- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Islam - What's your view on it?
- Thread starter SalmanBH
- 6,000 comments
- 268,813 views
- 87,476
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
A literate guard, eh? Wonder how common that was in an era of mass illiteracy.
Unfortunately the only person who could ensure that what he said was what was written could not write it himself nor read it once written. So at best you have the slightly adulterated word of the chap according to the scribe or scribes - which I would have thought instantly renders its flawless holiness somewhat... not.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
- 87,476
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Writers communicating just by writing. Who'd have thunk it, eh?
The Qu'ran is no more the undiluted word of a deity or prophets than the Bible is. Mohammed's literacy is kinda the key to that.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 30,023
- Thailand
On statutory rape of minors?
Well, in what I consider to be a modern, civilized place they have elected governments, often democratic, which are usually, but not always, appointed by the citizens of the nation. These government people make all kinds of laws which are put in place to protect the people of that nation from harm.
The line is drawn where evidence that sexual conduct with children tells us that it can cause mental trauma and really mess up somebody's life, never mind the physical implications of a child's genitals having to deal with those of an adult male.
Line = prevention of physical and mental trauma.
Or did you mean something else?
I'm not saying this doesn't occur in other cultures and religions but this thread isn't about those, is it?
@prisonermonkeys, I did intent a response to your post but it seems Famine beat me to it. I don't have much else to add to what he has already said except that the Qur'an was probably written over a period of time and not in a few days, Muhammed, not being able to read his own work could well have asked the scribes to ghost write for him. it would explain a lot of the contradictions, too.
Also, it isn't my intention to offend any of the Muslims (or any other faithful folk for that matter) and if you choose to be offended that is your prerogative. Anyone has the freedom to avoid the discussion as much as anyone does to have it.
- 3,051
- Massachusetts
- GBO-Possum
- 2,726
- England
- ECGadget
- Eh???
To counter what @W3HS said in his posts (and I understand you are against religion as a whole in general) so this is just to clear things up from the standpoint of Islam:
1) Taqiya: This is a term that stems predominantly from Shi'ite Islam. However, that does not mean it is not used in a similar fashion in Sunni Islam. It does not mean that Muslims are meant to hate non Muslims, or deceive them in the interests of Islam. This is something that has come about over the past few decades, from where I am not too sure. Taqiya comes from the arabic origins that means "protecting against danger" or "fear". Regarding the verse of the Quraan that you stated, this is where the origin of the word came from. However, the verse does NOT mean that Muslims are not to be friends with non-Muslims. The idea behind this is that a Muslim should not be taking a non-Muslim as a close friend over a (righteous, proper) Muslim friend for the reason of righteousness in ones religion, except in the circumstance of protecting themselves against death. That latter part is Taqiya. The next verse goes on to explain it:
"Whether you conceal what is in your hearts or bring it into the open, God knows it: for He knows all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth; and God has the power to will anything"
This is to say that even though to save your life you may say you are not a Muslim, or consume pork and drink alcohol, if your heart has the faith then generally no sin is upon you (in the view of Islam).
What you are referring to as deception is called kitman; a strange notion which if you search a number of Islamic books on laws you will find little or no reference to. In that sense, I cannot even explain that notion. But it is NOT taqiya.
2) The gender equality one is a massive talking point amongst scholars, and since I am not a scholar I cannot really say much upon it, but I will try.
Women are not a lower species in Islam, and are considered equal. The whole idea of beating is a last resort and this is not to do with just a simple misunderstanding between a couple. Again, I do not know much about this because womens rights and Islam has been a hot topic for a long time now, trying to get a full understanding of what the verses mean etc etc. However, looking back through history, whilst the west did not even extend HUMAN rights to women, Islam had females owning property, being successful businesswomen etc. In fact, the Prophet Muhammad met his first wife Khadijah when he was working FOR her. In the later years, the Prophet had a wife named Aisha. A good 25% of all Islamic law comes from narrations from her. No man in that time even comes close to that. If women were regarded as a lower species in Islam, there would not have been female teachers who taught male scholars. Nor would women be allowed to choose their partners for marriage (and yes, this is true. The whole forced marriages thing stems from culture, not religion).
Now where the issue comes from is "Equal Rights" and "Identical Rights". In Islam, men and women have equal but not identical rights. This is due to the fact of bilogical differences, not social or educational etc. The whole "women are shunned in their houses" and all that malarky are cultural aspects that have found thier way into Islam. The man of the house tends not to do anything and expects the women to cook and clean and whatever else? That is not actually in Islam. As a matter of fact, the Prophet made it a point to cook, clean and do the household chores to make sure that his followers understood that this was NOT the job of a women, but a job of both, further equalling the status.
Usually the biggest rights crime that is seen in Islam is in marriage (which believe me I can understand). However, again to highlight how culture has ended up dictating what the Quraan and Hadith mean, this is a little law that most Muslims do not even know of:
A women has so many rights in Islam concerning marriage that she can ask the fiance to sign an agreement (which is binding in Islam) regarding what would happen in the event of a divorce, the right for her to be able to divorce him straight out if he does something, the agreement that she is going to continue education or be working or whatever and he cannot suddenly say otherwise (which happens, sadly). Basically anything that may concern her, she can tell the fiance to sign an agreement. Of course, it does not seem like much over here, but in the middle east and east/far east, this can be a big deal because for some stupid reason the law does not seem to be protecting women the way it should and (rightly) does here.
Another point people often say is "How come women only get half the inheritance of men?" Which does on the face of it seem unfair. I actually asked this question myself to a scholar because I thought "How can Islam claim to be equal if women get less. That does not make sense."
The answer given to me was that the money a women gets at any point is hers and hers alone. Nobody else has a right over it. The money a man gets at any point is his and also belongs to his family. He is responsible for looking after his family in that right, not his wife.
Not that that means a women should not look after the family with her money! But she has no compulsion in that. Though all the girls I know most certainly would. I could go on but then this post will just be stupidly long. Nevertheless, I have to say this because it is also important. Womens rights NEED to be fought for. Emma Watson has this "he for she" campaign which I support because women should be paid equal, treated equal etc. That much is even in Islam, and Muslim women should also stand up and tell the Muslim men who seem to making up a number of stupid rules that what they are doing is against Islam. I fully support that.
Equal rights in Islam? Yes. Equal rights in Islam in reality right now? Not everywhere, but that needs to change.
About the verse concerning the period. That is from a chapter called "Divorce". That verse is referring to the period a couple should wait before divorcing (as in due to emotions etc). The three month and nine month period is about the period a women has been given to make her decision over divorce. Nothing to do with having relations with a 12 year old there.
The next one. It IS fighting talk. Anyone who denies that it is (and the next one too is) confused. However, it is the situations in which this entire chapter was revealed. Pretty much every scholar agrees that none of that chapter (or the verse quoted next) apply anymore and have not for a LONG time. This was around a time where treaties were being broken left right and centre. The second verse mentioned in particular had very strict circumstances that it was referring to, of which none of them even remotely exist today. Again, not a scholar so I cannot go further into that, but there are many scholars who have, and in a number of previous posts I have gone further into some of these aspects.
So that is what I have to say about that.
Also @Smurfybug it is not haraam for you, because you are trying to help people better understand your religion, not insult the Prophet. Just letting you know. Because if that was the case, how could people have discussions about Islam and learn more? Criticisms will come, and that is something that a Muslim needs to look at, do his/her best to find out the answers for and then provide those answers.
Oh and @W3HS , this is not targetted at you at all, mate! But I do hope it clears a few things up at least a bit.
1) Taqiya: This is a term that stems predominantly from Shi'ite Islam. However, that does not mean it is not used in a similar fashion in Sunni Islam. It does not mean that Muslims are meant to hate non Muslims, or deceive them in the interests of Islam. This is something that has come about over the past few decades, from where I am not too sure. Taqiya comes from the arabic origins that means "protecting against danger" or "fear". Regarding the verse of the Quraan that you stated, this is where the origin of the word came from. However, the verse does NOT mean that Muslims are not to be friends with non-Muslims. The idea behind this is that a Muslim should not be taking a non-Muslim as a close friend over a (righteous, proper) Muslim friend for the reason of righteousness in ones religion, except in the circumstance of protecting themselves against death. That latter part is Taqiya. The next verse goes on to explain it:
"Whether you conceal what is in your hearts or bring it into the open, God knows it: for He knows all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth; and God has the power to will anything"
This is to say that even though to save your life you may say you are not a Muslim, or consume pork and drink alcohol, if your heart has the faith then generally no sin is upon you (in the view of Islam).
What you are referring to as deception is called kitman; a strange notion which if you search a number of Islamic books on laws you will find little or no reference to. In that sense, I cannot even explain that notion. But it is NOT taqiya.
2) The gender equality one is a massive talking point amongst scholars, and since I am not a scholar I cannot really say much upon it, but I will try.
Women are not a lower species in Islam, and are considered equal. The whole idea of beating is a last resort and this is not to do with just a simple misunderstanding between a couple. Again, I do not know much about this because womens rights and Islam has been a hot topic for a long time now, trying to get a full understanding of what the verses mean etc etc. However, looking back through history, whilst the west did not even extend HUMAN rights to women, Islam had females owning property, being successful businesswomen etc. In fact, the Prophet Muhammad met his first wife Khadijah when he was working FOR her. In the later years, the Prophet had a wife named Aisha. A good 25% of all Islamic law comes from narrations from her. No man in that time even comes close to that. If women were regarded as a lower species in Islam, there would not have been female teachers who taught male scholars. Nor would women be allowed to choose their partners for marriage (and yes, this is true. The whole forced marriages thing stems from culture, not religion).
Now where the issue comes from is "Equal Rights" and "Identical Rights". In Islam, men and women have equal but not identical rights. This is due to the fact of bilogical differences, not social or educational etc. The whole "women are shunned in their houses" and all that malarky are cultural aspects that have found thier way into Islam. The man of the house tends not to do anything and expects the women to cook and clean and whatever else? That is not actually in Islam. As a matter of fact, the Prophet made it a point to cook, clean and do the household chores to make sure that his followers understood that this was NOT the job of a women, but a job of both, further equalling the status.
Usually the biggest rights crime that is seen in Islam is in marriage (which believe me I can understand). However, again to highlight how culture has ended up dictating what the Quraan and Hadith mean, this is a little law that most Muslims do not even know of:
A women has so many rights in Islam concerning marriage that she can ask the fiance to sign an agreement (which is binding in Islam) regarding what would happen in the event of a divorce, the right for her to be able to divorce him straight out if he does something, the agreement that she is going to continue education or be working or whatever and he cannot suddenly say otherwise (which happens, sadly). Basically anything that may concern her, she can tell the fiance to sign an agreement. Of course, it does not seem like much over here, but in the middle east and east/far east, this can be a big deal because for some stupid reason the law does not seem to be protecting women the way it should and (rightly) does here.
Another point people often say is "How come women only get half the inheritance of men?" Which does on the face of it seem unfair. I actually asked this question myself to a scholar because I thought "How can Islam claim to be equal if women get less. That does not make sense."
The answer given to me was that the money a women gets at any point is hers and hers alone. Nobody else has a right over it. The money a man gets at any point is his and also belongs to his family. He is responsible for looking after his family in that right, not his wife.
Not that that means a women should not look after the family with her money! But she has no compulsion in that. Though all the girls I know most certainly would. I could go on but then this post will just be stupidly long. Nevertheless, I have to say this because it is also important. Womens rights NEED to be fought for. Emma Watson has this "he for she" campaign which I support because women should be paid equal, treated equal etc. That much is even in Islam, and Muslim women should also stand up and tell the Muslim men who seem to making up a number of stupid rules that what they are doing is against Islam. I fully support that.
Equal rights in Islam? Yes. Equal rights in Islam in reality right now? Not everywhere, but that needs to change.
About the verse concerning the period. That is from a chapter called "Divorce". That verse is referring to the period a couple should wait before divorcing (as in due to emotions etc). The three month and nine month period is about the period a women has been given to make her decision over divorce. Nothing to do with having relations with a 12 year old there.
The next one. It IS fighting talk. Anyone who denies that it is (and the next one too is) confused. However, it is the situations in which this entire chapter was revealed. Pretty much every scholar agrees that none of that chapter (or the verse quoted next) apply anymore and have not for a LONG time. This was around a time where treaties were being broken left right and centre. The second verse mentioned in particular had very strict circumstances that it was referring to, of which none of them even remotely exist today. Again, not a scholar so I cannot go further into that, but there are many scholars who have, and in a number of previous posts I have gone further into some of these aspects.
So that is what I have to say about that.
Also @Smurfybug it is not haraam for you, because you are trying to help people better understand your religion, not insult the Prophet. Just letting you know. Because if that was the case, how could people have discussions about Islam and learn more? Criticisms will come, and that is something that a Muslim needs to look at, do his/her best to find out the answers for and then provide those answers.
Oh and @W3HS , this is not targetted at you at all, mate! But I do hope it clears a few things up at least a bit.
- 30,023
- Thailand
Very nice, informative counter there. 👍
The ludicrous rants of Anjem Choudary and the like really don't help the image of Islam, especially when media makes these people out to be prominent figures of the Muslim community. I know there are elements out there that are 100% loyal to the, let's call it 'culture' of Islam, and are the ones causing the bother, much like the West-borough baptists do for Bible followers but I'm not naive to think that all Muslims are this way inclined having known a great many during my life.
I would like to continue but my day is drawing to a close and anything else that requires a response shall have to wait.
The ludicrous rants of Anjem Choudary and the like really don't help the image of Islam, especially when media makes these people out to be prominent figures of the Muslim community. I know there are elements out there that are 100% loyal to the, let's call it 'culture' of Islam, and are the ones causing the bother, much like the West-borough baptists do for Bible followers but I'm not naive to think that all Muslims are this way inclined having known a great many during my life.
I would like to continue but my day is drawing to a close and anything else that requires a response shall have to wait.
- 13,906
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Yeah, which is where, exactly?
A person who is menstruating is at the very least physically capable of having sex and bearing children.
Physical trauma doesn't really come into it, nobody should be subjected to physical trauma regardless of age. That's true whether it's a 12yo girl versus your average adult male, or an average adult female versus a guy that's hung like a horse.
Mental trauma likewise. Both parties should consent, at an absolute minimum. And if you remove the whole guilt of sex thing that western/christian cultures have going, the only real thing against it is the "ick" factor. Which exists for things like incest, homosexuality, and polygamy too, but "it's icky" is pretty shaky ground to base laws on. Some people find it icky when a black guy and a white woman have sex, and I don't want any laws based on that.
As has been pointed out, historically children have been considered capable of being sexual adults far younger than what we have in most modern countries. I don't think most people realise how totally arbitrary the numbers that are assigned to these things are. If anything, back in ye good olde days of starving to death and so on meant that girls probably weren't menstruating until much later than they do now. If the average age then was 14-15, is that still a problem?
You seem to have a pretty clear cut view that 3 months post-menarche is too soon, and whatever modern culture does (which we're calling what? 18?) is OK. What I want to know is that if you're making the law by your standards of a modern culture, where exactly do you draw the line and for what reason?
It's all very well to say "draw it where it prevents trauma", but you can't make a law out of that. It's too vague. 3 months post-menarche is specific. 18 years old is specific. I'd like you to be similarly specific.
Joel
Premium
- 8,141
- Halifax, NS
- Noob616
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it also true that the average age of menarche has seriously dropped in the last 200ish years or so? I don't remember where but I think I read the age used to be around 16/17 but has really come down with better nutrition.
Last edited:
- 30,023
- Thailand
We are going slightly off topic here but you deserve a response.
Visit the Child Sex Abuse page on wiki and see for yourself the damage done by sexual acts upon children.
The real problem we have here is defining 'children'. I have spent a lot of my adult life working with kids, many of them around the age of puberty; 10, 12, 13, and so on. None of the thousands of kids I've worked with have been known to engage in sexual acts with each other just because the girls are menstruating and the boys have started to grow hairs in certain places.
If they aren't doing this between themselves at this age it clearly shows they aren't ready by nature, and I may be mistaken when I say that it seems the same in most cultures and countries (except for a few, desperate parts of the Earth), then what makes it any different from an adult performing sexual acts with a child?
I grew up in a pretty low life, immoral community and even there only a tiny percentage (perhaps 1% at a guess) of girls and boys were getting it on under the age of 15/16. The majority were not.
I don't have all the answers and I can only speak from experience within a few different cultures of a few different religions as to what I personally know on the topic. The difficulty is defining what a child is and even then I think that determining whether a person is a child or adult is more based on the person as an individual and not the number that denotes their age, as you said yourself.
- 13,906
- Adelaide
- Neomone
I'm well aware of the damage done to children by sex abuse, thank you very much. But we're not talking about sexual abuse, we're talking about consensual sex.
The difficulty is that you're writing off a religion in part because of their age of sexual consent. And yet you're unable to explain why it's wrong without comparing it to your own culture, which does it the "right" way, and you can't reason your way to an answer that you feel is specifically correct.
The thing is, that while you're probably right that a lot of kids aren't having sex that early, a lot of "modern" Europe seems to have ages of consent between 14 and 16. China is 14. Most of South America is 13 or 14. North America about 16 to 18. Africa, oddly enough, is mostly between 16 and 18 as well.
So we're still seeing a reasonable amount of "modern" countries with an age of consent around 14. It's not much of a stretch to assume that when the Koran was written that most girls would be at least that old before menstruating. In an age where record keeping and IDs were not so much of a thing, it's a far more practical way of determining whether a crime has been committed or not.
Frankly, at the time it was almost certainly a lot later than was required in most Christian countries, where as far as I know it tended to be 10-12.
It doesn't hold up so well in modern times where girls menstruate earlier, but then most modern Muslims don't go around insisting that it's their right to stick it in anyone who is bleeding. Idiots will be idiots, and paedophiles will be paedophiles, regardless of religion.
- 30,023
- Thailand
Absolutely correct, which is why I feel the issue of child abuse is slightly off topic but at the same time it is one that you are addressing in response to my remark about the Prophet Muhammed being a child abuser; marrying Aisha at 7 and consummating at 9 (according to Sunni scripture). I think we can all agree that 9 years old is very young to be having sexual relations with man in his 50's.
- 13,906
- Adelaide
- Neomone
No, I wasn't addressing that remark at all. I totally agree with that part.
I addressed your response to a remark from another user that was directed at this part:
1. At the time it was written, the target age probably wasn't 12. It was probably more like 14+.
2. 14+ is accepted in a significant number of "modern" countries.
In modern times, the age has shifted from what it was probably originally intended to be simply because the age of menstruation has shifted with better nutrition and health. But that's largely irrelevant, as in modern times as far as I can tell most Muslims don't look at those parts of the Koran as license to go and rape 12 year olds. Just like Christians don't look at certain parts of the Bible as license to stone anyone who works on a Sunday.
The Muslims who do engage in this sort of stuff are probably the sort of people who would be described as mildly psychopathic regardless of their religion, and are simply looking for excuses for what they'd want to do anyway.
You're fighting a strawman with this whole 12 years old thing. And now you appear to be attempting to shift the goalposts. I hope it's unintentional.
I dislike religion in general as much as the next person (see my mile-long post history in the God thread), but I do find that most religious people are fairly harmless and use their religion as impetus to encourage themselves to be nicer or better people. While there's a lot in every Abrahamic religion that is totally :censored:ed, trotting out stuff like this as if it's actually indicative of the way Muslims behave seems at best ignorant, and at worst inciting hatred.
There are plenty of rational reasons to dislike Islam, but I don't see that their age of consent is one of them. As far as I can tell it was pretty progressive at the time and has given way in most cases to more progressive secular laws where applicable. It's not Muslims going around raping 12 year olds, rapist paedophiles are.
Certainly Mohammad was one of them, and as far as setting an example for his followers it was awful.*
I don't think that this is off topic at all; we're talking about child abuse specifically in relation to Islam. That's totally on topic in the Islam thread, unless a mod wants to tell me otherwise.
*On a side note, one of the reasons I find Mohammed much more interesting than Jesus is that he was very obviously a human. He :censored:ed up all the time. It's much more engaging than someone who is supposedly God Incarnate.
- 2,726
- England
- ECGadget
- Eh???
I can understand more about what you see of Islam now. I was a little confused as to how come you were talking about child abuse etc.
The only saying that mentions Aisha being nine when she went to live with the Prophet was reported during the time when one of his companions was living in Iraq. He was old and apparently suffered from partial memory loss in his old age. Many believe that though he said nine, the facts seem to show the age being far older, most likely nineteen. It is true she was married off early though, no argument there, but it was not seven. An exact age is not agreed upon but it is a common agreement that Aisha was between 13-16 when she was married (with her consent we must not forget) and around 18-19 when she went to live with the Prophet. Early to get married? By todays standards, yes. But I believe the living together part (whilst still young) is more in line with what we have now?
If you want to look at abuse with regards to Islam (which is wrong in Islam but has still happened, I would look at the era where soldiers went to Africa and raided villages etc "In the name of Islam". This also seems to be what ISIS are attempting to replicate. As for child abuse, perhaps culture (indian origin) may add to that in the past century where it has happened, by Muslims too.
Hope that one cleared a few things up?
- 2,726
- England
- ECGadget
- Eh???
http://www.discoveringislam.org/aisha_age.htm
This explains a little. Remember though that there is a lot of debate about this. Some even say that the age of marriage could have been ten, and the age they lived together 15-16. But a number of the facts that reveal age come from narrations of Aisha herself. Don't get me wrong, the narration where the being together at nine was by a respected person. But the accuracy of his later narrations is questioned due to his old age. His earlier narrations are very reliable though, which is why this narration is still around.
- 759
- South Africa
- GTAS_PEETHAM
According to Islams most trusted hadiths, Muhammad could read and write, so I don't know where this not knowing to read and write comes from, unless it's from the hadith as well.
On face value, Yeshua (Jesus) asks us to love any and everyone:
36 “Teacher, which is the most important commandment in the law of Moses?”
37 Jesus replied, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind. 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. 40 The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.”
Christians follow the Messiah. Not the sacrificial laws of Moses for the Israelites.
- 2,538
- Netherlands
- Denur; GTP_Denur
- 2,726
- England
- ECGadget
- Eh???
Because this was a topic of debate for scholars for a quite a while.
http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm
This link seems to give a more comprehensive explanation. Including many viewpoints to different ages.
And yes, maybe no facts but then there were no facts pointing towards Aisha being nine either. It is just the first thing that appears on a google search because it is on wikipedia. The evidence points towards 16-19, whilst some points to over 10 at betrothal, and five years later for marriage
- 759
- South Africa
- GTAS_PEETHAM
What are the facts?
What does the book say?
If people give their own opinions and interpretations, then they might as well start up their own religion.
Does the quran not have a command not to add, remove or change it's contents? I came across this 2 minute clip earlier, regarding the prophet who married his adopted sons wife:
Notice how even some of Islams top scholars deny / shy away from what the book actually says.
What does the book say?
If people give their own opinions and interpretations, then they might as well start up their own religion.
Does the quran not have a command not to add, remove or change it's contents? I came across this 2 minute clip earlier, regarding the prophet who married his adopted sons wife:
Notice how even some of Islams top scholars deny / shy away from what the book actually says.
- 2,726
- England
- ECGadget
- Eh???
With all due respect @DCP your link provides no explanation, or any real standing here in this discussion in this moment. However, as you picked that particular video (which I watched three times over) which does not seem to do anything but attempt to deal a sly blow at Islam, as opposed to a proper criticism which is what we have been discussing nicely the past couple of days. But here we go, for your response:
And this also shows that Muhammad was a human, with regards to his own reservations etc. As well as that, my response video addresses what David Wood was talking about, oh which it was his not his fault at all I am sure.
And this also shows that Muhammad was a human, with regards to his own reservations etc. As well as that, my response video addresses what David Wood was talking about, oh which it was his not his fault at all I am sure.
