matter that she is "sexually adult". And when it comes to rights perhaps you should check out the rights of women in Pakistan. Make sure that rapists are punished and not their victims.

3) Thanks for providing me another reason why I would never consider Islam as a religion for me. So are you telling me an adult Muslim male can not be good friends with an adult Muslim female :?? Wow if that is true, I guess it sucks to be you.

4) ROFLOL. Do you know what risk vs. reward is? It's obvious you don't.

5) ROFLOL. You also don't seem to know what irony is. Let me give you an example. The statement "I wonder why I bother to even argue with such a biased person!" is clearly ironic coming from you :P.

[QUOTE="metroidfood"]

Good job. Now you're trying to blame rape on the women. Might as well say murder victims were asking for it because they didn't wear a bulletproof vest.

Yes. The actions of individuals do not have bearing on the freedoms and civility afforded by the government.

A nation cannot be up to date if it's enforcing outdated, sexist laws.

Stranger_4

What? The actions of individuals determine the failure or success of the civility afforded by the government. I guess the morals of the western world has gone so low that they do not even consider rape a big thing lol.

I mean you talk about gender equality, I am sure women would rather have some of their rights ripped off then their clothes lol. But then again, your average americal women for whom a one night stand is not immoral may just choose otherwise.:lol:

Are you trying to suggest that men can't control themselves? That as soon as they see a woman in "provocative" clothes, they'll go on a mindless raping rampage? Please dude don't generalize that sort of sick behaviour to the general male populace. And you haven't replied about rape victims being persecuted in Pakistan. Doesn't Pakistan believe in taking care of its female citizens?

Why the USA has the most no. of rapes?

1) Becasue unlike muslim countries, drinking alcohol is legal.

2) A rise in atheism one of the reasons being the weak attachment that most christians have with their religion.

3) No restriction on the type of clothes(or lack of) for women.

Here you can see "christian dominated" countries have the most no. of rapes. Do we say FAIL on christianity?:roll:

Why is it that the first muslim country is on no. 27? I think God knows better why He set the rules of no alcohol and women covering their bodies the way He did.

Is this your civilized and up to the times world?

Stranger_4

ROFLOL. If this is your idea of scientific analysis....LOL. I won't spend too much time rebutting since Metroidfood has already done a great job, and there really is no need to beat a dead horse.

I do however want to point out that in Pakistan, it is not unheard of for women who are raped to be punished, and not the rapist!! Is this your idea of gender equality? :roll: Here are some links if you want (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4322021.stm, http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/rape.html). Is it really any surprise that the poor victims of rape DON'T REPORT their attack for fear of being punished? And another thing to note is that those statistics do not provide an ethnic/cultural breakdown of who the rapists were. To say that the statistics are ultimately due to Christianity is about as scientific as claiming that the world is flat.

[QUOTE="frazzle00"]

1) They do follow the Quran? Didn't you just say that punishment for apostasy and gender inequality is NOT in the Quran? Why the contradiction?

Stranger_4

According to famiking the Quran states that apostates will be punished in the after life. If God is the ultimate authority, and in the Quran it states that he will decide final judgement, what right does a mortal Muslim man have to intervene?

[QUOTE="frazzle00"]

2) I said giving parental consent does not make the act of marrying a child, or even a very young adult to a 50+ year old man. I said that Abu Bakr may have not had a choice. I also said that he may have been a bad parent. I then gave one (modern) example of bad parenting which isn't unheard of in the world today, which is selling children off into sex slavery.

3) Why would it be hypocritical? Aisha was a lot younger than him (this you can't dispute). She didn't have to marry him to be close to him. He could have been like a father to her (i.e. an uncle). That would give them the bond of family without the associated sexuality. How is that hypocritical? To me it is more hypocritical that someone who is supposed to be noble married a teenager and slept with her, under the pretext of prophecy.

4) So if it is so easy to distinguish "good" hadith from "weak" hadith, why is it that numerous Islamic countries around the world are having trouble with this? Why are countries like Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Malaysia following "weak" hadith if it is so easy to find "good" hadith?

5) Firstly let me ask you, how many Arab kings do you think an average lay man could name? Then let me ask you how many of them have heard of Muhammad? Therefore there is a huge difference in historical legacy between what he was offered and what he achieved. And what I wrote before was just one plausible example of the many possible reasons why Muhammad chose the path he did. Can you provide me CONCRETE proof to support a singular motive for his actions? Can you provide concrete proof that he "could not have known" that Islam would prevail in the Middle East?

Stranger_4

3) Becasue in Islam a sexually adult man and woman with no blood relation are not allowed to be very close friends.

4) Becasue on some matters, there arent any good hadith due to the contradictions thus the differences in muslims.

5) You havent read history of muhammad's life have you? There is absolutely no way that a "smart" guy would be confident of surviving in muhammad's shoes.:|

1) What has wealth got to do with anything? Are you telling me wealthy parents are ALWAYS good parents? ROFLOL.

2) Why couldn't he have adopted her? Or are you telling me adoption does not exist in Islam. And even if he married her. Why did he have to consumate the marriage if lust WASN'T an issue?

3) Shouldn't the Quran be enough?

4) Where did I say Muhammad was confident of his survival? I said that he balanced out risk against reward, and it looks like he chose right.

[QUOTE="frazzle00"]

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"] 1) I am not claiming anything. I am saying it's uncertain. And an average of age range is unsuitable because it gives a central figure as the sole representative of the info. What you are ignoring is that a no. of ages are present in hadith and this brings uncertainty in the matter. Think rationally, if Muhammad is to be judged are you going to take averages of the age range and say that he must have married at the age of 13.5? What kind of an assumption is that? Averages don't work in every scenario friend. 2) You claimed that he might have sold her as a sex slave etc. That is wrong for he happily agreed for the marriage. And you are yet to prove that she was a minor. 3) To take her into a disciple would have been hypocritical of the very teachings of Islam. Hazrat Aisha was to know and understand what the Prophet said, so that she could be a future leader. For that she had to be close to him most of the time. If they would be unmarried and yet close, won't the society even at that time find it hypocritical? Btw, Muhammad (SAW) used to talk of religion in front of each of his wives. This is evident since many hadith are narrated by other wives too. But none emerged as a leader, unlike Hazrat Aisha. 4) You do not know the criteria for weak and strong hadith. A strong hadith is one against which no contradictory hadith are present and has an unbroen chain of transmitters. In the case of Hazrat Aisha's age, hadith from the same narrator are in conflict. I challenge you to find a single contradictory hadith to the fact, that Muhammad (SAW) lived a simple life and that he did his own work and that he and his companions suffered at the hands of the pagan tribes. Your theory as a major loophole. The early Islamic community had no more than a few hundred supporters. He could not have known from before that with these few hundreds, he would be able to successfully establish an Islamic empire. In fact, some of his supporters were killed and plans were being made for his murder too. Plus, the general populace was not willing to believe in him. Like I said, its a huge assumption because at that time the situation was extremely difficult. Btw, he was already being given wealth, women and he was being made the king (historical legacy), so I don't see where are you coming from..... he did not have to suffer........ nor did he have to provide all the reforms like he did. MFaraz_Hayat

1) Actually you assumed she was 18. Do I really need to paste your post for you? Even if there is a range, 9-18 according to you, the majority of that range would make Aisha a child. Statistically speaking it is therefore more likely that she was under 18.

2) I said giving parental consent does not make the act of marrying a child, or even a very young adult to a 50+ year old man. I said that Abu Bakr may have not had a choice. I also said that he may have been a bad parent. I then gave one (modern) example of bad parenting which isn't unheard of in the world today, which is selling children off into sex slavery.

3) Why would it be hypocritical? Aisha was a lot younger than him (this you can't dispute). She didn't have to marry him to be close to him. He could have been like a father to her (i.e. an uncle). That would give them the bond of family without the associated sexuality. How is that hypocritical? To me it is more hypocritical that someone who is supposed to be noble married a teenager and slept with her, under the pretext of prophecy.

4) So if it is so easy to distinguish "good" hadith from "weak" hadith, why is it that numerous Islamic countries around the world are having trouble with this? Why are countries like Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Malaysia following "weak" hadith if it is so easy to find "good" hadith?

5) Firstly let me ask you, how many Arab kings do you think an average lay man could name? Then let me ask you how many of them have heard of Muhammad? Therefore there is a huge difference in historical legacy between what he was offered and what he achieved. And what I wrote before was just one plausible example of the many possible reasons why Muhammad chose the path he did. Can you provide me CONCRETE proof to support a singular motive for his actions? Can you provide concrete proof that he "could not have known" that Islam would prevail in the Middle East?

1) Statistics are used whenever uncertainty is dealt with scientifically.

2) In one of my earlier posts I said that the posibility of pedophilia is enough to put me off. So no I am not willing to CONVICT a man without concrete proof. But accusing them is a different story. Much like in most legal systems around the world.

3) Muhammad is not an ordinary person. He is the messenger of God. Sure that was the custom back then, I am not arguing that it wasn't, but it is frowned upon today. You would expect the messenger of God to know better. And if he was brave enough to withstand poverty and torture for his beliefs, surely he would have been brave enough to go against a commonly accepted view if he saw it as wrong (which marriage and sex with a minor is in many Muslim countries today).

4) How do you distinguish between the fullfillment of a prophecy and pure coincidence? How do you distinguish what is actually fated, from what is WORKED towards?

5) I never said Muhammad was greedy. Please show me the post where I have said that. If you have inferred that, well that is your problem not mine.

6) You are making plenty of allegations yourself, yet you have not provided "concrete" proof. Hadith are written by followers of Muhammad. Their view of him is obviously biased. Quoting a hadith (and let's not forget there is obviously a subjective assessment as to whether a hadith is strong or weak) does not constitute concrete proof. Neither is just simply listing a bunch of historians who you claim support your view.

1) They DO follow the Quran. :?

2) Then blame the people, not the religion. I think doing otherwise is ignorance, and also encourages people to think that "they're all the same".

3) You forgot that another 200-400 million live outside of Muslim countries. So it's more like 500-700 against 500-700 muslims.

4) Have :) Even taboo subjects such as homosexuality and age of consent.

So it's 12:30, off to bed, cya tommorow :)

Famiking

1) They do follow the Quran? Didn't you just say that punishment for apostasy and gender inequality is NOT in the Quran? Why the contradiction?

2) I am not blaming the people or the religion. All I am saying is that I don't agree with Islam for ...(the reasons I have already given you). I also think that many non-Muslims feel similarly.

3) How do you know that these 200-400 million Muslims that live outside of Muslim countries do not practice Shari'a behind closed doors? Wasn't there a row recently about the possible implementation of Shari'a in the UK?

4) Well done!

1) You're looking at it from a liberal stand-point, not a neutral one. Like I said, I'm not saying I support it, but if you change these laws directly you will not receive a thank you in return even to those people who were negatively affected. 2) I said not all the muslims are the same and then you said the majority paints the face of Islam. 25% of muslims live in non-muslim countries (where Shari'ah is obviously not mandated). Another 150 million+ live in secular Muslim countries (Turkey, the -stan countries outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan), and 100+ million live in countries without forced Shari'a (Egypt, Kuwait, Pakistan etc.), so it's not like it's 1.2 billion muslims and 1.18 billion are getting abused. 3) They won't act in the benefit of the people, only to personal benefit. And the other people have been oppressed for years, growing up in a dictatorship they learn to keep their mouth shut (in a bad way), they won't for a noble cause. And to terrorists, their house is the cleanest while yours is dirty. 4) Yes there are countries out there that have Sharia as law, don't see where I denied this either, the RELIGION (not the countries) itself says you're only obligated to follow the Quran. 5) Not protests, I don't have enough time for that. I have debated with others though, that's how I like my voice heard.Famiking

1) I never claimed to be looking at it from a neutral standpoint. I can also assure you that you are not looking at it from a neutral standpoint. We are both biased, sitting on opposite sides of the fence. I am not trying to change your view of Islam. You however said you were trying to change mine. I therefore suggest that you spend more effort trying to change the minds of Muslims who do not follow the Quran. Wouldn't that me more appropriate?

2) Muslims are the face of Islam, this is indisputable, just as Christians are the face of Christianity and Jews are the face of Judaism. For all religions there are bound to be good followers and bad followers. I am not disputing that. But when in plenty of Muslim countries the state enforces religious and cultural issues so harshly, it isn't surprising that the OUTSIDE WORLD views Islam in a negative light. That is NOT the same as saying "I assume all Muslims are the same".

3) Malaysia doesn't enforce Shari'a law in its constitution. Unfortunately this doesn't stop the Islamic authorities in Malaysia doing so anyway and the government doesn't do anything about this. The same is true in Pakistan. I have read several cases where the victim of the rape is punished and not the rapists. I have also read about several honor killings. Sorry but to me that is abhorrent. And even if 300 million Muslims are not subject to Shari'a, that still leaves 900 million Muslims that are. Is this not the MAJORITY?

4) Debating is a form of protest yes. I just hope you debate with your fellow Muslims who advocate against religious freedom and gender equality as strongly as you debate with me.

[QUOTE="frazzle00"]

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

Oho.....someone is good in the art of cherry picking.

1) Like I said the age is uncertain. It might have been 9 or might have been 18. To select 9 and say Muhammad (SAW) was a pedophile is wrong, for the burden of proof is on you. So unless you prove to me somehow that Hazrat Aisha's age was definitely 9, your arguments are based on assumptions. (You are accusing Muhammad of pedophilia, so you must bring forth the proof. Check burden of proof :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof .)

2) Again assumptions. Where is the proof of this? You are making the claim so present your proof. I noticed that you were quick in pointing out that the Hadith says that Aisha was married at a young age, yet you totally rejected all other hadith that state that the marriage was with consent of her father. Cherry-picking? You are only selecting those parts which suit your needs and ignoring the rest, to make unfounded assumptions.

3) So basically you are saying that Hazrat Aisha should have been married, and then not given her full rights? Marriage is completed with consummation friend. Consummation of marriage is not the monoply of men. It's for both husband and wife. Marriage also includes sexual rights. Plus, it was not possible to not to marry her and yet train her in the same manner. If that would have happened, then you would have been accusing that Muhammad remained in company of young girls and wasn't even married to them. Plus (once again), you totally ignored that the prophecy was fulfilled.

4) Have you ever analyzed the complete life of Muhammad (SAW)? According to hadith, Hazrat Khadija proposed Muhammad (SAW). Secondly, even after the marriage he lived a simple life. He used to do his work by himself and never spent extravagantly. And he did not leave his own job and still used to work. Plus, if you think that the Muhammad (SAW) was a greedy man who wanted wealth...... You have to reply to this.......... why in the world, would he continue to preach Islam when the pagan Arabs came to him and promised him all the worldly riches( they were appointing him the king, giving him wealth and a beautful girl for marriage). He rejected these offers and suffered torture. He was even exiled to a gorge, where he and other muslims were starved. Why suffer such agony (considering that he didn't know of his final success, unless he somehow knew the future) if he was a greedy person? All he had to do was to say that I am abandoning Islam....... Just give to me what you promised.

MFaraz_Hayat

1) You assumed Aisha's age was 18. Where is your proof? Like I said in my post, if we do compromise and choose the midpoint of the range in question, 9 - 18, that would make Aisha 13.5 and hence still a child.

2) I suggest you read my post again. I never said Abu Bakr didn't give consent. I said that the fact he did give consent did NOT make the act of marrying a minor acceptable to me.

3) I have never suggested that. You suggested Muhammad married Aisha not out of lust, but out of prophecy. Consumation is an act of lust. Hence I believe that the fact that he did consumate the marriage (or agreed to consumate it on her bequest) means that the marriage was in lust. As to prophecy being fullfilled, well that is completely subjective. Who is to say that if Muhammad didn't groom one of his MANY other adult wives they would have not gone on to achieve the same things Aisha did. To move it one point further, Muhammad could have taken Aisha as a disciple and not a wife, if all he wanted her to be was a successor to his legacy. The fact that he married her and slept with her makes it only logical to ASSUME that lust played a factor.

4) Wasn't it you who said that there are good hadith and bad hadith. So far whenever someone has brought up a questionable Islamic practice you (and famiking and stranger_4) have dismissed it as being a component of a bad hadith. So who is to say that the hadith you are discussing here is correct? I think it is pretty darn convenient that whenever someone brings up something bad it's because of bad hadith, but the hadith you bring up to support good aspects of Islam are always good hadith. And as for why he continued to practice Islam, well here is my theory. Muhammad was definitely a smart man. He was looking at the bigger picture when he made that decision. Sure he could have taken the wealth and quit, or he could struggle for a bit, make the general populace believe he was a prophet of God, and then reap the benefits of wealth, women, and a historical legacy.

1) Actually you assumed she was 18. Do I really need to paste your post for you? Even if there is a range, 9-18 according to you, the majority of that range would make Aisha a child. Statistically speaking it is therefore more likely that she was under 18.

2) I said giving parental consent does not make the act of marrying a child, or even a very young adult to a 50+ year old man. I said that Abu Bakr may have not had a choice. I also said that he may have been a bad parent. I then gave one (modern) example of bad parenting which isn't unheard of in the world today, which is selling children off into sex slavery.

3) Why would it be hypocritical? Aisha was a lot younger than him (this you can't dispute). She didn't have to marry him to be close to him. He could have been like a father to her (i.e. an uncle). That would give them the bond of family without the associated sexuality. How is that hypocritical? To me it is more hypocritical that someone who is supposed to be noble married a teenager and slept with her, under the pretext of prophecy.

4) So if it is so easy to distinguish "good" hadith from "weak" hadith, why is it that numerous Islamic countries around the world are having trouble with this? Why are countries like Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Malaysia following "weak" hadith if it is so easy to find "good" hadith?

5) Firstly let me ask you, how many Arab kings do you think an average lay man could name? Then let me ask you how many of them have heard of Muhammad? Therefore there is a huge difference in historical legacy between what he was offered and what he achieved. And what I wrote before was just one plausible example of the many possible reasons why Muhammad chose the path he did. Can you provide me CONCRETE proof to support a singular motive for his actions? Can you provide concrete proof that he "could not have known" that Islam would prevail in the Middle East?

[QUOTE="frazzle00"]

I agree with Teenaged. Trying to dismiss widespread abuse of basic civil liberties as "differing opinions" is a copout.

Famiking

I agree that it's corrupt, but to say people are flat-out "wrong" is just intolerant.

I never assumed that every Muslim is the same. Please quote that if I have. What I said was that the majority of Muslims do NOT have the liberties you claim to have in Kuwait. I said that the majority of Muslims don't seem to be overly concerned about this. Why is that? If Israel does anything remotely questionable the entire Muslim world goes on protest, yet the perversion of the Quran by Muslim governments provokes nothing. And don't give me that "it's political" rubbish. If African-Americans dismissed their need for civil rights as "oh it's political there is nothing we can do about it", Obama wouldn't be in office today. If, as you say, the Quran is good, and that the implementation of Quran is faulty in MANY Muslim countries, then I think it is time for the Muslim world to rise up, and demand change. Otherwise why would anyone take a Muslim's claim that Islam is fair and progressive seriously?you

Us: Death penalty for apostasy is not mandatory.
You: *Lists countries with death penalty* yes it does.
Us: It's those countries that are following it, not the religion itself that's forcing them to.
You: The people who follow it paints the face of the religion.

---

Most muslims don't seem "concerned" is because they live in dictatorships, they can't do anything about it and nothing we say will make them change their mind, and I sure as hell don't hope Western countries "fight for their freedom" in the form of war.

The wrongdoings of Israel are the wrongdoings of Israel, not of the religion (Judaism) with the exception of Zionism which isn't even religion-mandated anyway. And the only reason only Israel is being shouted at is because the news itself is highly publicized by the media.

The Islamic World, sadly, has lost its sense of unity. Other Arabs hate Palestenians because they think of them as poor and they supported Iraq in the Gulf War. Arabs pretty much don't want anything to do with anything to the East of Iraq, and Middle Eastern Arabs couldn't care less about Sudanese and Somalian Arabs. I'm not saying I support this, but that's the way it is.

And the reason you should take such claims seriously, is because it's true. I don't see why you're complicating things by looking at the countries that follow it, when following the Qur'an by itself doesn't lead to a one-way extremely conservative-dictatorship view.

So tell me Famiking how is it that you know more about Islam and the Quran than "very religious Islamic scholars"? Shouldn't they be the most informed when it comes to matters in the Quran? And don't tell me that "Thankfully, you're not obligated to follow the Shari'a (unless the country you live in enforces it)" is the only thing you have to say to your fellow Muslims who have their basic rights trampled on in numerous Muslim countries that do practice Shari'a.

you

I never said I did, it's just that I don't agree with their conservative view-point. They also have no right to make laws over me - in Islam you're only obligated to follow the Quran.

And I don't do anything about countries because I don't live with them nor do I have any association with them asides from the fact we follow the same religion (and even then, I have an entirely view point on it)

1) Intolerant? Sorry buddy, but witholding freedom of belief, and gender equality is "flat-out" wrong. It is like saying pedophiles or murders aren't wrong, they are just corrupt. Sorry but that doesn't hold water for me.

2) You still haven't provided evidence that I have assumed all Muslims are the same. I was just pointing out that the MAJORITY of Muslims don't live in Kuwait. Do you disagree? I was pointing out that they have no choice but be subject to shari'a. Do you disagree? And if the majority of the Muslim world are subject to these draconian laws, is it really surprising that the outside world has a negative view of Islam?

3) Just because they are subject to dictatorships doesn't mean they can't act. Surely there are people willing to risk their lives for a noble cause. There seem to be plenty willing to risk their lives to fight off foreign influences. Why not clean their own houses so to speak before turning their looks outside?

4) What the Quran says is irrelevant to my earlier points. I have NEVER disputed what's in the Quran. As I said in 2) I was pointing out to you that many Muslims don't have the ability to follow JUST the Quran. They have to follow state legislature that dictates how they practice their religion. Do you disagree with this?

5) Have you protested about the treatment of Palestinians by the Israelis? Have you protested about America's invasion of Iraq? Have you protested about the perversion of Islam by fellow Muslims? And by protest I mean any form of action (including posting on message boards), and not just joining a rally.