Yemeni child bride dies after internal bleeding on marriage night

[1robin]

That is irrelevant to what i had posted which was about hate-mongers and islamophobia from one side and the effect of Islamic civilization into Europe during the dark ages from other side.

I do not think so. Muslim's in general and you seem to thrive on the claim everyone hates you and is distorting your history claim and that is not factual and becomes counterproductive when over used anyway.

Islam did not have much of an effect on Europe during the dark ages. They did preserve Greek teaching and add on to it but that had little to do with Europe. In fact a bunch of those extremely lethal knights kept Islam out of at least western Europe and allowed Catholicism to screw it up all on their own. Yes Islam contributed to science and medicine but that had little effect on Europe in the dark ages. You also did not answer my questions.

 

[Father Heathen]

Which is all false accusation against Islam,bring your tangible evidences on the table,kiddo

'k, here's some: Skeptic's Annotated Quran

 

[outhouse]

Islam=/=terrorism

is this inability to answer a simple question?

 

[FearGod]

'k, here's some: Skeptic's Annotated Quran

i can see nothing worthwhile in the link.

 

[Assad91]

is this inability to answer a simple question?

I thought it was a simple answer to a simple question

 

[Father Heathen]

i can see nothing worthwhile in the link.

That's the problem with willful ignorance.

 

[Pegg]

Yes i agree,replace Islam with Logic,because Islam is Logic.:yes:

one thing i can't understand is why muslims in places like pakistan are blowing up mosques and killing their own brothers. Why are islamic societies so divided against each other?

If Islam is promoting peace, then all these factions and in-house fighting is not logical.

 

[Assad91]

one thing i can't understand is why muslims in places like pakistan are blowing up mosques and killing their own brothers. Why are islamic societies so divided against each other?

If Islam is promoting peace, then all these factions and in-house fighting is not logical.

With that logic, then most of Christianity wasn't logical until fairly recently

 

[Father Heathen]

With that logic, then most of Christianity wasn't logical until fairly recently

All of the abrahamic faiths are illogical peas in an illogical pod.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Actually Islam while being theologically wrong IMO has been very important in science and especially medicine.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why God's promise to Haggar is lesser than God's promise to Abraham.

Do you really believe any of God's promises are greater than others?

From Abraham and Sarah we have Jesus.

From Abraham and Haggar we have Mohammad.

 

[nash8]

These pop culture acronyms and emoticons seem to take the place of arguments that could not be made. That one sentence above has several errors in it. Yet you think making a abhorrently incorrect statement is grounds for laughing at what I said. Bizarre. Anyway let's see what is wrong here.

You said that you are bound by the book the is most reliable, so being a Christian, I would assume that you would be bound by the Bible, and therefore view it is the most reliable. Can you cite some evidence where scholars view the Bible as being the most reliable book on the historicity of Christiainity.

I use emoticons because I think your "abhorrently ignorant" statements are laughable not mine.

1. I never mentioned the Bible. It is truly strange how many things said about Muhammad or the Quran are responded to by falsely equating something in the Bible with it. It would not help Islam even if you could hurt the Bible which you did not even attempt BTW.

The argument I'm making is that the Bible actually supports taking young children as your own, while the Quran does not. So by your logic that Islam supports child marriage because what is written of it outside of it's holy scripture, then Christianity actually supports this act on a more fundamental basis, because it is actually in the Holy Book of Christianity.

2. Of course the Bible is my highest authority but I never insist it should be for those that challenge it. A Hindu may use anything he wishes as long as it is historically reliable. As usual Islam screws its self here by claiming to believe the Bible and even that it is to be used to judge the Quran but I did not insist you do so and many of you violate your own rules and use the pathetic Gospel of Thomas and many other unreliable things to challenge the Bible you claim to believe in.

Please cite where the Quran says the Bible should be used to judge the Quran? And who is YOU that violate YOUR own rules, and the Gospel of Thomas is Pathetic now huh? I actually believe that it is one of the most accurate Gospels of what Yehoshua actually taught. Sounds like you are making some stereotypical judgements of who I am.

So why, in your opinion, is the Gospel of Thomas unreliable. Because a bunch of Roman leaders decided that it was detrimental to their cause of uniting Rome under one religion that would essentially make the rich richer, and the poor poorer.

3. You can't tell a Christian he must use the Quran unless you can show it is the most reliable document there is.

I'm not telling a Christian to use the Quran, I'm saying that by what's written in the Quran, that if you judge by anything other than what's written in the Quran, then by the what is written in the Quran you are a disbeliever.

And please show me that the Bible is the most reliable document. Scholars reject almost everything in the Bible other than Jesus' crucifixion, and his baptism by John.

4. Your are basically saying I must use what Muslims like the most regardless of what is the most reliable. Muhammad may believe the Bible was true but we do not believe the Quran is. I am not bound by what you think is the most reliable but by what actually is.

No, I'm saying that if you are a Muslim then you follow the Quran as your highest authority, just like Christians do with the Bible. So you speak for all Christians now, interesting. And what exactly do you THINK is the most reliable? Because what actually is the most reliable, is only what YOU think is the most reliable.

How you can LOL and do that is beyond me.

How you can't LOL when you read your posts is beyond me. I guess you probably don't reread them before you post them.

I do not believe your Allah exists or has revealed anything so only what is the most historically reliable is relevant to me.

LOL, how is it MY Allah?

And much in the Quran is not reliable.

And I would argue that much in the Bible is not reliable. And whether or not the Quran is reliable is irrelevant. Because the Quran does not support child marriage, nor support that Mohammed took a child wife. If Muslims consider the Quran the highest authority as most Christians consider the Bible the highest authority, then that it what they must judge themselves by no?

For instance in every conflict with the Bible the Quran id not in even a single category the Bible's equal. The Bible says Christ died on the cross. The Quran says that is not true.

I don't think Yehoshua died on the cross either, but not because the Quran says so, but because the Bible says that Jesus asked for something to eat after he had "risen again". Luke 24: 41-43
Luke 24 NIV - Jesus Has Risen - On the first day of - Bible Gateway

Why would a man raised purely in spirit have the need to eat something physical.

 

[nash8]

Yet the Bible is the earliest by far, the most historically reliable by far, the most exhaustive in explanation, and the only one that contains eyewitnesses to Christ.

The Bible is the earliest by far on what account? And the most historically reliable in comparison to what. What writer of the Bible was an eyewitness to Yehoshua?

The Quran is one very suspicious man's word. The Bible is over 40 men's claims and includes many other witnesses plus over 40 extra biblical authors. In any contest the Bible has every advantage.

And what we have of the Bible now, was the composition of these 40 men's stories composed and/or rejected by leaders of Rome who weren't even neccesarily affiliated with the Church before the Council of Nicea.

And can you please cite these 40 extra Biblical authors. And who says I'm saying the Quran is any more reliable than the Bible? I'm simply arguing that the Quran is the highest authority for Muslims, just as the Bible is for Christian's, and if you follow anything that contradicts the Quran, then by the words of the Quran itself, you are a disbeliever, or not a Muslim.

Why are you saying this? Instead of debating whether it's true, tell me why if you deny Muhammad married a child you thought this was relevant.

I don't particularly find any 1000 year old writing to be reliable, but whether I personaly deny that he did or not is irrelevant. I'm arguing that it is not supported that he did by the Quran, and by the words of the Quran itself, if you judge by anything other than the Quran, including Hadith, than you are a disbeliever. So people that are judging child marriages morality by Hadith, which is not of the Quran, are not Muslims.

BTW we do not claim our prophets were sinless (Christ never taught this), again Islam shoots its self in the foot by claiming Muhammad who was anything but sinless was in fact sinless.

So you don't claim that Jesus was sinless?

He borrowed wholesale from heretical texts like the apocalypse of Peter, infancy Gospels, protovelum of James, Gospel of Mary, etc..

Since Gnostic texts are "heretical".
I didn't know you were a 2nd century church father. Should we go about eliminating the heretical sects through inquisition?

The big difference here being that our prophets were sinful and claimed to be sinful, your single prophet was exceedingly sinful yet Muslims claim him to be sinless. The bible records many things even prophets did that Christ nor the father desired.

So Christ was sinful in your opinion? Why is it "my single prophet" Are you implying that I am a Muslim?

And on that note, all Muslims do not claim the Prophet to be sinless.
The Koran vs. Sharia at a glance

number 6

Why do you think a religion that has been persecuted by the Earth's greatest empires would care about the opinions of those same groups that persecuted Christianity?

What do you consider the ?Earth's greatest empires". I consider Rome and Europe to be the earth's greatest empires since the formulation of Christianity, and both of those empires vehemently reinforced Christianity for a longer period of time than they persecuted them.

I do not even think you would claim Islam has a better reputation among the world in general than Christianity so again what are you doing? Islam is among the most common threats to countless nations security and radical Islam among even Islamic nations greatest threats according to polling. Yet you are throwing stones. Amazing.

No, I would definitely not claim that Islam has a better reputation amongst the world than Christianity. I would say the two have equal reputation amongst those of higher intelligence. And in my opinion general world reputation is ignorant, so I don't tend to view those things in good standing with the "general world reputation" as inherently good.

And no Islam is not the most common threats to countless nations security. I consider the people to be the most common threat to nation's security, not Islam, nor any religion for that matter. Religions don't commit actions, only people do. Yet I am throwing stones, huh. Do you still think I'm a Muslim?

You mentioned how silly someone looked and then are claiming that others perceptions are irrelevant. Make up your mind Islam will not succeed in either standard.

Honestly, I don't really care if Islam succeeds in any way. Nor do I care that any religion succeeds for that matter. Honestly, I see the strict adherance to any 1 religion as a hinderance to the growth of humanity in general. Basing the majority of your life on any book, much less one that was written thousands of years ago is not a very intelligent endeavor in my opinion.

I am sure it is because Islam tactic 101 is make all those who do not agree go away.

Naw I think, you have that confused with Christian tactic 101.

Deuteronomy 17:1-5 ESV -

Inquisition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cry bias until you are sick but that site did not produce those surah.

I think you have proved your bias well enough with you words, I need make no argument to show that you are biased.

 

[nash8]

Yes i agree,replace Islam with Logic,because Islam is Logic.

I don't know if i'd go that far.

Is terrorism logical?

Since all terrorists are Muslims. Thats some serious logical thinking right there.

one thing i can't understand is why muslims in places like pakistan are blowing up mosques and killing their own brothers. Why are islamic societies so divided against each other?

If Islam is promoting peace, then all these factions and in-house fighting is not logical.

Because these people are not Muslims. They are distinctions between Sunni and Shia, which the Quran clearly says that they're are no division's within Islam.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why God's promise to Haggar is lesser than God's promise to Abraham.

Do you really believe any of God's promises are greater than others?

From Abraham and Sarah we have Jesus.

From Abraham and Haggar we have Mohammad.

Your fighting an fighting an uphill battle with no gun Rick

 

[nash8]

That's the problem with willful ignorance.

I saw nothing worthwhile in the linke either, can you point some stuff out.

 

[Koldo]

I have quoted a verse in the Quran that says that if you follow anything that is not revealed from Allah, which only the Quran was revealed by Allah, than you are a disbeliever and/or not a Muslim.

Do you mean to say only Quranists are Muslims?

No true scotsman?

 

[Pastek]

one thing i can't understand is why muslims in places like pakistan are blowing up mosques and killing their own brothers. Why are islamic societies so divided against each other?

If Islam is promoting peace, then all these factions and in-house fighting is not logical.

We don't understand this too

 

[MysticSang'ha]

This global phenomenon is not a direct result of religion. It's a cultural practice at varying degrees around the world that assumes female fertility does not belong to the female herself, but to a patriarchal figure that protects her and guides her fertility for her.

It manifests in different ways. Women and girls who need a blessing or permission from a male headship for fertility or infertility can be seen in reproductive rights being diminished (as in being shamed for preventing or terminating a pregnancy), ****-shaming for wishing to control her own sexual pleasure or sexuality, and in less direct ways such as women and girls being barred from receiving an equal education as males in their respective societies, or being shot in the head or having acid thrown in their faces.

Nothing is more threatening to a patriarchal system than a female who dares to control her own reproductive fate. Because she is seen as the key to propagating a lineage with her fertility, she must not be given a chance to opt out of her place as being the carrier. Child-marriage offers a deeply entrenched patriarchal system the full ability of control over a female's fertility, as is Female Genital Mutilation.

So, in the OP, where an 11-year-old girl died as a result of internal bleeding from an adult male who saw himself as consummating his marriage with his bride, the idea of rape doesn't enter his mind nor in the minds of the culture he and the girl lived in. Control of female fertility is as natural to them as the air we all breathe. If a young bride dies, it's unfortunate, but seen as collateral damage in order to maintain the system of patriarchal control of female fertility.

The key is education, and education is what upsets archaic practices that dehumanize entire demographics of people. Education and resolve is what turned many a corner for minority groups in cultures around the world. To show that the out-groups are worthy and valued as much as the privileged groups in decision-making positions of power. And the only way that out-groups ARE valued as much is when they themselves are empowered, and take back their own freedom to decide their fates from those in privileged positions making decisions for them.

What will end this practice in this culture in Yemen is for the women and girls there to stand up and say "enough", and for the men and boys in their families and communities to support their decisions.

 

[1robin]

You said that you are bound by the book the is most reliable, so being a Christian, I would assume that you would be bound by the Bible, and therefore view it is the most reliable. Can you cite some evidence where scholars view the Bible as being the most reliable book on the historicity of Christiainity.

I would provide what you asked if we were discussing the Bible. These posts are already too long and this thread is about Islamic issues or has been. My thinking the Bible is more accurate is part scholarship and part faith. The point is you have no basis for insisting I use the Quran as the most reliable source unless you can prove it is more reliable than the source I actually used. I would never do that with someone who criticizes the Bible unless I demonstrate why their source is invalid or less valid. I have to spend far too much time in a Islamic debate talking about the Bible. How does that always happen. It is one long I know you are but what am I debate.

I use emoticons because I think your "abhorrently ignorant" statements are laughable not mine.

Only a lazy or incorrect person uses an emoticon where an argument is supposed to be. I and many debaters I know have found that the amount of emoticons and abbreviations for pop cultural sayings corresponds with the lack of merit in claims that seldom even appear. Have you ever seen professional scholars using emoticons or LOL's?

The argument I'm making is that the Bible actually supports taking young children as your own, while the Quran does not. So by your logic that Islam supports child marriage because what is written of it outside of it's holy scripture, then Christianity actually supports this act on a more fundamental basis, because it is actually in the Holy Book of Christianity.

Have you ever heard of the term Mut'ah'? Include what follows as part of my response to Muhammad and Aisha's age thing.

The only shortcoming with the above analogy is that the Quran does allow for the raping and divorcing of young, prepubescent girls. It even has the audacity to call this marriage:
O Prophet, when you divorce women, divorce them when they have reached their period. Count the period, and fear God your Lord. Do not expel them from their houses, nor let them go forth, except when they commit a flagrant indecency. Those are God's bounds; whosoever trespasses the bounds of God has done wrong to himself. Thou knowest not, perchance after that God will bring something new to pass… As for your women who have despaired of further menstruating, if you are in doubt, their period shall be three months; and those who have not menstruated as yet. And those who are with child, their term is when they bring forth their burden. Whoso fears God, God will appoint for him, of His command, easiness. S. 65:1, 4 Arberry
The waiting period for the divorcing of women who haven’t even menstruated is three months, showing that these aren’t even women but are young girls who haven’t even attained puberty! Now a woman can only be divorced if she was first married, so it is clear that this injunction assumes that young girls can be married and divorced and remarry before they reach puberty. Even more, the purpose of this waiting period is to ensure that the wife who is about to be divorced is not pregnant, or if she is to make sure that the true father is known, i.e. that the child is from the current husband, and not a next husband that she may marry afterwards. Thus, this verse presupposes that the Muslim men who are married to prepubescent girls have sexual intercourse with them.

Al Bukari is the primary source on Aisha's age, as he claimed was given be her herself. Do you not accept his work?

Please cite where the Quran says the Bible should be used to judge the Quran? And who is YOU that violate YOUR own rules, and the Gospel of Thomas is Pathetic now huh?

Yes it is. If you wish to get into textual criticism I can list the many ways why it is pathetic. I can debate Muhammad, the Quran, Aisha the Bible or the gnostic and heretical texts if you wish. I will not debate them all at the same time. I did not violate my rules. I said when used against the Bible I tell why it isn't as reliable. You have not done so, as I am the one that brought up the GOT. So no rule was violated at all. If you had used GOT I would have posted far more than emoticons in explaining why it is not as reliable as the Bible, you didn't. If you keep up this level of hostility and frustration you are not going to make it to the end of the debate.

Sura 5:50:"And let the People of the Gospel judge by what God has revealed in it. If any fail to judge by what God has revealed, they are licentious."

Judge what? The weather, sports, or what Muhammad had created. The Bible condemns what created but Muhammad would have not known it because he had fragmentary and distorted knowledge of what the Bible contained. That is why he even got all most all of the biblical stories wrong. Islam had a problem it was condemned by that which it said to judge by. Never fear and out came the whole corrupted nonsense. But the problem is this no one could have known what or if anything was corrupt in Muhammad's time. The Bible's of his days still exist and we know that are virtually identical to todays Bible. What Muhammad said to use is what I have today and it does not in any way support the Quran. If there were corruptions he nor anyone in Arabia would have known what they were and could not have done what he said to. If there were not then the Bible of his day and ours condemns the Quran. There just is no winning for Islam here.

I actually believe that it is one of the most accurate Gospels of what Yehoshua actually taught. Sounds like you are making some stereotypical judgements of who I am.

No I have studied that Gospel quite a bit and it is almost universally termed not to be inspired. There is a graduate student in this forum I can find if you want more info or I can post it.

So why, in your opinion, is the Gospel of Thomas unreliable. Because a bunch of Roman leaders decided that it was detrimental to their cause of uniting Rome under one religion that would essentially make the rich richer, and the poor poorer.

Look I can get deep into GOT, or any one of the other issues you bring up. However when I have to go fix a hundred very complex engineering problems my lab generates all day I can't find time to debate half a dozen and do any of them justice. Just pick one and we can get deep into it. I feel like I only have time to barely get a point or two out for each thing you bring up before time constraints compel me to move on. That is not how I like to debate. Pick you best or worst and we can stick with it until resolved or no hope exists for it to be resolved. I just can't halfway discuss ten topics.

I'm not telling a Christian to use the Quran, I'm saying that by what's written in the Quran, that if you judge by anything other than what's written in the Quran, then by the what is written in the Quran you are a disbeliever.

That sounds like some philosophers paradox tongue twister or something. It also sounds like it says it doesn't. I am not saying you have to use the Quran but if you don't it says your wrong. That is circular. Pick a favorite and we can get into it but I just can't bounce around this much.

 

[1robin]

That's the problem with willful ignorance.

That was not my link but I believe that link went to the Quran. Is it not meaningful?

 

[1robin]

Do you mean to say only Quranists are Muslims?

No true scotsman?

I do not know about Muslims but there are true Christians. If there exists a objective line that separates Christians from non-Christians as most of the Bible emphatically suggests how can Scotsman fallacies be relevant for Christianity at least. Islam is an intellectual consent to a historical and theological proposition so I can see the ambiguity there but Christians are made that way by God in an instant of time. Scotsman are not.