Debate a Muslim

[Meow Mix]

See, every single situation cannot be accounted for in a scripture. Its impossible. This line of thought can go on forever.

As a principle in the early Islamic theology from the city of Medina we are taught of "Thaweel ul masaari" which means through the path of time or/and events, the implementation of understanding changes. But this is a historical teaching in theology. You can dismiss it if you want.

The teachings are only offered in general. There are many households where the woman is more qualified than the man and she makes more money. So what to do now? Should the man be the one to work? Nope. Thats absolutely not the position. I will say this again, there is no hard and fast rule that women can't work, men should work. It is the mans duty. This is universal, where ever you live.

You should try to empathise with the whole world if you are to apply anything to society. Not only think from your position. There is no law about a situational tyranny.

I hope you understand.

I understand. But then, why are there people that say there is a universal that must be followed? Where do they get that idea?

 

[firedragon]

I didn't say it was unhealthy, I was saying that if we're saying a man has a duty to work (when there are working households where he is not), wouldn't that be unhealthy to say that their household (which is working) is somehow wrong (since he's supposedly shirking his duty to work)?

No. If someone said "its the rule", then its unhealthy in my opinion. Thats tyranny. And no one said "it is wrong". I think you are turning that into something absolutely different. I hope you understand.

 

[firedragon]

I understand. But then, why are there people that say there is a universal that must be followed? Where do they get that idea?

This is not "a universal". Its a universal sense. I am unable to understand your question "where do they get that idea".

It is the topic you brought up isn't it? Because it is an Islamic teaching in the Qur'an?

 

[epronovost]

Well. There are many instances when a woman is unable to go somewhere, and the other woman can replace her for the purpose of providing witness for a financial dispute. Thats why.

And the same is true for men. Why can women be "replaced", but not men? That seems odd. What if a man is incapacitated? Why can't he be "replaced" by another in his stead?

 

[firedragon]

Please answer my question: does Islamic teaching say anything about certain people having the services of virgins in the afterlife?

If so, what does it say, and where?

If you don't know, just say so.

ITs like this Blu. When you say "islamic teachings" some say there were a million ahadith memorised only by Ibn Hanbal.

Anyway, there is a weak hadith that speaks about houris which doesn't mean virgins. Some people turn it into virgins because of the white eye connotation.

 

[firedragon]

Why can women be "replaced", but not men?

Who said women can be replaced and not men?

 

[epronovost]

Who said women can be replaced and not men?

You did.

 

[firedragon]

You did.

Nah. Never did.

I never said "financial decision" which you came up with. I didnt say "men cannot be replaced, only women can" which is also what you came up with.

These are called strawman arguments.

 

[blü 2]

ITs like this Blu. When you say "islamic teachings" some say there were a million ahadith memorised only by Ibn Hanbal.

Anyway, there is a weak hadith that speaks about houris which doesn't mean virgins. Some people turn it into virgins because of the white eye connotation.

Thank you.

What then is a houri? In particular, is a houri a potential sexual partner?

 

[epronovost]

Nah. Never did.

I never said "financial decision" which you came up with. I didnt say "men cannot be replaced, only women can" which is also what you came up with.

These are called strawman arguments.

If we talk about "signing contracts" these are a subset of "financial decision". In general, we are talking about legal testimony, here more specifically of legal testimony that concern finances.

Yes you did, specifically as an argument as to why a rule would say one man or two women can serve as a replacement for two men should there not be two men available and for the purpose of legal contracts in regard to what in modern time we call "financial law" where two women can serve instead of one man. Note that there is no mention that if a woman is unavailable that two men can replace her instead unless you can quote something precise there.

 

[Tiberius]

It is a crime to have sex with someone younger than 12.

I agree with you, but I'd have to say that what the law says is irrelevant, because the government can pass any laws they want. They could make it legal to have sex with 12 year olds if they wanted to.

The problem is that having sex with 12 year olds does very clearly cause emotional harm, if not physical harm as well. A 12 year old just doesn't have the emotional maturity to handle having sex.That's where the problem is, and that's why sex with 12 year old kids is always going to be wrong.

 

[firedragon]

Thank you.

What then is a houri? In particular, is a houri a potential sexual partner?

Depends. It doesnt mean sexual partners. But if you just say something like "my companion", some would take it as sexual partners as well. Thstd human nature to associate many things with sex. I think freud would concur.

Anyway, its majroo in grammar. Its associated to something. How do you explain that in English? As in "I will introduce to a pure, amazing friend who will dazzle you". So it goes with "introduction" in this case.

Anyway, what eats most peoples heads is that this is not a female. It could be either female, or male.

 

[oldbadger]

- I'm a traditional Muslim. I follow the Maliki madhhab of fiqh (school of jurisprudence), the Ashaari madhhab of aqeeda (school of theology), & the Junaidi madhhab of tasawwuf (school of sufism/spirituality).

I haven't heard of those madhabs before.
So I'll guess that you are a Shi'ite Muslim from Iran.... possibly?

 

[firedragon]

If we talk about "signing contracts" these are a subset of "financial decision"

Thats not relevant. And this is not signing contract. This is about a witness for someone elses contract. The contract could be between women or men. The witnessing is for a latter dispute where the witness will have to provide testimony of what they witnessed. It is not a financial decision they are making. It is someone elses.

This is not relevant and I dont know why you want to bring up a wording and then trying to insert it with some external argument.

Yes you did, specifically as an argument

No.

 

[Tiberius]

Here's something I found about the claim of virgins in heaven... How Muslims Lie About Islam's Promise of 72 Virgins in Heaven - Brightwork Research & Analysis

 

[firedragon]

I haven't heard of those madhabs before.
So I'll guess that you are a Shi'ite Muslim from Iran.... possibly?

No. Maliki madhab is a "school of thought". It is the oldest school of thought born to a man named Malik Ibn Anas who reputedly came before any other "schools of thought", vis a vis, shafi, hanafi, hanbali. It is a Sunni school, not Shii. It is called the "school of Medina" which is to denote it is directly from Medina. Just a clarification.

 

[blü 2]

Depends. It doesnt mean sexual partners. But if you just say something like "my companion", some would take it as sexual partners as well. Thstd human nature to associate many things with sex. I think freud would concur.

Anyway, its majroo in grammar. Its associated to something. How do you explain that in English? As in "I will introduce to a pure, amazing friend who will dazzle you". So it goes with "introduction" in this case.

Anyway, what eats most peoples heads is that this is not a female. It could be either female, or male.

A male houri? Never knew that.

Many thanks.

 

[epronovost]

Thats not relevant. And this is not signing contract. This is about a witness for someone elses contract. The contract could be between women or men. The witnessing is for a latter dispute where the witness will have to provide testimony of what they witnessed. It is not a financial decision they are making. It is someone elses.

Then why does it take two women to replace one of the man? Why not just one? The wording implies that one man can replace another man, but if there are not two men available, one of the two man can be replaced by two women?

 

[firedragon]

A male houri? Never knew that.

Exactly. Many dont hear about it. Because its not interesting to talk about it.

Houri does not mean female.

 

[firedragon]

Then why does it take two women to replace one of the man?

Haha. I think you should go back in all of these posts and read up again to get the interpretation why. This is what you have been arguing for so long.