130 réponses à ce sujet

[Godak]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

In addition to me having lived in the Middle East, visisted most of the countries and met with many people, all of which reject this. In addition to going to many conferences, meetings, lecture...etc from ISlamic scholars who also reject this and provide their evidence from the book.

But the two countries most talked about in Western media, Iran and Saudi Arabia, are both very conservative, and they taint the entire perception of the religion.

[addiction21]

Godak wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

In addition to me having lived in the Middle East, visisted most of the countries and met with many people, all of which reject this. In addition to going to many conferences, meetings, lecture...etc from ISlamic scholars who also reject this and provide their evidence from the book.

But the two countries most talked about in Western media, Iran and Saudi Arabia, are both very conservative, and they taint the entire perception of the religion.

lol you said taint  3:29

[Fexelea]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

First off, key things to remember when talking about Aisha:
In Arabia, mortality rates were very high, due to hugner, war, disease and what have you. Thus it was a necessity for women to marry very early and convieve as many children as possible, in order to sustain a high fertility rate.
So women marrying very young was very normal and once they show the first signs of puberty, they were seen as elligible to marriage.

A 6-7 year old girl is nowhere near puberty. Of course arranged marriages and child marriages where common at the time, but the consumation of that marriage at age 9 was not common: child bearing was not an option since she was not even menstruating yet.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
So Prophet Muhammade's marriage to Aisha was considered normal and no one saw it as a problem.

What was once acceptable in the face of one proclaimed as a Holy Man and what is acceptable today in retrospective are not equal things. All I was pointing out what that there is interpretation to be had when reading any religious literature.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
The problem is that taking a modern day law (that keeps changing BTW) and trying to judge a man who lived 1400 years before this law. Pedophilia, as a legal charge, varries from country to country. If we are to say that men who marry women who are less than 16 or 14 or what have you, regardless of the time and place of their birth, then you are condemning humanity for what it was doing for the past several millenia. It isn't a question of interpretation.

Pedophilia is a psychological disorder and it does not include teenagers. It is specific to pre-puberscent kids.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Yes, Aisha would be considered too young by our standards. By their standards, it wasn't at all.

This is not relevant to interpreting ancient mythos that are taken as Holy and basis of today's religions.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Does this mean that today a Muslims should be allowed to do the same? No, because things have changed. It is no longer necessary for women to marry young to sustain a high fertility rate. Do some Muslim coutnries allow it? Yes. Not all agree with it.

But this is your interpretation. Others will argue that if the Prophet could do it and Allah allowed it then why would it change now? Fertility and Mortality are both Allah's whim, so how does anything else change it? This ongoing intra-Islamic debate cannot be concluded until another prophet comes along with further clarification.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
2 sources of Sharia Law, Ijma' (consensus) and Qiyas (measurement) come into play here. Both of those can be used to alter the legal age of marriage for women. Which shows reform is possible within the faith itself.

Indeed the reform is possible. But unfortunately it is still all based on interpretation and selfish people can push things the way it is more convenient for them.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
From the 4 Mathhabs and how popular they are.
The Hanafi school of law (the liberal one) has the majority of followers, both historically and today.
Next comes the Shafi'i (centrists).
Then comes the Maliki (traditionalists)
Then comes the Hanbali, ultra conservatives, who have always been a minority, hsitorically and today.

Regardles of the fact that the Hanafi are far from equal-sex, even if they are more liberal in aspects as marital law (A woman is still obliged to provide sex until the divorce, regardless of her wishes).
The problem with all of this numbers is the polled sample. Islam is fragmented and deeply divided in several mayor stances. Women as second class citizens is not one of them. Also Hanafi followers account for about 33% of Muslim population. The remaining 66% follows a variety of other beliefs that include wide limitations to female rights.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
In addition to me having lived in the Middle East, visisted most of the countries and met with many people, all of which reject this. In addition to going to many conferences, meetings, lecture...etc from ISlamic scholars who also reject this and provide their evidence from the book.

This is personal  observation and I have my own to counter each of those claims. That does not mean my observation is right. It just means those are views.

I would encourage you to research the recent happenings in Malaysia and Indonesia, as well as the Philippines, so that you gain some insight into what the perception of what Islam means is being used as advancement for sexist policies. These changes are recent and alarming, just as the fact that suddendly French muslim descendants want to wear Burkas when the 1st generation muslim immigrants didn't.

[KnightofPhoenix]

http://www.cincinnat...erty-female.htm
"Beginning of puberty: 8 to 13 years "

Aisha had reached puberty when the marriage was consummated. And it was perfectly normal, no one said a thing about it. Her family was ok with it (it was in fact the father, abu Bakr, who asked the Prophet to marry his daughter).

At that time, it was normal.

The Prophet is a holy man yes, but he is a man, in a specific time and place. In his time and place, what he did was normal and no one had a problem with it.
Sure, some think that means that we should do exactly what he did. But that's some. It's not necessarily what the religion is.

Fexelea wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Does this mean that today a Muslims should be allowed to do the same? No, because things have changed. It is no longer necessary for women to marry young to sustain a high fertility rate. Do some Muslim coutnries allow it? Yes. Not all agree with it.

But this is your interpretation. Others will argue that if the Prophet could do it and Allah allowed it then why would it change now? Fertility and Mortality are both Allah's whim, so how does anything else change it? This ongoing intra-Islamic debate cannot be concluded until another prophet comes along with further clarification.

This isn't my interpretation. This is an intrepration by many scholars, which I agree with.
Of course, there is an intra-Islamic debate on this issue.
And no other prophet is coming.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
2 sources of Sharia Law, Ijma' (consensus) and Qiyas (measurement) come into play here. Both of those can be used to alter the legal age of marriage for women. Which shows reform is possible within the faith itself.

Indeed the reform is possible. But unfortunately it is still all based on interpretation and selfish people can push things the way it is more convenient for them.

Sure.
Interpreation is a part of Islam and is known as Ijtihad. The thing is however is that some interpretatiosn are clearly false and choose to take snippets of what the Qu'ran says and ignore the rest, in addition to making errors literally as to what the Book says. 
I am not saying that all interpretations are flase. Some of them are legitimate and the 4 Mathhabs are all legitimate. But some interprretatiosn can be proven to be wrong.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
From the 4 Mathhabs and how popular they are.
The Hanafi school of law (the liberal one) has the majority of followers, both historically and today.
Next comes the Shafi'i (centrists).
Then comes the Maliki (traditionalists)
Then comes the Hanbali, ultra conservatives, who have always been a minority, hsitorically and today.

Regardles of the fact that the Hanafi are far from equal-sex, even if they are more liberal in aspects as marital law (A woman is still obliged to provide sex until the divorce, regardless of her wishes).
The problem with all of this numbers is the polled sample. Islam is fragmented and deeply divided in several mayor stances. Women as second class citizens is not one of them. Also Hanafi followers account for about 33% of Muslim population. The remaining 66% follows a variety of other beliefs that include wide limitations to female rights.

She isn't obliged, if the man is being an ass with her. And the man is definately not allowed to rape his own wife. What that verse was saying is that in order if a husband wants to have sex, his wife should do it, lest her husband start having temptations and start doing it with another.

No where in the Qu'ran does it state that women are second class citizens. The Prophet never said such a thing either. Rather, in the household, in terms of management and responsability, it is the male that is the head.
But in terms of equality, it's pretty clear from the Quran that the value of human beings in the eyes of God lies in piety and that makes women and men equal.
And no, many schools of law, not only Hanafi, recognise this equality. The Philosopher Ibn Rushd wrote about this. In the times of Muhammad, women were at the forefront of Islam.

Did this change? Certainly. But it can change back to the way it's supposed to be.
Are women being treated as second class citizens? Sure. Is that what Islam teaches, many would say no and provide their evidence from the Book.

I would encourage you to research the recent happenings in Malaysia and Indonesia, as well as the Philippines, so that you gain some insight into what the perception of what Islam means is being used as advancement for sexist policies. These changes are recent and alarming, just as the fact that suddendly French muslim descendants want to wear Burkas when the 1st generation muslim immigrants didn't.

I know, you think I am proud?
And having the West do what it's doing is not helping.


Your entire point seems to be: it's based on interpretation.
Sure. Then it's not the faith itself you should attack, it's the interpretations that you should. Interpretations that are not and never have held by the majority.
 
The initial post I responded to was to the assumption that that's how Sharia Law is, and that's how it always has to be. And it's nothing but oppression to women, which isn't the case historically.

I am not disagreeing with you. Yes, interpretations matter. And what some Islamic countries are doing is abhorent. That doesn't mean that's what Islam is or what it has to be. That was my whole point. 

Anyways, I am heading off to sleep.
Goodnight  

 
 

[Fexelea]

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...

http://www.cincinnat...erty-female.htm
"Beginning of puberty: 8 to 13 years " [/quote]

I dispute that is relevant based on two things: 1. This is an average as calculated in modern society when it has been proven that hunger and harship delay the process considerably. 2. Menstration average age, even in our modern well-fed world, is 12.

A 9 year old girl who has started to develop SOME aspects of puberty does not make her a pubert. Therefore Muhhamed's attraction can be interpreted as pedophilia.

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Aisha had reached puberty when the marriage was consummated. And it was perfectly normal, no one said a thing about it. Her family was ok with it (it was in fact the father, abu Bakr, who asked the Prophet to marry his daughter).  [/quote]

There is no "age of puberty". Puberty is not reached. It is a process and the term is used to determine a disorder based on being attracted to the body of a child vs being attracted to the body of a female. It's about breasts, hair, menstruation and ultimately hip enlargement. Puberty does not end in 1 year. It ends after the entire process is done, which means until that moment sexual intercourse with the child is still considered indicative of a disorder.

And the fact remains that Aisha was not menstruating when this consumation happened, meaning that conception was not the motive.

And again, the contemporary acceptance of a practice does not make it tolerable in retrospective to the outsider. You interpret it as being the actions of a Holy Man in cultural context. Others interpret it as pedophilia being allowed by cultural context.

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
The Prophet is a holy man yes, but he is a man, in a specific time and place. In his time and place, what he did was normal and no one had a problem with it.
Sure, some think that means that we should do exactly what he did. But that's some. It's not necessarily what the religion is. [/quote]


Of course it is not. Yet many will base these descriptions to justify selling your daughters as children. I brought this up not to argue right or wrong, but to point out: It's about interpretation.


[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
This isn't my interpretation. This is an intrepration by many scholars, which I agree with.
Of course, there is an intra-Islamic debate on this issue.
And no other prophet is coming. [/quote]

It's an interpretation anyway, even if it is shared with scholars. There is a debate, because those are interpretations

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Sure.
Interpreation is a part of Islam and is known as Ijtihad. The thing is however is that some interpretatiosn are clearly false and choose to take snippets of what the Qu'ran says and ignore the rest, in addition to making errors literally as to what the Book says. [/quote]


What you point out as selective reading and false interpretations are the meaningful truths for others. Unfortunately those people are gaining power whilst the logic or modernity oriented ones get relegated to scholarly debates that accomplish little.

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I am not saying that all interpretations are flase. Some of them are legitimate and the 4 Mathhabs are all legitimate. But some interprretatiosn can be proven to be wrong. [/quote]

"Proven" is a word that does not fit into interpretation. You can conclude or demonstrate an interpretation to be innacurate, yet in this particular case you would first have to gain hand over all the political and social forces that want certain things to be done to promote their interests. Unfortunately this is not happening, and female rights are bypassed daily.

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
She isn't obliged, if the man is being an ass with her. And the man is definately not allowed to rape his own wife. [/quote]

He is allowed to "take her by force". That means ("marital") rape. I was part of a discussion on this subject on another forum.

"... It is otherwise where a
woman, residing in the house of her husband, refuses to admit him to
the conjugal embrace, as she is entitled to maintenance,
notwithstanding her opposition, because being then in his power, he may, if he please, enjoys her by force ..."



source:



THE HEDAYA COMMENTARY ON THE ISLAMIC LAWS (reprint 1994) Translated by
Charles Hamilton, Published by Kitab Bhaban , 1784 Kalan Mahal, Darya
Ganj, New Delhi 110002 [India] , p. 194

Precedent in court as well: http://www.thememrib...al/en/3861.htm.

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
No where in the Qu'ran does it state that women are second class citizens. [/quote]

They are property to be taken as sex slaves if you capture them in war, or so would the verses 24 in Surah al Nikah would have you believe Allah condones rape even of married women. Regardless what the Qran says is irrelevant, as it is what people interpret what gets pushed through. This could be discounted as a crude description of the reality of war in "barbaric" times, yet others will chose to uphold it as proof that Allah has check-boxes to accept rape.

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
The Prophet never said such a thing either. Rather, in the household, in terms of management and responsability, it is the male that is the head. [/quote]

And this is sexist. Households should not have heads. A marriage is an equal partnership under the law and modern society needs to do away with any "wearing the pants" ideas. (Of course not only in Islam)

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
But in terms of equality, it's pretty clear from the Quran that the value of human beings in the eyes of God lies in piety and that makes women and men equal. [/quote]

Except when the man is allowed to rape the captive woman without any sin on him.

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
And no, many schools of law, not only Hanafi, recognise this equality. The Philosopher Ibn Rushd wrote about this. In the times of Muhammad, women were at the forefront of Islam. [/quote]

This is hardly the case today, and I dispute your claims to equality amongst these laws. Written by men, who admit their law is not godly, but still followed as gospel, the schools are still far from equal in many aspects, like the testimony in court or the right to take your children with you after a divorce.

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Did this change? Certainly. But it can change back to the way it's supposed to be.
Are women being treated as second class citizens? Sure. Is that what Islam teaches, many would say no and provide their evidence from the Book. [/quote]

But those many are being destructed by the other many who would like to have subservient females and would like to be respected because they have something dangling between their legs.

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I know, you think I am proud?
And having the West do what it's doing is not helping. [/quote]


1. No I don't think you are proud and I think you are in a very difficult position, since you have found wisdom in this religion that other people care not for, and those people are more interested in social and political control than in actually learning said wisdom of the beliefs.
2. "The West". Meh. I don't see what Brazil has done to anyone.

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Your entire point seems to be: it's based on interpretation.
Sure. Then it's not the faith itself you should attack, it's the interpretations that you should. Interpretations that are not and never have held by the majority. [/quote]

When did I attack the faith? I am commenting on the application of that faith that is visible. Women are denied their rights and treated as second class citizens in the majority of Muslims countries. I'm not interpreting that. If the fault of this lays with the few that are in government is irrelevant: the population still stands by this so-called islamic inspired laws.
 
[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
The initial post I responded to was to the assumption that that's how Sharia Law is, and that's how it always has to be. And it's nothing but oppression to women, which isn't the case historically. [/quote]

It is the case and tendency now, which is why people see it the way they do. That's all I was saying. I do not agree with the immutability of sharia law, as it is indeed fluctuating. However by interlinking religion and politics Islam has become but a tool for greedy horrible men to perpetuate their petty power struggles and the ones that have suffered for this have been the women.

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I am not disagreeing with you. Yes, interpretations matter. And what some Islamic countries are doing is abhorent. That doesn't mean that's what Islam is or what it has to be. That was my whole point. 

Anyways, I am heading off to sleep.
Goodnight  
 [/quote]

I hope Islam can show a more modern and moderate face to the world. Not "the west" but the world.

[Stanley Woo]

No discussion of politics or religion here please, folks. It always ends in tears, mine as well as other people's. Sorry.



ENd of line.