Dr MSM Saifullah's Views on Contemporay "Underage" Islamic Marriages 2
James Dowdeswell
groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&frame=right&rnum=31&thl=885602274,884947900,884946034,873984813,873559332,871533968,871133561,866966831,871133507,870698171,873558443,872966682&seekm=kevans-3F30A9.08221221092004%40news.videotron.net#link39
I couldn't reply to it directly.
I asked (Dr MSM Saifullah):
"Circumstance aside, would you (theoretically) have sex with a nine
year old?"
Anjum replied:
The answer is "NO!". I repeat, the answer is NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No one in his right mind would do that!!!!!
In today's contemporary society, educated Muslims do not marry a
9-year old girl, nor do they condone or accept it. I have two
daughters and both of them were 9 years old at one time. I have seen
other 9-year old girls and I would never accept the notion that they
can be married off.
Dr Saifullah replied to Anjum:
>Assalamu-alaykum, Anjum, I have to say that you should remove the
blinders
>from your eyes.
>"Contemporary" society has its own norms that are
>changing at their whims and fancies but our shariah coming from the
>Qur'an
>and Sunnah is like an etching in the stone.
Etc.
And yet, to his credit, Anjum could give a straight answer to the
question you had to skirt around.
Your approach to your faith seems to be a “fundamentalist”
one. But what do you do about hadith like this one?
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o
'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said,
"O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers
of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's
Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to
your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence
and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by
some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient
in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of
two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the
affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence.
Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her
menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the
deficiency in her religion."
(Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301)
If I understand you correctly, on the basis of the above hadith, your
way of interpreting your religion will lead you to conclude that,
generally speaking, women are less intelligent than men. Is this the
case?
>Now if somebody comes to me and says that they want to marry some
young
>girl, my advice is consult with your family and pray Salat
al-Istikhara
> (the Guidance Prayer). If ones heart is inclined to marry then go ahead.
>And this is the way of Sunnah!
And what if, as part of that advice, they asked:
“Would you yourself similarly marry (and consumate that
marriage) to a nine year old girl?”
i.e. They wanted to check you would be willing to “practice what
you were preaching”.
How would you answer?
Warm regards,
James.
Joihn Eristu
>
> "Circumstance aside, would you (theoretically) have sex with a nine
> year old?"
>
You perhaps aked this question because you heard AYsha was 9 at the time
of her marriage.
That is in itself questionable.
>
>
> Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
> Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o
> 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said,
> "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers
> of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's
> Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to
> your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence
> and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by
> some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient
> in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of
> two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the
> affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence.
> Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her
> menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the
> deficiency in her religion."
>
> (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301)
>
It is true that women have Menstruation.
It is also true that this causes women to suffer. There are many
medicines to relieve PMS etc, but the phenomenon is not questionable.
As such there are consequences of this phenomenon.
One is the impact on rendering judgment.
The other is more physical.
It is a denial of the nature of humans to think women and men are equal.
The equality can not be defined in any logical sense. They are
different. There is no doubt about it.
The equality that Equal Rights Amendment in USA tries to offer women,
that kind of equality is taken for granted in Islam. It can not be
violated in this religion.
So doctors and teachers in muslim countries always get the same salary
and respect as do men in the same position. In addition women get
maternity leave etc in addition. That is something that is only now
being talked about in USA.
Further, in muslim countries women hold political offices, including as
president and prime minister. This is something USA has to produce yet.
So yes women have rights. Men have rights. But an equality between them
can not be defined.
In some ways women excell. For example as mothers they carry the
paradise under their feet, for their children. For other things men
excell, for example in judgment and physical strength.
>
> James.
>
Pete
You wrote:
> You perhaps aked this question because you heard
> AYsha was 9 at the time of her marriage
I think the problem is that Dr. Saifullah has strongly argued elsewhere
that Aysha certainly *was* 9 at the time of her marriage. If he's wrong
on this, could you cite the traditions that demonstrate his error?
I was also troubled by your last paragraph:
> In some ways women excell. For example as mothers they carry
> the paradise under their feet, for their children. For other things
> men excell, for example in judgment and physical strength.
Is it not the case that patriarchal systems have meant women have
historically been prevented from exercising "judgement". What we tend
to see is that once those patriarchal chains are broken, women are
easily the equal of men in reason, intellect and judgement. The
question is simply whether patriarchy is Islamic or cultural. I'm
undecided.
Peter
James Dowdeswell
> > year old?"
> You perhaps aked this question because you heard AYsha was 9 at the time
> of her marriage.
>
> That is in itself questionable.
Aisha was 9 when Muhammad "consummated" the marriage, she was 6 when
Muhammad married her.
Check the evidence for yourself:
1. Narrated Aisha:
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to
Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I
got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my
mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some
of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what
she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at
the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing
became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with
it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some
Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good
luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the
marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and
my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine
years of age.
(Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234)
2. Narrated Hisham's father:
Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He
stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she
was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she
was nine years old.
(Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236)
3. Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he
consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she
remained with him for
nine years (i.e., till his death).
(Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64)
4. Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he
consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I
have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine
years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'
(Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65)
5. Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was
six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine
years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his
death).
(Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88)
Can you present *any* credible counter evidence Joihn?
On this issue, Dr MSM Saifullah of the Islamic Awareness website
writes:
(http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/aishah.html)
"This evidence having been established, there doesn't seem much room
for debate about Aishah's age amongst believing Muslims. Until someone
proves that in the Arabic language "nine years old" means something
other than "nine years old", then we should all be firm in our belief
that she was "nine years old" (as if there's a reason or need to
believe otherwise!?!)."
Dr MSM Saifullah's (personal) understanding of Islam has lead him to
conclude that marrying girls at such an age is a positive thing. But,
while he offers council to *other* Muslims on this topic, he *himself*
will not be drawn into stating if he would be willing, in principle,
to "practice what he preaches", i.e. be willing, in principle, to
consumate a marriage to a nine year old girl. Would you follow the
council of someone, who when asked if they would be willing (in
principle) to practice what they were preaching, repeatedly evaded the
question?
Warm regards,
James.
M.S.M. Saifullah
> Is it not the case that patriarchal systems have meant women have
> historically been prevented from exercising "judgement". What we tend
> to see is that once those patriarchal chains are broken, women are
> easily the equal of men in reason, intellect and judgement. The
> question is simply whether patriarchy is Islamic or cultural. I'm
> undecided.
Pete, in Islam, a man is head of the household. He is responsible for
providing for his family. So, one can say that patriarchy is
Islamic. However, in strong matriarchial societies where Islam has
flourished, such as in the state of Kerala in South India, things can be
quite different. But even in these societies, a clear borderline between
roles of men and women exist.
Regards
Saifullah
M.S.M. Saifullah
> Dr MSM Saifullah's (personal) understanding of Islam has lead him to
> conclude that marrying girls at such an age is a positive thing. But,
> while he offers council to *other* Muslims on this topic, he *himself*
> will not be drawn into stating if he would be willing, in principle,
> to "practice what he preaches", i.e. be willing, in principle, to
> consumate a marriage to a nine year old girl. Would you follow the
> council of someone, who when asked if they would be willing (in
> principle) to practice what they were preaching, repeatedly evaded the
> question?
Dowdeswell, please can you us ANY book of aqeedah or fiqh which says that
marrying a 9 year old is a part of our religion or that one must do it to
be called as a Muslim? Well, the short answer to this is you will never
show it and you can never show it. This is because there is nothing of
that sort in Islam. And now you want to talk about personal opinions? So,
there is no question of "practice what you preach here". If you want to
"practice what you preach", then you will find ample opportunities in
Africa where Christianity not only practices polygamy but also marrying
with kids not even in their teens. What are you doing in the UK? Why not
try to practice some of your own advice and apply it in real life?
What I have said is that I see nothing wrong in anybody marrying a 9 year
old if it is done by mutual consent. Do you see anything wrong with it?
And if yes and where? If you say that it is the age then you show it to us
from your Bible a clear statement that age is in fact a bar for marriage.
This is our challenge to us.
Regards
Saifullah
Joihn Eristu
> John,
>
> You wrote:
>
>
>>You perhaps aked this question because you heard
>>AYsha was 9 at the time of her marriage
>
>
> I think the problem is that Dr. Saifullah has strongly argued elsewhere
> that Aysha certainly *was* 9 at the time of her marriage. If he's wrong
> on this, could you cite the traditions that demonstrate his error?
I think you need to do your own research. There are information on the
subject, information that seems to confirm and also not confirm such
assertions. According to some she was 17.
This is a topic that can not be settled through arguing based on the
exeges of hadith alone. Therefore the topic does not belong to Hadith study.
As I said you do your own research if you feel you are so intent to find
out for whatever reasons.
>
> I was also troubled by your last paragraph:
What kind of trouble did you have? Below you are taking the discussion
quite tangential :-)
>
>
>>In some ways women excell. For example as mothers they carry
>>the paradise under their feet, for their children. For other things
>>men excell, for example in judgment and physical strength.
>
>
> Is it not the case that patriarchal systems have meant women have
> historically been prevented from exercising "judgement". What we tend
Islamic society is not patriarchal or otherwise. It is the weakness in
the approach of some people, that they force their understanding into
concepts and experiences that they have already acquired. In so doing
they distort the subject in an attempt to make them fit their patterns,
fitting a cube into a sphere, even if you have to cut the cube. Do not
make your limitations a constraint on your future.
Islamic society is Islamic. It is neither patriarchal nor the opposite
of it. In this society there is a family. Every one in the family has
priviledges and obligations, to one an other and to the society, and to
Allah.
> to see is that once those patriarchal chains are broken, women are
> easily the equal of men in reason, intellect and judgement. The
> question is simply whether patriarchy is Islamic or cultural. I'm
No. That question is neither here not there. Absolutely misleading and
off to a tangent.
> undecided.
Do not waste your precious mind on this one.
>
> Peter
>
Joihn Eristu
Well Saifullah if you see nothing wrong in any body marrying a 9 year
old girl, then it is your choice to see what ever you chose to see. The
fact remains that a vast majority of humans regard it as abhorable.
Yes it is wrong as a practice. Where it is wrong? I am surprised that
you feel you have a need to ask that question. To find this practice
abhorable, one does not need Bible or Quran or something else of that
sort. The biggest discriminator is what Allah placed within us when He
created us. That is our ability to contemplate, think, observe,
understand. We are born with our brains and our senses. To use those is
natural for us. Our brain and our senses lead us to believe that it is
abhorable. If your brain and your senses tell you otherwise then you are
one of a very few to think like that. Actions are louder than the words.
Hardly anybody in the world today, and even at the time of the Prophet,
practiced marrying 9 year olds. That is because people regard it
inappropriate.
>
Count 1
> old if it is done by mutual consent. Do you see anything wrong with it?
I do. The very notion that a nine year old possesses the intellectual,
emotional (and physical) maturity to 'consent' to a life long relationship
through marriage is absurd.
Children are not adults, and adults are not children. Just because Mohammed
did something 1400 years ago doesn't mean its ok to do it now, especially
considering the vast differences in culture, knowledge, and environment
between 7th century arabia and the modern world.
James Dowdeswell
I think the problem is that Dr. Saifullah has strongly argued
elsewhere that Aysha certainly *was* 9 at the time of her marriage. If
he's wrong on this, could you cite the traditions that demonstrate his
error?
Joihn responded:
> I think you need to do your own research. There are information on the
> subject, information that seems to confirm and also not confirm such
> assertions. According to some she was 17.
With due respect, you were being asked to provide that "information
that seems to... not confirm" the assertion that Aisha was 9 then
Muhammad consumated his marriage to her (i.e. had sex with her). If
you cannot provide it, then be honest enough to admit it.
> This is a topic that can not be settled through arguing based on the
> exeges of hadith alone.
Then say why.
> Therefore the topic does not belong to Hadith study.
Then say what it does belong too.
> As I said you do your own research if you feel you are so intent to find
> out for whatever reasons.
See below:
James Dowdeswell
> > conclude that marrying girls at such an age is a positive thing. But,
> > while he offers council to *other* Muslims on this topic, he *himself*
> > will not be drawn into stating if he would be willing, in principle,
> > to "practice what he preaches", i.e. be willing, in principle, to
> > consumate a marriage to a nine year old girl. Would you follow the
> > council of someone, who when asked if they would be willing (in
> > principle) to practice what they were preaching, repeatedly evaded the
> > question?
>
> Dowdeswell, please can you us ANY book of aqeedah or fiqh which says that
> marrying a 9 year old is a part of our religion or that one must do it to
> be called as a Muslim?
Dr MSM Saifullah, you know full well I was not saying "one must [marry
a nine year old] to be called a Muslim". Are trying to fool the
readers into believing I was saying something I was not - with full
knowledgde of it too! Where is your integrity? Has your position
become so weak you need to employ cheap debating tricks to get
yourself out of a mess?
> And now you want to talk about personal opinions?
Your personal *understanding* of Islam is important, yes. Although
you keep referring to yourself in the first person plural, you clearly
don't speak for *all* Muslims. Indeed, you sometimes flatly
contradict other Muslims here on SRI (I can give recent examples if
you want).
> So, there is no question of "practice what you preach here".
> If you want to
> "practice what you preach", then you will find ample opportunities in
> Africa where Christianity not only practices polygamy but also marrying
> with kids not even in their teens. What are you doing in the UK? Why not
> try to practice some of your own advice and apply it in real life?
What source tells you that Christians in Africa "practice... marrying
with kids not even in their teens"? Is that representative? Let's
face it Dr Saifullah, you fall a long way short of being "measured" in
the things you say. For example, you said:
"The "Judeo-Christian" culture itself is full of marriages as early as
the age
of 3!"
Could you substantiate that the *Christian* culture is full of
marriages as early as the age of 3 (I am a Christian)? No of course
not!
I have publically stated that I believe it is wrong to have sex with a
nine year old girl (inside or outside of marriage) and I would not
have sex with a nine year old girl (inside or outside of marriage).
That Dr Saifullah is called "self-consistency" and "practicing what I
preach".
By contrast, you have said you don't have a problem with people
consumating marriages to nine year old girls, but when asked if you
would do so yourself, in principle, you do everything in your power to
avoid having to answer the question. That Dr Saifullah, is called
trying to hide something.
Let me be clear, I have not asked Dr Saifullah to consumate a marriage
a nine year old girl. Heaven forbid! But on the basis of what he has
said, I am merely asking him if he would not rule out doing so.
> What I have said is that I see nothing wrong in anybody marrying a 9 year
> old if it is done by mutual consent. Do you see anything wrong with it?
Yes. And so did your fellow Muslim Anjum. How can you hold someone
accountable for such a decision made when they were nine!? Children
of that age lack the marturity to see the long term consequences of
such a decision. It's simply exploitation.
You just said, "you see nothing wrong in * anybody * marrying a 9 year
old…" Does "anybody" include yourself Dr Saifullah? Be clear.
> And if yes and where? If you say that it is the age then you show it to us
> from your Bible a clear statement that age is in fact a bar for marriage.
> This is our challenge to us.
I replied to this in an earlier post:
- - - - - - -
As with the Qur'an, the Bible does not give answers to every possible
ethical dilemma one may face in life. But the Bible offers broad
principles, e.g., "Love your neighbour as yourself", that can be
applied when faced with such a dilemma.
How are you "loving your neighbour [i.e. her] as yourself" if you bind
a nine year old girl to a life-long marriage *before* her "yes" (or
silence) is based on something meaningful? Is that not just
exploitation?
You know the issues, everyone does. What is a 50+ year old man
getting out of a marriage to a 9 year old girl? Would you want to be
married to an old lady when you were in your prime? Then why ask it
of a 9 year old girl? (Love your neighbour as yourself).
- - - - - - -
You snipped the last paragraph above in response to the post. Perhaps
this time you would like to enage with the questions in it.
Part of your answer last time around was this:
""Love thy neighbour as yourself". Such a broad principle can be
applied by
anyone who wishes to make love with his neighbour's wife or with his
neighbour's daughter (age no bar!), i.e., to justify adultery and
fornication."
Perhaps you can explain to us all how you arrived at the conclusion
that "Loving your neighbour as yourself" means you can make love to
that neighbour's wife (i.e. commit adultery with his wife)!? Do you
suppose the average man actually wants his wife to cheat on him?
The primary reason you're defending the morality of 50+ year old men
being able to consumate marriages to 9 year old girls is because you
believe Muhammad did so. You believe Muhammad's Sunna is ‘relevant
for all time' so you're not willing to say that it was okay for
Muhammad then but not okay for Muslim men today – c.f. Anjum's view.
That is a self-consistent position on your part - we can all see that.
However, while you seem quite happy to say that *other* Muslim men can
marry nine year old girls you will not say that, in principle, you
would be willing too! Even when hounded! That Dr Saifullah is called
being ashamed of your beliefs but not being honest enough to admit it.
In a way Dr Saifullah I feel sorry for you.
One last thing, in my last post I mistakenly attributed a quotation to
you that was written by Abû Imân cAbd ar-Rahmân Robert Squires. You
must have realised and I am surprised you didn't mention it. I assume
you didn't bother because you agreed with the content of that paper –
after all it is on your website - and you've been using similar
arguments to that paper. However, I wanted to point this out for the
sake of the readers.
Warm regards,
James.
HArden
> "Circumstance aside, would you (theoretically) have sex with a nine
year old?"
Re: Alleged marriage of the Prophet to a 9 year old.
I am very suspicious about this whole controversy.
As far as I am aware there were no criticisms or objections
at the time when the Prophet married her.
It is only centuries later when all the circumstances are not
known that criticisms are made by hostiles.
The Quran criticises the Prophet in some places, but there is no
criticism on this ground.
Nor is it a requirement in the Quran.
Nor is sexual intercourse regarded as something dirty or evil.
Nor are Hadith regarded as wholly reliable evidence.
The Quran forbids sexual intercourse outside marriage
but there is no indication that there are age limits to marriage in any
scripture I have come accross.
So, why does this suddenly become a moral issue?
If the objection has something to do with compulsion or injury
then this is also forbidden.
It looks like a case of personal prejudice, or of ulterior motives or of
ignorance about all the circumstances surronding this event, or of wrongly
applying present conventions to past conditions.
The idea that the Prophet did something wrong or perverted is completely
inconsistant with the teachings in the Quran and the rest of his life.
However, people do interpret events and behaviour according to their own
motives and desires and and opinions based these reflect their own
mentality.
H.A
M.S.M. Saifullah
> AsSalaamu 'alaikum Dr. Saifullah
Walaikumus-salaam wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
> With all due respect, please clarify whose "consent" are you referring
> to?
Consenting of the guardian of the female and the two people who are
willing to marry. This is one of the basic requirements of a marriage.
Without it a marriage in Islam is considered invalid.
> If it is the consent of the 9-year old girl (less than 9 if you use the
> lunar calendar), then what are the chances that a 9-year old is old
> enough to give her consent?
We can only speak about "chances" if we have data of 9 year olds marrying
men. Do you have any? In any case let me know.
> You like to throw Biblical accounts and invoke Shari'ah. Sure, but know
> that these can also be construed as evasiveness.
Our arguments stem from Shari'ah and what is evasive about it anyway. Is
it not true that everyone of us argues on some basis?
Wassalam
Saifullah
Altway
"James Dowdeswell" <dowde...@tiscali.co.uk>
> "Circumstance aside, would you (theoretically) have sex with a nine
year old?"
The answer is "NO!". I repeat, the answer is NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No one in his right mind would do that!!!!!
Comment:-
Apart from doubts about the truth of certain reports,
it is a known fact that the age of maturitation has changed over the years.
Even today some girls mature much sooner than the average - Some have had
babies before they were ten - and others mature much later.
So the question cannot be answered in general terms about all communities
in all peiods of time.
But why this constant obsession with sex?
Is there nothing in Islam but that? Or can the writer see nothing beyond
that?
Hamid S. Aziz
Altway
"Joihn Eristu" <Eri...@hotmail.com> wrote
> The biggest discriminator is what Allah placed within us when He
created us. That is our ability to contemplate, think, observe,
understand. We are born with our brains and our senses. To use those is
natural for us.
Comment:-
You have not understood what religion is all about.
The Fall of Man from Paradise, the state of inocence
was due to sin. It is that which corruptd the pure human faculties
for consciousness, conscience and will.
That is why Messengers are sent with a teaching and a discipline
to rectify wht has been corrupted and hopefully return man to Paradise.
But it is pure arrogance that first caused the sin and now maintains people
in the kind of delusion that keeps you trapped.
When are you going to learn and understand even the fundamentals of Islam,
let alone anything more sophisticated??? Yet you criticise Muslims that have
more knowledge and understanding of Islam!!!!!
Tu, tut
"Surely, We have created man in the best of moulds. Then We reduced him to
the lowest of the low; Save those who believe and act right; for theirs is a
reward unfailing." 95:4-6
"Nay, verily, man is indeed arrogant and rebellious in that he thinks
himself self-sufficient (or rich in talents and powers)!" 96:6-7
Hamid S. Aziz
M.S.M. Saifullah
Let me rearrange the post a little bit to show how poorly this guy
Dowdeswell argues when it comes to age and marriage. I asked him to show a
clear statement from his Bible that age in fact is a bar for marriage. He
comes up and says:
> As with the Qur'an, the Bible does not give answers to every possible
> ethical dilemma one may face in life. But the Bible offers broad
> principles, e.g., "Love your neighbour as yourself", that can be
> applied when faced with such a dilemma.
So, the Bible does not give any age for the marriage. And yet the
Christian who professes that his belief is based on the Bible blames
the Prophet of Islam for marrying a 9 year old. How hypocritical of
Dowdeswell!
Instead the sweetners that we are offered are that the Bible offers
"broad" principles such as "Love your neighbour as yourself" to come out
of this "ethical" dilemma. One can see that this "broad" principle "Love
your neighbour as yourself" does not even provide the age of marriage and
consummation. This "broad" principle is nothing but a red-herring from
Dowdeswell.
> How are you "loving your neighbour [i.e. her] as yourself" if you bind
> a nine year old girl to a life-long marriage *before* her "yes" (or
> silence) is based on something meaningful? Is that not just
> exploitation?
Since your Bible does not say anything about the age of marriage, what we
now see from you is incoherent talk and your own personal opinions. So,
much for the non-existing Christian law!
Marriage and neighbour involve love; the former is confined within the
privacy of ones house and the latter is confined to outside the house.
In other words, love thy neighbour has nothing to do with love thy wife
and more so the age of wife. I am surprised that you can't differentiate
between two different things.
Now in the absence of any Bible-based argument, Dowdeswell shows some of
his emotionalism such as "binding" a nine year old girl to a life-long
marriage *before* her "yes". What more can we expect from a Christian
anyway?
Muslims know that any marriage without the consent of the two parties is
considered invalid. In other words, there are no shot-gun marriages in
Islam. A girl can express a consent either by saying it or with her
silence as long as her father is sure that she is happy with the decision.
A marriage in Islam is contracting that is binding upon the two parties
and if anyone of them violate then the other can ask for divorce. So,
there is nothing like "binding" of a girl to a life-long marriage in
Islam.
To exploit is to abuse by taking advantage of one's own vulnerabilities.
Dowdeswell claimed that marrying a 9 year old is "exploitation" even when
there is a consent between all the involved parties. Of course, he has no
biblical evidence to back that up like any other Christian who argues
endlessly about the age of marriage and exploitation.
Now when this broad "Love thy neighbour as yourself" principle was applied
to anyone who wishes to make love with his neighbour's wife or with his
neighbour's daughter (age no bar!), i.e., to justify adultery and
fornication, Dowdeswell demands an "explanation" from us. He says:
> Perhaps you can explain to us all how you arrived at the conclusion
> that "Loving your neighbour as yourself" means you can make love to
> that neighbour's wife (i.e. commit adultery with his wife)!? Do you
> suppose the average man actually wants his wife to cheat on him?
Dowdeswell, you forgot that this was your "broad" principle and when any
Christian was in dilemma he could freely use it. We tried it, not because
we are Christian, but because we wanted to see its implications. The
implications now are pretty clear. Such a "broad" principle calls for
selectivity when it comes to attacking the Prophet of Islam and when it
can be used for other issues then it becomes an issue of "morality". All
of a sudden we are demanded an "explanation" and when Dowdeswell uses it
he is not required to even explain it.
> The primary reason you're defending the morality of 50+ year old men
> being able to consumate marriages to 9 year old girls is because you
> believe Muhammad did so. You believe Muhammad's Sunna is ^Qrelevant
> for all time' so you're not willing to say that it was okay for
> Muhammad then but not okay for Muslim men today ^V c.f. Anjum's view.
I do not know what Anjum's views are for sure. As far as the Prophetic
Sunnah is concerned it is quite broad. The Prophet, SAW, married the women
older than him and Khadijah was almost twice his age, when he was at the
prime of his youth. The Prophet, SAW, also married women younger than him,
e.g., Aisha, when he was quite old. He also married widows and divorced
women. So, the Muslims can take any of Prophet's Sunnah. This is relevant
for all times.
Now you tell us what does your obsession with the marriage with Aishah
tells us?
> That is a self-consistent position on your part - we can all see that.
> However, while you seem quite happy to say that *other* Muslim men can
> marry nine year old girls you will not say that, in principle, you
> would be willing too! Even when hounded! That Dr Saifullah is called
> being ashamed of your beliefs but not being honest enough to admit it.
> In a way Dr Saifullah I feel sorry for you.
We have already refuted your implicit position that no other sunnah exists
except a Muslim marrying a 9 year old. So, what are you going to "hound"
us with when you have nothing to hound with us!
As far as being ashamed, you should be the one who should be ashamed. You
can't even bring an age of marriage from your scripture which you
considered "inspired" and yet you have audacity to attack others about the
age of marriage using red-herring such as the "broad" principles.
> > Dowdeswell, please can you us ANY book of aqeedah or fiqh which says that
> > marrying a 9 year old is a part of our religion or that one must do it to
> > be called as a Muslim?
>
> Dr MSM Saifullah, you know full well I was not saying "one must [marry
> a nine year old] to be called a Muslim". Are trying to fool the
> readers into believing I was saying something I was not - with full
> knowledgde of it too! Where is your integrity? Has your position
> become so weak you need to employ cheap debating tricks to get
> yourself out of a mess?
We have already seen your "integrity". The less we talk about it the
better.
As far as the issue at hand is concered, were you not claiming that I
should be practising what I am preaching as if marrying a 9 year old is in
fact some kind of obligatory on each and every Muslim? Now these tricks of
yours have already unravelled. Come up with something better next time.
> What source tells you that Christians in Africa "practice... marrying
> with kids not even in their teens"? Is that representative? Let's
> face it Dr Saifullah, you fall a long way short of being "measured" in
> the things you say. For example, you said:
Try searching "pre-teen marriages in africa" and "polygamy in Christian
africa". You do not need academic references to figure these things.
> "The "Judeo-Christian" culture itself is full of marriages as early as
> the age
> of 3!"
>
> Could you substantiate that the *Christian* culture is full of
> marriages as early as the age of 3 (I am a Christian)? No of course
> not!
Perhaps not the modern "Christian" culture. Is there anything like a
"Christian" culture these days, btw? If yes, then what is it? What is it
based on? Kindly enlighten.
> I have publically stated that I believe it is wrong to have sex with a
> nine year old girl (inside or outside of marriage) and I would not
You can publicly state whatever you want but the irony of the fact is none
of your beliefs are even remotely based on Bible. And you call yourself a
Christian? How strange!
Regards
Saifullah
James Dowdeswell
"rearranging" of my post you seem to have "accidently" skipped a bit
of it. You can respond to it here.
I had written:
You just said, "you see nothing wrong in * anybody * marrying a 9 year
old…" Does "anybody" include yourself Dr Saifullah? Be clear.
(And you were referring specifically to consumating such a marriage by
"mutual consent").
So, did the "anybody" you were referring to include yourself Dr
Saifullah?
I hope you can finally clear this matter up.
(Note to readers:
Dr Saifullah's position is thus:
(1) He acknowledges that Muhammad consumated his marriage to Aisha
when she was 9 years old.
(2) He believe that Muhammad's Sunnah is "timeless" (not "relative").
(3) Therefore, he believes Muslims today can likewise consumate
marriages to 9 year old girls.
However, (4), he uses every trick in the book to avoid having to
answer the question, "would he therefore do so himself? (being a
Muslim)".
Warm regards,
James.
Uncle_Sinbad
"Altway" <alt...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> You have not understood what religion is all about.
>
> The Fall of Man from Paradise, the state of inocence
> was due to sin. It is that which corruptd the pure human faculties
> for consciousness, conscience and will.
First I thought muslims don't believe in original sin but maybe you
have a different concept of it.
You know your answer reminds me of the christian concept of original
sin. Original sin in christianity does not (what most muslims believe)
mean that we as human beings inherited a sin of our ancestor. That
would be unfair, for we are not responsible for the deeds of others.
Instead how christians explain it is that we inherite human nature
that got corrupted after a sin of our ancestor, Adam(p). That's why
babies are born with a sinfull nature because they have inherited the
ability to sin as they grow up.
The problem I have with this believe is that it assumes that Man was
created without the ability to sin. Satan seduced Man so his nature
got corrupted and his children inherited this corrupted nature. So if
the first man had not sinned we would have uncorrupted nature and be
in Paradise.
But if Man was created with a sinless nature and he did sin...Then,
there seem to be only two options for me:
1)Man was ignorent what evil was, and chose for evil by accident;
2)Man was aware what evil was but still chose for evil.
Both however seem to be problematic too:
ad 1)Firstly,This theory seems unfair too. God being Most-Mercifull
would not punish man for something Man is ignorent of and did by
accident.
And secondly, How can Man not know sin or not know to choose between
good and evil while the same story tells that Man was warned by God.
Man did know what God liked (good) and what God did not like (evil),
because God told him personally. So it seems to me Man at the
beginning had the faculty to understand what is good and evil.
ad 2) But if Man knew what evil is then he had the faculty to do evil
wich means he has a nature that can sin. This nature is just like a
new born baby then. But if this is true then there is no fall. Man's
nature has never changed then. The only things that changed are acts
of Man forwich his descendants are not responsible if God is fair.
So my question is to Altway, how do you understand sinless and
original sin?
And how do you confront my problems with them?
Wa salaam
Kamal
Uncle_Sinbad
debate wich doesn't conclude anything except that you disagree with an
opinion and find it unethical.
Just as christianity has literalists, liberals, progressives, mystics,
muslims have them.
When I find the interpretation of one christian or even the pope
unethical I havent disproven christianity. We should not essencialise,
criminalise or extremise a religion based on some views or
interpretation people hold.
You already acknowledged that approaching the marriage of Aisha in a
contextual, historical way is a good answer to the "problem". An
a-historical appraoch is unscientifical and unreasonable. Most muslims
don't marry their daughters on that age without finding Muhammed (p)
unethical because they understand the context has changed. Is it so
hard to accept the Sunnah is for all times as long as the context is
the same?
Furthermore, you showed hadiths about the age of Aysha while I bet you
would not believe hadiths that say prophet Muhammed(p) is a prophet of
God and that he performed miracles are true.
In an article and reasearch of some scolar in other thread in this
group it was argued that the age of Aysha was not 6 or 9 but much
older about 17 and that the hadiths are not reliable because they
contain a doubtfull person. You can find similar arguments in the
article on www.understanding-islam.com.
Marry according to some christian scolars was between 12 and 14 when
she gave birth to Jesus(p). According to the Bible she was also
married with Josef at that age. That was normall in biblical times, I
don't see a problem with that. People used to marry around that age
even in Europe (incl. the UK) not long ago.
They did not believe it conflicts with "love your neighbour". By the
way the prophet Muhammed(p) too preached to love your neighbour, he
even said "no has true faith unless he loves for his brother (or
sister) what he loves for himself (or herself)". We don't see any
conflict in the marraige with Aicha wich was a very good relationship.
That doesn't mean that people be them christian or muslim in Europe of
today find marrying a 9 year old ethical TODAY. We can accept that
things were or are ethical in other contexts or cultures without
accepting them ethical for ourselves.
To summarise: What you have done is argueing that Saifullah is
unethical and not that Islam is unethical. So you ended making it a
personal matter, ad hominem. Can't you find another way like sending
personal emails to him to fight this out?
If you want to convince muslims, please make the discussion more
reasonable and scientifical and if you discuss something historical
don't use a-historical arguments. Thank you.
Peace,
Kamal
Joihn Eristu
> Pete wrote:
>
> With due respect, you were being asked to provide that "information
> that seems to... not confirm" the assertion that Aisha was 9 then
> Muhammad consumated his marriage to her (i.e. had sex with her). If
> you cannot provide it, then be honest enough to admit it.
I am not taking any part in determining Ayesha's age. My claim is that
it is not possible to do that with any definitiveness. If I were
claiming a certain age for her, then I would be obligated to
substantiate that. All I am saying is that there are inconsistent
historical records on this topic.
The topic has no interest for me to spin my cycles to make an opinion
for myself. If you feel compelled to determine a definite number for
your own satisfaction, for whatever reason, then it is your prerogative.
If it gives you satisfaction to challenge my honesty, then be it that way.
>>This is a topic that can not be settled through arguing based on the
>>exeges of hadith alone.
>
>
> Then say why.
I explained above. The historical information is not consistent and a
determination is impossible.
I implied this much earlier without spending as many words.
>>Therefore the topic does not belong to Hadith study.
>
>
> Then say what it does belong too.
I do not know what people's curiosity belongs to.
There are other topics like did he ascend to heaven in flesh or in
spirit? Such topics also do not belong to hadith. The reasons are the
same. The topics are introduced for altruistic reasons. There is no
obligation on hadith to satisfy them. Of course the promulgators of
those topics, for their own reasons, will argue tooth and nail that they
are central to Islam.
I will dismiss such talk.
>>As I said you do your own research if you feel you are so intent to find
>>out for whatever reasons.
>
>
> See below:
>
>
Throwing on the screen a number of narrations does not negate the fact
that the topic is ambiguous. I have seen these hadiths. I do not regard
everything in muslim or bukhari as obligatory for me, especially when at
times the narrations are not consistent.
Before you repeat your self and ask me for counter narrations, or
question my honesty, I will reassert that this topic is not a genuine
religious topic. It is a historical topic. I have no intention of
spinning my wheels on it. A dead end road, strada sensa uscita. Be my
guest if your personal persuits take you on this road, but I will not
accompany you there.
Joihn Eristu
>>What I have said is that I see nothing wrong in anybody marrying a 9 year
>>old if it is done by mutual consent. Do you see anything wrong with it?
>
>
> I do. The very notion that a nine year old possesses the intellectual,
> emotional (and physical) maturity to 'consent' to a life long relationship
> through marriage is absurd.
Agree in general.
Can not rule out special cases where the argument is false.
>
> Children are not adults, and adults are not children. Just because Mohammed
> did something 1400 years ago doesn't mean its ok to do it now, especially
> considering the vast differences in culture, knowledge, and environment
> between 7th century arabia and the modern world.
Here you are claiming something the original poster did not state or
imply, at lest in my mind as one reader.
"Just because Mohammed
> did something 1400 years"
The poster did not say it. The discussion was a general one.
I for one take a strong exception to your strident manner. The Prophet
did not do it. There are sporadic narrations that imply it, but they do
not mean the Prophet did it. Muslims say Allah knows best. When the
evidence is inconclusive, Muslims do not insist to make it artificially so.
I do not know if you are a muslim or not. But you are claim an
irresponsible claim.
>
abdalla...@myway.com
> Dr Saifullah's position is thus:
[...]
> However, (4), he uses every trick in the book to avoid having to
> answer the question, "would he therefore do so himself? (being a
> Muslim)".
I am from Kuwait, and I knew people in the age of my dear grandmother
who got married at 12. You must understand that sex is not everything
in a marriage. And marriage is much more cleaner than fornication. In
your religion fornication was a problem until the penalty (stoning)
was abrogated when, supposedly, Jesus cancelled it when he freed the
crime from its penalty.
Remember, "Go, and sin no more!"
Isn't that in John 8? It's an indirect dismissal of the fornication
penalty prescribed by the laws of Moses (a). It means that christans
can fornicate as much as they want and all what the church has to do
to them is call them and tell them, "Go and sin no more." But of
course the church doesn't do anything today because at the end, Jesus
died for the sins of the believers...
With that type of religion, a marriage to a 5-year old is much cleaner
because it elevates the human from becoming something else.
Salam,
Abdalla Alothman
Altway
"Uncle_Sinbad" <kama...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> The Fall of Man from Paradise, the state of inocence
was due to sin. It is that which corruptd the pure human faculties
for consciousness, conscience and will.
> First I thought muslims don't believe in original sin but maybe you
have a different concept of it.
Comment:-
I am speaking about the following verses. Are you denying these?
"Surely, We have created man in the best of moulds. Then We reduced him to
the lowest of the low; Save those who believe and act right; for theirs is a
reward unfailing." 95:4-6
"Nay, verily, man is indeed arrogant and rebellious in that he thinks
himself self-sufficient (or rich in talents and powers)!" 96:6-7
"Then He fashioned him and breathed into him of His spirit, and made for you
the faculties of hearing, and sight and heart; little is it that you give
thanks." 32:9
"Verily, We offered the trust to the heavens and the earth and the
mountains, but they refused to undertake it, being afraid of it; but man
undertook it. Lo! He has proved a tyrant and a fool." 33:72
"But most of them follow naught but conjecture (suspicion, fancy, guesswork,
speculation); verily, conjecture can by no means take the place of (or avail
against) truth. Verily, Allah is Aware of what they do." 10:37
> You know your answer reminds me of the christian concept of original
sin. Original sin in christianity does not (what most muslims believe)
mean that we as human beings inherited a sin of our ancestor. That
would be unfair, for we are not responsible for the deeds of others.
Instead how christians explain it is that we inherite human nature
that got corrupted after a sin of our ancestor, Adam(p). That's why
babies are born with a sinfull nature because they have inherited the
ability to sin as they grow up.
Comment:-
A reminds you of B, therefore A is B?
This kind of reasoning has been criticised several times.
Let me repeat:-
If a system "A" contains elements a, b, c, d, e, f
and a system "B" contains eements c, d, g, h, j
Then just because they share elements c and d
does not make "A" into "B"
> The problem I have with this believe is that it assumes that Man was
created without the ability to sin. Satan seduced Man so his nature
got corrupted and his children inherited this corrupted nature. So if
the first man had not sinned we would have uncorrupted nature and be
in Paradise.
Comment:-
The name Adam is used in several senses:-
As mankind, as the first conscious human being, as the first Prophet.
> But if Man was created with a sinless nature and he did sin...Then,
there seem to be only two options for me:
1) Man was ignorent what evil was, and chose for evil by accident;
2) Man was aware what evil was but still chose for evil.
Both however seem to be problematic too:
and 1) Firstly,This theory seems unfair too. God being Most-Mercifull
would not punish man for something Man is ignorent of and did by
accident.
> And secondly, How can Man not know sin or not know to choose between
good and evil while the same story tells that Man was warned by God.
Man did know what God liked (good) and what God did not like (evil),
because God told him personally. So it seems to me Man at the
beginning had the faculty to understand what is good and evil.
and 2) But if Man knew what evil is then he had the faculty to do evil
wich means he has a nature that can sin. This nature is just like a
new born baby then. But if this is true then there is no fall. Man's
nature has never changed then. The only things that changed are acts
of Man forwich his descendants are not responsible if God is fair.
> So my question is to Altway, how do you understand sinless and
original sin?
Comment:-
Sorry, I find this kind of thinking wholly confused and irrelevant.
This is intellectualism without understanding and perception.
And it cannot be answered in the same terms.
The quote above Quran 95:4-6 shows that man was originally made perfect.
There is no original sin.
However, perfection does not mean what you might think it is.
It refers to the ability to learn and develop.
Allah knew perfectly that man would err and that he would then be
required to learn.
"And when your Lord said unto the angels, "I am about to place a Vicegerent
(Agent, Successor, Inheritor) in the earth," they said, "Will you place
therein one who will do evil therein and shed blood? While we celebrate Thy
praise and glorify Thee." Said (the Lord): I know what you know not. And He
taught Adam the Names (Attributes), all of them; then He propounded them to
the angels and said: Declare to Me the names of these, if you are truthful.
They said: Glory be to Thee! No knowledge is ours but what Thou Thyself have
taught us, verily, you are the Knower, the Wise. Said the Lord: O Adam
declare to them the Names; and when he had declared to them the Names, He
said: Did I not say to you, I know the secrets of the heavens and of the
earth, and I know what you reveal and what you conceal? And when we said to
the angels, "Bow down before Adam," they bowed before him save only Iblis,
who refused and was too proud and became one of the disbelievers. " 2:31-34
You can regard this as a formula that points to a truth about how things
are. It is not a logical argument based on your assumptions of what is right
or wrong.
Hamid S. Aziz
Zuiko Azumazi
news:64ef55f9.05032...@posting.google.com...
Asslaamu Alaikum
<snip> ...
> > The Fall of Man from Paradise, the state of inocence
> > was due to sin. ...
> You know your answer reminds me of the christian concept of original
> sin. ...
<snip> ...
Question:-
As an aside, I would anticipate that most Muslims are somewhat perplexed
about the Christian believe that sin was present in the universe before the
fall of Adam(p) and Eve? Doesn't this signify that the devil was, or still
is, active in paradise? From a polemical Muslim perspective, if sin was
present before the fall, how can anyone rationalise, Christian or otherwise,
ascribe the 'original sin' doctrine to man?
--
Peace
--
You cannot teach a person who is not anxious to learn and you cannot
explain to one who is not trying to make things clear to themselves.
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
klei...@astound.net
Zuiko Azumazi wrote:
> As an aside, I would anticipate that most Muslims are somewhat
perplexed
> about the Christian belief that sin was present in the universe
before the
> fall of Adam(p) and Eve? Doesn't this signify that the devil was, or
still
> is, active in paradise? From a polemical Muslim perspective, if sin
was
> present before the fall, how can anyone rationalise, Christian or
otherwise,
> ascribe the 'original sin' doctrine to man?
>
In an Islamic context it is not very easy to discuss the doctrine of
the "Original Sin". Like all together too many other things, there is
no Christian consensus on what it means (apart from the fact that Paul
"invented" the idea). However I believe that most Christians would not
agree that sin was present before the fall. The snake (not all
Christians agree that the snake was the Devil) was indeed present and
up to no good. But he was just another created being. Sin entered when
Adam sinned. Before that there was no sin - only the possibility of
sin.
If that is hard to match with Islamic teaching it should come as no
surprise. It should also come as no surprise that, at least where I
come from, sin is usually equated to sexual intercourse. Note marriage
is irrelevent. ALL SEX is sin. The unfortunate (logically unjustified)
corollary is that nothing except sex is sin. Which "explains" the
preculiar morals of some western corporations and governments (being
asexual they feel incapable of sin).
I have never understood why Islam is so dead set against Paul. His
thinking is much more like the thinking of orthodox Islam than is the
thinking of Jesus (as reflected in the Q document). Perhaps the
difficuly is that Christians include Paul in the Bible. Ignore that.
Think of Paul as an important early Christian scholar comparable to,
for example, Malik bn Anas, and his letters as comparable to the
Muwatta.
Not that everything Paul said will make Muslims comfortable. The
doctrine of original sin should make Muslims uncomfortable. So, since
Islam is obviously more right on this issue, just count it as one
against Paul and go on to better things.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1112237634....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> So, since Islam is obviously more right on this issue, just count it as
one
> against Paul and go on to better things.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Thanks for honest explication, at least I've learnt something new today.
Let's hope that other SRI subscribers, Muslim or otherwise, benefit from
this honest, if not non-partisan, appraisal.
--
Peace
--
We should not be ashamed to acknowledge truth from whatever source
it comes to us, even if it is brought to us by former generations and
foreign peoples. For him who seeks the truth there is nothing of higher
value than truth itself [al-Kindi 801-66]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
James Dowdeswell
> would not believe hadiths that say prophet Muhammed(p) is a prophet of
> God and that he performed miracles are true.
The age of Aisha was a fact people could *verify* at the time with
their senses. Whether or not Muhammad's prophethood was 'true' was a
matter of conviction. It is, therefore, not surprising that I should
be willing to accept the former and not the latter.
Imam Bukhari selected around 9,082 hadith out of some 600,000
traditions he knew, i.e., he considered less than 2% of them worthy of
being passed on as "sound". And now, centuries later, you're even
casting doubt on his judgement over this 2%?!
Are you saying your finest collector of hadith was "fooled" by the
hadith below - which record *very basic* facts about Muhammad's life?
Did he not know any better? Was Muslim "memory loss" about Muhammad's
life so great that even the most knowledgeable Muslims could be
"fooled" into believing a *basic fact* about Muhammad's life which was
not true?
Ref:
Warm regards,
James.
Uncle_Sinbad
I didn't say your explanation is the original sin theory of
christianity I just asked for further explanation and to make the
difference clear, since the christian concept has many problems in my
view.
Altway quoted:
> "And when your Lord said unto the angels, "I am about to place a Vicegerent
> (Agent, Successor, Inheritor) in the earth," they said, "Will you place
> therein one who will do evil therein and shed blood? While we celebrate Thy
> praise and glorify Thee." Said (the Lord): I know what you know not.." 2:31-34
This verse proofs that Allah planned from the start to send Adam(p)
and his wife to earth. That makes sense since Allah is All-knowing. As
I understand now "the fall" was "meant to be". Man was created with
the choice and ability to commit sin. The story of Adam (p) and his
wife and "the fall" from paradise is not about "original sin" but
about "original lesson": a reminder that man is rebellious, a sinner,
one that can sin but can return to paradise if they repent and correct
their behaviour as Adam(p) and his wife did repent when they were on
earth.
One verse (95:4-6)in the Quran says man was made perfect another one
says that man was created weak (4:28). As you explained perfect means
the ability to learn and develop so this is the original state and at
the same time he is weak and needs help and guidance from Allah,
right?
Muslims believe that Allah will forgive people who believe in Him, do
good works and repent. Will Allah just remove the sins or change man's
nature after that in the hereafter? What will change about man's
nature when man returns to paradise, can he sin again there or will
he/she be without a freewill or choice to sin like angels?
If man will be like angels again why did he create creatures that can
sin in the first place to make them equal to angels in the end? Or can
man be above the angels after the test? If yes, in what sense?
Kamal
M.S.M. Saifullah
> Imam Bukhari selected around 9,082 hadith out of some 600,000
> traditions he knew, i.e., he considered less than 2% of them worthy of
> being passed on as "sound". And now, centuries later, you're even
> casting doubt on his judgement over this 2%?!
Dowdeswell, please can you give us one good reference where Bukhari
actually claimed that he considered less than 2% of his collection worthy
of being passed on as "sound"? I can assure you that you will find none.
Your attitude is typically of a missionary who does not know his sources
leave alone the people who produced their material.
A devastating refutation of such claims are made at:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/bukhari.html
> Are you saying your finest collector of hadith was "fooled" by the
> hadith below - which record *very basic* facts about Muhammad's life?
As far as this question is concerned, we now know who exactly is a fool
and talking without any prior knowledge.
Regards
Saifullah
Altway
"Uncle_Sinbad" <kama...@hotmail.com> wrote
> I didn't say your explanation is the original sin theory of
christianity I just asked for further explanation and to make the
difference clear, since the christian concept has many problems in my
view.
Comment:-
I was objecting to the use of Greek formal logical thinking when dealing
with
Religion. We are not arguing about concepts and juggling with them.
We are required to understand the realities that the words refer to.
>> "And when your Lord said unto the angels, "I am about to place a
>> Vicegerent
(Agent, Successor, Inheritor) in the earth," they said, "Will you place
therein one who will do evil therein and shed blood? While we celebrate Thy
praise and glorify Thee." Said (the Lord): I know what you know not.."
2:31-34
> This verse proves that Allah planned from the start to send Adam(p)
and his wife to earth. That makes sense since Allah is All-knowing. As
I understand now "the fall" was "meant to be".
Comment:-
Correct.
Man was made with the ability to learn and become a self-regulating
gent for Allah, including initiative, creativity and responsibility.
That is, the Spirit of Allah was within him. (32:9)
This had become dormant and needed to be activated.
> Will Allah just remove the sins or change man's
nature after that in the hereafter? What will change about man's
nature when man returns to paradise, can he sin again there or will
he/she be without a freewill or choice to sin like angels?
If man will be like angels again why did he create creatures that can
sin in the first place to make them equal to angels in the end? Or can
man be above the angels after the test? If yes, in what sense?
Comment:-
I wish you would not keep talking of "Free Will".
It is not an Islamic notion. It is Shirk
There is no "free will", as this would mean that there is a
Will apart from Allah's. All power comes from Allah.
He has given us the power for learning and thinking, data processing.
He has given us great potentialities and these have to be developed.
We are to evolve.
"And the soul and Who fashioned it, and enlightened it with what is wrong
and right for it! He indeed is successful who causes it to grow (or purifies
it)! And he indeed is a failure who corrupts it!" 91:7-10
"Ye shall surely travel from stage to stage" 84:19
"Then, lo! On the Day of Resurrection shall you surely be raised. And We
have created above you seven paths; and We are never heedless of creation."
23:16-17
"Allah was surely very gracious to the believers, when He sent amongst them
a Messenger from among themselves (or of their own), who recite to them His
revelations, and causes them to grow (or be purified), and teaches them the
Scripture and wisdom, although they surely were before his time in manifest
error." 3:164
Read the article "On the Straight Way" posted on this site
Hamid S. Aziz