Beaten to death with a brick for opposing arranged marriage

[beenie]

On the issue of Fatwa's, Starsoul, it should also be noted that in the Sunni tradition, fatwas are, by nature, non-binding. Fatwa's in Shia Islam are considered binding if the individual already follows the rulings and opinions of that given scholar. If they don't it is also non-binding.

I could have this slightly wrong, but that is my understanding. In essence, the average Muslim is allowed to ignore fatwa's as they see fit. The only problem that may arise is when a fatwa is backed by a given government. It would be unwise for Sunni or Shia followers to ignore those fatwa's.

If I have this wrong, feel free to correct my thinking.

i believe you are correct. heck, i feel that way about religion in general. the rules and guidelines are written for us, but of course we all have the choice whether to follow them or not. if you're a believer in the afterlife, you'll choose wisely.

What are you talking about? Did you even read what i said?

I don't care what you think of religion, so keep it to yourself or share it in a proper thread. I certainly don't care enough to hear it this many times, especially when its irrelevant.

And what is "modern" or "moderate" about what i said? I said scholars are people occupying jobs. Whats so modern about that?

no, he didn't read your post or he wouldn't have replied like he did.

 

[Wotan]

"no, he didn't read your post or he wouldn't have replied like he did. "

Not only did I read it I quoted it.

IF this were the perfect Word of God w/o error or possibility of error EVERYONE reading it would have the SAME interpretation. There wouldn't BE different versions of this myth. Rather like math, ONE answer ONE view ONE interpretation no matter WHO was reading it.

But of course that is NOT what we see.

Why not?

 

[waitasec]

"no, he didn't read your post or he wouldn't have replied like he did. "

Not only did I read it I quoted it.

IF this were the perfect Word of God w/o error or possibility of error EVERYONE reading it would have the SAME interpretation. There wouldn't BE different versions of this myth. Rather like math, ONE answer ONE view ONE interpretation no matter WHO was reading it.

But of course that is NOT what we see.

Why not?

excellent point!!!
:bow:

 

[Badran]

"no, he didn't read your post or he wouldn't have replied like he did. "

Not only did I read it I quoted it.

IF this were the perfect Word of God w/o error or possibility of error EVERYONE reading it would have the SAME interpretation. There wouldn't BE different versions of this myth. Rather like math, ONE answer ONE view ONE interpretation no matter WHO was reading it.

But of course that is NOT what we see.

Why not?

That is an entirely different topic.

 

[Kerr]

I wish I had superpowers, I'd save the poor girls

I know how you feel .

 

[Bismillah]

EVERYONE reading it would have the SAME interpretation.

Because we can understand the words of God

 

[Bismillah]

Even if you take it that the Prophet married Aisha when she was 9, something that I do not believe happened, then it would still be incorrect to try and use it as justification for marrying a child in the modern world.

Like I have stated many times anthropologists, when viewing ancient cultures, remove any inherent bias and cultural perspectives that they hold because they understand society in ancient times was defined by a host of variables that can't be imagined today. Very short lifespans and an environment dominated by tribal warfare that was beyond any structured civilization of today prompted many things, one of which was child marriage. Talk to any respected anthropologist and he will understand that condemning child marriages that took place centuries ago is a childish and severely limited viewpoint of self-righteousness.

While child marriage may have been acceptable in the past, there is no place for it sense many of the reasons for its implementation simply don't exist.

 

[Smoke]

Because we can understand the words of God
[/COLOR]

If there is a god, and he bothers to talk to humans, wouldn't it make sense for him to communicate in a way that could be understood? And if he doesn't, wouldn't it make sense for people -- including Jesus, Muhammad, Bahaullah, Joseph Smith and Oyasama -- to stop claiming that he does?

 

[Bismillah]

If there is a god, and he bothers to talk to humans, wouldn't it make sense for him to communicate in a way that could be understood? And if he doesn't, wouldn't it make sense for people -- including Jesus, Muhammad, Bahaullah, Joseph Smith and Oyasama -- to stop claiming that he does?

The fundamentals of Islam are very clear cut and specifically outlined.

 

[Smoke]

The fundamentals of Islam are very clear cut and specifically outlined.

So what are you saying? That we can understand the words of God? Or that we cannot?

 

[Bismillah]

So what are you saying? That we can understand the words of God? Or that we cannot?

I phrased my wording poorly. What we have been told to do is very clear individually. That is, Islam to me is a very personal religion. There are basic things you have to do and you can interpret what they state according to your own beliefs. The fact is because of varying backgrounds, cultures, and beliefs between Muslims different viewpoints come into being along with different schools of thought and it makes it difficult to resolve these differences on a large scale, but they make sense to us individually even if we disagree with other Muslims.

 

[Wotan]

I phrased my wording poorly. What we have been told to do is very clear individually. That is, Islam to me is a very personal religion. There are basic things you have to do and you can interpret what they state according to your own beliefs. The fact is because of varying backgrounds, cultures, and beliefs between Muslims different viewpoints come into being along with different schools of thought and it makes it difficult to resolve these differences on a large scale, but they make sense to us individually even if we disagree with other Muslims.

IOW, it means whatever YOU say it means. Or whatever the guy next door says it means. Or whatever some Imam says it means. Or whatever some guy reading it thinks it means to him.

In short, or doesn't mean anything.

 

[Bismillah]

it means whatever YOU say it means. Or whatever the guy next door says it means. Or whatever some Imam says it means. Or whatever some guy reading it thinks it means to him.

Religion is a very personal thing, you cannot mass produce and industrialize it. There is a necessary connection between faith and a person or else it will become a collection of meaningless scripture. Obviously we're not going to worship god in the same stoic way. How does that translate to

In short, or doesn't mean anything.

In the end we are all worshiping the same God.

 

[beenie]

"no, he didn't read your post or he wouldn't have replied like he did. "

Not only did I read it I quoted it.

IF this were the perfect Word of God w/o error or possibility of error EVERYONE reading it would have the SAME interpretation. There wouldn't BE different versions of this myth. Rather like math, ONE answer ONE view ONE interpretation no matter WHO was reading it.

But of course that is NOT what we see.

Why not?

everything is open to interpretation, my friend...even our beloved Constitution.

Religion is a very personal thing, you cannot mass produce and industrialize it. There is a necessary connection between faith and a person or else it will become a collection of meaningless scripture. Obviously we're not going to worship god in the same stoic way. How does that translate to In the end we are all worshiping the same God.
[/COLOR]

agreed. that's why the old saying is to never discuss religion and politics.

 

[Autodidact]

Even if you take it that the Prophet married Aisha when she was 9, something that I do not believe happened, then it would still be incorrect to try and use it as justification for marrying a child in the modern world.

Aren't Muslims supposed to model their behavior on that of Muhammad?

Like I have stated many times anthropologists, when viewing ancient cultures, remove any inherent bias and cultural perspectives that they hold because they understand society in ancient times was defined by a host of variables that can't be imagined today. Very short lifespans and an environment dominated by tribal warfare that was beyond any structured civilization of today prompted many things, one of which was child marriage. Talk to any respected anthropologist and he will understand that condemning child marriages that took place centuries ago is a childish and severely limited viewpoint of self-righteousness.

We're not. We're condemning child marriage taking place today. Literally. Today, somewhere in the Muslim world, a little girl is being married off to some man she barely knows, three times her age.

While child marriage may have been acceptable in the past, there is no place for it sense many of the reasons for its implementation simply don't exist.

Where do you find this in the quran or hadith?

 

[Autodidact]

Because we can understand the words of God
[/color]

Well O.K. then let's start with throwing the quran out the window then, and using our brains to figure things out.

 

[Autodidact]

The fundamentals of Islam are very clear cut and specifically outlined.

Really? Then why is it the Muslims find it so hard to agree on what they are?

 

[Autodidact]

I phrased my wording poorly. What we have been told to do is very clear individually. That is, Islam to me is a very personal religion. There are basic things you have to do and you can interpret what they state according to your own beliefs. The fact is because of varying backgrounds, cultures, and beliefs between Muslims different viewpoints come into being along with different schools of thought and it makes it difficult to resolve these differences on a large scale, but they make sense to us individually even if we disagree with other Muslims.

Wait, is it outlined clearly, or is it up to each individual to interpret? I'm confused. They each make sense to each of you individually even if no two Muslims agree on what they are, and they all contradict each other, even though they're clearly outlined and it's impossible to understand? This all seems very confusing to me.

 

[Wotan]

"everything is open to interpretation, my friend...even our beloved Constitution."

The Constitution doesn't claim to be the inerrant Word of the one and only living God.

 

[Smoke]

I phrased my wording poorly. What we have been told to do is very clear individually. That is, Islam to me is a very personal religion. There are basic things you have to do and you can interpret what they state according to your own beliefs. The fact is because of varying backgrounds, cultures, and beliefs between Muslims different viewpoints come into being along with different schools of thought and it makes it difficult to resolve these differences on a large scale, but they make sense to us individually even if we disagree with other Muslims.

So basically, you do your thing, and some other Muslim does his thing, and you disagree but you both think you're doing what God directed. "God's word" is a matter of opinion, determined by the culture and predisposition of the hearer.

It's a shame God can't communicate his directions clearly. But since he can't, it seems rash and irresponsible for anybody to claim to speak for him.