You've noticed?Debates on a forum aren't exactly perfect either, but ...
Personally, I rather like the format, although I like it quite a biy more than the 'case' on the docket. In any event, kudos on a thoughtful OP.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You've noticed?Debates on a forum aren't exactly perfect either, but ...
Does this mean you want to play one of the roles? This thread isn't exactly for the debate yetI can make that claim because of a consistency test. IIRC the Quran says that a girl must be physically and emotionally mature before she can be married. If the historical data points which support the idea that Muhammad honoured the Quran are internally consistent then then single data point that opposes that idea can be rejected as spurious. The rationale for a consistency test comes from Occam's Razor, which selects the explanation which makes the minimum number of assumptions made for the relevant data, the assumption being that the spurious was written with malicious intent but was not rejected because of cultural acceptance of child brides.
For a mock trial, western academic consensus may not actually matter as much as you would think. And, it feels as though you feel this is the only standard. The idea of a mock trial would be to determine if Muhammad is innocent of a crime, or guilty of a crime. In a court of law, academic consensus is actually not the debate or standard.Cite the western academic consensus or for that matter the western academics that can confidently tell you what Aisha's age at marriage is please.
Occam's razor could be useful, just as long as any evidence presented is considered. The question would be based on the evidence presented, could there be an explanation which demonstrates Muhammad was guilty beyond reasonable doubt, or he was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It could be beneficial for a jurist to consider the most simple story which explains a phenomena, but Occam's razor isn't the only tool. Occam's razor focuses on the most simple explanation, whereas a jurist has to consider every explanation regardless of complexity to ensure guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt.Assuming the explanation that ignores data points is the best one is an unnecessary assumption, Occam's razor slashes that assumption. If the data points show 10 instances were Muhammad obeyed the Quran and 1 instance were he disobeyed the fewest assumptions is that he disobeyed 1 out of 11 instances in my opinion.
You haven't done that so far in my opinion.
Do you know if there is a rationale for these exceptions?I think it was an action like Khidr (a) when he killed a child, yet it's forbidden for people to do it. Or when Yusuf (a) framed his brothers, but it's forbidden to frame. And when Lut (a) offered his daughters, when it normal circumstances it's not allowed (fornication).
There is always a rational. Khidr (a) is explained in the Quran. As for Yusuf (a), it turned out to benefit his brothers and brought them to faith. As for Lut (a), if they did the lesser evil, it would have healed them and they would've repented and felt bad about the whole thing.Do you know if there is a rationale for these exceptions?
For me to play a role would imply that I'm endorsing any errors or assumptions that are present in your proposition. If that were resolved I could give it a shot (I may not be able to make timely responses).Does this mean you want to play one of the roles? This thread isn't exactly for the debate yet
The Quran says Yusuf framed his brothers?There is always a rational. Khidr (a) is explained in the Quran. As for Yusuf (a), it turned out to benefit his brothers and brought them to faith. As for Lut (a), if they did the lesser evil, it would have healed them and they would've repented and felt bad about the whole thing.
As for Mohammad (s) marriage - the wisdom - you have to understand Surah Tahreem place in the Quran. And to understand that, you have to understand how all Prophets (a) were opposed in the past, and the plots of those who have double face.
Yes, it's part of the story.The Quran says Yusuf framed his brothers?
Well he was not guilty of a crime simply because it was not against the law of the time to marry a girl who had her menarche. So that ends your debate thread in my view.For a mock trial, western academic consensus may not actually matter as much as you would think. And, it feels as though you feel this is the only standard. The idea of a mock trial would be to determine if Muhammad is innocent of a crime, or guilty of a crime. In a court of law, academic consensus is actually not the debate or standard.
Occam's razor could be useful, just as long as any evidence presented is considered. The question would be based on the evidence presented, could there be an explanation which demonstrates Muhammad was guilty beyond reasonable doubt, or he was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It could be beneficial for a jurist to consider the most simple story which explains a phenomena, but Occam's razor isn't the only tool. Occam's razor focuses on the most simple explanation, whereas a jurist has to consider every explanation regardless of complexity to ensure guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt.
I get you aren't interested in participating. This thread is seeking those who do. If it's not you, look elsewhere.Well he was not guilty of a crime simply because it was not against the law of the time to marry a girl who had her menarche. So that ends your debate thread in my view.
Where at in the Quran?Yes, it's part of the story.
Quran 12:70Where at in the Quran?