ok.
This is for both NYAhmadi and for Achtung and all others that follow the same pattern...
I don't understand why you folks cannot carry on a controversial discussion/debate without the use of words like "spewed", "blurted", etc.
For someone like me, who would like to gain some knowledge and understanding of what the heck it is you guys are talking about, it's really annoying and frankly appears childish. Not only that, it prevents me from being convinced in either direction because all I can see is your anger for each other and not the validity or credibility of the points you present.
And specifically for NYAhmadi --- I was quite impressed that you hadn't responded to the "Why NYAhmadi Disgusts Me" thread. I guess good things really don't last.
Some writings on the early marriage of the prophet:
"According to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, right and wrong are ordained by Almighty God. As such, morality does not change over time based on our whims, desires or cultural sensitivities. In cultures where there is no Divinely revealed ruling on an issue, what is right and what is wrong is determined by cultural norms. In such cases, a person would only be considered "immoral" if they violated the accepted norms of their society. As we will demonstrate, the Prophet Muhammad's(P) marriage to 'Aishah, viewed both in the light of Absolute Morality and the cultural norms of his time, was not an immoral act, but was an act containing valuable lessons for generations to come. Additionally, this marriage followed the norms for all Semitic peoples, including those of Biblical times. Based on this, and other information that we will provide below, it is grossly hypocritical for Christians to criticise the Prophet's(P) marriage to 'Aishah at such a young age. In case Christian readers are under the false impression that their values today are timeless and somehow reflect those of Biblical times, please consider the following points which are directly related to the question of at what age a person is properly ready to be married:
Keeping in mind the ideas of "political correctness" and "absolute morality", in Biblical times the age at which a girl could marry was puberty. However, during the Middle Ages it was usually twelve years old. Now in most "Christian" countries it is between fourteen and sixteen years old. I live in country where some states allow partners of the same sex to legally marry, but consider an eighteen year old boy who sleeps with a sixteen year old girl a "statutory rapist". So even though Christians might disagree with much of what is becoming all too prevalent in Western society today - whether it be drug abuse, gay marriages or abortion - they too have been swallowed up (possibly unknowingly) by the ugly monster of "moral relativism" Certainly, they might be giving in less quickly than people who have no Divine basis for their morality, but they're giving in nonetheless.
Historically, the age at which a girl was considered ready to be married has been puberty. This was the case in Biblical times, as we will discuss below, and is still used to determine the age of marriage in what the culturally arrogant West calls "primitive societies" throughout the world. As the ahadith about 'Aishah's age show, her betrothal took place at least three years before the consummation of the marriage. The reason for this was that they were waiting for her to come of age (i.e. to have her first menstrual period). Puberty is a biological sign shows that a women is capable of bearing children. Can anyone logically deny this? Part of the wisdom behind the Prophet's Muhammad's marriage to 'Aishah just after she reached puberty is to firmly establish this as a point of Islamic Law, even though it was already cultural norm in all Semitic societies (including the one Jesus(P) grew up in). The large majority of Islamic jurists say that the earliest time a marriage can be consummated is on the onset sexual maturity (bulugh), meaning puberty. Since this was the norm of all Semitic cultures and it still is the norm of many cultures today: it is certainly not something that Islam invented.
However, widespread opposition to such a Divinely revealed and accepted historical norm is certainly something that is relatively new. The criticism of Muhammad's marriage to 'Aishah is something relatively new in that it grew up out of the values of "Post Enlightenment" Europe. This was a Europe that had abandoned (or at least modified) its religious morality for a new set of humanist values where people used their own opinions to determine what was right and wrong. It is interesting to note that Christians from a very early time criticized (again hypocritically) the Prophet's(P) practice of polygamy, but not the marriage to 'Aishah. Certainly, those from a Middle Eastern Semitic background would not have found anything to criticize, since nothing abnormal or immoral took place. It is "modern" Westernized Christians who began to criticize Muhammad on this point, not earlier pre-Enlightenment ones. It is upon reaching the age of puberty that a person, man or woman, becomes legally responsible under Islamic Law. At this point, they are allowed to make their own decisions and are held accountable for their actions. It should also be mentioned that in Islam, it is unlawful to force someone to marry someone that they do not want to marry. The evidence shows that 'Aishah's marriage to the Prophet Muhammad(P) was one which both parties and their families agreed upon. Based on the culture at that time, no one saw anything wrong with it.
On the contrary, they were all happy about it. None of the Muslim sources report that anyone from the society at that time criticized this marriage due to 'Aishah's young age. On the contrary, the marriage of 'Aishah to the Prophet(P) was encouraged by 'Aishah's father, Abu Bakr, and was welcomed by the community at large. It is reported that women who wanted to help the Prophet(P), such as Khawlah bint al-Hakeem, encouraged him to marry the young 'Aishah. Due to
the Semitic culture in which they lived, they certainly saw nothing wrong with such a marriage. Society's ideas of love, family and marriage are much different in the so-called "modern" and "civilized" West of today than they were in Biblical or Qur'anic times. Unfortunately, many of us carry the baggage of "romantic love" and ideas about sex that have managed to poison our minds since the Europeans (and their ideas) came to dominate the globe. These ideas have not only penetrated into the minds of Muslims, but actually permeate many of them. The European colonial powers have pulled out of almost all Muslim lands, but the colonization of the minds continues! As we mentioned above, the sad part is that most people do not
even realize that they are under such un-Godly influences."
go and nibble yo mama
NYAhmadi,
"I only used the heading "disgust" to attract Achtung's attention (as well as to even it out)"
So, how does it feel now that you are even? And don't misunderstand or interpret this question as sarcasm, because it isn't. I really would like to know if you feel any better, bigger, braver, smarter, wiser, happier, etc.
I don't see any point in using "shock" to attract anyone's attention. If you know that the person has a disagreement with you, you would also know that they will follow you around.....that's standard operating procedure on bulletin boards.
I think the same could have been accomplished with a simple: "My beef with Achtung"
Maybe I'm just getting old and mellow.....
This is for both of you guys!!!
In an effort to patchg things up..why don't both of you come to my place for chai? i make dood patti very good. But pls. bring some pappey!! :)
"Nothing is so embarrasing as watching someone do something that you said couldn't be done." :)
yeah
Muzna:
Muzna wrote: "I don't understand why you folks cannot carry on a controversial discussion/debate without the use of words like "spewed", "blurted", etc."
I think I let my emotions get the best of me. I'm sorry if my comments detracted from the meaningfulness of the discussion. That wasn't my intention. If somebody wishes to address an issue and does so (in what I perceive to be) a disrespectful manner, and if the issue is dear to me - I will respond. I do my best to temper my remarks and insure that they are neither judgmental or disrespectful. I think I may have faltered on these grounds, in the post in question and I apologize for that. (I think your being a bit too sensitive though...my comments were not in bad taste).
Muzna blurted (just joking), wrote: "And specifically for NYAhmadi --- I was quite impressed that you hadn't responded to the "Why NYAhmadi Disgusts Me" thread. I guess good things really don't last."
You must have missed the post - he did respond. This is his second response.
Achtung ;)
NY Ahmadi wrote: “I do have respect for Achtung, and for everyone else. I have never started anything that is disrespectful to anyone.”
You sure have a funny way of showing it, NY Ahmadi wrote:
“[Achtung] is totally blinded by his faith in Islam.”
“[Achtung] believes Islam is the answer to everything.”
“Nobody said [Achtung was] stupid (although [he] act[s] like one sometimes)”
“[Achtung] will make a complete fool of himself..”
“[Achtung thinks he is a]…know-it-all.”
“[Achtung] just needs to grow up a little…”
“What else can I expect from a Muslim [here you insult 1 billion Muslims, including Achtung].”
Ghalib, thanks for the offer…I’ll have to think about it…
Achtung 
“In human society extremes of wealth and poverty are the main sources of evil…Where a population is divided into the two classes of the very rich and the very poor, there can be no real state; for there can be no real friendship between the classes; and friendship is the essential principle of all association.” (Aristotle)
NY Ahmadi:
What an original subject heading...My post was a response to your views, the subject heading was deceiving, the contents of the post were not insulting. Your post for the most part is an attempt to insult me.
NY Ahmadi wrote: "Because he is totally blinded by his faith in Islam. He believes Islam is the answer to everything. I have yet to read him say that there are certain things about this "rigid and intolerant" religion that need to be modified."
Which Islam are you talking about? The main criticism I have of your arguments is that they presuppose one singular, unalterable, unchanging, homogenous Islam. When in reality Islam is a living, changing and constantly reinterpreted body of ideas. Islam is not "rigid and intolerant". Certain conservative Ulama and Ayatollah's may be "rigid and intolerant" in their interpretation of Islam, but Islam itself does not preach intolerance. I've discussed the role of "ijtehad" in Islam, and I've been critical of various so-called "Islamic" practices. I've tried to provide alternative explanations offered by a modernist Islamic school of thought opposed to the teachings of the conservative orthodox Ulama. I did so in a respectful and open-minded manner. I've never stated that "Islam is the answer to everything", this I believe is a very dangerous attitude to have. Islam is not the end of knowledge, Islam encourages its believers to seek knowledge in other places. Its my opinion that the present ideological differences between modernists (who have failed to emancipate younger generation Muslims and the lower-middle class and women) and Islamists (who see Islam as the only solution to the problem), offer little in terms of solutions, just old and tired concepts that can no longer be expected to deliver solutions. A new discourse is required to revitalize the debate and encourage a critical analysis of Islam and the role it can play in relation to the challenges of post-modernity. I support the re-interpretation of Islam, not necessarily the modification of Islam.
NY Ahmadi wrote: "He talks about discussing issues in congenial and amicable manner, and then goes on to make statements like this: 'Because I can still hear you barking in my ear'."
I made this statement in response to your - "kill the messenger" argument. And your remarks - "what can I expect from a Muslim." I don't see anything offensive about "barking" in anyone's ear. If it offended you I'm not sorry - you should watch your mouth next time.
NY Ahmadi wrote: "Who called who names?"
Nobody did, but you asked if it were possible to call Prophet Muhammad names (in response to those who insulted your Prophet). I responded that you can - but why would you want to.
NY Ahmadi wrote: "I will very much like to learn about those logistical reasons [for barring non-Muslims from Mecca]."
I'll do some research and look for an answer for you - you'll have to be patient.
NY Ahmadi wrote: "Nobody said you were stupid (although you act like one sometimes) I am sure you can read. I can recommend a book by Harold Bloom, (19th century American Religion), he is the same author who wrote the "Book of J". He is not a religious critic but a literary critic. It will give you a different perspective."
I think you just implied that I am stupid and narrow-minded. If I were interested in American Religion I'd read Harold Bloom's book. I'm sure it's an inspirational piece of work. At present I'm too busy reading other things. Thanks anyway - Howard Bloom can wait. I'm a graduate student, I spend most of my day reading and researching. Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Islam are areas, which interest me. I concentrate my readings in those areas. Its not that I am not open-minded to other religions, I've read the Bible, I've read the New Testament, from time to time I pick up the gospel and read it, I find inspiration in the words of Buddha. I think that you assume that I am one of those who throws western intellectual thought out the door and replaces it at every turn with an "Islamic" perspective. I believe that western intellectual thought has alot to offer the Muslim world. I think that a combination of Islamic discourse (arising out of the decoding of Islamic history and a reinterpretation of the Qur'an and hadith literature) and relevant and useful western intellectual theory can provide some of the answers to modern problems facing Muslim societies.
"Finally he avoids answering inquiries where he know he will make a complete fool of himself...It is interesting that when there are no answers or explanations, the term "disrespectful" is pretty often used by these know-it-all types."
"Fool, know-it-all type" - any other insults you'd like to add to that. I guess you already assumed that I am "blinded by faith" and narrow-minded. Well I'll answer your questions (to the best of my knowledge) in due time.
"One more note, Achtung does not disgust me. He just needs to grow up a little and read up more on other religions and movements, may be not as much as he claims to know about Islam, but just a little bit."
Ah...more insults...
Achtung ;)
Okay....again, for both of you:
NYAhmadi -- Thank you for your answer. I think it's an honest one and I'm glad that you didn't take my words sarcastically. The fact that you do not feel any different leads me to think that perhaps when we are about to do such things we should stop for a minute and question ourselves. Perhaps ask ourselves what we hope to accomplish by the words we are about to write/speak. We might all get further in our efforts to successfully express our ideas without causing any unneccesary harm to others or ourselves. And just for the record - neither I, nor any of the moderators get paid for the time that we devote to Gup Shup.
Achtung -- "I think your being a bit too sensitive though...my comments were not in bad taste."
I totally agree with you Achtung. I am being very sensitive and I'll tell you why. I have a great deal of respect for both of you. Primarily because though you may speak from different sides of the fence, I find your writing to be of excellent quality with valuable content. In simple words, I love reading your messages. There are very few members that I "follow" around the forums and you guys are two of them.
When either of you get to this stage it frustrates me. There are people that I have come to "expect" this type of material from and you guys are not amongst them. Perhaps I am wrong to do so but I admit it, I hold certain members to a higher standard than the average, hence my displeasure.
Thanks for bearing with me through all this but I would be very disappointed if either of you or I let this debate become heated and end up in a mud-slinging contest. (Besides, we all know that I would win....hehhehe)
Anyway.....can we please continue this sans condescending undertones and implied insults?
NY Ahmadi,
I did'nt actually write the article but found it quite interesting in trying to understand the whole issue myself, If anyone else can shed some light on this subject please start a different thread to discuss. - Achtung?
I must agree with you on most of the things you have stated and also believe that Islam has been manipulated to suit certain parties and traditions. Trying to find out why certain traditions exist, why certain Hadiths were written in context of the historical period is not a easy job. Most people just accept Islam because they were born into it and consequently follow certain practices, traditions blindly. I totally agree with you that we have to question and verify everything one believes in and that is what I am 'trying' to do, by subjecting Islamic, local or foreign knowledge to the Quran. But to dismiss Islam on the basis of 'how' it is followed today is completely wrong. Its like making a hit record and years later some rapper samples it and remixes it to come up with a completely new or different sound from it. Is it fair to judge the original based on the remix?
I think that Achtung can also see why you are asking the questions you ask but he has desperately tried to explain to you in his post what angle he is taking and I think that should be appreciated. I agree with everything in his post regarding Islam so I won't blabber on here! Why don't you accept that Achtung has a different perception on Islam than the streotypical, 'shove it down your throat' type of muslim who has no intellectual basis for his beliefs apart from the fact that it is written so therefore I believe.
There are lots of intelligent articulate people such as yourself who do not believe in Islam as a religion but please remember there are also lots who are striving to find out the real 'truth' and are being enlightened by what they discover. I'm sure a lot of these people had the same questions and doubts about Islam that you currently have, but you must have an open mind and learn to separate culture from religion when studying or trying to verify if this is indeed the word of God. I can understand all your frustrations regarding a lot of the people within our society and religion, unfortunately most of them are deaf, dumb and blind with a very fatalistic attitude.
What do you believe in, in your opinion what should all these misguided muslims in the world do to correct themselves? A lot of people have attempted to answer socities problems by advocating that Islam may have an answer, what is your solution, is it a certain religion, theory or what? I'm genuinely interested in what you think.
Camille - I think you've posted a very good discussion on the issue of Aisha's marriage to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) - its such a sensitive and complex topic. I'll post my thoughts in a separate thread in the next few days. Along with some other issues for discussion.
"A lot of people have attempted to answer socities problems by advocating that Islam may have an answer, what is your solution, is it a certain religion, theory or what?"
In relation to the "Muslim world", my personal feeling (apart from my religious beliefs) is that without addressing Islam you cannot offer a viable solution to the peoples living in Muslim societies. To reach the masses you must speak their language and their language is undeniably the language of "Islam". Those who ignore this fact and offer solutions absent of Islam are making a fatal mistake.
Achtung ;)
Admin wrote: "Anyway.....can we please continue this sans condescending undertones and implied insults?"
I understand. Thanks.
Achtung ;)
NYAhmadi,
My interpretation of Islam is completely different to many Muslims on this forum although many Muslims do interpret Islam the way I do. I am not a modernist and I don't like putting labels on Muslims because I think that this divides us Muslims instead of uniting us.
My view on Islam is that it is a spiritual-political ideology and not just a spiritual religion. It's uniqueness is in the fact that it has laws which affect us in the secular domain. When Christians, Jews and Hindus etc have no problems with secular ideas its because secular ideas do not contradict their religions because their religions are completely spiritual. They don't have laws telling them how to form companies, contracts, how to trade i.e. how to live on this world.
Islam can solve Human problems but spiritual religions can't.
I believe that Islam is The Truth and it is Islam which tells us what is right and what is wrong. I will not fit Islam into what I think is right and wrong or whatever society tells me is right and wrong.
To say that I know what is right and what is wrong is the same as saying that human's can just contemplate and come up with the truth and is the same as saying that humans know absolutely everything.
Human claims to knowing everything leads to unjust Man-made laws. Man-made laws only benefit the lawmaker and are not written to achieve justice.
Truth has no correlation with time. What was true yesterday is true today.
In a thousand years time would democracy and its freedoms be considered false just because it is something from the past i.e. would time be a factor in deciding what is right and what is wrong. I don't think so because you would just say that truth has no correlation with time. - Although democracy is not going to last that long.