How Shariah, an Intended Compass for Peace, Became a Tool of Oppression

babloyi
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

You haven't proven any point. You haven't provided any sources yet, so I can't "not accept" them. "Reliance of the Traveller" is not a hadith book. It is a fiqh manual written in the 13th century. It gives no details about Aisha or her feelings.
I do not know anything about Allah.com, but it provided no hadith that mentioned what you said either.

It really is starting to feel like you're dodging my question now.
For reference, here it is again:

WarminIndy
If you really want to hear a tragic story, read the Hadiths, it talks about Aisha's feelings about being sexually abused from Mohammed. And she had very clear doubts about Mohammed and Allah.

babloyi
I'd be interested in seeing these. I assume they're from authenticated Hadith?

edit on 9-11-2013 by babloyi because: (no reason given)

Do you want to discuss Bukhari all day?

Let's start with that Hadith and work forward, unless Bukhari is not acceptable to you.
Do you ask Christians what website they got their Bible and information from? Or do you directly go to the Bible?

Are you disputing allah.com as not reliable without checking it?

A Classical Handbook of Islamic Daily Jurisprudence Practices According to Imam Shafi (204h) To Students, Teachers, Imams, Habeebs and Judges Translated with annotations by Syekh Noah Ha Mim Keller (1991) English Simplified and reorganized by Syekh Ahmad Darwish Arabic name: The Reliance of the Traveler and Preparation of the Worshipper (Ibn an-Naqib al Misri ) Printed by Mustafa babi halabi of Azhar, Cairo in 1357h-1939

Oh Reliance of the Traveler is the basis for this source. So I guess it has to be reliable then.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

You seem to be implying that "shariah" is synonymous with "terrorism".

I'm not SEEMING TO IMPLY it: THE ARTICLE EXPLAINS IT!

Blame it on THE SOURCE SITE: islamforwest
The title of THIS THREAD is EXACTLY the title of the article, copied and pasted.

You STILL didn't read it, did you? You just jump in to these threads to troll and bash and ridicule. Never presenting any sources, only your ad hominem attacks on 'the West' - as if that's supposed to somehow make Islam look "better" than it is.

You make me tired. Read it, and respond to THE ARTICLE; or don't, and shove off - taking your accusations of 'implied meaning' with you. I don't have to have your permission to peruse muslim sites, sk0rp, and you do not have MY permission to libel me, nor put words in my mouth. The article talks PRECISELY about the violence being committed by the extremists, AND HOW IT GOT THAT WAY - from listening to rabid 'Muslim Clergy'. You can continue to pretend they don't exist all you want, but MuslimTimes states that 10-15% of Muslims ARE Islamist.

30% of Americans identify as Evangelical Christians, with whom I ALSO have a problem - but they aren't bombing people - YET. Some of them want to (see John Hagee); but they haven't. And I can't see any of them strapping on a vest and blowing up a cafe full of 'Catholics', or leveling their places of worship.

Pull your head out. Do some learning.

reply to post by WarminIndy

WarminIndy
Do you want to discuss Bukhari all day?

Let's start with that Hadith and work forward, unless Bukhari is not acceptable to you.
Do you ask Christians what website they got their Bible and information from? Or do you directly go to the Bible?

I honestly don't want to discuss Bukhari all day. I didn't realise I was discussing it at all. I didn't ask which website you got it from. I asked which Hadith you got it from. You haven't provided ANY SOURCES AT ALL for your original claim which prompted my original question. Why are you going around in circles? If you got it from Bukhari, please quote the Hadith. Or give me the reference number.

WarminIndy
Are you disputing allah.com as not reliable without checking it?

I made no judgement at all on allah.com. I said I do not know anything about it. Does it contain this hadith that you were talking about that had Aisha explain her feelings? If so, please feel free to post it.

WarminIndy
Oh Reliance of the Traveler is the basis for this source. So I guess it has to be reliable then.

It isn't "based". It IS that source. That is what the book is. Reliance of the Traveller was written in the 14th Century. Al-Shafi lived and worked in the 8-9th century. Al-Shafi didn't collect Hadith. He was a jurist. If you think that Reliance of the Traveller had a hadith involving Aisha or her feelings, again, I ask you to post it or provide a reference.

If it is a Bukhari source, post the reference. If it was some other Sahih Hadith collection, post it from there. If it is from the Reliance of the Traveller (no idea how that would be, since Reliance isn't a Hadith collection), fine, post it from there, WHEREVER YOU GOT IT FROM, I am asking you to post it. That is what I am asking. I don't understand why you are dancing about this point.

You initially talked about Hadith which mentioned "Aisha's feelings about being sexually abused from Mohammed. And she had very clear doubts about Mohammed and Allah."
I am asking you to tell me which Hadith these are, otherwise I'd have no choice but to assume you totally made up that statement. I can't pass judgement on a source when you haven't even provided any source yet, so please don't use that excuse.

reply to post by wildtimes


It's the stuff that doesn't kill you that hurts the most. So perhaps those fundamental extremist Christians are just as bad as the Jihadists.

wildtimes
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

You seem to be implying that "shariah" is synonymous with "terrorism".

I'm not SEEMING TO IMPLY it: THE ARTICLE EXPLAINS IT!

Blame it on THE SOURCE SITE: islamforwest
The title of THIS THREAD is EXACTLY the title of the article, copied and pasted.

You STILL didn't read it, did you? You just jump in to these threads to troll and bash and ridicule. Never presenting any sources, only your ad hominem attacks on 'the West' - as if that's supposed to somehow make Islam look "better" than it is.

You make me tired. Read it, and respond to THE ARTICLE; or don't, and shove off - taking your accusations of 'implied meaning' with you. I don't have to have your permission to peruse muslim sites, sk0rp, and you do not have MY permission to libel me, nor put words in my mouth. The article talks PRECISELY about the violence being committed by the extremists, AND HOW IT GOT THAT WAY - from listening to rabid 'Muslim Clergy'. You can continue to pretend they don't exist all you want, but MuslimTimes states that 10-15% of Muslims ARE Islamist.

30% of Americans identify as Evangelical Christians, with whom I ALSO have a problem - but they aren't bombing people - YET. Some of them want to (see John Hagee); but they haven't. And I can't see any of them strapping on a vest and blowing up a cafe full of 'Catholics', or leveling their places of worship.

Pull your head out. Do some learning.

edit on 11/9/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

Wildtimes

As you know me, I told a poster last night that you would prefer that I use all sources in my posts. So I offered many Islamic sources to them, and they rejected their own sources. Do you see that's a huge problem when it comes to learning, if they all have contention with their accepted sources.

I even said that what I was going to refer to them by name.

And if they are not going to accept their own sources, then why would they read an article? It is impossible for them to take an objective view of the Qu'ran, Hadiths, Sunna, and Shariah.

I know you prefer sources, that's what I told that other poster. Now three have disputed their own accepted scholars and imams as sources. So what else can we do, except present their sources to the rest of the world.

AfterInfinity
perhaps those fundamental extremist Christians are just as bad as the Jihadists.

Fundamentalist anything is dangerous.
Secular rule of law keeps fundamentalist Christians from getting out of hand.
Unfortunately for countries with religious rule of law, that isn't the case for them.
Their fundamentalists have free run of the place.

reply to post by FlyersFan


True. Anything can be dangerous if misused or misunderstood.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

It's the stuff that doesn't kill you that hurts the most. So perhaps those fundamental extremist Christians are just as bad as the Jihadists.

Oh, they DEFINITELY are just as bad!! They just have laws - and a government - that prevents them from acting as vigilantes and indiscriminately murdering innocents to make their point.

The two are, other than the physical v psychological aspect, THE SAME.

reply to post by babloyi


Bukhari Prayers

379 Narrated Abu Salama: 'Aisha the wife of the Prophet said, "I used to sleep in front of Allah's Apostle and my legs were opposite his Qibla and in prostration he pushed my legs and I withdrew then and when he stood, I stretched them.' 'Aisha added, "In those days the houses were without lights."
380 Narrated 'Aisha: Allah Apostle prayed while I was lying like a dead body on his family bed between him and his Qibla. 381 Narrated 'Urwa: The Prophet prayed while 'Aisha was lying between him and his Qibla on the bed on which they used to sleep.

Now let's contrast that with what Sharia says

Chapter 14.7.0: PLACING A BARRIER IN FRONT OF ONE’S PRAYER PLACE 14.7.1 Recommended: It is recommended to put a barrier at least 32 cm high in front of oneself when performing the prayer, or to spread out a mat, or if one cannot, to draw a line on the ground, straight, perpendicular to one's chest approximately 39 inches (a meter and a half) or less in front of one. It is then forbidden for a anyone to pass between the person praying and such a barrier, even if there is no other way to pass (dis:10.75.27). If someone tries to pass between oneself and the barrier, it is recommended to gently push him back, and one may push him back as hard as necessary, as one would an attacker (07.3). If the person accidentally dies as a result, one would not be subject to retaliation (03) or have to pay an indemnity (04) to his kin. [If the praying person’s chest ever loses Kaba’s direction, his prayer is annulled at once]

In that alone, Aisha and Mohammed broke Shariah law. But we can go on. Mohammed had the authority to kill her, didn't he?

reply to post by WarminIndy

So that is your response to the question "What are the hadith which mentioned "Aisha's feelings about being sexually abused from Mohammed. And she had very clear doubts about Mohammed and Allah." ?"

Interesting. Because it doesn't answer it at all.

reply to post by babloyi


Can we get back to the topic - how to 'cleanse' Islam of its rabid clergy who encourage violence?

I want just as much to 'cleanse' Christianity of 'Westboro', and people who walk into churches to murder physicians, and who call for bombing Iran.

I want to get rid of ALL OF THEM. They are tumors on civilization, and must be routed out.

wildtimes
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

It's the stuff that doesn't kill you that hurts the most. So perhaps those fundamental extremist Christians are just as bad as the Jihadists.

Oh, they DEFINITELY are just as bad!! They just have laws - and a government - that prevents them from acting as vigilantes and indiscriminately murdering innocents to make their point.

The two are, other than the physical v psychological aspect, THE SAME.

Wildtimes

As I post the Hadiths about Aisha, can you give a psychological profile for those people who might not understand her actions?

In these Hadiths, we are going to be exploring the thoughts of a girl from the age of 6 to 18. Mohammed died when she was 18, therefore her psychology under this system becomes fundamental to the entire story of the little girl.

If the little girl who was 14 in the above mentioned Hadith had to lay like a dead person when Mohammed prayed, would that not indicate great fear on her part? And if Shariah then states the person praying is allowed to kill someone, then would she not have also known this in her mind?

wildtimes
reply to post by babloyi

 

Can we get back to the topic - how to 'cleanse' Islam of its rabid clergy who encourage violence?

I want just as much to 'cleanse' Christianity of 'Westboro', and people who walk into churches to murder physicians, and who call for bombing Iran.

I want to get rid of ALL OF THEM. They are tumors on civilization, and must be routed out.

Here is Shariah for discipline of children

15.1.5 At what age a child fasts A child of seven is ordered to fast, and at ten, if he does not fast then he is disciplinary smacked for not fasting.

That's child abuse. Smacked for not fasting?

But it's their law.

And this is their purpose and intent on forcing Sharia above other laws...

INTRODUCTION The rulings in this book on criminal justice apply only to Muslims living in an Islamic country, or if Muslims succeeded to incorporate the Islamic ruling into the political system outside Islamic country. It is presented to illustrate the value of the Islamic judicial system to western courts and magistrates, to invite them to adopt Islamic fair ruling, also to educate and inform Muslims of the Islamic serious consequences and penalties for crimes, that they are obligated to uphold in any time and place regardless if the place is ruled by Islam or not. It’s relevance and value to Muslims residing outside Islamic countries is its warning that although they are not punished by the Islamic judicial system, they will most certainly be subjected to spiritual punishment in the Hereafter which is far more stern.

This means that the cases I had referred to before doesn't matter to them if it takes place in an American court of law, as they are permitted under Sharia to enforce Sharia no matter where they are.

I'd say this has a major role in todays world.


frontpagemag.com...

US administration is full of Islamic reactionaries.

reply to post by WarminIndy

As I post the Hadiths about Aisha, can you give a psychological profile for those people who might not understand her actions?

Well, I can attempt it, but honestly, I am NOT 'culturally competent' to explain the thought process of a child-bride (rape victim) nomad attached to a wandering tribe of warriors in the 7th century Middle Eastern desert. Not really.

But, as far as having to lie like a dead person, yes that definitely indicates fear/submission/oppression.

As for what she was thinking? Yes, she was aware of the rules and customs, but I'm not getting what you're driving at as far as her knowing that....while she was lying there. That he would kill her if she was animated while he was praying?

That is a horrible way to have to live. I don't know ANYTHING about Aisha except what I've heard here on ATS; she was a child....that much I know.

reply to post by Unity_99


Um, sorry, Unity, but I don't consider that a credible source. Liberals are NOT totalitarians, and I'm sick nearly to DEATH of 'progressives' being labelled as such. It simply isn't true.

But, thanks for contributing. I also don't want to hear from Alex Jones or Glenn Beck.

reply to post by wildtimes

Be more than happy to! I encourage WarminIndy to then PM me when she finds the Hadith she referenced in her initial post, then, because as it stands now, it seems the statement was completely made up.

As to your statement, I've got to say, your phrasing is more than a little ominous . What with "cleanse" and "tumours" and "GET RID OF THEM ALL".
Still, the initial post didn't quite read like you were seeking the answer to that question, more like "Look at this thing that I found".

Speaking of that, and perhaps in reference to your discussion with sk0rpi0n, I don't quite see the connection you made with terrorism present in the article. The article gave a number of examples (hudood laws in Pakistan, and interpretations based off local customs being held up as islamic, and so on), but none really relating to terrorism or vest-strapping or such a thing. The reasoning present in the article MAY be the cause of such actions, but the article does not make an such claim.

Anyhow, my solution, as always, is education.

reply to post by babloyi

As to your statement, I've got to say, your phrasing is more than a little ominous . What with "cleanse" and "tumours" and "GET RID OF THEM ALL". The initial post didn't quite read like you were seeking the answer to that question, more like "Look at this thing that I found".

babloyi,
are you suggesting that the violent, or would-be violent, extremists are a healthy part of society?

That anyone shooting doctors in churches or bombing markets is 'peachy' to have around?

"Ominous"? No. Getting rid of the problem? Identifying its source? YES. If you are content just letting them shoot their hateful mouths off, then that's on you. I want it to stop, and I won't be silent about it.

Education can OBVIOUSLY solve a HUGE number of problems; it would excise the tumor and kill any malignancy. Why would you object to that? I don't think you would. My aim is to awaken people to the savage aspects of whatever 'religion' they follow. I think Pope Francis is great. Before him? The RCC was trouble. (It still is, but at least he's making an effort to rectify it.)

"We begin to die the day we remain silent about things that matter." -- MLKJr

wildtimes
Can we get back to the topic - how to 'cleanse' Islam of its rabid clergy who encourage violence?

Answer ... you can't.

- It would take education. And that kind of education isn't allowed in countries that are run by religious rule of law. Clinging to the rabid mentality is more important to them, than the facts showing that behavior to have a negative impact on those espousing it. Martyr syndrome.

- There is NO WAY that a woman ... ANY woman ... would be able to have a valid discussion with the fundamentalist extremist men of that religion. (note I said fundamentalist extremist). They won't take any woman seriously .. especially those who are obviously smarter than they are.

- There is NO WAY that a non-muslim Westerner would be able to have a valid discussion with the fundamentalist extremists who are pushing the violence. They are so indoctrinated and brainwashed to think that you are evil that it simply couldn't happen.

- It would take a change coming from the inside. A change of the laws. A change of attitude. All from the INSIDE. Their own have to wake up and push their own rabid clergy to the trash can.


Sorry. Not what you want to hear. But you asked ... and that's my opinion.
/done/

reply to post by babloyi


To follow up with that post -
religious leaders should, in MY OPINION, be held to a standard, licensed and credentialed, by a 'board of regulators', just like ANY counselor or life-coach. As long as any Shmoe can hang out a "church of me" shingle, become tax-deductible, and teach people to hate and maim, to injure, abuse and kill, THE VIOLENT ONES will do it.

Or the ones who want power/money. That was largely what the article was talking about.