Jump to content
Islamic Forum

Recommended Posts

Peace from opur Lord,

Looking by, can you please clarify what you are saying here? I'm not offending you or looking for an argument, but are you doubting what our Prophet Muhammad :D did?

Yes, I sometimes doubt whether all is said in traditions about him is true. And I doubt whether all he did was right. But that's not my point.

 

Muhammad had more than four wives at the same time. How do you call a Muslim following this example?

If I am not mistaken, most Muslims will say that this is unlawful for an ordinary man. So the question is: is the marriage to Aisha an exception, that should not be followed (like having more than four wives), or is it an example to be followed? Where do You get Your laws from?

 

In Islam, the girl is supposed to choose to either accept or decline a marriage proposal from a prospective groom's family. Nothing is to be forced upon her.

Thank You (and amani) for clarifying this.

 

Who is to say which girl or boy has reached puberty in mental and physical attributes? Who is to say who is a child/adolescent/teenager/adult? Who is to say who is old enough to marry? This is all relative.

There is at least a minimum requirement: the girl must be physically mature (is this the right English word?) to marry, i.e. there must have been the first menstruation.

 

I see that the topic starter was Mr BNP, a christian.

I doubt whether he is a true Christian. At least the policy of the British National Party is rather incompatible with the teachings of the NT.

 

May I ask how old was Mary (may Allah be pleased with her) when she was married to Joseph (may Allah be pleased with him)? Anyone can answer this...

 

Customs in that time point to the age of 12 with legal marriage (aka betrothal, engagement) and 13/14 as the time of wedding and consummation of marriage.

Edited by looking by

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

:D / Peace to All

 

Muhammad had more than four wives at the same time. How do you call a Muslim following this example?

If I am not mistaken, most Muslims will say that this is unlawful for an ordinary man. So the question is: is the marriage to Aisha an exception, that should not be followed (like having more than four wives), or is it an example to be followed? Where do You get Your laws from?

 

Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) was Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) third wife.

Her marriage was just like the rest, the only difference is she was a young girl when they were married. It's not a special exception.

Society today does not practise marriage to young girls, but if all conditions are met in Islam, it is permissible. And it was common practise that time, so it was possible that the other Muslim men living in that time also married younger girls. I'll look into it and see if any of the sahaba(companions of the Prophet), or the Muslims in Mecca or Medina at that time, also married young girls.

As for our Prophet marrying more than 4 wives, I think the topic has already been discussed here.

(www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.gawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=29247"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.gawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=29247[/url]

 

There is at least a minimum requirement: the girl must be physically mature (is this the right English word?) to marry, i.e. there must have been the first menstruation.

 

Yes, mature is the right word. For Aisha, she only moved to the Prophet's house after she reached puberty.

Just asking, is the minimum requirement for marriage that you stated given by christianity?

 

I doubt whether he is a true Christian. At least the policy of the British National Party is rather incompatible with the teachings of the NT.

 

Good one. :D

 

Customs in that time point to the age of 12 with legal marriage (aka betrothal, engagement) and 13/14 as the time of wedding and consummation of marriage.

 

Yes, this is what I heard from some Christian priests when they presented evidences from their religous texts regarding Mary's age.

 

I wanted to bring out this point for mr BNP.

 

Please kindly tell mr BNP, or if he himself is reading this, that if one of Christianity's main figures (and one that Muslims respect as well) was married at what society perceives today as a young age as well, and was approved by the society at that time, think twice before criticising our Prophet and one of his wives the same way.

 

:D / Peace

Edited by freedslave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace from our Lord,

Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) was Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) third wife.

Her marriage was just like the rest, the only difference is she was a young girl when they were married. It's not a special exception.

Very young, indeed.

 

Yes, mature is the right word. For Aisha, she only moved to the Prophet's house after she reached puberty.

I got it that she moved to the household at the age of 6, that is before puberty, and three years later the marriage was consummated, that must have been at the very beginning of puberty ...

 

Just asking, is the minimum requirement for marriage that you stated given by christianity?

No, by common reason.

 

Yes, this is what I heard from some Christian priests when they presented evidences from their religous texts regarding Mary's age.

 

I wanted to bring out this point for mr BNP.

I still feel there is a difference in age, but I'm not he person to base an argument upon it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just 100 years ago the legal age in the United States was 13.

Here is a site so u understand what I mean:

 

(www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.avert(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/aofconsent.htm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.avert(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/aofconsent.htm[/url]

(www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Age_of_consent"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Age_of_consent[/url]

 

If facts just run by people, then there is not point in continuing this debate. These show the legal age of consent in many countries of the world. Please consider that in religion, the age of consent is not determined by "social laws", but most often my biological norms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To those of you who aren't getting it, I don't think that you can ask the question "What would you do if I married your 13-year old sister, etc.?" because we are now living in 2006 in a completely different age than the Prophet Muhammad. What may have been normal at that time is not normal to us now. So to answer your question, right now, I would be sickened that anyone could even imagine having intercourse with a 10 year old, or a 13-year old, or even a 19-year old and I can't imagine why the age of consent is so young. It makes me sick that we don't allow our children to be children for long. However, in the past, who knows? I may have loved the chance to have my 12-year old daughter married to a man who commanded such respect. I don't understand it but, frankly, I don't have to. If you believe that people's cultural practices are their own, no matter how foreign to you, you have to realize that there are some things that will not make sense to you and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sex with a child is sex with a child any way you look at it. Why is it so hard to accept that the prophet wasn't the ideal human being?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sex with a child is sex with a child any way you look at it. Why is it so hard to accept that the prophet wasn't the ideal human being?

Peace 3d,

 

Be very careful how you phrase your replies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is that no human being is perfect, all the greats have certain negative qualities. George Washington was one of the people who did the declaration of independance about every man being equal - yet he owned black slaves, Hitler was a great leader for the german people in the sense that he managed to bring back a country from economic ruins into a super power - yet he persecutued jews, Ghandi was a very peaceful hippie style dude (modern day version of jesus?) - but he smoked weed and stole gold during his youth, Socrates promoted higher levels of knowledge through the idea that we don't really know anything (which many people still don't recognize today) - yet he believed women were incapable of intellectual thought (i think), Muhammad was a great leader for his followers, and established some of the first dignified set of rights that women have gained in history (i've been told), yet he had sexual relations with a child.

 

The reason we admire people is because of the positive qualities they have, and that alone. This not grounds for saying they have no negative qualities. To ignore the negative qualities and declare a human as perfect is blatant ignorance.

 

Muhammad was no perfect human being, though he may have been a respectable one :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point is that no human being is perfect,

You can't compare Prophets (Peace Be Upon Them, All), and Im talking about ALL Prophets to regular human beings. Prophet's were perfect, they are the epitome of humanity...

Muhammad was no perfect human being, though he may have been a respectable one :D

The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) IS the perfect human being, at least to us. And, being that this is an Islamic Forum, you don't disrespect Him in His own house...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) IS the perfect human being, at least to us. And, being that this is an Islamic Forum, you don't disrespect Him in His own house...

 

A logical arguement about why muhammad is perfect would constitute a proof a of his perfection. If you have no such proof then you're just being irrational in your beliefs. I assume you have sum an arguement in mind as to why muhammad is perfect. I'm all ears :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that people are arguing that, in this day and age, sex with a child is absolutely wrong. However, in that day and age, it may have been common practice. For example, personally, I am disgusted by genital mutilation; however, many women who practice it as part of their culture will vouch for it's practice. I have no place or space from which to judge the practices of a completely different culture much less a completely different age. It is called cultural relativism. What is wrong in our eyes relative to our culture may be right to another relative to their culture. It's not about the perfection or imperfection of humanity. Personally, I don't believe prophets, disciples, etc in any religion are perfect. That's what makes them human (and interesting/charismatic). However, you can't argue this one same point (or rather re-argue ineffectually) because it's not from your time/space. Until you can address this dichotomy between where you come from and where they came from, you can't be effective in your contention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not about the perfection or imperfection of humanity. Personally, I don't believe prophets, disciples, etc in any religion are perfect. That's what makes them human (and interesting/ charismatic). However, you can't argue this one same point (or rather re-argue ineffectually) because it's not from your time/space.

 

Sat Sri Akal

 

So you mean to say tht even Guru Nanak Dev ji was not perfect ?? Right ?? On this point I can agree with you because he was not a Prophet BUT was a Spiritual man - who always used to Worship One True GOD but UNKNOWN to us.

 

Allah (SWT) informs us to: "Produce your evidences if you speak the truth" (Qur'an 2:111)

 

Provide us with a clear proof from the Sri Guru Granth Sahib that establishes when the right time for marriage is. Taken from: (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.geocities(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/islam_sikhism/"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.geocities(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/islam_sikhism/[/url]

 

Why I'm asking you this becuase this will clear your views also, as it already cleared mine :D

 

May GOD Bless you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that people are arguing that, in this day and age, sex with a child is absolutely wrong. However, in that day and age, it may have been common practice. For example, personally, I am disgusted by genital mutilation; however, many women who practice it as part of their culture will vouch for it's practice. I have no place or space from which to judge the practices of a completely different culture much less a completely different age. It is called cultural relativism. What is wrong in our eyes relative to our culture may be right to another relative to their culture. It's not about the perfection or imperfection of humanity. Personally, I don't believe prophets, disciples, etc in any religion are perfect. That's what makes them human (and interesting/charismatic). However, you can't argue this one same point (or rather re-argue ineffectually) because it's not from your time/space. Until you can address this dichotomy between where you come from and where they came from, you can't be effective in your contention.

 

It's called progress for a reason. Over time it is expected that with higher levels of knowledge society becomes much more intelligent and civilized and the societal standards of morality is pushed to higher levels (i.e. the liberalist ideoloy being a new concept). We know much more and far more civilized in the modern era then those of the past. Marrying your cousin, burning witches at the stake, killing unnamed babies and engaging in sexual relations with underage children maybe accepted by people of the ancient times but thing is we know better then they do. We as a society far more superior in terms of knowledge and moral standards then those of the past, in particular with regards to things like human rights, tolerance of differences, elimination of discrimination, elimination of slavery etc.

 

To say that it was ok in the past and that makes it perfectly acceptable implies that if society suddenly decided that raping little children was acceptable, then that is morally fine. Morality if such a thing exists is not varied with the views of the ignorant masses but it varies by the level of knowledge aviailable in our time. We learn things now that we could say were bad in the past. Like George washington signing the declaration of independance yet keeping black slaves. You cannot dismiss the negative qualities of anyone of the past as irrelevant to determing if they were the perfect human being. However the reason we admire people is not because they were perfect (which none are) but because of the positive qualities they possessed. Only here the persons negative qualities are not factored in and we say "hey! this guy did this, this and this! he was a pretty great guy!" :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3d shocker - I don't think you understand what I'm saying at all. Either that or you are not reading my posts carefully enough. What was acceptable in the past may not be acceptable today (ie. intercourse with children) However, because of that we cannot judge someone's actions in what was accepted and common practice in the past by today's standards. For example, in the past, people believed that the world was flat. Well, today we know that is not true. Despite this, we cannot say that all those people were idiots because they simply did not know any better. If today somebody walked around stating that the world was flat, we would be justified in thinking he was an idiot. Likewise, if a new religion arose whose Prophet felt it was ok to have intercourse with children, that would also not be acceptable. Although we recognize it as a negative quality presently, I'm sure it wasn't seen as stigmatic back then so we can't judge from our vantage point.

 

Subhaanallah - I'm going to take your response to my post as how you meant it. Being a relatively bright individual, I can see that you're attempting to discredit Sikhi. Let me start by stating that yes, you are right. I don't consider Guru Nanak Dev Ji to be a prophet. I do not take it as the insult that you intended. I'm not a fundamentalist, baptized Sikh in the context that Guru Gobind Singh Ji intended so I'm not going to argue that with you in the slightest. However, I also do not believe there are any real prophets, sons of God, etc. Only very spiritual men who are all (including us) children of God. Of course Guru Nanak Dev Ji was not perfect, he was simply a good man who tried to be the best he could. I would say that about Jesus as well and Muhammad(although baptized Sikhs/Muslims/Christians would passionately disagree and here would arise the kerfuffle as staunchly religious folk of ANY religion are usually too set in their ways to see that there are different points of view and we can all have them without hating one another or insulting one another's beliefs. you'd have fundamentalist Muslims talking about Muhammad's miracles and fundamentalist Christians talking about Jesus' miracles and fundamentalist Sikhs talking about the Gurus' miracles, etc.) I'm sure that the person I've studied Guru Nanak Dev Ji to be would have been the first person to say that he is far from perfect and that there's always room for improvement. And you're right, Guru Nanak Dev Ji worshipped one true God who was unknown to us. Um, are you really so hubristic to think that you actually know who/what the real God is? Do you offer proof? If so, you should publish and quickly as I fall to your feet and follow any religion you wish to espouse. That is what I find so wonderful about my version of Sikhi...we are people, we make mistakes, we don't know all and sometimes we're not meant to. We don't know God on a personal basis. Our goodness is a search for that truth.

As to your other question...HUH? What does it mean? I don't know if you've read any of my other threads but Sikhi and the Guru Granth Sahib does not give one a set of rules to follow that are transient and ever-changing. While "Do not steal thy neighbour's goat" may have been a valid concern in 1500 Punjab, it sure as sugar isn't that pertinent in 21st century Canada. The Gurus recognized that time changes...what is valid/lawful/acceptable changes but human nature and the nature of goodness does not change. Sikhi doesn't provide you with hard and fast rules and guidelines. It simply shows you what qualities you need to be a good person and if you, having free will, follow them, you will be at peace with yourself and be a use to others. If you choose not to, that also is your free will. While the age of 14 may have been a great age to get married in that time, in Canada now, you can marry at 23 or 24 etc. so that question isn't even really applicable because the two religions are completely different in terms of how they are practiced and what their definition of spirituality is. Just because something is different, it should not mean that you run from it in fear or bash it in ignorance. There is good in everything and we, as people commonly living on this beautiful rock called Earth, should try to see that goodness and learn from it. Which, ultimately, explains what I'm doing here. I'm not here to convert. I love Sikhi. But heck, if Guru Nanak Dev Ji could learn from Kabir and other sufi mystics, I can sure learn from everything around me. Islam interests me the most because of Pakistan's proximity to Punjab and historical Mughal presence in India. So now I'm curious (and notice, I do not make any negative remarks about Islam because I think it is rude and disrespectful to put down anybody's beliefs - unless they are blatantly harming others!) So back to that curiosity...does the Qu'ran actually give an ideal age for marriage? I'd be interested to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe I understand what your saying, though you haven't addressed the points I made?

 

What was acceptable in the past may not be acceptable today

What do you believe caused the change and what was the change that made things unnacceptable? Moral standards we're talkin here.

 

However, because of that we cannot judge someone's actions in what was accepted and common practice in the past by today's standards.
Why not? Why is it that a change in societal standards makes the previous society immune to criticism for their beliefs? If we look back on slavery in south side America during a time which discrimation against the blacks was the norm, are we not allowed to criticize it as a society with bad moral standards containing many rascists? If asked what you thought of slavery, are you not allowed to make a statement about it simply because it happened in the past in a different society?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what changes and made these things unacceptable was the advent of psychology. We also now know that children of certain ages are not emotionally ready for sexual congress and responsibility that comes with marriage and sex. In addition, we live longer. In a society where you only lived to average 4o-50, your whole life span is way less and things have to move along faster. Because we know about the psychological aspects, our moral compass has shifted (IMO)

 

Why not? Why is it that a change in societal standards makes the previous society immune to criticism for their beliefs? If we look back on slavery in south side America during a time which discrimation against the blacks was the norm, are we not allowed to criticize it as a society with bad moral standards containing many rascists? If asked what you thought of slavery, are you not allowed to make a statement about it simply because it happened in the past in a different society?

 

Good point. I think I'm starting to see where you're coming from. The difference, as I see it, though is that whites knowingly caused harm to blacks and degraded them and treated them badly and imprisoned them. It is a totally different case from people who are living a society norm that was not believed to cause harm. I'm sure that some whites thought that they were doing the "savages" a favor by civilizing them but most knew that they were treating the blacks in a wrong manner. On the other hand, marrying young was a societal norm where it was not meant to cause harm to the female. IMO, that would be the difference between the two.

 

In terms of morality, it's hard to answer. My morals in present day society being raised in my parents home are different than someone's morals centuries before would have been. Heck, even different family members in the same home sometimes have different morals so that's very subjective. I think that, as we learn more about the world, we develop a better sense of what our morals are. I wasn't really sure what you were asking!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×