What's new

Why are men allowed four wives in Islam?

You do know that Ibn Khatir was taught by Ibn Taymiyah? Both go hand in hand

100+ years ago, Their doctrine was used to butcher people in lands which we now know as Saudi Arabia. The very same ideology that perpetuates the royal rule and hypocriacy wherever you look at it.

You obviously followed salafi/wahabi path from the nature and tone of the arguments you present.

Have you ever thought to yourself out of all the different muslim groups/ideologies, the wahabis have the highest number of polygamist marriages.... Why does lust play such a huge part in their lives?

Tell me the last time you met a muslim, who told you ... Please meet my concubine...X
In my 30+ years of existence, I have not met a single such person.

Hadith was written down by people, why should we not question it?

Why do Shias have different accounts? The mainstream shias lets say and not the extreme fringes.

Which hadiths should we believe?
I'm sorry to say, but I find Shaykhs motives as being a bit dubious.
Considering his past, ie someone who converted to Islam, and after supposedly studying Islam to the extent he claims to have done, and to be fair, appears to have done (although, I suspect, a version not dissimilar to that of the Taliban and/or the wahabi's of Saudi Arabia), stopped following Islam, due to, using his own words, finding aspects of Islam as being 'distasteful', 'disturbing' and 'irrational', he is very 'concerned' at projecting the 'true' version of Islam.

Sounds like someone attempting to portray Islam in as negative a light as possible, provide ammunition for the likes of the BNP to use in their propaganda (I'm sure they trawl through websites such as this), all under the guise of being an 'expert' on the subject.
 
You do know that Ibn Khatir was taught by Ibn Taymiyah? Both go hand in hand

100+ years ago, Their doctrine was used to butcher people in lands which we now know as Saudi Arabia. The very same ideology that perpetuates the royal rule and hypocriacy wherever you look at it.

You obviously followed salafi/wahabi path from the nature and tone of the arguments you present.

Have you ever thought to yourself out of all the different muslim groups/ideologies, the wahabis have the highest number of polygamist marriages.... Why does lust play such a huge part in their lives?

Tell me the last time you met a muslim, who told you ... Please meet my concubine...X
In my 30+ years of existence, I have not met a single such person.

Hadith was written down by people, why should we not question it?

Why do Shias have different accounts? The mainstream shias lets say and not the extreme fringes.

Which hadiths should we believe?


Well its not a Wahabi idea to follow Bukhari or Sahih Muslim hadith...its a Sunni idea...and if you question hadith as a Muslim you question them based on chains of narration...this is the standard ahla sunnah view...

I followed Hanafi fiqh...I was and am well opposed to Wahabi fiqh...and the British created Saudi state...and the nature of my arguments represent the consensus view...not the Wahabi one...feel free to view the opinions of Abu Hanifa, Imam Shafi etc on the points I've mentioned...

I've quoted a Shafi scholar in Shaykh Haddad in this very thread...

Concubinage isn't in existence today...as there is no state of Islam...and I've mentioned already that it is doubtful that it will continue for various reasons...this doesn't however obscure the fact that this was practiced during the Prophets time...he himself had concubines as did the Sahaba and this was continued way after his death with every Islamic empire that followed...

You're focusing on the Wahabis like Aisha being 6 is their argument when it isn't...its a consensus argument as is the idea that girls can consumate marriage once they hit puberty...this isn't a leftfield view in the slightest...and neither is polygamy...

Tabari probably the most well known Islamic historian confirms everything I have written...if you want I can quote him with sources...
 
I'm sorry to say, but I find Shaykhs motives as being a bit dubious.
Considering his past, ie someone who converted to Islam, and after supposedly studying Islam to the extent he claims to have done, and to be fair, appears to have done (although, I suspect, a version not dissimilar to that of the Taliban and/or the wahabi's of Saudi Arabia), stopped following Islam, due to, using his own words, finding aspects of Islam as being 'distasteful', 'disturbing' and 'irrational', he is very 'concerned' at projecting the 'true' version of Islam.

Sounds like someone attempting to portray Islam in as negative a light as possible, provide ammunition for the likes of the BNP to use in their propaganda (I'm sure they trawl through websites such as this), all under the guise of being an 'expert' on the subject.

Frankly they don't need to see my opinions on matters...my views are mainstream views...they can also view the work of classical scholars whose views correspond with what I have presented...and the numerous non Wahabists that discuss these topics...

I have quoted a scholar in Haddad who has spent a lot of his career attacking Wahabists...of course you will negate that fact cos its easier for you to attack me ad hominem...

And of course you won't refute the Ayat and Hadith I have presented cos frankly you have shown you know jack about the faith you claim to belong too...

My arguments are far from echoing the Wahabist thought...of course you would have actually needed to have done some reading which you evidently haven't...

Stick to debating the ration of things and presenting your own non Islam based opinions and leave the Islamic discussions to people who have actually read something...
 
Well its not a Wahabi idea to follow Bukhari or Sahih Muslim hadith...its a Sunni idea...and if you question hadith as a Muslim you question them based on chains of narration...this is the standard ahla sunnah view...

I followed Hanafi fiqh...I was and am well opposed to Wahabi fiqh...and the British created Saudi state...and the nature of my arguments represent the consensus view...not the Wahabi one...feel free to view the opinions of Abu Hanifa, Imam Shafi etc on the points I've mentioned...

I've quoted a Shafi scholar in Shaykh Haddad in this very thread...

Concubinage isn't in existence today...as there is no state of Islam...and I've mentioned already that it is doubtful that it will continue for various reasons...this doesn't however obscure the fact that this was practiced during the Prophets time...he himself had concubines as did the Sahaba and this was continued way after his death with every Islamic empire that followed...

You're focusing on the Wahabis like Aisha being 6 is their argument when it isn't...its a consensus argument as is the idea that girls can consumate marriage once they hit puberty...this isn't a leftfield view in the slightest...and neither is polygamy...

Tabari probably the most well known Islamic historian confirms everything I have written...if you want I can quote him with sources...

This is one of the haddad's conclusions after a long answer about Aishah's marriage.

These are some of the major points that go against accepting the commonly known narrative regarding Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of her marriage. In my opinion, neither was it an Arab tradition to give away girls in marriage at an age as young as nine or ten years, nor did the Prophet marry Ayesha at such a young age. The people of Arabia did not object to this marriage, because it never happened in the manner it has been narrated.

Those that itch to follow misguidance always resort to solipsisms because they are invariably thin on sources. In this particular case "the Learner" proves to be ignorant and dishonest. It is no surprise he moves on every single point, without exception, from incorrect premises to false conclusions.

Feel free to read the entire reponse. As its late, I have not read but skimmed right to the bottom of the page.

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=4604&CATE=1
 
Last edited:
Well its not a Wahabi idea to follow Bukhari or Sahih Muslim hadith...its a Sunni idea...and if you question hadith as a Muslim you question them based on chains of narration...this is the standard ahla sunnah view...

I followed Hanafi fiqh...I was and am well opposed to Wahabi fiqh...and the British created Saudi state...and the nature of my arguments represent the consensus view...not the Wahabi one...feel free to view the opinions of Abu Hanifa, Imam Shafi etc on the points I've mentioned...

I've quoted a Shafi scholar in Shaykh Haddad in this very thread...

Concubinage isn't in existence today...as there is no state of Islam...and I've mentioned already that it is doubtful that it will continue for various reasons...this doesn't however obscure the fact that this was practiced during the Prophets time...he himself had concubines as did the Sahaba and this was continued way after his death with every Islamic empire that followed...

You're focusing on the Wahabis like Aisha being 6 is their argument when it isn't...its a consensus argument as is the idea that girls can consumate marriage once they hit puberty...this isn't a leftfield view in the slightest...and neither is polygamy...

Tabari probably the most well known Islamic historian confirms everything I have written...if you want I can quote him with sources...

Ok in our time there are/ have been 3 countries in the world that claim to be an islamic state in spirit and letter of the law.

1. saudi arabia
2. Iran
3. Afghanistan under the Taliban

All 3 you will agree are various different ideologies.

Did all three suddenly give rise to concubinage, when they came into power? If that is not the case, then your point has no merit.
 
Last edited:
Stick to debating the ration of things and presenting your own non Islam based opinions and leave the Islamic discussions to people who have actually read something...
And so says an ex-non-muslim ex-muslim. :bow:

For your info, I could'nt care less what you think or not think. I don't profess to being a scholar, religion is a belief, its what one is comfortable with, and I've made it very clear, in numerous threads, that I firmly believe that Islam is a guide book, a 'Highway Code', that sets out basic principles and provides guidelines on living an honest, peaceful, healthy, happy life in co-existance with one's fellow man (and woman!) based upon the circumstances pertaining at the time, with these underlying principle and rules designed to address real, practical, down-to-earth issues. I've never been one who believes that Islam is a 'test' and 'exam' that one must pass in order to go to heaven, or even that the whole purpose of life is to go to heaven and avoid going to hell. And hence why I look at Islam in an objective, logical, practical manner and not with 'spirituality tinted' glasses. And that is my ultimate gripe with so called scholars who have completely the opposite viewpoints, and their whole 'scholarliness' is aimed at supporting those viewpoints.

If this thinking does not confirm with the views of others, including those gone before, then so be it.

I am very comfortable with my beliefs, unlike you who appears to be hopping back and forth between being a muslim and a non-muslim.

You, I guess, from the detailed knowledge that you appear to posses, at one time immersed yourself fully and completely in studying the subject, and got in so deep that your mind rebelled, to such an extent that you did a complete U-turn and decided to stop following/believing in the religion completely.

So if you wish to call me a 'muslim', an 'atheist', or whatever suits you best, be my guest, it does'nt alter my opinions on the pupose of Islam or my comfort level regarding it.
 
Last edited:
And so says an ex-non-muslim ex-muslim. :bow:

For your info, I could'nt care less what you think or not think. I don't profess to being a scholar, religion is a belief, its what one is comfortable with, and I've made it very clear, in numerous threads, that I firmly believe that Islam is a guide book, a 'Highway Code', that sets out basic principles and provides guidelines on living an honest, peaceful, healthy, happy life in co-existance with one's fellow man (and woman!) based upon the circumstances pertaining at the time, with these underlying principle and rules designed to address real, practical, down-to-earth issues. I've never been one who believes that Islam is a 'test' and 'exam' that one must pass in order to go to heaven, or even that the whole purpose of life is to go to heaven and avoid going to hell. And hence why I look at Islam in an objective, logical, practical manner and not with 'spirituality tinted' glasses. And that is my ultimate gripe with so called scholars who have completely the opposite viewpoints, and their whole 'scholarliness' is aimed at supporting those viewpoints.

If this thinking does not confirm with the views of others, including those gone before, then so be it.

I am very comfortable with my beliefs, unlike you who appears to be hopping back and forth between being a muslim and a non-muslim.

You, I guess, from the detailed knowledge that you appear to posses, at one time immersed yourself fully and completely in studying the subject, and got in so deep that your mind rebelled, to such an extent that you did a complete U-turn and decided to stop following/believing in the religion completely.

So if you wish to call me a 'muslim', an 'atheist', or whatever suits you best, be my guest, it does'nt alter my opinions on the pupose of Islam or my comfort level regarding it.


Good...glad we got your stupid rant out of the way...be comfortable with who you are...I am more than comfortable with who I am...

My point is regarding discussion of a topic...

You know 0 about the topic being discussed...
I evidently do...

And belief is not a prerequisite for discussion...knowledge is...many non Muslims have studied Islam in depth and have a right to discuss it...just as Muslims have a right to discuss other belief systems...

If someone disputes what I have written then they can produce Islamic arguments...all you do is launch ad hominem attacks because you have no Islamic arguments...
 
This is one of the haddad's conclusions after a long answer about Aishah's marriage.



Feel free to read the entire reponse. As its late, I have not read but skimmed right to the bottom of the page.

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=4604&CATE=1

This is the link I presented and you have misread it...

Its not just poorly structured...

This is part of a debate between a Muslim called the Learner and Haddad...

The part you have labeled Haddad's conclusion is actually the Learners conclusion...Haddad replies with:

Those that itch to follow misguidance always resort to solipsisms because they are invariably thin on sources. In this particular case "the Learner" proves to be ignorant and dishonest. It is no surprise he moves on every single point, without exception, from incorrect premises to false conclusions.

He believes it's six...and you can read it yourself...

Its better to read the PDF...its structured in a way you can read it...

www.abc.se/home/m9783/ir/d/aam2_e.pdf‎
 
Ok in our time there are/ have been 3 countries in the world that claim to be an islamic state in spirit and letter of the law.

1. saudi arabia
2. Iran
3. Afghanistan under the Taliban

All 3 you will agree are various different ideologies.

Did all three suddenly give rise to concubinage, when they came into power? If that is not the case, then your point has no merit.

But they aren't...they are nation states...

Are you honestly gonna claim these places to be modern day Caliphates...
 
Again Shaykh is making complete sense with his arguments here.

As the saying goes play the ball not the man.

Also tafir ibn Kathir is one of the most widely respected scholarly works amongst all muslims (not just wahabis).

Polygamy and concubinage was widely practiced for a long time. If you refuse to believe hadith then refer to Quran, both things are mentioned.
 
Last edited:
Haddad the Shafi refuting revisionist ideas about Aisha...

And its worth noting that the proponent of these revisionist ideas was demolished and never returned to debate again...yet his ideas continue to get lifted...

“The Learner”:
To begin with, I think it is the responsibility of all those who believe that marrying a girl as young as nine years old was an accepted norm of the Arab culture, to provide at least a few examples to substantiate their point of view. I have not yet been able to find a single dependable instance in the books of Arab history where a girl as young as nine years old was given away in marriage. Unless such examples are given, we do not have any reasonable grounds to believe that it really was an accepted norm.
G. F. Haddad:
Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim:
• Abu Tughlub ibn Hamdan married the daughter of `Izz al-Dawla Bakhtyar when she was three and paid a dowry of 100,000 dinars. This took place in Safar 360 H. (Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil).
• Al-Shafi`i in al-Umm reported that he saw countless examples of nine-year old pubescent girls in Yemen. Al-Bayhaqi also narrates it from him in the Sunan al-Kubra as does al-Dhahabi in the Siyar.
• Al-Bayhaqi narrated with his chains in his Sunan al-Kubra no less than three examples of Muslim wives that gave birth at age nine or ten.
• Hisham ibn `Urwa himself (whom the objector claims to know enough to forward the most barefaced judgments on his reliability) married Fatima bint al-Mundhir when she was nine years old (al-Muntazam and Tarikh Baghdad).
• Our liege-lord `Umar married Umm Kulthum the daughter of `Ali and Fatima at a similar age per `Abd al-Razzaq, Ibn `Abd al-Barr and others.
• And our Mother `Aisha herself was first almost betrothed to Jubayr ibn Mut`im before her father dropped that option when he received word from the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless and greet him and be well-pleased with them. [Although the authenticity of this report is questionable.]


“The Learner”:
In my opinion, the age of Ayesha (ra) has been grossly mis-reported in the ahadith. Not only that, I think that the narratives reporting this event are not only highly unreliable but also that on the basis of other historical data, the event reported, is quite an unlikely happening. Let us look at the issue from an objective stand point. My reservations in accepting the narratives, on the basis of which, Ayeshas (ra) age at the time of her marriage with the Prophet (pbuh) is held to be nine years are:
• Most of these narratives are reported only by Hisham ibn `urwah reporting on the authority of his father. An event as well known as the one being reported, should logically have been reported by more people than just one, two or three. Try more than eleven authorities among the Tabi`in that reported it directly from A'isha, not counting the other major Companions that reported the same, nor other major Successors that reported it from other than `A’isha.
• It is quite strange that no one from Medinah, where Hisham ibn `urwah lived the first seventy one years of his life has narrated the event, even though in Medinah his pupils included people as well known as Malik ibn Anas.

G. F. Haddad:
Not so. Al-Zuhri also reports it from `Urwa, from `A’isha; so does `Abd Allah ibn Dhakwan – both major Madanis. So is the Tabi`i Yahya al-Lakhmi who reports it from her in the Musnad and in Ibn Sa`d's Tabaqat. So is Abu Ishaq Sa`d ibn Ibrahim who reports it from Imam al-Qasim ibn Muhammad – one of the Seven Imams of Madina – from `A’isha.


“The Learner”:
All the narratives of this event have been reported by narrators from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have had shifted after living in Medinah for seventy one years.

G. F. Haddad:
Not so. In addition to the above four Madinese Tabi`in narrators, Sufyan ibn `Uyayna – from Khurasan – and `Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya – from Tabarayya in Palestine – both report it. Nor was this hadith reported only by `Urwa but also by `Abd al-Malik ibn `Umayr, al-Aswad, Ibn Abi Mulayka, Abu Salama ibn `Abd al-Rahman ibn `Awf, Yahya ibn `Abd al-Rahman ibn Hatib, Abu `Ubayda (`Amir ibn `Abd Allah ibn Mas`ud) and others of the Tabi`i Imams directly from `A’isha.
This makes the report mass-transmitted (mutawatir) from `A’isha by over eleven authorities among the Tabi`in, not counting the other major Companions that reported the same, such as Ibn Mas`ud nor other major Successors that reported it from other than `A’isha, such as Qatada!


“The Learner”:
Tehzibu'l-tehzib, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: "narratives reported by Hisham are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq". It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq. (vol 11, pg 48 - 51)

G. F. Haddad:
Rather, Ya`qub said: "Trustworthy, thoroughly reliable (thiqa thabt), above reproach except after he went to Iraq, at which time he narrated overly from his father and was criticized for it." Notice that Ya`qub does not exactly endorse that criticism.
As for Malik, he reports over one hundred hadiths from Hisham (as is evident in the two Sahihs and Sunan!) to the point that al-Dhahabi questions the authenticity of his alleged criticism of Hisham.
2
Indeed, none among the hadith Masters endorsed these reservations since they were based solely on the fact that Hisham in his last period (he was 71 at the time of his last trip to Iraq), for the sake of brevity, would say “My father, from `A’isha” (abi `an `A’isha) and no longer pronounced, “narrated to me” (haddathani).
Al-Mizzi in Tahdhib al-Kamal (30:238) explained that it became a foregone conclusion for the Iraqis that Hisham did not narrate anything from his father except what he had heard directly from him.
Ibn Hajar also dismisses the objections against Hisham ibn `Urwa as negligible in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (11:45), saying: “It was clear enough to the Iraqis that he did not narrate from his father other than what he had heard directly from him.”
In fact, to say that "narratives reported by Hisham ibn `Urwa are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq" is *major nonsense* as that would eliminate all narrations of Ayyub al-Sakhtyani from him since Ayyub was a Basran Iraqi, and those of Abu `Umar al-Nakha`i who was from Kufa, and those of Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman from Kufa (the Shaykh of Abu Hanifa), and those of Hammad ibn Salama and Hammad ibn Zayd both from Basra, and those of Sufyan al-Thawri from Basra, and those of Shu`ba in Basra, all of whom narrated from Hisham!


“The Learner”:
Mizanu'l-ai`tidal, another book on the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that when he was old, Hisham's memory suffered quite badly. (vol 4, pg 301 - 302)

G. F. Haddad:
An outright lie, on the contrary, al-Dhahabi in Mizan al-I`tidal (4:301 #9233) states: "Hisham ibn `Urwa, one of the eminent personalities. A Proof in himself, and an Imam. However, in his old age his memory diminished, but he certainly never became confused. Nor should any attention be paid to what Abu al-Hasan ibn al-Qattan said about him and Suhayl ibn Abi Salih becoming confused or changing! Yes, the man changed a little bit and his memory was not the same as it had been in his younger days, so that he forgot come of what he had memorized or lapsed, so what? Is he immune to forgetfulness? [p. 302] And when he came to Iraq in the last part of his life he narrated a great amount of knowledge, in the course of which are a few narrations in which he did not excel, and such occurs also to Malik, and Shu`ba, and Waki`, and the major trustworthy masters. So spare yourself confusion and floundering, do not mix the firmly-established Imams with the weak and muddled narrators. Hisham is a Shaykh al-Islam. But may Allah console us well of you, O Ibn al-Qattan, and the same with regard to `Abd al-Rahman ibn Khirash's statement from Malik!"


“The Learner”:
According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha (ra) was born about eight years before Hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari (kitabu'l-tafseer) Ayesha (ra) is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur'an, was revealed, "I was a young girl". The 54th surah of the Qur'an was revealed nine years before Hijrah.
3
G. F. Haddad:
Not true. The hadith Masters, Sira historians, and Qur’anic commentators agree that the splitting of the moon took place about five years before the Holy Prophet’s (upon him blessings and peace) Hijra to Madina. Thus it is confirmed that our Mother `Aisha was born between seven and eight years before the Hijra and the words that she was a jariya or little girl five years before the Hijra match the fact that her age at the time Surat al-Qamar was revealed was around two or three A.H.


“The Learner”:
According to this tradition, Ayesha (ra) had not only been born before the revelation of the referred surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not an infant (sibyah) at that time. Obviously, if this narrative is held to be true, it is in clear contradiction with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah. I see absolutely no reason that after the comments of the experts on the narratives of Hisham ibn `urwah, why we should not accept this narrative to be more accurate.

G. F. Haddad:
A two year old is not an infant. A two year old is able to run around, which is what jariya means. As for "the comments of the experts" they concur on 6 or 7 as the age of marriage and 9 as the age of cohabitation.


“The Learner”:
According to a number of narratives, Ayesha (ra) accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back. Ayesha's (ra) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud clearly indicate that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to accompany men to the battle fields to help them, not to be a burden on them.

G. F. Haddad:
First, the prohibition applied to combatants. It applied neither to non-combatant boys nor to non-combatant girls and women. Second, `Aisha did not partricipate in Badr at all but bade farewell to the combatants as they were leaving Madina, as narrated by Muslim in his Sahih. On the day of Uhud (year 3), Anas – at the time only twelve or thirteen years old – reports seeing an eleven-year old `A’isha and his mother Umm Sulaym having tied up their dresses and carrying water skins back and forth to the combatants, as narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim.


“The Learner”:
According to almost all the historians Asma, the elder sister of Ayesha was ten years older than Ayesha.

G. F. Haddad:
Well, Ibn Kathir based himself on Ibn Abi al-Zinad's assertion that she was ten years older than `A'isha, however, al-Dhahabi in Siyar A`lam al-Nubala' said there was a greater difference than 10 years between the two, up to 19, and he is more reliable here.


“The Learner”: 4
It is reported in Taqri'bu'l-tehzi'b as well as Al-bidayah wa'l-nihayah that Asma died in 73 hijrah when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma was 100 years old in 73 hijrah she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Ayesha, if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH, was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.

G. F. Haddad:
Ibn Hajar reports in al-Isaba from Hisham ibn `Urwa, from his father, that Asma' did live 100 years, and from Abu Nu`aym al-Asbahani that "Asma' bint Abi Bakr was born 27 years before the Hijra, and she lived until the beginning of the year 74." None of this amounts to any proof for `A'isha's age whatsoever.


“The Learner”:
Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history, while mentioning Abu Bakr reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah -- the pre Islamic period. Obviously, if Ayesha was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH -- the time she most likely got married.

G. F. Haddad:
Al-Tabari nowhere reports that "Abu Bakr's four children were all born in Jahiliyya" but only that Abu Bakr married both their mothers in Jahiliyya, Qutayla bint Sa`d and Umm Ruman, who bore him four children in all, two each, `A'isha being the daughter of Umm Ruman.


“The Learner”:
According to Ibn Hisham, the historian, Ayesha accepted Islam quite some time before Umar ibn Khattab.

G. F. Haddad:
Nowhere does Ibn Hisham say this.


“The Learner”:
This shows that Ayesha accepted Islam during the first year of Islam. While, if the narrative of Ayesha's marriage at seven years of age is held to be true, Ayesha should not have been born during the first year of Islam.

G. F. Haddad:
Rather, Ibn Hisham lists `A'isha among "those that accepted Islam because of Abu Bakr." This does not mean that she embraced Islam during the first year of Islam. Nor does it mean that she necessarily embraced Islam before `Umar (year 6) although she was born the previous year (year 7 before the Hijra) although it is understood she will automatically follow her father's choice even before the age of reason.


“The Learner”:
Tabari has also reported that at the time Abu Bakr planned on migrating to Habshah (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am -- with whose son Ayesha was engaged -- and asked him to take Ayesha in his house as his son's wife. Mut`am refused, because Abu Bakr had embraced Islam, and subsequently his son divorced Ayesha (ra).
5
G. F. Haddad:
Not at all, there is no mention of emigration in Tabari's account of Abu Bakr's discussion with Mut`im. Nor did he ever ask him to take `A'isha because there had been only some preliminary talk, not a formal arrangement. Umm Ruman, Abu Bakr's wife, reportedly said: "By Allah, no promise had been given on our part at all!" Rather, al-Tabari said that when news of the Prophet's interest in `A'isha came, he went to see Mut`im. Then Mut`im's wife manifested her fear that her son would become Muslim if he married into Abu Bakr's family. Abu Bakr then left them and gave his assent to the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace.


“The Learner”:
Now, if Ayesha was only seven years old at the time of her marriage, she could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr decided on migrating to Habshah. On the basis of this report it seems only reasonable to assume that Ayesha had not only been born 8 years before hijrah, but was also a young lady, quite prepared for marriage.

G. F. Haddad:
Your assumption fizzles at the root when you read al-Tabari's positive assertion: "On the day he consummated the marriage with her she was nine years old."


“The Learner”:
According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of Khadijah, when Khaulah came to the Prophet advising him tomarry again, the Prophet asked her regarding the choices she had in her mind. Khaulah said: "You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)". When the Prophet asked about who the virgin was, Khaulah proposed Ayesha's name. All those who know the Arabic language, are aware that the word "bikr" in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine year old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier is "Jariyah". "Bikr" on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady, and obviously a nine year old is not a "lady".

G. F. Haddad:
This is ignorant nonsense, bikr means a virgin girl, a girl who has never been married even if her age is 0 and there is no unclarity here whatsoever.


“The Learner”:
According to Ibn Hajar, Fatimah was five years older than Ayesha. Fatimah is reported to have been born when the Prophet was 35 years old. Thus, even if this information is taken to be correct, Ayesha could by no means be less than 14 years old at the time of hijrah, and 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage.

G. F. Haddad:
Rather, Ibn Hajar mentions two versions: (1) al-Waqidi's narration that Fatima was born when the Prophet was 35; and (2) Ibn `Abd al-Barr's narration that she was born when he was 41, approximately one year more or less before Prophethood, and about five years before `A'isha was born. The latter version matches the established dates. So our Mother `A’isha was nineteen to twenty years younger than her sister Asma’ (b. 27 before Hijra-d. 74) and about five years to eight years Fatima’s junior.

6
“The Learner”:
These are some of the major points that go against accepting the commonly known narrative regarding Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of her marriage.
In my opinion, neither was it an Arab tradition to give away girls in marriage at an age as young as nine or ten years, nor did the Prophet marry Ayesha at such a young age. The people of Arabia did not object to this marriage, because it never happened in the manner it has been narrated.

G. F. Haddad:
Those that itch to follow misguidance always resort to solipsisms because they are invariably thin on sources. In this particular case "The Learner" proves to be ignorant and dishonest. It is no surprise he moves on every single point, without exception, from incorrect premises to false conclusions.
“The Learner”:


In the ISLAMIC REVIEW we find the following points:
1. The well-known historian Ibn Jareer al-Tabari writes at page 50 of volume 4 of his 'Book of History': "Abu Bakr married two ladies in the days of ignorance (pre-Call era). Fateelah daughter of Abd al-Aza was the first, from whom Abdullah and Asma were born. Umm-i-Rooman was the second, from whom Abd al-Rahman and 'Aishah were born. All the four children of Abu Bakr were born in the days of ignorance (Jahiliyyah,
i.e., pre-Islamic days) from the above-named two ladies.

G. F. Haddad:
This is false as already shown.


“The Learner”:
2. It is a well-known fact of history, that Abu Bakr's son Abd al-Rahman fought against the Muslims in the battle of Badr. His age at that time was 21-22 years, and although he was older than 'Aishah, there is no evidence to show that the difference between their ages was more than three or four years. This fact lends support to the view that Hazrat 'Aishah was born four or five years before the Call.

G. F. Haddad:
What nonsense! Abu Bakr's children `Abd Allah, `Abd al-Rahman, Muhammad and Asma’ were all born before `A'isha and her birth could have followed that of the last of them by any number of years.


“The Learner”:
3. The well-known historian and scholar Ibn Katheer writes in his 'Al-Badayah' about Sayedah Asma' daughter of Abu Bakr, Asma' died in 73 A.H. at the age of 100 years. She was ten years older than her sister 'Aishah.

G. F. Haddad:
See above.

7
“The Learner”:
Now according to this report 'Asma' would have been 27-28 years old at the time of Hijrah and since she was ten years older than Sayedah 'Aishah, therefore the age of Sayedah 'Aishah would have been 17 or 18 years at the time of Hijrah. Accordingly, her birth falls about four or five yearsbefore the Call, and her age at the time of the consummation of marriage in 2 A.H. will work out to 19-20 years.

G. F. Haddad:
This is all too flimsy as already shown.


“The Learner”:
4. The author of the well-known collection of Hadith 'Mishkat al-Masabeeh', Sheikh Waheed-ud-Deen, writes in his well-known book 'Ahmal fi Asma' al-Rijjal':
"At the time of the consummation of her marriage Sayedah 'Aishah's age was not less than 18-19 years."

G. F. Haddad:
There is no "Sheikh Waheed-ud-Deen." The person you mean is al-Khatib al-Tibrizi himself, whose nickname is Wali al-Din, and whose book al-Ikmal fi Asma' al-Rijal received an Urdu translation in the fifties titled: Ikmal fi asma' al-rijal, mu'allafa-e sahib-i Mishkat, shekh Valiy-al-Din Abi `Abd-Allah Muhammad ibn `Abd-Allah al-Khatib, tarjuma-e Urdu. [Karachi, Nur-Muhammad: Karkhana-e Tijarat-i-Kutub, 195?].
It is highly unlikely that al-Tibrizi would have said what you attribute to him. He himself adduced in Mishkat al-Masabih the hadith of Sahih Muslim whereby `Aisha married at seven and cohabited at nine.


“The Learner”:
All the above quotations give ample refutation to the common misconception that Aishah's age at the time of her Nikah was 6 years and at the time of consummation of marriage it was only 9 years. If Muslim scholars of the present era deem fit to make an objective research instead of beating the old track, they will find ample material in the pages of history to arrive at a correct age for Aishah. And Allah the Almighty is the source of truth.

G. F. Haddad:
Objective research shows that the beaten track is right on…and Allah knows best.

8
 
And so says an ex-non-muslim ex-muslim. :bow:

For your info, I could'nt care less what you think or not think. I don't profess to being a scholar, religion is a belief, its what one is comfortable with, and I've made it very clear, in numerous threads, that I firmly believe that Islam is a guide book, a 'Highway Code', that sets out basic principles and provides guidelines on living an honest, peaceful, healthy, happy life in co-existance with one's fellow man (and woman!) based upon the circumstances pertaining at the time, with these underlying principle and rules designed to address real, practical, down-to-earth issues. I've never been one who believes that Islam is a 'test' and 'exam' that one must pass in order to go to heaven, or even that the whole purpose of life is to go to heaven and avoid going to hell. And hence why I look at Islam in an objective, logical, practical manner and not with 'spirituality tinted' glasses. And that is my ultimate gripe with so called scholars who have completely the opposite viewpoints, and their whole 'scholarliness' is aimed at supporting those viewpoints.

If this thinking does not confirm with the views of others, including those gone before, then so be it.

I am very comfortable with my beliefs, unlike you who appears to be hopping back and forth between being a muslim and a non-muslim.

You, I guess, from the detailed knowledge that you appear to posses, at one time immersed yourself fully and completely in studying the subject, and got in so deep that your mind rebelled, to such an extent that you did a complete U-turn and decided to stop following/believing in the religion completely.

So if you wish to call me a 'muslim', an 'atheist', or whatever suits you best, be my guest, it does'nt alter my opinions on the pupose of Islam or my comfort level regarding it.


Frankly the whole post is absolute drivel but I will focus on your first paragraph...

Your opinions...thats all you have presented...no mainstream Muslim claims what you claim...what you have written has absolutely nothing to do with Islam at all...

And your lack of reading shows frankly with that paragraph...its doubtful you have even read the book you claim to follow when one reads such a bizarre opening paragraph...

So leave the debating to people debating Islam...you are simply debating your own viewpoints and presenting them as Islam...or because you have no arguments...you're busy attacking my intentions and not my evidence...
 
Frankly the whole post is absolute drivel but I will focus on your first paragraph...

Your opinions...thats all you have presented...no mainstream Muslim claims what you claim...what you have written has absolutely nothing to do with Islam at all...

And your lack of reading shows frankly with that paragraph...its doubtful you have even read the book you claim to follow when one reads such a bizarre opening paragraph...

So leave the debating to people debating Islam...you are simply debating your own viewpoints and presenting them as Islam...or because you have no arguments...you're busy attacking my intentions and not my evidence...
I guess my post hit the nerve to such an extent that you felt the need to quote it and respond to it twice. :))

And yes, I am attacking your intentions. For the reasons I've previously outlined.
 
But they aren't...they are nation states...

Are you honestly gonna claim these places to be modern day Caliphates...



So because they are not "true" islamic caliphates...... That is why concubinage is unheard of during our time?
 
Again Shaykh is making complete sense with his arguments here.

As the saying goes play the ball not the man.

Also tafir ibn Kathir is one of the most widely respected scholarly works amongst all muslims (not just wahabis).

Polygamy and concubinage was widely practiced for a long time. If you refuse to believe hadith then refer to Quran, both things are mentioned.

Why is polygamy a common place in wahabis/ salafis compared to the rest?

Wahabis, from the sunnis are the most intolerant and readily resort to harming others on the basis that they are right. End of.
 
As the saying goes play the ball not the man..
And what do you think he's doing?

Here are some examples:

In response to Jadz's post
With respect its been established plenty on this forum that you reject Sahih hadith...and it seems now you reject Quran too...

You also consistently dispute the legitimacy of scholars when presenting yourself as a scholar at the same time...
or

As stated...its not a hard concept but you're too dim to .
or even,

You and Mamoon have NOT discussed Islam nor have you discussed scripture...so frankly I have no idea what exactly you believe you have contributed to this topic...'I think' is not an Islamic concept...

You are discussing your own opinions and if I have maligned anything it is your pathetic opinions which you present as Islam...

You see, this is what is so puzzling.

Religion, by definition, is a belief system. So you either believe or don't believe. Virtually every poster in this thread has, more or less, been putting forward arguments, and supporting them by various means, which they also believe in and which form part and parcel of their overall belief in Islam.

Shaykh is unique in that he is putting forward particular perspectives of Islam (- there is no universal acceptance of many aspects of Islam, including that of having four wives, as can be seen by the numerous debates on the subject, even by 'scholars'), and yet, by his own admission, he finds them 'distasteful', 'disturbing' and 'irrational'.

So the question is, does Shaykh personally accept and agree with the scholars he insists on quoting to back up his arguements, and if not, what is his purpose in doing so. As for the argument that he's doing so as an objective commentator, well, considering that religion itself is based on belief, I find that hard to accept.

Study of religion is not like that of other fields of study, as the veracity of it can not be proven, or unproven, by experimentation, empirical evaluation, or even pure logic. Hence it is extremely difficult to argue objectively from a particular perspective without that perspective being influenced by one's own beliefs. Shaykh is claiming to be able to accomplish that magic trick.

Now moving onto what I have said regarding my own beliefs, I have a number of reasons for doing so. To put it very simply, I do not accept that human beings are capable of verbally communicating something, from generation to generation, for hundreds of years, exactly word-for-word, and even if that was possible, doing so without losing some of the nuances, with the net result that it creates a butterfly effect by the time it gets to the stage where it is collated (-without the modern means of data collation and analysis) and written down. And yet, we are expected to believe that the collation of the hadith, as we know it, has not been affected by any of that.
 
Last edited:
Javelin

So the question is, does Shaykh personally accept and agree with the scholars he insists on quoting to back up his arguements, and if not, what is his purpose in doing so. As for the argument that he's doing so as an objective commentator, well, considering that religion itself is based on belief, I find that hard to accept.

You are wrong. The religion Islam does not only consist of the belief in God and rituals, there is a massive amount of information, not just scriptures and traditions but books of law and writings by famous Islamic jurists that can be objectively analysed and debated. Are you ignorant of the fact that many Islamic studies departments exist in universities around the world, and many non-Muslims do engage in purely objective analysis of Islam as an occupation? You seem to imply that shaykh is doing the BNP's bidding by probing Islam whilst being a non-Muslim, a laughable notion.

Study of religion is not like that of other fields of study, as the veracity of it can not be proven, or unproven, by experimentation, empirical evaluation, or even pure logic. Hence it is extremely difficult to argue objectively from a particular perspective without that perspective being influenced by one's own beliefs. Shaykh is claiming to be able to accomplish that magic trick.

So centuries of Islamic jurisprudence and law-making is not enough of a study for you? It was very much a rational study(still is) not based on proving God exists, as your juvenile thinking would suggest, but a rigorous study of traditions and beliefs. And yes although different schools of study exist, most of the main ones(shia + the Big 4 Sunni ones) are very much rooted in logical thinking and centuries of scholarship.

Now moving onto what I have said regarding my own beliefs, I have a number of reasons for doing so. To put it very simply, I do not accept that human beings are capable of verbally communicating something, from generation to generation, for hundreds of years, exactly word-for-word, and even if that was possible, doing so without losing some of the nuances, with the net result that it creates a butterfly effect by the time it gets to the stage where it is collated (-without the modern means of data collation and analysis) and written down. And yet, we are expected to believe that the collation of the hadith, as we know it, has not been affected by any of that.

You are not unique in having these thoughts. You hold a Quran-only belief, which is alternatively known as Ahl-e-Quran in Pakistan or Quranists. This is a minority sect in the Islamic world. In actual fact, your opinion that the hadith are largely fabricated, is not even a mainstream view in secular Islamic scholarship in universities around the world, never mind the orthodox ones in Saudi/Egypt/Pakistan. There was a book recently by Tom Holland (In the Shadow of the Sword) that also assumed this and this book was widely panned by serious researchers in the West.

I don't know this shaykh or you personally, but having skimmed this thread, you seem to be the confused one, not him. Your attempts to argue with shaykh given your beliefs are about as valid as a Mormon defending the Catholic Church.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry to say, but I find Shaykhs motives as being a bit dubious.
Considering his past, ie someone who converted to Islam, and after supposedly studying Islam to the extent he claims to have done, and to be fair, appears to have done (although, I suspect, a version not dissimilar to that of the Taliban and/or the wahabi's of Saudi Arabia), stopped following Islam, due to, using his own words, finding aspects of Islam as being 'distasteful', 'disturbing' and 'irrational', he is very 'concerned' at projecting the 'true' version of Islam.

Sounds like someone attempting to portray Islam in as negative a light as possible, provide ammunition for the likes of the BNP to use in their propaganda (I'm sure they trawl through websites such as this), all under the guise of being an 'expert' on the subject.

I don't think you can make assumptions about Shaykh's motives however they might appear to you. There are probably a fair number of people who fall into the HT convert category that have found living with a 1400 year old version of religion hard to reconcile with the modern era and grow disillusioned.

One thing which is true though is that the harshest version of Islam complete with it's 1400 year old traditions provide great ammunition for extremist Muslims and virulent anti-Muslims alike. Hence Budmarsh's endorsement of Shaykh's view that the narrow minded version of Islam is the only valid one. From a militant point of view it makes absolute sense for both Muslims and anti-Muslims to push the extremist view as it ensures conflict and hopefully violent confrontation.
 
You are not unique in having these thoughts. You hold a Quran-only belief, which is alternatively known as Ahl-e-Quran in Pakistan or Quranists. This is a minority sect in the Islamic world. In actual fact, your opinion that the hadith are largely fabricated, is not even a mainstream view in secular Islamic scholarship in universities around the world, never mind the orthodox ones in Saudi/Egypt/Pakistan. There was a book recently by Tom Holland (In the Shadow of the Sword) that also assumed this and this book was widely panned by serious researchers in the West.

I don't know this shaykh or you personally, but having skimmed this thread, you seem to be the confused one, not him. Your attempts to argue with shaykh given your beliefs are about as valid as a Mormon defending the Catholic Church
Correct, you do not know me personally.

And yet you also attribute to me something that your fertile mind has made up by adding 2+2 to make 5.

Nowhere did I say that the hadith are largely 'fabricated'. Please do learn to understand the difference between being 'fabricated' (ie made up), and not completely reliable, which is what my post effectively says, due to the 'butterfly' effect of passing on the version of events, generation after generation, for hundreds of years, by verbal means alone, and then being collated, analysed, sorted and filtered manually before being written down. Even a child should understand that basic level of logic.
I don't know this shaykh or you personally, but having skimmed this thread, you seem to be the confused one, not him. Your attempts to argue with shaykh given your beliefs are about as valid as a Mormon defending the Catholic Church
And yet you think that someone, who has left Islam, believes that Islam is 'distasteful', 'disturbing' and 'irrational', is defending Islam? With logic like that ..... say no more....
 
Last edited:
I don't think you can make assumptions about Shaykh's motives however they might appear to you. There are probably a fair number of people who fall into the HT convert category that have found living with a 1400 year old version of religion hard to reconcile with the modern era and grow disillusioned.
I don't dispute that. However 'disillusioned' is not quite the word I'd use, considering he himself used the words 'distasteful', 'disturbing' and 'irrational'.

One thing which is true though is that the harshest version of Islam complete with it's 1400 year old traditions provide great ammunition for extremist Muslims and virulent anti-Muslims alike. Hence Budmarsh's endorsement of Shaykh's view that the narrow minded version of Islam is the only valid one. From a militant point of view it makes absolute sense for both Muslims and anti-Muslims to push the extremist view as it ensures conflict and hopefully violent confrontation.
And never a truer word spoken (or written)! Sums it up succinctly :19:
 
Correct, you do not know me personally.

And yet you also attribute to me something that your fertile mind has made up by adding 2+2 to make 5.

Nowhere did I say that the hadith are largely 'fabricated'. Please do learn to understand the difference between being 'fabricated' (ie made up), and not completely reliable, which is what my post effectively says, due to the 'butterfly' effect of passing on the version of events, generation after generation, for hundreds of years, by verbal means alone, and then being collated, analysed, sorted and filtered manually before being written down. Even a child should understand that basic level of logic.And yet you think that someone, who has left Islam, believes that Islam is 'distasteful', 'disturbing' and 'irrational', is defending Islam? With logic like that ..... say no more....

I knew you would get into semantics. Whether fabricated or unreliable or whatever else the crux of the matter is you dismiss them. And no, its not a childish level of logic to believe the hadith by and large are accurate. I mean you do realise by saying this you are belittling the beliefs of the majority of Muslims and the efforts of the majority of Muslim scholars?

What is laughable here is that, you make a few simplistic assumptions and then simply use these assumptions to reject/discard/be sceptical of hadith. I'm sure you have not studied isnads and how they came about. I haven't either but I know enough about it to know that some brilliant(and rational) minds worked on them and that it is a very credible area of Islamic study.

To put it in other words, you don't think these problems that you put forth, were evident to the early Islamic scholars/polymaths/philosopher and great thinkers?

As for shaykh he didn't say those things about Islam but rather about some certain aspects. You can't just misquote people out of context. You seem to be hysterical about him/paranoid. ITs rather pathetic tbh, shaykh is being on the whole objective and arguing using evidence and mainstream consensus. You aren't.
 
One thing which is true though is that the harshest version of Islam complete with it's 1400 year old traditions provide great ammunition for extremist Muslims and virulent anti-Muslims alike. Hence Budmarsh's endorsement of Shaykh's view that the narrow minded version of Islam is the only valid one. From a militant point of view it makes absolute sense for both Muslims and anti-Muslims to push the extremist view as it ensures conflict and hopefully violent confrontation.

I never said anything about any version of Islam being more valid than another. I simply stated an objective truth which is that Quran-only beliefs are a minority in the Islamic world. Pls try and avoid attributing to me things I have not posted here. And whats this rubbish about conflict and violence? Irrelevant guff.
 
I never said anything about any version of Islam being more valid than another. I simply stated an objective truth which is that Quran-only beliefs are a minority in the Islamic world. Pls try and avoid attributing to me things I have not posted here. And whats this rubbish about conflict and violence? Irrelevant guff.

That's strange, you were endorsing Shaykh's admirably black and white clarity on what is a valid Islamic stance as opposed to Javelin's less literal understanding, or at least that's how it looked to me, maybe I read it wrong. The guff about conflict and violence is when two militant ideologies opposed to each other clash, it can only end in violence because compromise isn't on the agenda of either side.
 
I knew you would get into semantics. Whether fabricated or unreliable or whatever else the crux of the matter is you dismiss them. And no, its not a childish level of logic to believe the hadith by and large are accurate. I mean you do realise by saying this you are belittling the beliefs of the majority of Muslims and the efforts of the majority of Muslim scholars?

What is laughable here is that, you make a few simplistic assumptions and then simply use these assumptions to reject/discard/be sceptical of hadith. I'm sure you have not studied isnads and how they came about. I haven't either but I know enough about it to know that some brilliant(and rational) minds worked on them and that it is a very credible area of Islamic study.

To put it in other words, you don't think these problems that you put forth, were evident to the early Islamic scholars/polymaths/philosopher and great thinkers?
Look fella, if one goes by your logic, then there will be one unified, all encompassing, version of Islam, with no sects, no divisions, no 'schools' of thought, no variations or differences, and all muslims will be living as one big happy family.
But,, surprise, surprise, the opposite is the case. How do you think that has come about if all these early Islamic scholars/polymaths/philosophers were as infallable as you appear to think they were? At least my views on Islam are in sync with the reality of the world around us, whereas .....
As for shaykh he didn't say those things about Islam but rather about some certain aspects. You can't just misquote people out of context. You seem to be hysterical about him/paranoid. ITs rather pathetic tbh, shaykh is being on the whole objective and arguing using evidence and mainstream consensus. You aren't.
First of all, if you go and re-read the various posts that have gone before, you will note that he is the one who started making personal attacks, and I therefore feel fully justified in questioning his motives.

I will go so far as to say that whilst it is possible for an outsider, one who has never followed Islam, to study Islam as an academic exercise and then express his views in an objective manner, I cannot accept that someone who was at one time a devoted follower and believer, and one who immersed himself completely to studying the topic to the extent that he obviously has done, and then did a complete u-turn, resulting in being a follower no more, meaning that something happened along the line that made him completely switch sides, indicates that it is impossible for him to be objective and impartial. He is carrying far too much baggage to be able to do that.
And to cap it all, you think he's defending Islam? :))
 
Last edited:
And what do you think he's doing?

Here are some examples:

In response to Jadz's postor

or even,



You see, this is what is so puzzling.

Religion, by definition, is a belief system. So you either believe or don't believe. Virtually every poster in this thread has, more or less, been putting forward arguments, and supporting them by various means, which they also believe in and which form part and parcel of their overall belief in Islam.

Shaykh is unique in that he is putting forward particular perspectives of Islam (- there is no universal acceptance of many aspects of Islam, including that of having four wives, as can be seen by the numerous debates on the subject, even by 'scholars'), and yet, by his own admission, he finds them 'distasteful', 'disturbing' and 'irrational'.

So the question is, does Shaykh personally accept and agree with the scholars he insists on quoting to back up his arguements, and if not, what is his purpose in doing so. As for the argument that he's doing so as an objective commentator, well, considering that religion itself is based on belief, I find that hard to accept.

Study of religion is not like that of other fields of study, as the veracity of it can not be proven, or unproven, by experimentation, empirical evaluation, or even pure logic. Hence it is extremely difficult to argue objectively from a particular perspective without that perspective being influenced by one's own beliefs. Shaykh is claiming to be able to accomplish that magic trick.

Now moving onto what I have said regarding my own beliefs, I have a number of reasons for doing so. To put it very simply, I do not accept that human beings are capable of verbally communicating something, from generation to generation, for hundreds of years, exactly word-for-word, and even if that was possible, doing so without losing some of the nuances, with the net result that it creates a butterfly effect by the time it gets to the stage where it is collated (-without the modern means of data collation and analysis) and written down. And yet, we are expected to believe that the collation of the hadith, as we know it, has not been affected by any of that.


Again you misunderstand...I didn't attack Jadz as a person...I stated that her criteria is far from mainstream...

I stated she doesn't recognise the legitimacy of mutawaatir hadith...something your average Muslim does...

How you call that ad hominem I don't know...and you forgot to quote the rest of the post where I refuted everything she wrote with SCRIPTURE...

I am speaking to Eagle Eye, DV, KB, AR Fan with respect cos they are actually having a discussion on Islam...

You I can't discuss with respect to cos your discussing something that has no relevancy to what the rest of us are discussing...

Its a conversation about Islam...not what Javelin believes to be Islam...
 
Look fella, if one goes by your logic, then there will be one unified, all encompassing, version of Islam, with no sects, no divisions, no 'schools' of thought, no variations or differences, and all muslims will be living as one big happy family.
But,, surprise, surprise, the opposite is the case. How do you think that has come about if all these early Islamic scholars/polymaths/philosophers were as infallable as you appear to think they were? At least my views on Islam are in sync with the reality of the world around us, whereas .....
First of all, if you go and re-read the various posts that have gone before, you will note that he is the one who started making personal attacks, and I therefore feel fully justified in questioning his motives.

I will go so far as to say that whilst it is possible for an outsider, one who has never followed Islam, to study Islam as an academic exercise and then express his views in an objective manner, I cannot accept that someone who was at one time a devoted follower and believer, and one who immersed himself completely to studying the topic to the extent that he obviously has done, and then did a complete u-turn, resulting in being a follower no more, meaning that something happened along the line that made him completely switch sides, indicates that it is impossible for him to be objective and impartial. He is carrying far too much baggage to be able to do that.
And to cap it all, you think he's defending Islam? :))

Absolute nonsense...

You wrote about me personally attacking you and I showed you my previous quotes...you're making up stories now frankly...

I have offered you the chance to refute what I have written and to refute it with scripture...and you simply reply with theories about me the person...

As stated even if i am what you think i am then so what...if what i am saying is wrong then refute it...but instead you prefer to deflect...

I have presented mainstream Islamic opinions...you have presented nothing...
 
@ Javelin

What Shaykh has presented in this thread is the authentic Islamic view on the topic. What you and others with similar thought process like yours have done is present rather bizarre statements when really the Qur'an is quite explicit on it. You don't even have to go to the hadiths for it.

It's actually quite astounding to see someone like Shaykh, given his background revealed over previous threads & this thread on issues related to Islam that he is very objective and presents Islam as it is instead of taking the orientalist/secularist route. Quite rare to see this from a Non-Muslim.

May Allah SWT guide Shaykh back to Islam and give us Muslims tawfiq to understand & practice the Deen as it should be.
 
Last edited:
Again you misunderstand...I didn't attack Jadz as a person...I stated that her criteria is far from mainstream...

I stated she doesn't recognise the legitimacy of mutawaatir hadith...something your average Muslim does...

How you call that ad hominem I don't know...and you forgot to quote the rest of the post where I refuted everything she wrote with SCRIPTURE...

I am speaking to Eagle Eye, DV, KB, AR Fan with respect cos they are actually having a discussion on Islam...

You I can't discuss with respect to cos your discussing something that has no relevancy to what the rest of us are discussing...

Its a conversation about Islam...not what Javelin believes to be Islam...

What do you mean by mainstream? There isn't a single Muslim country in the world which follows your interpretation of mainstream. This is like describing all Christians in the western world as heathens because they aren't Jehovah's witnesses :moyo
 
What do you mean by mainstream? There isn't a single Muslim country in the world which follows your interpretation of mainstream. This is like describing all Christians in the western world as heathens because they aren't Jehovah's witnesses :moyo

I've stated it...

Rejection of mutawaatir hadith is contradictory to Islam...Muslims simply ordered to follow the Quran but also the Sunnah...the actions and the words of the Messenger form a part of belief for the Muslim...rejection of mutawaatir hadith is kufr...

And no Muslim country follows Islam period...so I don't know what the rest of your post is supposed to present...

And even if you do want to reject hadith I presented Quran which shows what Jadz says to be wrong...unlike some in this thread I replied using scripture...how an Islamic discussion should take place...
 
@ Javelin

What Shaykh has presented in this thread is the authentic Islamic view on the topic. What you and others with similar thought process like yours have done is present rather bizarre statements when really the Qur'an is quite explicit on it. You don't even have to go to the hadiths for it.

It's actually quite astounding to see someone like Shaykh, given his background revealed over previous threads & this thread on issues related to Islam that he is very objective and presents Islam as it is instead of taking the orientalist/secularist route. Quite rare to see this from a Non-Muslim.

May Allah SWT guide Shaykh back to Islam
and give us Muslims tawfiq to understand & practice the Deen as it should be.

How can you guide a non-Muslim back to Islam? :91:
 
I've stated it...

Rejection of mutawaatir hadith is contradictory to Islam...Muslims simply ordered to follow the Quran but also the Sunnah...the actions and the words of the Messenger form a part of belief for the Muslim...rejection of mutawaatir hadith is kufr...

And no Muslim country follows Islam period...so I don't know what the rest of your post is supposed to present...

And even if you do want to reject hadith I presented Quran which shows what Jadz says to be wrong...unlike some in this thread I replied using scripture...how an Islamic discussion should take place...

According to who?
 
How can you guide a non-Muslim back to Islam? :91:

Allah SWT guides whomever He Wills and He misguides whomever He wills. I asked for the former for Shaykh given his honesty which is a positive trait. Infact he's more blunt about the supposed 'controversial' issues of Islam then a good chunk of the Muslims today.
 
Allah SWT guides whomever He Wills and He misguides whomever He wills. I asked for the former for Shaykh given his honesty which is a positive trait. Infact he's more blunt about the supposed 'controversial' issues of Islam then a good chunk of the Muslims today.

Nah mate, he's an apostate according to your own and his ridiculous understanding. At least be honest with yourself unless your whole point is to troll like a champion.
 
Seem's as if I've managed to rile up all the fundamentalist brigade is one go. :))

Getting back to the thread itself, are any of you gentlemen in a position to state categorically that there is a consensus, even, as you describe it, in 'mainstream Islam' regarding the reasons/purpose/conditions/equal treatment/ agreement of 1st wife being neccessary/not neccessary ....... in fact use whatever criteria you like, regarding the circumstances/allowability of four wives? And if not, why not, in view of the fact that you all claim that the scriptures are clear cut on the issue?

It's a very simple, straightforward question, one that does not require scriptures to be quoted in order for you to give an answer, one way or the other.

And if there is not a universal consensus, why do you think that is? Whilst if you believe that there is a universal consensus, then why do you think that most muslims who take up multiple wives don't abide by it?

Now that is not attacking anyone. All it requires is your opinions and some answers.

As for Shaykh, since you claim to be so knowledgeable on the the scriptures, how about giving some insight as to why you find certain aspects of Islam as being 'distasteful', 'disturbing' and 'irrational'?

Surely it can't be because you believe that the very scriptures that you quote as being 'wrong', not 'wrong' as in their accuracy but 'wrong' in their message? What aspects exactly did you find 'distasteful', 'disturbing' and 'irrational' of the very scriptures that you are so fond of quoting? In fact, so 'distasteful', 'disturbing' and 'irrational' that you stopped believing in and following the religion altogether.

As for KB-24 and others, I would like to read your responses to the answers/explanations that hopefully Shaykh would provide.

Fair enough?

Edit: Shaykh . And perhaps you could list them?
 
Last edited:
Seem's as if I've managed to rile up all the fundamentalist brigade is one go. :))

Getting back to the thread itself, are any of you gentlemen in a position to state categorically that there is a consensus, even, as you describe it, in 'mainstream Islam' regarding the reasons/purpose/conditions/equal treatment/ agreement of 1st wife being neccessary/not neccessary ....... in fact use whatever criteria you like, regarding the circumstances/allowability of four wives? And if not, why not, in view of the fact that you all claim that the scriptures are clear cut on the issue?

It's a very simple, straightforward question, one that does not require scriptures to be quoted in order for you to give an answer, one way or the other.

And if there is not a universal consensus, why do you think that is? Whilst if you believe that there is a universal consensus, then why do you think that most muslims who take up multiple wives don't abide by it?

Now that is not attacking anyone. All it requires is your opinions and some answers.

As for Shaykh, since you claim to be so knowledgeable on the the scriptures, how about giving some insight as to why you find certain aspects of Islam as being 'distasteful', 'disturbing' and 'irrational'?

Surely it can't be because you believe that the very scriptures that you quote as being 'wrong', not 'wrong' as in their accuracy but 'wrong' in their message? What aspects exactly did you find 'distasteful', 'disturbing' and 'irrational' of the very scriptures that you are so fond of quoting? In fact, so 'distasteful', 'disturbing' and 'irrational' that you stopped believing in and following the religion altogether.

As for KB-24 and others, I would like to read your responses to the answers/explanations that hopefully Shaykh would provide.

Fair enough?

Edit: Shaykh . And perhaps you could list them?


Lol again you seem to want me to repeat myself...

Its quite simply really as I stated...

My position as a Muslim = belief in Quran and Sunnah thus things I found that disagreed with my were irrelevant...cos essentially the creator knows better than I...what I didn't do was reform Islam to fit in with my whims and desires...

I eventually realised Islam wasn't for me cos I didn't feel the proofs were convincing...thus I don't believe in Quran and Sunnah thus thing I found that disagreed with me simply disagreed with me...its quite a straightforward idea actually...but at the same time I haven't misrepresented Islam in any way...you'll notice that those who are discussing scripture may disagree with my rational positions which is fair enough but they haven't disputed my scriptural positions...

DV, AR fan and KB24 haven't disagreed with me on use of scripture...and you have tried to without providing an even remotely credible refutation...

As for the issue of polygamy...DV himself posted the Ayat of Quran...you simply feel the need to dispute for reasons that it disagrees with you personally..essentially proof for you is only what fits with your whims and desires...which is not Islam...if you had feelings for dudes then would Islam's homophobia suddenly cease to exist...no...

I'll quote Islam because I know about it...you keep setting some criteria like I have to be Muslim to discuss Islam...I did essay after essay on Marx...do I have to be a Marxist to be allowed to discuss Marxism...no...do I have to find his views tasteful to discuss him no...would I point out if someone was misrepresenting his views...then yes...cos I know enough to be able to do so...its a straightforward concept actually...

Again if you have any disagreements with what I have written then refute using scripture otherwise you have nothing to add to the discussion...

The discussion is about Islam and thus requires a discussion about scripture...all you have presented over these 6 pages are your own views...and they don't emanate from Islam...they are your own rational thoughts...this isn't an ad hominem attack...i'm simply stating that if you were presenting an Islamic argument you would have quoted some scripture by now...
 
As you should have noted, I did'nt attack you in any way whatsoever in my previous post, in fact I asked very simple, open questions/ requests for clarification, and yet you still try and attack me personally?
My position as a Muslim = belief in Quran and Sunnah thus things I found that disagreed with my were irrelevant...cos essentially the creator knows better than I...what I didn't do was reform Islam to fit in with my whims and desires...

I eventually realised Islam wasn't for me cos I didn't feel the proofs were convincing...thus I don't believe in Quran and Sunnah thus thing I found that disagreed with me simply disagreed with me...its quite a straightforward idea actually...but at the same time I haven't misrepresented Islam in any way...you'll notice that those who are discussing scripture may disagree with my rational positions which is fair enough but they haven't disputed my scriptural positions....
Anyway, getting back to the questions I raised, and the clarifications I requested, in a very polite manner I may add, you appear to have overlooked in answering.

So I'll make it even simpler. Can you elaborate on those points highlighted above, especially the one in the middle, and provide some details, perhaps also explain how they relate to the very scriptures that you refer to?
 
Last edited:
As you should have noted, I did'nt attack you in any way whatsoever in my previous post, in fact I asked very simple, open questions/ requests for clarification, and yet you still try and attack me personally?Anyway, getting back to the questions I raised, and the clarifications I requested, in a very polite manner I may add, you appear to have overlooked in answering.

So I'll make it even simpler. Can you elaborate on those points highlighted above, especially the one in the middle, and provide some details, perhaps also explain how they relate to the very scriptures that you refer to?

You may recall a thread I opened about the Quran being a literary miracle...this was under my old username...

Lack of conviction of that is what explains my position...

Me not believing the Quran to be a literary miracle doesn't mean I don't know what is contained within it...
 
Thread took a real turn for the worse when people resorted to name calling, slandering people as terrorists, randomly bashing Wahabis and posting rabble.

Shame.

Was a good discussion while it lasted.
 
Javelin et al also find the polygamy thing just as 'distasteful' as shaykh does, the difference is you guys look for any excuse to ease your conscience.

These things are clear in the Quran and Sunnah. The Sahaba took part in polygamous marriages. There is no need to get in a panic over it and go on the defensive to attempt to justify Islams position on this matter.

The long and short of it is ( as I've mentioned previously).

A man can take more than one wife provided he treats them as equally as possible.
He can't abandon his first family.
This is mentioned in Quran and Sunnah.
A women can ask her husband to not marry again in her marriage contract and this is final.

The above statements are indisputable. You can conduct fancy arguments about it if you want but thats the reality according to Islamic scripture and traditions.
 
Last edited:
This thread is an epic.

And also a rather epic reminder of why I don't get involved in big debates on PP anymore. :))
 
Javelin et al also find the polygamy thing just as 'distasteful' as shaykh does, the difference is you guys look for any excuse to ease your conscience.

These things are clear in the Quran and Sunnah. The Sahaba took part in polygamous marriages. There is no need to get in a panic over it and go on the defensive to attempt to justify Islams position on this matter.

No that I disagree with you or any other points made in the thread, but didn't you also mention context as well? Just to clarify :ajmal

And also a rather epic reminder of why I don't get involved in big debates on PP anymore. :))

Why not? Your posts used to be the stand outs along with others.

Only thing that used to happen from what I observed was the threads used to get derailed and deleted or locked. :afridi
 
Why not? Your posts used to be the stand outs along with others.

Only thing that used to happen from what I observed was the threads used to get derailed and deleted or locked. :afridi

Not enough time these days mate.
 
In which context did I mention context?

You agreed that the rituals and practices during the period of prophet were contextual and that it as society moves on so do the way something is interpreted, therefore the actions or practices for example the topic of this thread are in context of societies needs.

Correct me if I'm wrong? I might have misinterpreted it.
 
You agreed that the rituals and practices during the period of prophet were contextual and that it as society moves on so do the way something is interpreted, therefore the actions or practices for example the topic of this thread are in context of societies needs.

Correct me if I'm wrong? I might have misinterpreted it.

Where did I say that? I'd like to reread the post but I assume it was regarding a hadith and not Quran or was related to a symbolic ayat ( like the paradise thread)
 
You may recall a thread I opened about the Quran being a literary miracle...this was under my old username...

Lack of conviction of that is what explains my position...

Me not believing the Quran to be a literary miracle doesn't mean I don't know what is contained within it...
That was not my question. Anyway if you do not wish to elaborate further as per my request, that's fine. I was simply interested in understanding how an ardent believer, who obviously spent a great deal of time and effort in studying the subject, decided to do a complete u-turn and stopped believing. Was there one specific issue or a range of issues. And since you appear to have the knowledge of the scriptures as you say you have, you obviously believe that the scriptures are an accurate representation of Islam. That then only leaves the message contained within the scriptures that led you to do an about-turn.

Anyway, as I said, if you do not wish to elaborate further, thats fine.
 
Last edited:
Javelin et al also find the polygamy thing just as 'distasteful' as shaykh does, the difference is you guys look for any excuse to ease your conscience. .
No, I do not find it 'distasteful' in the manner you are implying. I don't know how you came to that conclusion. What I do believe though is that it needs to be looked at in context in relation to the circumstances pertaining 1400+ years ago. Anyway, I've stated my views, and as long as I'm comfortable with them, that's all that matters to me. Religion, after all, is based upon a conviction, an inner belief. And that is my inner belief.
 
Thread took a real turn for the worse when people resorted to name calling, slandering people as terrorists, randomly bashing Wahabis and posting rabble.

Shame.

Was a good discussion while it lasted.

true, the first few pages were good, the last few have just been like watching a dog chase its tail. lol

This thread is an epic.

And also a rather epic reminder of why I don't get involved in big debates on PP anymore. :))

or debates on religion, an utterly facile exercise imo, like anyone will give an inch on beliefs (or interpretations of) they determine to be devine in nature, and that too on an internet forum, lol.
 
or debates on religion, an utterly facile exercise imo, like anyone will give an inch on beliefs (or interpretations of) they determine to be devine in nature, and that too on an internet forum, lol.

It's not facile at all, actually. :yk
 
That was not my question. Anyway if you do not wish to elaborate further as per my request, that's fine. I was simply interested in understanding how an ardent believer, who obviously spent a great deal of time and effort in studying the subject, decided to do a complete u-turn and stopped believing. Was there one specific issue or a range of issues. And since you appear to have the knowledge of the scriptures as you say you have, you obviously believe that the scriptures are an accurate representation of Islam. That then only leaves the message contained within the scriptures that led you to do an about-turn.

Anyway, as I said, if you do not wish to elaborate further, thats fine.

Its deviating from the topic of the thread...

But I did answer your question...

My conviction in the proofs changed...the way the religion is didnt...so its not that which is contained in the scriptures...it is the claim that the existence of such a scripture is miraculous...

This issue wasn't about rules and regulations...but one of whether there was proof this was the work of God...

I actually remember your posts in the thread where you stated that no positions could be proven...

But for me thats an important criteria for belief...how can I believe in something (not a choice) if I am not convinced of its author...

What this does not do however is change the faith itself...me stating I'm not convinced it is a literary miracle doesn't mean that any of its contents have changed...thus I can still produce the EXACT same arguments that I did when I believed to now...
 
Where did I say that? I'd like to reread the post but I assume it was regarding a hadith and not Quran or was related to a symbolic ayat ( like the paradise thread)

I believe he is referring to your point about removal of punishment for cutting the hand off...
the rule is to cut when someone is a thief...but these conditions are only applied when the state can provide basics as food, clothing and shelter...

You made a point about the existence of more males than females in a society and the potential to prohibit the polygamy rule...it was a well reasoned point...
 
Javelin et al also find the polygamy thing just as 'distasteful' as shaykh does, the difference is you guys look for any excuse to ease your conscience.

These things are clear in the Quran and Sunnah. The Sahaba took part in polygamous marriages. There is no need to get in a panic over it and go on the defensive to attempt to justify Islams position on this matter.

The long and short of it is ( as I've mentioned previously).

A man can take more than one wife provided he treats them as equally as possible.
He can't abandon his first family.
This is mentioned in Quran and Sunnah.
A women can ask her husband to not marry again in her marriage contract and this is final.


The above statements are indisputable. You can conduct fancy arguments about it if you want but thats the reality according to Islamic scripture and traditions.

Agreed...

Now hopefully this explanation will be accepted from you as when it was expressed by myself the slurs started...

The problem you will find and it seems to be a growing problem...is this Quran only mentality which is extremely flawed and frankly is disbelief...

In addition to that is the growth of hate towards scholars for simply stating things that disagree with their rational thoughts...the belief that they of course are viewing things objectively...which is superior to the consensus of scholars who have weighed up evidences and formulated hukms...a lot of that displayed in this thread...I particularly found it amusing that Jadz who denigrates madhabs feels the needs to offer her own Quranist scholarship...

So the notion of it being in Quran and Sunnah sometimes isnt enough for people...because the interpretation of the Quran is wrong...ie the Ibn Kathir is a Wahabi argument (a slur)...or the Sunnah is flawed (which is akin to disbelief)...

Will post stuff on another day but the real discussion with those who dispute your points is the following:

Legitimacy of Sunnah...
The importance of consensus regarding scholarship...

Cos essentially your not having an actual Islamic discussion with many people on this forum...cos they don't recognise the core ideas of the faith...
 
Agreed...

Now hopefully this explanation will be accepted from you as when it was expressed by myself the slurs started...

The problem you will find and it seems to be a growing problem...is this Quran only mentality which is extremely flawed and frankly is disbelief...

In addition to that is the growth of hate towards scholars for simply stating things that disagree with their rational thoughts...the belief that they of course are viewing things objectively...which is superior to the consensus of scholars who have weighed up evidences and formulated hukms...a lot of that displayed in this thread...I particularly found it amusing that Jadz who denigrates madhabs feels the needs to offer her own Quranist scholarship...

So the notion of it being in Quran and Sunnah sometimes isnt enough for people...because the interpretation of the Quran is wrong...ie the Ibn Kathir is a Wahabi argument (a slur)...or the Sunnah is flawed (which is akin to disbelief)...

Will post stuff on another day but the real discussion with those who dispute your points is the following:

Legitimacy of Sunnah...
The importance of consensus regarding scholarship...

Cos essentially your not having an actual Islamic discussion with many people on this forum...cos they don't recognise the core ideas of the faith...
Masha'Allah. What made you leave Islam if you don't mind me asking ?.
 
Agreed...

Now hopefully this explanation will be accepted from you as when it was expressed by myself the slurs started...

The problem you will find and it seems to be a growing problem...is this Quran only mentality which is extremely flawed and frankly is disbelief...

In addition to that is the growth of hate towards scholars for simply stating things that disagree with their rational thoughts...the belief that they of course are viewing things objectively...which is superior to the consensus of scholars who have weighed up evidences and formulated hukms...a lot of that displayed in this thread...I particularly found it amusing that Jadz who denigrates madhabs feels the needs to offer her own Quranist scholarship...

So the notion of it being in Quran and Sunnah sometimes isnt enough for people...because the interpretation of the Quran is wrong...ie the Ibn Kathir is a Wahabi argument (a slur)...or the Sunnah is flawed (which is akin to disbelief)...

Will post stuff on another day but the real discussion with those who dispute your points is the following:

Legitimacy of Sunnah...
The importance of consensus regarding scholarship...

Cos essentially your not having an actual Islamic discussion with many people on this forum...cos they don't recognise the core ideas of the faith...

Can you open a new thread on that because I'd like to hear your views on it. From what I've read of your posts previously you seem to hold similar views to the Khilafah boys and I never had much time for them for a number of reasons. But the debate about Quran and hadith legitimacy is probably worth another look.
 
Problem is, you fail to realize that Quran is a guidance book and so are the hadiths.

Its not possible to replicate a 1400 year old society in today's world, otherwide, we should all be riding camels since that counts as a sunnah as well.

We have a free will, and its our duty to interpret the Quran. You don't need to be a scholar or a have a degree for that. This isn't a license.

Even religious scholars/Molvis have their own agenda.

They will loathe Non Muslims and spread their voice using Made in Japan speakers.

They'll read the Quran wearing glasses which will have a made in America frame.

They will talk on how a non Muslim will go to hell on a cellphone that is a non muslims invention.

They will go to Hajj on aircraft which is an American invention, courtesy of the Wright brothers.

Best of all, they will speak on how pictures are not allowed in Islam but will pray 5 times a day in a mosque with wallet in pocket and that wallet containing notes with pictures of Quaid e azam.

There are tableeghi people in my neighborhood and they are particulary proud over the fact that they have done Hajj and Umrah collectively more than 50 times but, there are servants in their household, who haven't done it once. Instead of hitting a half century which neither Allah nor Muhammad PBUH wanted you to score, you could have helped the poor people fulfill their wish of doing one as well.

There is no productive and practical contribution that a religious scholar or Molvi makes to the society, rather than self contradict himself and bend Islam to fulfill his needs.

If you go in accordance to the Molvi's of today, you will be of no use to the world but who cares, the world is irrelevant and the only thing that is important is a certain fairyland which no one has seen.

If the world isn't important, die now. Don't be a waste of space.

So please, don't talk about custom interpretations of Islam. Everyone is the guilty party in here.


Great post!


Mamoonism and Javelinism have been derided in this thread, but they sound pretty good to me so far.
 
Masha'Allah. What made you leave Islam if you don't mind me asking ?.

Proof of Quran...not convinced...
The idea of purpose...ie notions of test and being created to worship a creator seems nothing more than narcissism to me...and frankly is quite cruel...it makes little sense to me...
Notions of free will ie the theist concept that belief is a choice...i dont choose to believe something...i either believe it or i dont...
Add the idea that Allah wills who he wills and closes off hearts of those he feels then the game seems anything but free...
This is for starters...
 
Great post!


Mamoonism and Javelinism have been derided in this thread, but they sound pretty good to me so far.

There's a reason why they've been derided because they are indeed just Mamoonism & Javelinism, not Islam.
 
Proof of Quran...not convinced...
The idea of purpose...ie notions of test and being created to worship a creator seems nothing more than narcissism to me...and frankly is quite cruel...it makes little sense to me...
Notions of free will ie the theist concept that belief is a choice...i dont choose to believe something...i either believe it or i dont...
Add the idea that Allah wills who he wills and closes off hearts of those he feels then the game seems anything but free...
This is for starters...

Shaykh please do check out Nidham ul Islam which I recommended earlier, hopefully that helps.
 
There's a reason why they've been derided because they are indeed just Mamoonism & Javelinism, not Islam.

Why can't we call your version of Islam as KB-24ism?

What makes you think you are on track and we are astray?

You seem curiously confident about your prospects. :23:
 
Why can't we call your version of Islam as KB-24ism?

What makes you think you are on track and we are astray?

You seem curiously confident about your prospects. :23:

For a long time I was kinda like you two guys. My personal belief was limited to the 5 pillars of Islam and avoiding the major haram things. This meant I felt no contradiction in supporting things like equal women's rights or that blasphemy should not be punished with death. My view was that my reason and sense of right and wrong was given to me for a purpose.

I felt no compulsion to really mould almost every aspect of my life according to Islam. I have read the major books of hadith and a lot of other literature and there is so much minutiae that one can go into that I just thought it'd be better if I just followed the bare minimum. I mean how much do you pick and choose? Do you learn every single Dua for entering the masjid or the bathroom or your house or which feet to enter the masjid with or how long exactly your shalwar should be and so on. Its just endless really.

But slowly, I realised that I was just fooling myself. The minutiae is important to Islam. And though a Muslim cannot be expected to follow all the rules and opinions set out in Hadith, one also can't just wave them all aside. And the latter was what I was doing. There are things in the hadith that are almost certainly accurate and there are certain rulings and laws in Islam that have always been followed through the ages. And some of these rulings are incompatible with my morals. Stoning/chopping hands/beheadings/ the 4 witnesses thing/ acceptability of slavery and concubinage/ violence against heretics and blasphemers/ laws that favour men over women/ latent hatred of non-Muslims etc.

And I am largely irreligious today. The juggling act is over for me.

I don't know what you or Javelin exactly believe in but you sound similar to what I used to think. Its classic cognitive dissonance. Contradictory beliefs that are difficult to hold concurrently. You can't really be liberal and progressive and a good Muslim concurrently without having these confusions.
 
For a long time I was kinda like you two guys. My personal belief was limited to the 5 pillars of Islam and avoiding the major haram things. This meant I felt no contradiction in supporting things like equal women's rights or that blasphemy should not be punished with death. My view was that my reason and sense of right and wrong was given to me for a purpose.

I felt no compulsion to really mould almost every aspect of my life according to Islam. I have read the major books of hadith and a lot of other literature and there is so much minutiae that one can go into that I just thought it'd be better if I just followed the bare minimum. I mean how much do you pick and choose? Do you learn every single Dua for entering the masjid or the bathroom or your house or which feet to enter the masjid with or how long exactly your shalwar should be and so on. Its just endless really.

But slowly, I realised that I was just fooling myself. The minutiae is important to Islam. And though a Muslim cannot be expected to follow all the rules and opinions set out in Hadith, one also can't just wave them all aside. And the latter was what I was doing. There are things in the hadith that are almost certainly accurate and there are certain rulings and laws in Islam that have always been followed through the ages. And some of these rulings are incompatible with my morals. Stoning/chopping hands/beheadings/ the 4 witnesses thing/ acceptability of slavery and concubinage/ violence against heretics and blasphemers/ laws that favour men over women/ latent hatred of non-Muslims etc.

And I am largely irreligious today. The juggling act is over for me.

I don't know what you or Javelin exactly believe in but you sound similar to what I used to think. Its classic cognitive dissonance. Contradictory beliefs that are difficult to hold concurrently. You can't really be liberal and progressive and a good Muslim concurrently without having these confusions.
Not quite. Hence wrong conclusion. Certainly as regards me. And, from the posts of Mamoon in this thread, perhaps also regarding him (Mamoon - please correct me if I am wrong).

For me, it's not simply a case of 'following the 5 pillars and avoiding the major haram' as you say was the case with you.

My whole life has revolved around attempting to understand things from a logical point of view, believing in cause and effect, that there is no such thing as 'random', akin to the 'butterfly effect'. That is not to say that this precludes 'fuzzy logic' (Please google it, as it fits very closely to my way of looking at things, especially when involving human beings).

And that is why I look upon religion as a 'Highway Code' of life, based upon sound fundamental principles, but its actual rules and edicts stemming from the need to address real issues, pertaining at the time, for the benefit of the society as a whole. And that is why context is so important.
And last, but not least, not forgetting the widespread use of analogies and metaphors, bearing in mind the need to convey complex messages to a largely uneducated and illiterate populace 1400+ years ago, in such a way that they will be followed and acted upon without question.
 
And that is why I look upon religion as a 'Highway Code' of life, based upon sound fundamental principles, but its actual rules and edicts stemming from the need to address real issues, pertaining at the time, for the benefit of the society as a whole. And that is why context is so important.
And last, but not least, not forgetting the widespread use of analogies and metaphors, bearing in mind the need to convey complex messages to a largely uneducated and illiterate populace 1400+ years ago, in such a way that they will be followed and acted upon without question.

It goes off topic and could be discussed in another thread, but although the bit about context makes sense and the way to understand the rules and rituals of the particular society using context. What doesn't make sense is referring the stories etc as 'analogies and metaphors'. You say it was too the convey the message in a simple way, however why would all such stories be figurative, why would a message be like that, if it's supposed to be the final revelation? Although with during the period of revelation, it was interpreted and after that as well, yet their is not a mention of it being a metaphor?

What's the backing up of your claim? I don't understand how it can be interpreted in similar ways and then suddenly the stories are not literal. You could say that for any scripture, but what's the backing for it,other than the claim to make the message simple which doesn't make sense, maybe?

As I said probably should have another thread on that, but what do you think? I'm not saying your wrong as I'm not sure either, but just thought...
 
People are getting married to 4 and I can't even find 1. Sucks :( must be a very loud house :asif
 
Why can't we call your version of Islam as KB-24ism?

What makes you think you are on track and we are astray?

You seem curiously confident about your prospects. :23:

This thread is a proof of the incorrect beliefs you hold. By pointing that out to you, I'm actually helping you out instead of being happy to see you retain such thoughts. That's what the Shaitaan wants for you not me.

Any objective Muslim can see past the absolute rubbish you and Javelin have tried to pass off as Islam in this thread because your arguments are not rooted in scripture. They have no basis except for conjecture. So yes I'm advising you to seek proper comprehension about fundamental beliefs of Deen, it's for your own good.
 
For a long time I was kinda like you two guys. My personal belief was limited to the 5 pillars of Islam and avoiding the major haram things. This meant I felt no contradiction in supporting things like equal women's rights or that blasphemy should not be punished with death. My view was that my reason and sense of right and wrong was given to me for a purpose.

I felt no compulsion to really mould almost every aspect of my life according to Islam. I have read the major books of hadith and a lot of other literature and there is so much minutiae that one can go into that I just thought it'd be better if I just followed the bare minimum. I mean how much do you pick and choose? Do you learn every single Dua for entering the masjid or the bathroom or your house or which feet to enter the masjid with or how long exactly your shalwar should be and so on. Its just endless really.

But slowly, I realised that I was just fooling myself. The minutiae is important to Islam. And though a Muslim cannot be expected to follow all the rules and opinions set out in Hadith, one also can't just wave them all aside. And the latter was what I was doing. There are things in the hadith that are almost certainly accurate and there are certain rulings and laws in Islam that have always been followed through the ages. And some of these rulings are incompatible with my morals. Stoning/chopping hands/beheadings/ the 4 witnesses thing/ acceptability of slavery and concubinage/ violence against heretics and blasphemers/ laws that favour men over women/ latent hatred of non-Muslims etc.

And I am largely irreligious today. The juggling act is over for me.

I don't know what you or Javelin exactly believe in but you sound similar to what I used to think. Its classic cognitive dissonance. Contradictory beliefs that are difficult to hold concurrently. You can't really be liberal and progressive and a good Muslim concurrently without having these confusions.

The stuff you mentioned from the hadith like duas for entering the Masjid, house etc. you are not punished for not acting upon it as they are Sunnah and not obligatory. By following as much Sunnah as possible, you get closer to Allah SWT and get rewarded for your constant remembrance.
 
It goes off topic and could be discussed in another thread, but although the bit about context makes sense and the way to understand the rules and rituals of the particular society using context. What doesn't make sense is referring the stories etc as 'analogies and metaphors'. You say it was too the convey the message in a simple way, however why would all such stories be figurative, why would a message be like that, if it's supposed to be the final revelation? Although with during the period of revelation, it was interpreted and after that as well, yet their is not a mention of it being a metaphor?

What's the backing up of your claim? I don't understand how it can be interpreted in similar ways and then suddenly the stories are not literal. You could say that for any scripture, but what's the backing for it,other than the claim to make the message simple which doesn't make sense, maybe?

As I said probably should have another thread on that, but what do you think? I'm not saying your wrong as I'm not sure either, but just thought...
Ask yourself the following (and for the sake of the exercise, try and not think of it in a religious context):

* Have you ever told a child a fairly tale? As a means of getting a message across as the child is too young to understand in any other way?

* Think of an important conversation you may have had, or an event you may have seen, say only last week. Can you remember every detail and every word? Especially if you had to convey it verbally to another individual, who is then expected to convey it further along the line exactly in the way you said it, heard it, seen it, including all the nuances, pauses and hesitations (- as you may know, a sentence can convey totally the opposite meanings if the location of the pause is changed)?

* Have you ever asked the question 'why' or 'for what purpose' when told to do something or when told to stop doing it? Even though it might be a parent that is telling you to do it/ not do it? And what happens if you are not given a reason or you don't understand the reason? Does that stop you from wondering 'why'?

Think about your responses to the above and you'll understand where I'm coming from.

The day I stop asking 'why', and start taking everything for granted and at face value, is the day I might as well give up living.
 
This thread is a proof of the incorrect beliefs you hold. By pointing that out to you, I'm actually helping you out instead of being happy to see you retain such thoughts. That's what the Shaitaan wants for you not me.

Any objective Muslim can see past the absolute rubbish you and Javelin have tried to pass off as Islam in this thread because your arguments are not rooted in scripture. They have no basis except for conjecture. So yes I'm advising you to seek proper comprehension about fundamental beliefs of Deen, it's for your own good.
And the enlightened one, the all knowing KB-24, is 'helping us out' by claiming our views to be rubbish, views that we are not asking him to follow, believe or even read :facepalm:

That, my friends, is a perfectly example of the reasons why muslim's are in the state we're in. Because those like the esteemed KB-24 have forgotten one of the core values of islam, ie Tolerance and respect for the views of others.
 
Ask yourself the following (and for the sake of the exercise, try and not think of it in a religious context):

* Have you ever told a child a fairly tale? As a means of getting a message across as the child is too young to understand in any other way?

* Think of an important conversation you may have had, or an event you may have seen, say only last week. Can you remember every detail and every word? Especially if you had to convey it verbally to another individual, who is then expected to convey it further along the line exactly in the way you said it, heard it, seen it, including all the nuances, pauses and hesitations (- as you may know, a sentence can convey totally the opposite meanings if the location of the pause is changed)?

* Have you ever asked the question 'why' or 'for what purpose' when told to do something or when told to stop doing it? Even though it might be a parent that is telling you to do it/ not do it? And what happens if you are not given a reason or you don't understand the reason? Does that stop you from wondering 'why'?

Think about your responses to the above and you'll understand where I'm coming from.

The day I stop asking 'why', and start taking everything for granted and at face value, is the day I might as well give up living.


Out of interest why do you follow Islam and not another religion...

Correct me if I am wrong but I remember your posts in one of my old threads which essentially stated you didn't think Islam could be 'proven' to be correct...

Thus what about it gives you conviction if not proof of its legitimacy?...

So you have sat and asked yourself why...so why Islam?...just by birth?...
 
And the enlightened one, the all knowing KB-24, is 'helping us out' by claiming our views to be rubbish, views that we are not asking him to follow, believe or even read :facepalm:

That, my friends, is a perfectly example of the reasons why muslim's are in the state we're in. Because those like the esteemed KB-24 have forgotten one of the core values of islam, ie Tolerance and respect for the views of others.

When someone who claims to be a Muslim clearly displays deviant beliefs on a public platform, then being a Muslim it's our job to correct fellow Muslims. It goes both ways. What you claim to be following has no basis in text. Doesn't take a Scholar to know that and point it out.
 
When someone who claims to be a Muslim clearly displays deviant beliefs on a public platform, then being a Muslim it's our job to correct fellow Muslims. It goes both ways. What you claim to be following has no basis in text. Doesn't take a Scholar to know that and point it out.
'deviant beliefs'?
You sir, have the right to believe whatever you wish to believe in. But if ever the two us happen to be in a room full of individuals representing a sample of the people on this planet, it will be quite obvious as to who, and who is not, the deviant one. You will be the former and me the latter, of that I can assure you.
 
'deviant beliefs'?
You sir, have the right to believe whatever you wish to believe in. But if ever the two us happen to be in a room full of individuals representing a sample of the people on this planet, it will be quite obvious as to who, and who is not, the deviant one. You will be the former and me the latter, of that I can assure you.

Again this is nothing more then an emotional rant. Prove to me from texts that Ahkam in Islam are not for all times. Better yet, prove to me why Polygamy shouldn't be followed today and that it was only meant for Prophet's SAW time. Provide evidence for your argument or stop arguing if you can't and seek proper understanding on the fundamental beliefs in our Aqeedah.

If you can't then we are done.
 
Again this is nothing more then an emotional rant. Prove to me from texts that Ahkam in Islam are not for all times. Better yet, prove to me why Polygamy shouldn't be followed today and that it was only meant for Prophet's SAW time. Provide evidence for your argument or stop arguing if you can't and seek proper understanding on the fundamental beliefs in our Aqeedah.

If you can't then we are done.

Are you intending on having concubines?
 
Out of interest why do you follow Islam and not another religion...

Correct me if I am wrong but I remember your posts in one of my old threads which essentially stated you didn't think Islam could be 'proven' to be correct...
I don't recall writing such a thing. And even if I did, it would not have been in the context you suggest.

Thus what about it gives you conviction if not proof of its legitimacy?...
My ability to think, to rationalise. Or as I wrote in an earlier post
Originally Posted by Javelin
My whole life has revolved around attempting to understand things from a logical point of view, believing in cause and effect, that there is no such thing as 'random', akin to the 'butterfly effect'. That is not to say that this precludes 'fuzzy logic' (Please google it, as it fits very closely to my way of looking at things, especially when involving human beings).

So you have sat and asked yourself why...so why Islam?...just by birth?...
No, not just by birth. If it was purely so, then I would not have the views I have, and would not be accused, even as you have done previously, of not following the 'mainstream' views.

Religion, by definition, is a belief. Having said that, I'm of the view that even belief's, whether religious or cultural, are more often than not stemming from actual, practical, real-world issues and the methods used to alleviate the associated problems.Over time, the original reasons get forgotten whilst the practices remain.
 
No I am not. However, since Islam allows it, I have no problem with those who do.

Why is it not common then? Do you know anyone?

Does it happen in Saudi?

Does it happen in Iran?

Did it happen under the Taliban?
 
Again this is nothing more then an emotional rant. Prove to me from texts that Ahkam in Islam are not for all times. Better yet, prove to me why Polygamy shouldn't be followed today and that it was only meant for Prophet's SAW time. Provide evidence for your argument or stop arguing if you can't and seek proper understanding on the fundamental beliefs in our Aqeedah.

If you can't then we are done.
What need do I have to 'prove' anything to you? Do you regard yourself as God? As a Judge, Jury and Executioner?

I have been extremely polite in suggesting that you follow your views, and I'll follow mine.

I have not personally attacked you, ridiculed you or cast aspersions on you for holding the views that you hold. So why do you feel the need to do the exact opposite towards me?

I have never met you, and hopefully never will, but I suggest you do yourself a favour and not demean your self any further by refraining from throwing abuse towards others.
 
Back
Top