Muslims, please tell me if this is unislamic

[algebra]

Hence the violence to remove the hindrance was “defensive”.

precisely.

I would appreciate the comments of a muslim in this regard.

 

[neploho]

Hence the violence to remove the hindrance was “defensive”.

I have had my say about expansionist trends in Islamic jurisprudence and theology; yet I think this is an interesting question for Christians.

Let’s say we have a Christian nation/empire. A neighboring country is oppressing Christians, or even if it does not oppress them as such it prevents them from fulfilling their religious obligations. Would it be just for the Christian nation to resort to military means (within the confines of the Church’s moral prohibitions of Christian soldiers) to secure full religious freedom for the Christian subjects?

 

[Sister_Amy]

I have had my say about expansionist trends in Islamic jurisprudence and theology; yet I think this is an interesting question for Christians.

Let’s say we have a Christian nation/empire. A neighboring country is oppressing Christians, or even if it does not oppress them as such it prevents them from fulfilling their religious obligations. Would it be just for the Christian nation to resort to military means (within the confines of the Church’s moral prohibitions of Christian soldiers) to secure full religious freedom for the Christian subjects?

Excellent question. I can’t wait to see the answers.

 

[Sam_777]

approval of a kid? as far as i know, parents alone are enough to settle a marriage.

Yes indeed, see this little poor girl how she didn’t even know that it was a marriage:

Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3309:
“'A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine. She further said: We went to Medina and I had an attack of fever for a month, and my hair had come down to the earlobes. Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates. She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She took hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (as if I was gasping), until the agitation of my heart was over. She took me to a house, where had gathered the women of the Ansar. They all blessed me and wished me good luck and said: May you have share in good. She (my mother) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and embellished me and nothing frightened me. Allah’s Messenger (, may peace be upon him) came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him.”

صحيح مسلم - النكاح - تزويج الأب البكر الصغيرة:
تزوجني رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏لست سنين ‏ ‏وبنى بي ‏ ‏وأنا بنت تسع سنين قالت فقدمنا ‏ ‏المدينة ‏ ‏فوعكت ‏ ‏شهرا ‏ ‏فوفى ‏ ‏شعري ‏ ‏جميمة ‏ ‏فأتتني ‏ ‏أم رومان ‏ ‏وأنا على أرجوحة ومعي صواحبي فصرخت بي فأتيتها وما أدري ما تريد بي فأخذت بيدي فأوقفتني على الباب فقلت هه هه حتى ذهب نفسي فأدخلتني بيتا فإذا نسوة من ‏ ‏الأنصار ‏ ‏فقلن على الخير والبركة وعلى خير ‏ ‏طائر ‏ ‏فأسلمتني إليهن فغسلن رأسي وأصلحنني فلم ‏ ‏يرعني ‏ ‏إلا ورسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏ضحى فأسلمنني إليه ‏
​

(E) (A)

 

[eichenb2]

The issue is Muslim children being forced to marry sexual predators is thanks be to Islam and its paedophile prophet as the perfect example for all mankind. Go figure!

You dont see a problem with young girl marrying as long as she has reached puberty? Even if she is only 8yrs old? If its good enough for her why not for your own daughter? This tells me you would sit back and be approving if it was your niece but oh not your precious daughter. Why exactly would it be ok for any other child BUT not your 8yr old?

I do not think you are being very respectful. I am suggesting that cultures are different and times change. Ultimately, though, if a girl reachs puberty then she can have babies. This means that science says she is ready to get married, potentially. Perhaps the girl may not be emotionally prepared to be married, but this is something for the parents and families to address. In 7th century Arabia, there were no colleges to attend for young ladies or men. You are vilifying their culture but…based on what??? Incidentally, how old do you think the Blessed Mother was when married?

 

[neploho]

I do not think you are being very respectful. I am suggesting that cultures are different and times change. Ultimately, though, if a girl reachs puberty then she can have babies. This means that science says she is ready to get married, potentially. Perhaps the girl may not be emotionally prepared to be married, but this is something for the parents and families to address. In 7th century Arabia, there were no colleges to attend for young ladies or men. You are vilifying their culture but…based on what??? Incidentally, how old do you think the Blessed Mother was when married?

Well said.

 

[algebra]

Let’s say we have a Christian nation/empire. A neighboring country is oppressing Christians, or even if it does not oppress them as such it prevents them from fulfilling their religious obligations. Would it be just for the Christian nation to resort to military means (within the confines of the Church’s moral prohibitions of Christian soldiers) to secure full religious freedom for the Christian subjects?

lets nuke saudi arabia, and half a dozen other islamic nations.

You realise that this was the rationalisation used by nazi germany for the invasion of poland, right?

Any way, the original point was that the prophet did not necessarily have any converts to his cause in the country being attacked.

The attack was to enable the subjects to hear the truth about islam, because the ruler in the region did not allow free proseletysing.

 

[algebra]

You are vilifying their culture but…based on what??? Incidentally, how old do you think the Blessed Mother was when married?

Based on the fact that we have progressed since then.

We know that slavery is wrong today, are we to condone the practices of older cultures just because it was a different time?

Wrong is wrong, and will always be wrong.

Not knowing something is wrong, does not make it right.

 

[empurpledsoul]

**To inJesus and bbarrick, please understand that as muslim Woman has informed, it is not Islamic to marry a young girl with any one without her own approval. The first mistake (which was unislamic) was made to marry a daughter to settle a loan. That was bad.
We can leave it at that and not proceed into judgement matters.

Saudi Arabia is a country and it has its laws, good or bad. At least Saudi Arabia does not have any laws about lesbians and same sex marriages and I remember that the Queen of England had to sign a law of homosexuals many years ago. What would you say about all those things going on in the Christian majority countries??

That case in Saudi Arabia is just one case. What is going on daily in Europe? Did you people ever think about that? I am sure you do not like or approve those things. But you do not discuss them too.

If you want to laugh then please have a laugh at the very bad laws in the Christian dominated western countries.**

Gay marriages are done by the free choice of two consenting adults. Free will is the most basic of all human truths. Consequences are between the individual and God. When a religion purports to claim God’s right and authority to punish humans with maiming or murder, they are far worse than any act a human may commit that does not harm others. Humans are not God. Humans are not in control of one another and are not qualified to execute God’s judgment or punishment upon other humans.

So, you may condemn and judge all you like, but how you condemn and judge will be the same way in which you will condemn and be judged. Jesus taught that. Muhammad missed this truth completely and now we have a thing called Sharia in the world which teaches hate, condemnation and the abomination of humans acting like they are God in their desire to kill humans for errors or sins.

They will be held fully accountable for taking up what is only God’s to perform.

They have effectively made themselves equal to God and in that they are ‘partners’ with God in that they think God needs them to condemn their fellow human beings and execute disgusting violent retribution on them, as if they are perfect and without sin.

The abuse upon a child or an adult who has their free will removed, so that they are not able to direct their own life, is one that seeks to undo what God gave to every human on this planet at birth, just as was given to Adam and Eve in the garden. And God will deal with what each person chooses, including if they choose to harm another because they think they are somehow perfect and superior enough to have the holy power to act out what only God is given to do.

 

[neploho]

Based on the fact that we have progressed since then.

We know that slavery is wrong today, are we to condone the practices of older cultures just because it was a different time?

Wrong is wrong, and will always be wrong.

Not knowing something is wrong, does not make it right.

It does negate culpability.

And we never* know *x is wrong

 

[algebra]

It does negate culpability.

And we never* know *x is wrong

We know x is wrong because it contravenes natural law. Empathy is not taught it is inherent and the basis of the law - do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

[imasinner]

I do not think you are being very respectful. I am suggesting that cultures are different and times change. Ultimately, though, if a girl reachs puberty then she can have babies. This means that science says she is ready to get married, potentially. Perhaps the girl may not be emotionally prepared to be married, but this is something for the parents and families to address. In 7th century Arabia, there were no colleges to attend for young ladies or men. You are vilifying their culture but…based on what??? Incidentally, how old do you think the Blessed Mother was when married?

Disrespectful to who? I greatly disagree with your stance…your daughter is just as precious as anothers 8yr old daughter. I’m asking why would your personally think it’s fundamentally good for another 8yr old to to forced to marry an older man (frig that, ANY MAN!) yet not your own? What is the difference between your 8yr old and another 8yr old? Because if is cultural this makes it moral? Honor killings can be classed as cultural should you turn a blind eye there as well.

A child cannot consent, something you seem to disagree with.

 

[sedonaman]

Let’s say we have a Christian nation/empire. A neighboring country is oppressing Christians, or even if it does not oppress them as such it prevents them from fulfilling their religious obligations. Would it be just for the Christian nation to resort to military means (within the confines of the Church’s moral prohibitions of Christian soldiers) to secure full religious freedom for the Christian subjects?

I’m not trying to avoid the question, but there is not enough information in this hypothetical to answer it because going to war requires a number of things to be considered.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] addresses the issue of what constitutes a just war:

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:​

– the damage inflicted by the aggressor [the neighboring country oppressing Christians in the given hypothetical] on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

– all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

– there must be serious prospects of success;

– the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

Some civil laws require that there be a legitimate reason to go to war and go on to give examples of what is not legitimate. For example, going to war to expand empire is not; nor is the desire for glory.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine. [It should be noted that not all Christian denominations abide by the CCC. Also, the Christian nation would more than likely be one of many denominations, including some non-Christian religions. These factors would also come into play.]

It is ironic that this was the case when Pres. Clinton intervened in the Bosnian war, only the oppressors were Christians and the oppressed were Muslims. I personally disagreed with the decision, but accepted it because, #2309 [cont.] “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.”

I know where you are going with this, and it won’t work because the idea that Muslims are being oppressed means their victims are resisting the expansion of Islamic empire, after all, how dare anyone defy the will of Allah?

BTW, the subject of the thread is “tell me if this is unislamic;” it is not what constitutes a just war for Christians. Apparently, the whole idea of Islam is empire so there is no just war theory under it … the only requirement [and it’s more of a recommendation] is that it furthers Islam. If it doesn’t, no problem; just wait until you build up your forces and have another go at it. That’s why wherever you have Islam, you will have war. Therefore, war is not unislamic.

 

[jlhargus]

**That is good. You have good balanced ideas. Be reminded that Muslims have come through many centuries of degradation. They are no more what the Muslims used to be. It is not the fault of Islam at all.

We are telling every one here that islam means Peace. But the Catholic friends are saying “No.” Islam is violent. So please tell me whom are the Catholics serving? Supporting?. Are they not supporting the terorists?

Also about that single case of marrying a yound daughter to an old man to settle the debts. It may be bad. But could it be more bad than what is going on day and night in western countries under the very eyes of the Pope and the priests? I am sure that is a problem of much greater magnitude and needs immediate attention by the Catholics rather than the case of a Young girl in Saudi Arabia.

Please be honest. Would you like to be with the Saudis or with the French in Paris etc etc. An incident has taken place in Saudi Arabia. But the millions of incidents (quite illegal, sinful deeds) that are taking place in Christian dominated countries have no match. Would any one please discuss them too, specially the OP?

We have given our opinion that it was wrong to marry a young daughter to settle debt etc…
**

JL: The Church does speak out about wrong doing in western countries. You seem to think there are still Christian countries. That is not the case any longer, as is evident by the things you mention. Why do not muslim clerics in other countries speak out about these things?

 

[Booklover]

I’m not trying to avoid the question, but there is not enough information in this hypothetical to answer it because going to war requires a number of things to be considered.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] addresses the issue of what constitutes a just war:

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:​

– the damage inflicted by the aggressor [the neighboring country oppressing Christians in the given hypothetical] on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

– all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

– there must be serious prospects of success;

– the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.
Some civil laws require that there be a legitimate reason to go to war and go on to give examples of what is not legitimate. For example, going to war to expand empire is not; nor is the desire for glory.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine. [It should be noted that not all Christian denominations abide by the CCC. Also, the Christian nation would more than likely be one of many denominations, including some non-Christian religions. These factors would also come into play.]

It is ironic that this was the case when Pres. Clinton intervened in the Bosnian war, only the oppressors were Christians and the oppressed were Muslims. I personally disagreed with the decision, but accepted it because, #2309 [cont.] “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.”

I know where you are going with this, and it won’t work because the idea that Muslims are being oppressed means their victims are resisting the expansion of Islamic empire, after all, how dare anyone defy the will of Allah?

BTW, the subject of the thread is “tell me if this is unislamic;” it is not what constitutes a just war for Christians. Apparently, the whole idea of Islam is empire so there is no just war theory under it … the only requirement [and it’s more of a recommendation] is that it furthers Islam. If it doesn’t, no problem; just wait until you build up your forces and have another go at it. That’s why wherever you have Islam, you will have war. Therefore, war is not unislamic.

Excellent post! Especially the last paragraph! Wherever Islam goes trouble and strife follows in its wake. As Sir Winston Churchill stated in The River War 1899:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.”

Vickie

 

[algebra]

The problem for muslims, is that child marriage can never be abolished, since it was practiced by the prophet.

The prophet epitomises everything that a human should aspire to be.

Whilst a great many muslims may privately consider the notion of child marriage loathful, as my wife does.

No muslim could forbid it, since it was a practice of the prophet and is therefore a part of islam forever.

Muslim converts should understand that by subscribing to islam they are forfeiting the protection and freedoms their progeny would have in western society.

 

[neploho]

We know x is wrong because it contravenes natural law. Empathy is not taught it is inherent and the basis of the law - do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

What natural law? I havn’t seen any logical or scientific evidence for some transcendent natural law.

We lack evidence of some mystical “natural law” hence we cannot have justified true belief that ‘x’ is wrong hence we cannot “know” that ‘x’ is wrong.

 

[neploho]

I’m not trying to avoid the question, but there is not enough information in this hypothetical to answer it because going to war requires a number of things to be considered.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] addresses the issue of what constitutes a just war:

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:​

– the damage inflicted by the aggressor [the neighboring country oppressing Christians in the given hypothetical] on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

– all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

– there must be serious prospects of success;

– the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

Some civil laws require that there be a legitimate reason to go to war and go on to give examples of what is not legitimate. For example, going to war to expand empire is not; nor is the desire for glory.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine. [It should be noted that not all Christian denominations abide by the CCC. Also, the Christian nation would more than likely be one of many denominations, including some non-Christian religions. These factors would also come into play.]

It is ironic that this was the case when Pres. Clinton intervened in the Bosnian war, only the oppressors were Christians and the oppressed were Muslims. I personally disagreed with the decision, but accepted it because, #2309 [cont.] “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.”

I know where you are going with this, and it won’t work because the idea that Muslims are being oppressed means their victims are resisting the expansion of Islamic empire, after all, how dare anyone defy the will of Allah?

BTW, the subject of the thread is “tell me if this is unislamic;” it is not what constitutes a just war for Christians. Apparently, the whole idea of Islam is empire so there is no just war theory under it … the only requirement [and it’s more of a recommendation] is that it furthers Islam. If it doesn’t, no problem; just wait until you build up your forces and have another go at it. That’s why wherever you have Islam, you will have war. Therefore, war is not unislamic.

What information was lacking in my example?

 

[sedonaman]

What information was lacking in my example?

Will …
– the damage inflicted by the aggressor [the neighboring country oppressing Christians in the given hypothetical] on the nation or community of nations be lasting, grave, and certain?

Have …
– all other means of putting an end to it been shown to be impractical or ineffective?

Is there …
– serious prospects of success?

Does the …
– use of arms produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated?

Is there …
– a legitimate reason?

Note that all conditions must be met at the same time.

 

[sedonaman]

What information was lacking in my example?

P.S. Where is the Muslim equivalent?