[mariachi]

(Original post by Iqbal007)
It is not a crime, as they were the ones who committed the crime and were punished accordingly to the law, at which time in Medina was each groups own laws for their own people.

All this showed was tolerance of each groups laws, Medina had a constitution which was used appropriately if their law was to let them go, they would have done so, but it didn't.

How was he responsible, when they acted out of line and into treason, secondly the upholding of the law was done by Auws.

again, read Ibn Ishaq's Rasulallah

the whole massacre took place under Muhammad's overall authority and responsibility

massacring for "treason" barely pubescent boys, old men (every male who had grown pubic hair) is despicable, and most certainly not an example for anyone

as for the rest, you repeat the same things over and over again (as, for that matter, I am also doing), so there is little point in continuing

bye

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by AmyJ)
If this is true, then why did he have sex with her? Could he not have simply gone through with the marriage for political reasons, and then made a choice never to consummate / or to consummate many years later?

As for the thread about her being 17, that is very clearly wrong unless you have serious doubts about scholars like Bukhari, who supposedly authored the most authentic of all hadith collections.

That's a part of the marriage and the agreement, another thing is did you even bother to read the rest.
I am simple telling you about the difference of opinion of her age, along side the fact that Aisha would not be considered a child by todays standard if you followed the opinion she is "9 years old" as she would be much more mature as were any other females at the time.

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by mariachi)
again, read Ibn Ishaq's Rasulallah

the whole massacre took place under Muhammad's overall authority and responsibility

massacring for "treason" barely pubescent boys, old men (every male who had grown pubic hair) is despicable, and most certainly not an example for anyone

as for the rest, you repeat the same things over and over again (as, for that matter, I am also doing), so there is little point in continuing

bye

"In hadith studies, ibn Isḥaq's hadith is generally thought to be "good" (ḥasan) (assuming an accurate and trustworthy isnad, or chain of transmission)[23] and himself having a reputation of being "sincere" or "trustworthy" (ṣadūq). However, a general analysis of his isnads has given him the negative distinction of being a mudallis, meaning one who did not name his teacher, claiming instead to narrate directly from his teacher's teacher.[24] Because of his tadlīs, many scholars including Muhammad al-Bukhari hardly ever used his narrations in their sahih books.[25] According to al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, all scholars of ahadith except one no longer rely on any of his narrations, although truth is not foreign to him.[26] Others, like Ahmad ibn Hanbal, rejected his narrations on all matters related to fiqh.[3] Al-Dhahabī concluded that despite his good qualities any narration solely transmitted through him should probably be considered as containing munkar.[13]"

That's about the writer, whom isn't completely reliable.

It wasn't a massacre considering it was a punishment for committing a crime against the law.
All he did was told the Auws to go about and sort this issue out and act within the constitution which it was done.

Again your comparing todays standards with the past, back than they wouldn't be considered "boys" as they matured much quicker than their modern counterpart so would also be considered able fighters and soldiers.

My point stands, everything was acted within the constitution, and would be an example today, please tell me who would bring up Jewish law if they were caught for treason

[AmyJ]

(Original post by Iqbal007)
That's a part of the marriage and the agreement, another thing is did you even bother to read the rest.
I am simple telling you about the difference of opinion of her age, along side the fact that Aisha would not be considered a child by todays standard if you followed the opinion she is "9 years old" as she would be much more mature as were any other females at the time.

What was part of the marriage contract? Is marrying her at 6 and consummating at 9 what passes for "restraint"?

Your argument that 9 year olds were "much more mature" in that era has to do with their responsibilities, it has nothing whatsoever to do with their capacity (or lack thereof) for sex; you're clutching at straws. The most intellectually and physically developed 9 year old ever to exist would not be emotionally ready for a sexual relationship, in any era. Aisha was still playing with dolls when Muhammad married her. The Islamic reasoning that has been used to defend the "Aisha situation" for centuries is that she had entered puberty, and puberty = emotional sexual maturity and so Muhammad wasn't doing anything wrong.

That logic is as faulty now as it has ever been. You are defending the indefensible.

[FuLLuPMepOrtION]

yyyeeesss jjaaasssooonnn kkkeennnnnnnyyyy

[...mo...]

(Original post by x[Aa$iyah]x)
i second that

i third that

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by AmyJ)
What was part of the marriage contract? Is marrying her at 6 and consummating at 9 what passes for "restraint"?

Your argument that 9 year olds were "much more mature" in that era has to do with their responsibilities, it has nothing whatsoever to do with their capacity (or lack thereof) for sex; you're clutching at straws. The most intellectually and physically developed 9 year old ever to exist would not be emotionally ready for a sexual relationship, in any era. Aisha was still playing with dolls when Muhammad married her. The Islamic reasoning that has been used to defend the "Aisha situation" for centuries is that she had entered puberty, and puberty = emotional sexual maturity and so Muhammad wasn't doing anything wrong.

That logic is as faulty now as it has ever been. You are defending the indefensible.

Marriage includes consummation, if it wasn't done it would look bad on the political unity side of things.
Also I have already stated that the age thing is in dispute with one opinion saying she was 17.

So maturity wise mentally means they are by todays standards capable adults, hence are able to make decisions which todays equivalent wouldn't be able to do so. If you also look I also did state that they matured physically as well and sexually compared to todays equivalent.....and through the different expectations at the time would also be more emotionally mature as well. They could almost definitely be, look at Mary it's said she was only 11 or so when giving birth to Jesus pbuh. It still stands, it also comes with other factors besides, there are numerous hadiths stating her wisdom at such a young age and being far outspoken as a female at the time.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by Iqbal007)
Well I actually went to a Christian primary school, so always was surrounded by Christianity, only to an extent my entire were religious. Grouping like this came with social pressure, especially at secondary.... which I actually personally grew out of it because of the way things were.

There is a simple question you got to answer and think about carefully, if you were born into a family of another faith would you find your current faith...........it's not answer as yes or no, but thorough consideration....once you can figure that out, than to many extents you have chosen your faiths.

I actually advocate religiousness in my family, trying to stem out cultural values which conflict, so I wouldn't say someone else has put this into me.

though the same could be said

Depends what has a larger impact on your well being... Your parents raising you, for most of your young life or the school (complete with social pressure) you go to for a portion of the day everyday for a decade or two, the same could be said for living in a Christian country... While I did say "etc" in my last post, there is a reason why I mentioned parenting as it has a significant impact on a child growing up...

Interesting though I may be misunderstanding, Are you saying if a Christian was re-born but into a hindu family for example, would he still (eventually) come back to Christianity? Is this is right, then I don't really see it as for example being lost from the 'path' and trying to find it again. How you are raised makes a significant impact on who you are as well as your religious beliefs, and if there weren't significant factors that would affect your beliefs, then the Christian will most likely (though not certainly) become Hindu...

For me my mum is Hindu, my dad is relaxed, while I can't deduce with certainity, what my 'significant factor' is, I believe it is the fact that I was raised in an extremely casual and relaxed environment where god was not even mentioned very many times. As a result, I was less likely to be 'indoctrinated' as others put it by the Hindu religion. The opposite goes for my education where my multicultural school (I.e. 95% theist asian, 4% theist other race, 1% non typical theist other), would have emphasised religion given I didn't know a single atheist while I was there. Though despite this, For the typical family, parental involvement would more likely have a higher impact on a persons religious beliefs. Which is why it is common to have families with one main religion

While there are exceptions to the rule, I believe this to be generally true which is why I take a pinch of salt to those who say they 'chose' their religion. Afterall, being taught a religion and being exposed to a religion are two different things.
Whether this includes you, I don't know, I wasn't in your school to witness what kind of impact it has compared to your parents.

But to go back to the original point, no you wouldn't be able to tell if you were brainwashed unless you have some form of help...

[newhope]

(Original post by x[Aa$iyah]x)
tell me one muslim country which doesnt allow building of churchs and temples

whole load of ****ing bull****

Iran/ Iraq/ Saudi/ Pakistan/Syria?

This is just to name a few. I understand this since the % of Hindus and Christians are properly low.

If you look in the US/UK the % of Muslims are decent BUT just like the Hindus and Christians do not force their faith/culture in the countries I mentioned above the same way the Muslims should not think that they can bring Sharia law into UK

Different country so different cultures. Lets leave it like that.

I have lived in a Muslim country and followed the Muslim laws. The government here says on thing which I agree with '' you do not like our rules then leave and go back to your country, but do not try to change our rules.''

Same can be said for Muslims who visit UK. If you want to follow Sharia laws then best to stay in a Muslim country!

And no need to get so upset!

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
though the same could be said

Depends what has a larger impact on your well being... Your parents raising you, for most of your young life or the school (complete with social pressure) you go to for a portion of the day everyday for a decade or two, the same could be said for living in a Christian country... While I did say "etc" in my last post, there is a reason why I mentioned parenting as it has a significant impact on a child growing up...

Interesting though I may be misunderstanding, Are you saying if a Christian was re-born but into a hindu family for example, would he still (eventually) come back to Christianity? Is this is right, then I don't really see it as for example being lost from the 'path' and trying to find it again. How you are raised makes a significant impact on who you are as well as your religious beliefs, and if there weren't significant factors that would affect your beliefs, then the Christian will most likely (though not certainly) become Hindu...

For me my mum is Hindu, my dad is relaxed, while I can't deduce with certainity, what my 'significant factor' is, I believe it is the fact that I was raised in an extremely casual and relaxed environment where god was not even mentioned very many times. As a result, I was less likely to be 'indoctrinated' as others put it by the Hindu religion. The opposite goes for my education where my multicultural school (I.e. 95% theist asian, 4% theist other race, 1% non typical theist other), would have emphasised religion given I didn't know a single atheist while I was there. Though despite this, For the typical family, parental involvement would more likely have a higher impact on a persons religious beliefs. Which is why it is common to have families with one main religion

While there are exceptions to the rule, I believe this to be generally true which is why I take a pinch of salt to those who say they 'chose' their religion. Afterall, being taught a religion and being exposed to a religion are two different things.
Whether this includes you, I don't know, I wasn't in your school to witness what kind of impact it has compared to your parents.

But to go back to the original point, no you wouldn't be able to tell if you were brainwashed unless you have some form of help...

My parents never really played that much of a part, they taught me more cultured view point on things. I read up by myself and in fact teach them and others in my family about the issues and importance of Islam.

Not like that, but say you had a faith you believed in, the question is that if you were born into another family which followed another faith, would have found the faith you so strongly believe in. It is a good thoughtful question which reaffirms some peoples faith whereas opens eyes for others. Depends on entirely on the method you are brought up as you have the issue of cultural viewpoints and your own parents opinions which conflict with the faith in many cases.

I realise with Hindu's there seems to a much more relaxed position to 2nd generations of the Hindu faith, they seem to have let go on their faith more considerable then before. I actually stayed away from people of my own group at the time as many weren't practicing and well were "badmans".

It'll depend on upbringing, but some do research their faith as they grow up

[Florrick.]

This is seriously stupid. Shariah compromises of everything, it isn't just prescribed for Muslims only, it isn't a Muslim-only law! It also has laws in how to kindly tolerate the Non-Muslim population and there are some laws that guarantee special exception such as serving alcohol, pork etc reserved for them and them only.

And what's more, Shariah has influenced Western laws and there are laws in the UK that parallel Shariah e.g. allowing halal meat, mosques, synagogues, churches, freedom to debate, choose who your leaders are etc.


I think why there is so much controversy stirred about it is simply because of the media and people linking it to how Christianity used to be in the UK and how contemporary Muslim countries act which is not in accordance to full Shariah i.e. no caliphate.

It's probably because also, people think as a result of being "foreign", it must be wrong and terrible. In the same way, I'd feel comfortable in choosing strawberry, vanilla and chocolate milkshake but not dragonfruit milkshake because it sounds foreign so it must be something weird and horrible.

[newhope]

(Original post by Florrick.)
This is seriously stupid. Shariah compromises of everything, it isn't just prescribed for Muslims only, it isn't a Muslim-only law! It also has laws in how to kindly tolerate the Non-Muslim population and there are some laws that guarantee special exception such as serving alcohol, pork etc reserved for them and them only.

And what's more, Shariah has influenced Western laws and there are laws in the UK that parallel Shariah e.g. allowing halal meat, mosques, synagogues, churches, freedom to debate, choose who your leaders are etc.


I think why there is so much controversy stirred about it is simply because of the media and people linking it to how Christianity used to be in the UK and how contemporary Muslim countries act which is not in accordance to full Shariah i.e. no caliphate.

It's probably because also, people think as a result of being "foreign", it must be wrong and terrible. In the same way, I'd feel comfortable in choosing strawberry, vanilla and chocolate milkshake but not dragonfruit milkshake because it sounds foreign so it must be something weird and horrible.

I disagree that people think it is foreign?

I think it is because the Sharia laws are a bit strict. People in the UK will not like to follow such rules. I do not mind things like halal only meat since that is a sign of respect which is all ok.

[Florrick.]

(Original post by newhope)
I disagree that people think it is foreign?

I think it is because the Sharia laws are a bit strict. People in the UK will not like to follow such rules. I do not mind things like halal only meat since that is a sign of respect which is all ok.

Oh yeah. I forgot to add that point too, because the way religion has been in Europe, which is pretty repressive and to today, which is far far more "liberal", it kinda went from one extreme to the other extreme. But Islam hasn't been like that at all, it was pretty much bang in the middle, it is a conservative religion but it's not the same as religious rule was in Europe, it was a lot more relaxed but not too relaxed at the same time.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by Iqbal007)
My parents never really played that much of a part, they taught me more cultured view point on things. I read up by myself and in fact teach them and others in my family about the issues and importance of Islam.

Not like that, but say you had a faith you believed in, the question is that if you were born into another family which followed another faith, would have found the faith you so strongly believe in. It is a good thoughtful question which reaffirms some peoples faith whereas opens eyes for others. Depends on entirely on the method you are brought up as you have the issue of cultural viewpoints and your own parents opinions which conflict with the faith in many cases.

I realise with Hindu's there seems to a much more relaxed position to 2nd generations of the Hindu faith, they seem to have let go on their faith more considerable then before. I actually stayed away from people of my own group at the time as many weren't practicing and well were "badmans".

It'll depend on upbringing, but some do research their faith as they grow up

I'm still having a little difficulty with the middle paragraph. Is the bold not exactly like the example I gave? Only other scenerio I can think of that may refer to what you are saying is that you believe you can be say born christian and raised in a non Christian house for example. If this is correct, then, while spiritually thought provoking, in terms of actually being apart of said faith, I don't think you can be born one and would go back to the explanation I gave previously.

I don't think it's specifically Hinduism as you imply. I've seen people from many faiths 'let go' as you put it while also seeing people stick to what would be considered normal practice e.g. I know a friend who sticks with Hinduism as you may think of it as being. It's because we are living in the western world absorbing it's culture. Personally, I don't see much wrong with this (in terms of net benefit) nor do I think people should revert back...though yes, bad mans peeve me off, though so do aspects not linked to western culture e.g. The whole honour/marriage crap etc

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
I'm still having a little difficulty with the middle paragraph. Is the bold not exactly like the example I gave? Only other scenerio I can think of that may refer to what you are saying is that you believe you can be say born christian and raised in a non Christian house for example. If this is correct, then, while spiritually thought provoking, in terms of actually being apart of said faith, I don't think you can be born one and would go back to the explanation I gave previously.

I don't think it's specifically Hinduism as you imply. I've seen people from many faiths 'let go' as you put it while also seeing people stick to what would be considered normal practice e.g. I know a friend who sticks with Hinduism as you may think of it as being. It's because we are living in the western world absorbing it's culture. Personally, I don't see much wrong with this (in terms of net benefit) nor do I think people should revert back...though yes, bad mans peeve me off, though so do aspects not linked to western culture e.g. The whole honour/marriage crap etc

Maybe you confused me I meant the other thing, where would you find your current faith if you were born into another.

I go to a pretty Asian uni, Hindu's there don't seem as strict which surprised me, my only issue has always been culture, whether it's Western or South Asian, many aspects conflict with faith which I dislike, but you can live by it without accepting those aspects which conflict.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by Iqbal007)
Maybe you confused me I meant the other thing, where would you find your current faith if you were born into another.

I go to a pretty Asian uni, Hindu's there don't seem as strict which surprised me, my only issue has always been culture, whether it's Western or South Asian, many aspects conflict with faith which I dislike, but you can live by it without accepting those aspects which conflict.

Are we not talking about hypotheticals of what it would be like to be reborn elsewhere?

True, though obviously experience doesn't account for much when talking about religions in general. We wouldn't know what kind of extent this has

[aliyah.k]

Mad just mad


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[aliyah.k]

If you want sharia law go to a Muslim country and you'll see


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
Are we not talking about hypotheticals of what it would be like to be reborn elsewhere?

True, though obviously experience doesn't account for much when talking about religions in general. We wouldn't know what kind of extent this has

Oh not like that, but it's supposed to get a person of a faith to start properly thinking about their own choice for that faith.

Well it depends entirely, some are easier to point out than others.

[aliyah.k]

(Original post by Iqbal007)
Oh not like that, but it's supposed to get a person of a faith to start properly thinking about their own choice for that faith.

Well it depends entirely, some are easier to point out than others.

But they treat women 2nd class no freedom


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App