Hello, Khalil
I had the best of Shias and Sunnis. I am still happy that their core beliefs are the same. But after reading and understanding Qur'aan, I do not believe in being a Sunni or a Shia. For the last twenty years, I am just a Muslim. The rest is junk and stuff.
I like Ahmedinejad for being the only Muslim leader to speak out his mind, while all other goons cannot stand up and say a word. I forbade you using Shia material because they have their own ahaadith and tafsirs. And they have this habit of using Sunni ahaadith and tafsirs, only when it serves their own purposes. Shia man-made literature is also full of loads of crap as that of the Sunnis.
Let me cut that out and go through your post:
Why should I believe in what you say here? Just because you say so..?
You don't have to and likewise, I don't have to believe in what you say. However, I have to point out the mistakes in your assumptions and accusations, in order to refute.
All of us, Muslims, agree with Qur'aan.
That is no news. But you Muslims kill each other too because of your much boasted agreement with Quran. Aren?t you? (?You? means fanatic Muslims or better call them true Muslims)
That comes under politics. It is a different story and has nothing to do with 65:4, so we cut that out.
You are well aware that in the Muslim world, there does not exist anything known as an Authorised & Approved Tafsir or Hadith.
Where in the Muslim world you mean? I live under Sharia, which is largely based on Quran and your prophet?s Sunnah. Well, to reach Sunnah of your prophet, there is no way for you other than relying on Ahadith.
There are some Tafsirs approved in general among the Sunni sect of Islam. Ibn Kathir, Qurtubi and Zamaqshari coming into my mind, though some doubts are there on Zamaqshari leaning to Mue'tazilite views in some plays. Still his 'Kasshaf' is regarded highly among Sunni Muslims.
When Prophet founded Islam, Sharia was derived from Qur'aan. The ground work was already done by the Prophet. There was no hadith collection for about 200-250 years and the ground work was not done using any hadith.
Hadith, in my view, is the source and the seed of all discord among Muslims. I am in favour of extracting a few good ones, followed by burning the entire collections.
There can be a variety of ahaadith on one subject.
You can present one and somebody can present another contradictory, which shows that most ahaadith are not reliable and are junk and stuff. The same goes for tafsirs.
As I had said earlier that the Shias do not accept tafsirs done by Sunnis and Sunnis do not accept Shia tafsirs. There are differences and tafsirs also contain a lot of crap. I have Shias' Tafsir-e-Namoona entire collection with me and it gives me creeps. Same goes for most of the Sunni Tafsirs. I don't need one as I understand Qur'aan and it's message very well in Arabic.
I discuss only through Qur'aan and you know that very well.
I know you like to discuss only through Quran but that does not make any sense. It amounts to the word you usually use and most often betray you when you troll on other forums. You are coping out from the facts. Without the help of Ahadith, you can not reach to Quran. That mans you have to rely on Ahadith as historical accounts to validate your book.
You can not suspend one part of history to cling on to another. If you rely on the part in either Bukhari or Muslim to know of the compilation work of Quran, you will have to accept the authenticity of Bukhari as a reliable source. That means Quran-only is a means of escapism for you and some Muslims from the harsh facts Hadiths bear on your religion.
Only those people go for ahaadith, who cannot understand Qur'aan at all. I am really allergic to the word Troll, which FFI trolls use for me. So, please don't use that again. I don't think a troll has the ability to discuss as coherently as I do. Hadith is no history. What do we do with Amirul-Momineen Ali's sayings? Shias accept ahaadith from Ahlul-Baiyt only.
Ninety percent of all hadith collections is gossip and hearsay. Only 5-10% may be the genuine saying of the Prophet and the rest is the hearsay of unknowns, falaan bin falaan bin falaan.
I have debated with Ahmed Bahgat on this and he had to shoot on his foot in right time as it progressed.
I can't remember when that happened. So far, I have seen only Ahmed thrashing everyone on serious topics. No one can deny that fact. I hope you remember, when Ahmed and I told you the Surah mentioned
إِذَا طَلَّقْتُمُ النِّسَاء but not anything such as Iza tallaqtum-al-atfaal.
I would like to know which sect you belong to. Are you a Sunni Muslim? Or are you with Ahmedi Najad?s Shiite version? Ahmedis who consider Mirza Ghulam Qadiyani as their prophet too approve Quran?s authenticity. They too have Quran to prove their case. You may not forget this;
I belong to no sect. Sect is a dirty four lettered word for me. Qur'aan forbids it.
Next, I would like to know from you how do you define prepubescent? According to my knowledge, it is the age immediately before puberty. Do you agree with this definition? Yes or No?
Pre-pubescent means NOT pubescent. Period;
I consider that a very evasive answer, Khalil. Please define it according to internationally accepted standard. I defined it. Either you have to accept my definition or produce another established definition. It is a very serious question.
If you are going to follow Maududi's commentary, what happens to my four wives, whom I have divorced and I know they will menstruate in the next few days or weeks. They are all young and had been menstruating regularly and will menstruate again for sure. They do not fall in the category defined in the first part of the verse at all. Women normally get menopause around 51 and my four wives are all young.
Are you suggesting that Qur'aan does not cover them because they have not menstruated yet? They will be menstruating soon. Where do you place them? Leaving Maududi's tafsir aside, his translation in Urdu, translated into English, still means, "those who have not menstruated yet, like my four wives who had menstruated but have not menstruated yet. And I know they will. Are they exempted from the Iddah in my case?
In response to my question 2, "Does it talk about divorcing a child or children?", you wrote:
<snip>
Why did you snip it there? I had already written:
[quote"BMZ"]This is incorrect. I will go into the verses, which polemicists show as if the verses are talking about prepubescent girls. The fact is that the verses are not talking at all of any prepubescent girls. This is an important point which most polemicists do not understand and conveniently ignore.
وَاللَّائِي يَئِسْنَ مِنَ الْمَحِيضِ مِن نِّسَائِكُمْ إِنِ ارْتَبْتُمْ فَعِدَّتُهُنَّ ثَلَاثَةُ أَشْهُرٍ وَاللَّائِي لَمْ يَحِضْنَ وَأُوْلَاتُ الْأَحْمَالِ أَجَلُهُنَّ أَن يَضَعْنَ حَمْلَهُنَّ وَمَن يَتَّقِ اللَّهَ يَجْعَل لَّهُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِ يُسْرًا
Let us take Yusuf Ali's translation here for an easy reference. "Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same): for those who carry (life within their wombs), their period is until they deliver their burdens: and for those who fear Allah, He will make their path easy."[/quote]
Yousuf Ali made it as "And for those who have no courses" which is not cent percent accurate translation. In original Arabic Quran, it is the verb form of "Haidh" = "Menses" used. "Lam Yahidhna" if to translate exactly can be "Not menstruated". Anyway, carry on.
Doesn't matter. Glad you wrote "carry on".
For the first part of the verse, وَاللَّائِي يَئِسْنَ مِنَ الْمَحِيضِ مِن نِّسَائِكُمْ إِنِ ارْتَبْتُمْ فَعِدَّتُهُنَّ ثَلَاثَةُ أَشْهُرٍ, all of us agree that a three month Iddah has been prescribed for women who have had menopause and even if there was any doubt, it was still three months period of Iddah.
The end part وَأُوْلَاتُ الْأَحْمَالِ أَجَلُهُنَّ أَن يَضَعْنَ حَمْلَهُنَّ is also clear to all of us including you also. Right?
First part: "Yahisna Min Al-Maheedhi" means "despaired of menstruation" This category can contain menopausal women, and those who passed the normal stage of menstruation but failed to menstruate, because it talks of a psychological state as "despaired". Both group of women can be despaired of menstruation.
The last part "Wa oolatu Al-Ahmali" means pregnant women. No problem with it. Now?
For the end part, both of us have no dispute. But "Yaisna min-al-maheedh" is only applicable for older ladies, who are beyond the age of menstruation. That means, women who have no eggs left, to put it straight. My four wives, whom I have divorced, have neither despaired nor grown old and have not even exhausted their eggs. They are capable of reproduction. Only problem is that they have not menstruated yet. They have to have Iddah also and cannot be lumped with those who are past the age of mensus.
Now, I come to the middle part وَاللَّائِي لَمْ يَحِضْنَ, which the polemicists and those who do not understand Qur'aan at all, claim to be talking about little girls who have not yet had started menstruating.
It is not polemicists but very highly regarded scholars of Islam, especially Sunni scholars claiming "Lam Yahidhna" means "those who has not menstruated because of their young age" or "those who have not reached the age of menstruation." I gave you the dose of nineteenth century scholar Maududi right above.
That is why I had asked you to define the word pre-pubescent, which you avoided. Now, define the word and I will give you a nice dose, which you have not brought up with me earlier.
Let me show how hilarious is this claim by giving you the following example:
Imagine, I have four wives. The first A is 35, the second B is 32, the third C is 29 and the youngest D is 25. Also imagine that I am going to divorce them all. Each of them is fit and has regular periods, no problem there. I pronounce divorce on all at the same time but their periods are not due yet and they are also not pregnant. I have to wait for their periods to complete Iddah. Right? Also, they are not babies or children or prepubescent girls.
Where did you get these "Periods" from the verse? It is not mentioned as periods but three lunar months are the prescribed Iddah time for divorced females whom you have had sex with. If you have not had any intimate contact with one among these four, that particular one should not have to observe any Iddah at all. It is mentioned in Quran chapter: 33:49.
So how does your above analogy make your traditional scholars? interpretation hilarious? If four of your wives happened to be pre-pubescent girls and if you divorce them all on the same occasion, and if you have had sex with all of them too, they all have to observe three lunar months Iddah period if they want to get married again. (If you want to take them back, there is no way for you than just letting them married to a stranger and let the stranger have sex with them. It is what Quran prescribes and I hope you know this fact.)
Periods means mensus, menstruation, menarchee, etc. For example, a lady is having her periods, would mean that she is menstruating. Gentlemen do not ask a lady, "Are you menstruating?" Instead, they may ask, "Are you having periods?" It means the same.
Divorcing a wife is a serious matter. It is no joke. The consequences have been told. If I divorce my wives and their Iddah is over, they are free. If they marry other men, they belong to them. No man would like to have his ex-wife screwed by another to be back. Also, the new husband may not divorce her and she may be happy with him. So, it is a big loss.
The message is that a man should think very carefully and should not act in haste. That is a very fair punishment. The stranger or whoever it is, would be her new husband and she would be his wife. Right?
The point is that the polemicist tries to show as if the verse only covers little girls, who have not even started to menstruate. That is not what the verse says. Thus my four wives will fall under Lam Yahidna because they will surely menstruate and will still be subject to Iddah.
Another important point is that the verses do not mention any age, size, height, weight, etc., of the wife. Simply because elsewhere, it has been made clear that Rijals are to marry Nisaas.
Please try to round up this discussion as fast as possible because I will be soon bidding goodbye to this site, as I mentioned earlier. You are always welcome at my site
www.faithfreedom.org.uk only if you wish and we can have some fine exchanges without any interruptions and consider yourself a guest at home.
Note: I have left most of the Arabic verses un-formatted.
Good night
Baig
Topic: Wanted to discuss The Paralysis of the Kafir Mind