Debate a Muslim

[Saint Frankenstein]

- You're all over the place... If you actually cared, you would be talking about child sexual behaviors out-of-wedlock, for that's worse than marriage among children. It's all about degeneracy with you people. Always.

I'm not the one defending marrying children here! I'm not the degenerate! Nice attempt to project your sickness onto me. Married or not, children should not be having sex. Or getting married!

 

[Starlight]

- Are you aware 10 was the age of consent in most US states & most European countries just a century ago? -which means the marital age was lower. In fact, it was 7 in Scotland. Very early marriage was so prevalent in India the Brits had to set the minimum age of marriage at 8 first, then 10 decades later. You don't read history, that's why you think this isn't normal. If you're familiar with history & marriages among noble & royal families, you wouldn't be as shocked. Your great-grandmother was probably married at an age close to 10, & this is true for everyone.


- Who are these enemies...?


- Says who? Upon puberty a woman is capable of bearing a child. The abomination is not in marriage, is in open sex among kids that's happening in the West.


- By who?


- All this is literally false.


- True. Guilty pleasure...

Now you lie. The age of consent about getting married was 7, 8 years old and often younger yes

But the age to constumate the marriage (having sex) was not allowed before the girl was 12-13 years old.

 

[Link]

Now you lie. The age of consent about getting married was 8, 10 years old and often younger yes

But the age to constumate the marriage (having sex) was not allowed before the girl was 12-13 years old.

He might not be lying just not aware.

Anyways, is biological need and kid rearing the criteria put by Quran? Quran has talked about Rushd, Ashadu and age of marriage as synonymous. To me this means when a human is at their prime in spiritual mental guidance and strength, and this might not have specific age but changes with the times.

But aside from that, often, the issue of who you can marry is related directly to religion. When can a human really freely decide to believe in a religion? Kids tend to follow parents, whether they know it's true or not.

 

[Tiberius]

- The Quran is manifestly a true revelation, & the Prophet (pbuh) is manifestly a true prophet. No other book has been preserved such for its truth to even be ascertained.

You're going to need to do much more than just claim it's real. Anyone can claim anything they want about anything, doesn't make it's true. If all you have is a claim, then you're not going to get very far in a debate.

 

[Ghazaly]

Some women get pregnant (I will not, for instance), and men are more than capable of helping rear children.

- Some women don't get pregnant. I agree with the second part.

What I'm saying is that instead of rigidly saying who does what,

- Chromosomes are rigid.

why not a system where couples are able to work out what works best for them? Some women are better at financial decisions, some men are better with children, and things like this.

- What does this have to do with giving birth? The Prophet (pbuh)'s own wife Khadija was a wealthy merchant. I'm sure some women are vastly more intelligent than their husbands too. They still give birth.

This is all not to mention things like couples that don't fit this scheme at all. The reason I won't have children is because I'm interested in other women romantically, for instance. None of this system describes my life.

- It can't, else the human genus will cease to exist. You intend to describe a society into oblivion.

Now you lie. The age of consent about getting married was 7, 8 years old and often younger yes
But the age to constumate the marriage (having sex) was not allowed before the girl was 12-13 years old.

Age of consent relates to statutory rape, thus unlawful for a man to have sexual intercourse with a female under said age of consent, unless she's his wife. For instance, the age of consent in Delaware being 7 means: consensual intercourse between a man of any age & a 7 yo is lawful, but any intercourse with a 6 yo is a unlawful (rape) unless she is his wife.

 

[Ghazaly]

I'm not the one defending marrying children here! I'm not the degenerate! Nice attempt to project your sickness onto me. Married or not, children should not be having sex. Or getting married!

- Well, they are having sex. So, what are you doing here? Go fulfill your noble cause.

 

[epronovost]

It can't, else the human genus will cease to exist. You intend to describe a society into oblivion.

I'm fairly certain that the survival of the human genius isn't dependent on the ability of @Meow Mix to have children. I know she's a very impressive woman, but she's not impressive enough that her decision not to have children will have any impact on our survival. In fact, the fact she has not and dedicate her time and skills to other pursuit might still be in our collective interest or be of no consequences at all. The same goes for a good chunk of humanity. That, let's say 20% of women never have children for one reason or another, doesn't actively threaten the survival and prosperity of mankind.

- I'm not sure wether you're trolling or that ignorant!!! Age of consent relates to statutory rape, thus unlawful for a man to have sexual intercourse with a female under said age of consent, unless she's his wife. For instance, the age of consent in Delaware being 7 means: consensual intercourse between a man of any age & a 7 yo is lawful, but any intercourse with a 6 yo is a unlawful (rape) unless she is his wife.

The age of consent in Delaware is 16 years old and there are further exception when it comes to incestual relationship and relationship where one partner has hierarchical power over another like a teacher-student or officer-subordinate relationship. It's also rape if a man over 30 has sexual intercourse with a woman between 16 and 18. The age of consent of Delaware hasn't been seven since 1889. Women couldn't hold property, make superior studies and work without the consent of their husband or father should they be unmarried at that time neither could they vote, present themselves as candidates, be jury, judge or a variety of other jobs. It was a very different time for women a century ago, much more similar to how women lived a century ago in the Middle East (and still do to a lesser extend).

Also, I need to mention that rape isn't having sex with someone you aren't married to. It's having sex with someone that didn't consent to it out of their own free will and with the proper knowledge of the circumstances and consequences of thereof.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

- Well, they are having sex. So, what are you doing here? Go fulfill your noble cause.

You're the one defending child marriage, not me. I'm not sure why you're trying to shift it onto me. You're the second Muslim within a week I've seen defending it on here.

 

[Starlight]

- Some women don't get pregnant. I agree with the second part.


- Chromosomes are rigid.


- What does this have to do with giving birth? The Prophet (pbuh)'s own wife Khadija was a wealthy merchant. I'm sure some women are vastly more intelligent than their husbands too. They still give birth.


- It can't, else the human genus will cease to exist. You intend to describe a society into oblivion.


- I'm not sure wether you're trolling or that ignorant!!! Age of consent relates to statutory rape, thus unlawful for a man to have sexual intercourse with a female under said age of consent, unless she's his wife. For instance, the age of consent in Delaware being 7 means: consensual intercourse between a man of any age & a 7 yo is lawful, but any intercourse with a 6 yo is a unlawful (rape) unless she is his wife.

You lie again.
The age of consent about getting married was 7, 8 years old and often younger yes

But the age to constumate the marriage (having sex) was not allowed before the girl was 12-13 years old.

So now you try to twist and change the history because you want to defend sex with children under 12-13 years old.

Wow just wow..

 

[Danielle Dark]

- The Quran is manifestly a true revelation, & the Prophet (pbuh) is manifestly a true prophet. No other book has been preserved such for its truth to even be ascertained.

How would the Qur'an being preserved prove that Islam is true?

 

[Meow Mix]

- Some women don't get pregnant. I agree with the second part.


- Chromosomes are rigid.

But personalities and capabilities aren't; that's what I'm trying to assess your position on here. (Also, chromosomes aren't that rigid and don't always determine sex. There are Xy women, XX men [because of SRY gene transfers and things like this], also XXy people, intersex people, and so on.)

I'm basically asking if this system allows for people that don't fit the norm to be comfortable with who they are.

- What does this have to do with giving birth? The Prophet (pbuh)'s own wife Khadija was a wealthy merchant. I'm sure some women are vastly more intelligent than their husbands too. They still give birth.

I think I was under the impression that particular roles were given to men and women in the family beyond childbirth. Perhaps I was mixing up another conversation as I'm in two of these at around the same time.

- It can't, else the human genus will cease to exist. You intend to describe a society into oblivion.

I don't understand this reasoning. Society will be fine regardless of whether a portion of the population is homosexual. So what does this mean? There are plenty of people that will have babies. Can you expound on your response here? My question is basically where people like myself would fit in here if I will never end up marrying and reproducing with a man.

 

[danieldemol]

- Your point? Go on. Make your argument.

I don't know if there is an argument to be made yet as you appear to keep on dodging the question of whether you accept it occurs or not. It is a simple yes/no answer, I can't work out why you are having so much trouble with it? If you accept that it occurs there is no argument to be made here so how about you finish timewasting and answer the question.

- Sure! And..!? I don't see the objection. You're sharing your personal feelings. How are you feelings relevant to the state & its laws & policies? Even if, how are they justifiable? Why then are Sharia laws comparatively not justifiable? You haven't provided an argument nor an objection. If you wish to object, you must show:

1. that your position is relevant
2. what this entails
3. why is this good
4. what my position entails
5. why is it bad

1. Not my personal feelings, we don't have the death penalty in Australia. Furthermore if I can demonstrate my personal feelings are better than Australian law then it is Australian law that should change (once it gathers sufficient public suppport), not my personal feelings.
2. to 5. My position entails not killing criminals that can be safely isolated. This is demonstrably better than your position (killing of apostates that can be safely captured for various reasons whether apostasy from faith and/or treason against the state) for various reasons.
a) It prevents the state from declaring safely captured apostates treasonous and killing them under a pretext.
b) It safeguards the right of people to practice religion of their choice free from compulsion thereby allowing the free competition of ideas.
c) It protects people from being killed under wrongful conviction who may not have even made apostasy in the first place
d) It makes no more sense to kill somone who has been safely captured for doing something that is part of their nature than it does to kill a lion at the zoo for being a carnivore or to destroy a robot for executing a line of code. That is to say we don't know with certainty that freewill exists (and there are cases where it pretty obviously does not). For example if a person who is schizophrenic has the delusion that there neighbour is coming to kill them they may act in self defence and strike their neighbour down first. Yet if it becomes possible to safely capture them and administer medication then they stop having delusions, and no longer pose a threat, Would you have killed them needlessly?

That is a more obvious case, but research into the causes of people who lack empathy seems to be ongoing. What if we find out in the future that they are simply lacking mirror neurons in the brain or have some other hardware defect that can be treated through brain surgery or other means? If they are living safely isolated in medical facilities and/or prisons we can continue research, and let them out in the future if they become rectified/reformed and killing them makes no more sense than destroying a whole car because it has a single faulty part. On the other hand if they are killed we can't bring them back.

- There are people in Muslim countries as well, so yeah. Point was, violent crimes rate in the US are significantly higher than in Muslim countries (or most countries for that matter), oftentimes an order of magnitude higher.

If violent crime is lower in Australia or other non-Muslim countries than it is in Muslim countries then we should adopt the law of those non-Muslim countries as opposed to Islamic law.

- Western secular system in general does not allow for any alternative worldview, in any systematic institution. In academia all competing worldviews are thwarted at the door. For instance, I can not go into a university & offer a Sharia course & teach it, for that violates the 'secular' doctrine of the institution. Debate is not about having the occasional event, it's about having competing worldview in intense constant debate & sharing of ideas.

I think what you are suggesting is that because they don't let anyone off the street teach a course, they are not allowing debate. This is false. They do contribute to public debates which can involve anyone, however there would be no quality of education if they allowed anyone to teach as opposed to allowing those who have done the research and have the credentials to teach the consensus views.

- I bring you state actions & you bring me individual action!? Such incidents are extremely rare, & often end in execution of the murderers, such as in the case of Faraj Fodah who was assassinated & his assassin was sentenced to death. Killing Christian apostates is not uncommon in the West either. But why is any of this relevant to Sharia & apostasy laws!? You have American pastors calling for killing gays & Muslims, what does that have to do with US law!

Where in the west is killing apostates common (citation requred)? Sure you have american pastors calling for killing gays as per the Bible, (and possibly also Muslims), and it is considered hate speech. If a person even says he thinks Muslims should be killed according to my understanding that is prosecutable.

- Concession much? One: this is most appropriate for Western intellectual institutions. The fact that they don't allow alternative worldview shows the zero confidence in the truth of their claims, in your own words. Two: removing deceptive factors does not entail removing opposite worldviews; On the complete contrary, it entails inviting competing worldviews on the highest level, that's what the Quran is referring to. It's easy to trick the masses who don't have enough knowledge to defend against your propaganda. If your ideas have any merit, go to the university (like Dar Hikma in Baghdad) & prove your worth against the other scholars instead of preying on the weak minded.

I think you are misinformed about western intelectual institutions, they do allow debate of alternative worldviews, just not teaching those worldviews as factual to students.

- Again, I'm speaking from principle & you're speaking from hypothetical example. Islamic political theorists' (like al-Muwardi) position on apostasy is known, it relates to threats against the integrity of the state. In fact, there are no recoded incidents of individual apostates being executed for just being apostates in pre-colonial Islamic history. Abu Bakr Razi, the famous doctor, apostatized & wrote books criticizing the faith before he returned to it. Abu Alaa Maari, the famous poet, did the same. He wasn't even fired from his position... They all died peacefully in bed.

Does that mean that you personally support al-Muwardi's postion that people should only be killed for threats against the state? If that is the case why not just call it treason instead of apostasy to remove any confusion in the minds of the people that this relates to religion?

- Sure sure! How is this any relevant to the state. What you're saying is unattainable. No death penalty is war is suicide.

Strawman, I said 'I'm morally opposed to the death sentence (except where for example a killer can't be safely isolated)' War is an example of where outside of captured prisoners of war killers often can't be safely isolated.

In my opinion.

 

[Starlight]

I'm fairly certain that the survival of the human genius isn't dependent on the ability of @Meow Mix to have children. I know she's a very impressive woman, but she's not impressive enough that her decision not to have children will have any impact on our survival. In fact, the fact she has not and dedicate her time and skills to other pursuit might still be in our collective interest or be of no consequences at all. The same goes for a good chunk of humanity. That, let's say 20% of women never have children for one reason or another, doesn't actively threaten the survival and prosperity of mankind.




The age of consent in Delaware is 16 years old and there are further exception when it comes to incestual relationship and relationship where one partner has hierarchical power over another like a teacher-student or officer-subordinate relationship. It's also rape if a man over 30 has sexual intercourse with a woman between 16 and 18. The age of consent of Delaware hasn't been seven since 1889. Women couldn't hold property, make superior studies and work without the consent of their husband or father should they be unmarried at that time neither could they vote, present themselves as candidates, be jury, judge or a variety of other jobs. It was a very different time for women a century ago, much more similar to how women lived a century ago in the Middle East (and still do to a lesser extend).

Also, I need to mention that rape isn't having sex with someone you aren't married to. It's having sex with someone that didn't consent to it out of their own free will and with the proper knowledge of the circumstances and consequences of thereof.

Yes the age for consent to marriage was 7 years old, but it was never allowed to constumate the marriage (having sex) before the girl was 12-13.

Almost all societies before modern times did not allow the girl to constumate the marriage (having sex) before she was 12-13 years old.

Even people in cultures before modern times did know that children under the age of 12-13 did not have strong and big enough bodies to handle child birth.

 

[Polymath257]

- Some women don't get pregnant. I agree with the second part.


- Chromosomes are rigid.

Actually, they are not rigid. And it is irrelevant either way.

- What does this have to do with giving birth? The Prophet (pbuh)'s own wife Khadija was a wealthy merchant. I'm sure some women are vastly more intelligent than their husbands too. They still give birth.


- It can't, else the human genus will cease to exist. You intend to describe a society into oblivion.

Why would that be the case? Just because you allow gays to exist doesn't mean everyone will turn gay. Society will continue from straight sex.

Age of consent relates to statutory rape, thus unlawful for a man to have sexual intercourse with a female under said age of consent, unless she's his wife. For instance, the age of consent in Delaware being 7 means: consensual intercourse between a man of any age & a 7 yo is lawful, but any intercourse with a 6 yo is a unlawful (rape) unless she is his wife.

Where did you get this???

Delaware Statutory Rape Laws

Age of consent is 12 *if* the partner is less than 4 years older. Sex with anyone under 12 is a crime.

 

[Polymath257]

- Well, they are having sex. So, what are you doing here? Go fulfill your noble cause.

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

 

[Starlight]

But I believe also it is bad and wrong that girls was allowed before modern time to costumate the marriage when they was only 12-13 years.

12-13 years old girls also have high risk of die in child birth, but a 9-10 years old girls have much much higher risk of dying in child birth than a 12-13 years old.

 

[Polymath257]

- You're all over the place... If you actually cared, you would be talking about child sexual behaviors out-of-wedlock, for that's worse than marriage among children. It's all about degeneracy with you people. Always.

Both sex and marriage for pre-teens is disgusting.

 

[blü 2]

- As is it described in the Quran & the Hadith, Jannah (Paradise) is not conceivable: 'that which no eye has seen, and no ear has heard, and has not inspired any soul of man'. As reported from the Prophet (pbuh), the last man in Paradise will be made lord of 10 times equivalent our world in this life, for his endless wishes only bound by his imagination.

So there's no mention at all of virgins being provided to certain people in paradise?

 

[firedragon]

Perhaps, but they happen more frequently to men

How often? What statistics? Is it as more frequent with me in comparison to women as pregnancy, menstruation and childbirth for example?

If you really really want to argue, you will come up with anything to argue.

 

[We Never Know]

Actually, they are not rigid. And it is irrelevant either way.


Why would that be the case? Just because you allow gays to exist doesn't mean everyone will turn gay. Society will continue from straight sex.



Where did you get this???

Delaware Statutory Rape Laws

Age of consent is 12 *if* the partner is less than 4 years older. Sex with anyone under 12 is a crime.

They are about 140 years behind. Its was 7 in Delaware around 1880 +/-.

While the general ages of consent are now set between 16 and 18 in all U.S. states, the age of consent has widely varied across the country in the past. In 1880, the ages of consent were set at 10 or 12 in most states, with the exception of Delaware where it was 7.

Ages of consent in the United States - Wikipedia

Look under "history"