Debate a Muslim

[Shakeel]

according to Quran, everything has perception and glorifies God and hence has intelligence.

perception doesn't equal intelligence, especially not on the levels you're talking about.

Where does the Qur'an say everything has perception.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

well it did take the west a long time to give women the rights Muslims had from the time on the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ), if that's what you mean.

Which European women are you talking about?

What "rights"? Polygamy? Not allowed to be religious leaders? Being forced to cover themselves up? Being blamed for their own rape? Exactly what "rights" have Muslim women been enjoying all these centuries?

I'm talking about women like the women of Cologne, Germany who suffered mass sexual assault during their holiday celebrations a few years ago at the hands of Muslim men. All the European girls (children) trafficked, raped and abused by Muslim migrants in the UK and so on. I could go on. Is that Islam teaches you to treat women?

 

[Mock Turtle]

well it did take the west a long time to give women the rights Muslims had from the time on the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ), if that's what you mean.

Which European women are you talking about?

Not sure most non-Muslim females want to dress all in black - unless fashion dictates such.

 

[Link]

perception doesn't equal intelligence, especially not on the levels you're talking about.

Where does the Qur'an say everything has perception.

In the verse I quoted, it's implied. Speaking is one feature that all things have, but it's implied the other features like them witnessing is true of all things. And the hadiths confirm all this.

 

[firedragon]

What "rights"? Polygamy? Not allowed to be religious leaders? Being forced to cover themselves up? Being blamed for their own rape? Exactly what "rights" have Muslim women been enjoying all these centuries?

Its definitely not universal. Unless you can provide some data that each of the above are problems, and are universal to all muslim women.

I'm talking about women like the women of Cologne, Germany who suffered mass sexual assault during their holiday celebrations a few years ago at the hands of Muslim men. All the European girls (children) trafficked, raped and abused by Muslim migrants in the UK and so on. I could go on. Is that Islam teaches you to treat women?

Thats absolutely unfair.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Its definitely not universal. Unless you can provide some data that each of the above are problems, and are universal to all muslim women.



Thats absolutely unfair.

Go argue with your fellow Muslims over how they present the religion, not me.

 

[firedragon]

Go argue with your fellow Muslims over how they present the religion, not me.

SF. Just because someone or some people are acting unfairly or absurdly does not mean we can use our reason.

I am a Muslim and have known enough muslims in my life personally to tell you that all of those generalisations you made are absolutely false. Maybe you were responding to someone with a bit of irrationality, but its just not done.

I agree there are elements of truth to what you say. But its not universal. Back home, if some woman is forced to cover themselves up, it may happen in some areas and is a very very very recent phenomena. Maybe 10 or 15 years. Things have been increasingly dogmatic maybe for around 15 to 20 years. This has a lot to do with the political environments which affects people globally. It is just not fair to make generalisations. It is also not very sophisticated.

If I forced my wife, or if my brother forced my wife, my mother will kick my a.s.s. And we have been brought up to respect our mothers so much that we will lay down arms for them. Same goes to our sisters. Wherever I turn its like that.

But there are societies where all of these things happen. Just dont generalise it to over one and a half billion people.

 

[firedragon]

That is Hindi and other Indian languages. Buddha is considered by many Hindus as the ninth avatara of Lord Vishnu. Buddha was the among the wisest of his time. Among many things that I learnt from him was what he said in "Kesamutti Sutta". Kesamutti (Release from a hold on the hair - also known as 'Kalama Sutta'):

The Kesamutti Sutta states (Pali expression in parentheses):

"Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava),
nor upon tradition (paramparā),
nor upon rumor (itikirā),
nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna)
nor upon surmise (takka-hetu),
nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu),
nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka),
nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā),
nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya),
nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū)
Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them."

In Simple English, it means to take these things with a grain of salt:
Oral history, Tradition, News sources, Scriptures, Suppositional reasoning, Philosophical dogmatism, Common sense, One's own opinions, Experts, Authorities or one's own teacher

Yeah, Buddhism tells us to have faith in Buddha (Buddham sharanam Gacchami), but do not go by faith, only by analysis.

No. Thats not what it says.

 

[oldbadger]

They said Muhammed didnt know theology? Who, in which book?

Have a really nice day, firedragon. You take it easy now.

 

[Alex22]

So, should polytheists be put to death?

 

[Aupmanyav]

No. Thats not what it says.

Then kindly tell me as to what it says.

 

[Shakeel]

What "rights"? Polygamy? Not allowed to be religious leaders? Being forced to cover themselves up? Being blamed for their own rape? Exactly what "rights" have Muslim women been enjoying all these centuries?

No, polygamy was there long before and after among everyone, including Christians. Actually polygamous marriages happen all the time among African Christians and many of the women want their husbands to have another wife.

No, Christians and Jews haven't been religious leaders either. Actually, I don't know of a single religious leader to this day, even though there are a few female priests around. If you consider those religious leaders, you would have to consider female Islamic scholars religious leaders also, imo.

No, women have been covering themselves until the last century among Christians and Jews as well and so the Bible commands them to do.

No, I don't think that has anything to so with religion, unless you mean how the old testament stipulates that the rapist should marry the woman he raped.

The right of divorce, home, having everything she needs provided for her, protection, owning property, children, sex,
Inheritance, etc.

The Jews for instance, can leave their wife without divorcing her and thereby leaving her alone incapable of marrying. In Judaism adultery is when a married woman has intercourse with a man, whether married or unmarried, so a married man having intercourse with an unmarried woman is not commiting adultery.

Women use to be inherited as the Bible commands. They had no right to divorce - in fact, in the past Jewish women went to Muslim courts to try and get a divorce because they knew they can't have it from a Jewish court.

While they used to inherit the women and their property, In Islam a woman has her property and she keeps it after marriage. If she earns money she isn't obligated to pay a singe penny on her basic needs or on her children's basic needs.

I'm talking about women like the women of Cologne, Germany who suffered mass sexual assault during their holiday celebrations a few years ago at the hands of Muslim men

That's not a good argument. That's just a random crime. Women are raped everywhere all the time. If you want to argue in those places women don't have their rights, you're going to have to define what it means for them to have rights in the first place. Apparently they don't have rights anywhere ever - in fact, it's a logical impossibility for them to ever have rights, according to your logic.

Also, accusing Muslims as a whole of something like that shows that intolerant side of you again.

All the European girls (children) trafficked, raped and abused by Muslim migrants in the UK and so on.

That's again just a crime and one exaggerated in the media. That is, they try to portray all the criminals as Muslims when they're not. Sex trafficking is a big business all over the world, oh yes, even in America. Now, tell me about how Muslims have been behind it all along.

And give me a real example of European women losing their rights — something other than that some of them are sometimes victims of crimes. I mean, just how many women are "losing their rights" in America right now - let alone this whole day.

And by the way, what is the punishment for rape in the west?

 

[Shakeel]

Not sure most non-Muslim females want to dress all in black - unless fashion dictates such.

Your point being?

 

[Meow Mix]

Thank you for your responses.

- Depends on what people. Some relations are not permissible in Sharia, for instance: parent–adopted child. Adoption in Sharia can only occur with breastfeeding, otherwise deemed guardianship (of an orphan).

What is the difference between adoption and guardianship? Am I to understand it isn't considered an adoption if the mother taking in a child can't breastfeed the child? What is the reasoning behind this restriction?

- You're saying incoherent things! You contend that someone who does not wish to participate in marriage, thus not subject to Sharia marriage stipulations, must also have these stipulations contorted in accordance with their wishes!!?

I hadn't said someone not wanting to participate in marriage; in this case a woman (me) that would not marry a man. I may still marry (a woman).

- You said "none of this system [marriage in Sharia] describe my life", suggesting a systematic adoption of your life-type... it naturally follows in such a system birth-giving will cease, or at the very least be restricted. Refer to my reply to epronovost above, 5th response on this post.

I don't think inclusion is the same thing as a "systematic adoption of a life-type;" it's just that: inclusion. A system of government has to be able to account for and protect all of its people and their rights, not just the majority's.

I do not think this argument about birth-giving ceasing makes any sense. Homosexual people have existed since humans have existed, and obviously plenty of people still give birth. It's not like they have a choice in the matter, anyway: they would not usually be having children anyway.

Regarding your post to eprovonost, there are multiple factors that have to do with population growth and homosexuality is not really a relevant one. Most of the time population growth rate depends on the average age of citizens, wealth of citizens, education of citizens, social mobility of citizens (tied somewhat to the wealth aspect), and so on. Wealthier countries with larger workforces tend to have lower birthrates, but these fluctuate. It's not valid to say "in x many years this will happen" while holding a population growth rate steady because it doesn't work that way.

- Imam al-Ghazali of course. It would a long story to explain, but al-Ghazali didn't just master his mind, he also mastered his self. His words are from someone who reached the epitome of power & fame then let go of all of it; from someone who reached the epitome of intellect & reasoning then purged all of it; from someone who mastered most disciplines of his time, & praticularly reached the finalities in all 3 dimensions of the faith [ the moral dimension for the body, expressed in Islamic Law – the rational dimension for the mind, expressed in Islamic theology – the spiritual dimension of the soul, expressed in Islamic sufism]; therefore, he was able to consolidate all these dimensions into a single coherent shared base. His critique of Greek philosophers was so profound it –along with Ibn Haytham methodological critique– engendered a new paradigm of human knowledge, where Science is excised from Philosophy (natural philosophy), efficient causation is inductive, perception makes substance, matter is quantized, time & space are relative, & accidents are probabilistic.

Is there a particular work by Imam al-Ghazali you would recommend an outsider read as an introduction?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

SF. Just because someone or some people are acting unfairly or absurdly does not mean we can use our reason.

I am a Muslim and have known enough muslims in my life personally to tell you that all of those generalisations you made are absolutely false. Maybe you were responding to someone with a bit of irrationality, but its just not done.

I agree there are elements of truth to what you say. But its not universal. Back home, if some woman is forced to cover themselves up, it may happen in some areas and is a very very very recent phenomena. Maybe 10 or 15 years. Things have been increasingly dogmatic maybe for around 15 to 20 years. This has a lot to do with the political environments which affects people globally. It is just not fair to make generalisations. It is also not very sophisticated.

If I forced my wife, or if my brother forced my wife, my mother will kick my a.s.s. And we have been brought up to respect our mothers so much that we will lay down arms for them. Same goes to our sisters. Wherever I turn its like that.

But there are societies where all of these things happen. Just dont generalise it to over one and a half billion people.

Great, now go jump on your fellow Muslims for their disgusting remarks. I'm not the one posting hate speech towards Western people and culture or supporting sex and marriage with kids. I just turned it back around on him. But I certainly wouldn't people with views like his living in my country or those views to spread in my country. Muslims who don't share those views? Fine.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No, polygamy was there long before and after among everyone, including Christians. Actually polygamous marriages happen all the time among African Christians and many of the women want their husbands to have another wife.

No, Christians and Jews haven't been religious leaders either. Actually, I don't know of a single religious leader to this day, even though there are a few female priests around. If you consider those religious leaders, you would have to consider female Islamic scholars religious leaders also, imo.

No, women have been covering themselves until the last century among Christians and Jews as well and so the Bible commands them to do.

No, I don't think that has anything to so with religion, unless you mean how the old testament stipulates that the rapist should marry the woman he raped.

The right of divorce, home, having everything she needs provided for her, protection, owning property, children, sex,
Inheritance, etc.

The Jews for instance, can leave their wife without divorcing her and thereby leaving her alone incapable of marrying. In Judaism adultery is when a married woman has intercourse with a man, whether married or unmarried, so a married man having intercourse with an unmarried woman is not commiting adultery.

Women use to be inherited as the Bible commands. They had no right to divorce - in fact, in the past Jewish women went to Muslim courts to try and get a divorce because they knew they can't have it from a Jewish court.

While they used to inherit the women and their property, In Islam a woman has her property and she keeps it after marriage. If she earns money she isn't obligated to pay a singe penny on her basic needs or on her children's basic needs.


That's not a good argument. That's just a random crime. Women are raped everywhere all the time. If you want to argue in those places women don't have their rights, you're going to have to define what it means for them to have rights in the first place. Apparently they don't have rights anywhere ever - in fact, it's a logical impossibility for them to ever have rights, according to your logic.

Also, accusing Muslims as a whole of something like that shows that intolerant side of you again.


That's again just a crime and one exaggerated in the media. That is, they try to portray all the criminals as Muslims when they're not. Sex trafficking is a big business all over the world, oh yes, even in America. Now, tell me about how Muslims have been behind it all along.

And give me a real example of European women losing their rights — something other than that some of them are sometimes victims of crimes. I mean, just how many women are "losing their rights" in America right now - let alone this whole day.

And by the way, what is the punishment for rape in the west?

You and your child marriage supporting buddy, @Ghazaly, only have whataboutisms to offer in return and those aren't compelling in the least.

And why do you keep talking about the Bible? I live in the US, we aren't governed by the Bible here and neither is Europe. And I'm not a Christian or Jew, either. I would also advise you to keep accusations of "intolerance" to yourself, with things you've posted. I am not a liberal, anyway. There's many things I'm "intolerant" of.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So, should polytheists be put to death?

Good question. I await their response.

 

[firedragon]

So, should polytheists be put to death?

Depends on what you understand is a polytheist in the Qur'an.

 

[Debater Slayer]

- No such thing. You're hard-begging the question. One, a study on harmful marriages among 40s adults does not inform raising the minimum age of marriage to 50. Two, 10 (& even 8) is already age of "marriage-without-contract" – aka out-of-wedlock sexual relationships in your West. The difference is a contract entails consent & guaranteed rights –especially for potential progeny, whereas open sex doesn't. Three, all this is, in essence, about degeneracy. Always! Open sex between kids is "freedom" & "exploring" & "rites of passage"... but marriage instead, god forbid! What an abomination. Finally, the 3rd maxim of Sharia states: 'harm must be removed' (from the hadith "there shall be no harm and no reciprocated harm"). Your contention is, thus, irrelevant, for if there is actual harm then its alleviation is granted in Sharia.

- I don't see you talking about the non-contractual-marriages to 8 yo being allowed in the West! You gotta stop begging the question, Western customs are not universal customs, they are local in time & place. In the past century alone, they on their own thought: 7, 10,.. [every number].., 18, 21 & 25 are the magical number of consent. If in 50 years they decide that a person who's under 35 is a child & bring studies that show 30 yo marriages are bad, what would you do?

- The story isn't even corroborated, fake news! You're arguing from example. That's a fallacious approach! I can go to any age group in the US & find hundreds fatal cases of abuse. So many cases of little girls even being impregnated by their own fathers; I Was My Dad's Sex Slave father forced her to be his sex slave...etc. Most disgusting thing ever. GEZUZ! You're reaching too far...

1) I'm not Western; I'm Arab and have lived in Muslim countries my whole life so far.

2) Pointing to issues in the West doesn't change the points I asked about when it comes to the beliefs you've stated in this thread. It's merely an example of tu quoque, since I didn't even bring up any Western country as a moral role model or try to justify such things as child marriage in some American states. On the other hand, you're openly arguing that child marriage can be acceptable under specific circumstances, so it makes more sense to me to focus on that in the context of this thread.

3) It's easy to call a story "fake news" or dismiss scientific knowledge when it undermines a belief one has, but your basis for doing so is pretty shaky in this case. Child marriage has long been an issue in Yemen, and cases like the one in the story are far from unique. Instead of brushing them aside and calling them "fake news," it seems to me it is much more reasonable and ethical to address their causes and attempt to think of what the solutions may be.

4) You said, "[...] if there is actual harm then its alleviation is granted in Sharia." So, for example, if you lived in Yemen and witnessed first-hand a case like the one in the link I posted, which showed an example of the harms of child marriage, would you then be opposed to child marriage on the grounds that it did "actual harm"?

 

[firedragon]

Then kindly tell me as to what it says.

You said:

"In Simple English, it means to take these things with a grain of salt:
Oral history, Tradition, News sources, Scriptures, Suppositional reasoning, Philosophical dogmatism, Common sense, One's own opinions, Experts, Authorities or one's own teacher

Yeah, Buddhism tells us to have faith in Buddha (Buddham sharanam Gacchami), but do not go by faith, only by analysis."

Just to understand this further, I wanted to go to the text directly FYI but the references in the wikipedia page you cut and pasted from has a strange referencing system I think. Cant trace it. Nevertheless, Kalama Sutta is very famous because a lot of people who consider themselves skeptics quote it all over the internet so it was kind of easy to find.

The reference is, Anguttara Nikaya, duthiyo pannasako, magavaggo. What is not clear in this is that with every statement, be it anussavena, paramparaya, itikiraya, what ever it is begins with "ma" which means "I am". It means someone comes and says "I am this, I am that" which is not a criteria to accept anything they say. That doesnt mean to not accept what someone says just because they claim to be someone. It says, "Ime dhamma samatta samadinna hitaya sukhaya sanchaktantiti". only if you know that these who claim are that they are learned in the sciences and that they are living for the betterment, only them you should accept them and live.

You completely misrepresented it.