Re: Spiritual wisdom v/s Religious dogma
How many Muslims today do you know who married a woman because she couldn't find a husband? I am not sure how they ask for their wife's permission to have another woman in their lives. But does it really make sense for a husband to ask his wife to marry another woman because she can't find a husband? In fact I was watching a video on youtube and this guy was saying that it was OK to marry a minor just because Mohammad did so.
What we have is wonderful. We treat someone younger one as a child, someone of about same age as us as brother or sister with exception of spouse and older person as an uncle. So, there is no room for marrying a child.
That's really interesting. So its from polygamy now to the marriage of Aa'isha (may Allaah be pleased with her.)
I've already stated that there are more women in the world than men, due to wars, men having a earlier age for death etc. And the man is the one who earns the money for the women, not the woman. So the guy can only marry her if he can deal justly between them as i quoted from the Qur'an earlier on.
Second, i never knew that a child at the age of 9 could give birth?
A child? that's something new isn't it? It's common sense - only a woman can give birth and if you're a paki/indian, you'll know that people marry their daughters, in the villages even today when girls hit puberty. Why? Because when a young woman gets her menses, or when a guy gets a wetdream - it means their adults. A child can't have babies.
Let's see what the scholars have to say about it:
I would quote the following fatwa from Shaykh 'Abdul-'Azîz ibn Ahmad Ad-Durayhim:
As for the possible negative consequences of a man of such a mature age marrying such a young girl, it is patently obvious. The discrepancies in their capabilities, both physically and mentally, could bring about serious differences between the two of them that could lead to the failure of the marriage. This is something that has been seen and is well understood.
Therefore, I would not recommend such a marriage nor would I encourage it.
Moreover, with respect to what we have said about the legal validity of such a marriage, that refers to the validity of the contract itself. As for the effects of the marriage - such as privacy, intimacy and sexual relations - that is another matter entirely. Such things are permitted only if the girl is able to handle such a relationship without any harm whatsoever coming to. Otherwise, it is prohibited. This is because the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "There shall be no harm nor the causing of harm."
It can also be seen in the very conduct of the Prophet (peace be upon him). He did not consummate his marriage with 'A’ishah for a number of years on account of her young age.
And from the fatwâ committee supervised by Shaykh 'Abdul-Wahhâb At-Turayrî we note:
The lawfulness of consummating a marriage at such an age is contingent on the maturity of the girl and that no harm would come to her.
So if any harm would come from it, then it is unlawful i.e. harâm.
If you have any more problems with that, then refer to these links which refute that claim:
http://www.islamicboard.com/587743-post147.html
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/aishah.html
The bottom line here is that a "true Sikh" doesn't marry for lust. There is no if and no but, a "true Sikh" doesn't have any lust, period.
What does he marry for then? And i wonder why you changed your mind, before it was obvious that true sikhis couldn't get married?
No, worldly attachment is one of the vices. So someone who have overcome all of the vices isn't attached to the world even while living in this world.
But i'm saying that a person can be really pious and have no attatchment to the world, its called zuhud in arabic. But it can change as time progresses, try it.
Yes the absolute answer is still the same that stealing is wrong. But if someone steals five dollars from me because it could save him from dying, I would give him ten dollars so that he can survive a little longer or even find him a shelter.
You giving him the ten dollars isn't wrong, but him stealing it is. Which means he's commiting a vice - so he could never be with God because of that from then onwards. What's worth more though, a life or $5, if its the $5 - then isn't that kind of unjust?
Sikhs have different views on other religions but there is nothing in Guru Granth Sahib that says that prophets of other religions to be accepted as prophets by Sikhs. I personally wouldn't have problem with accepting someone as perfect as Jesus if there were no Sikhi and I don't know much about Jewish prophet to comment.
And maybe you could quote where it says Jesus was so perfect? I'm not saying he isn't, but i read a thread by Avar a few days back which stated that Jesus wasn't really a prophet. He used the bible as a source. Now if he's saying that, if Jesus is perfect - then why is a fellow sikhi saying that he isn't?
If you want the proof, you can ask Avar or i can PM you the content as the threads been deleted due to controversy.
Someone who leaves Islam, especially in today's society, is not a threat like an enemy in war. Still a "true Sikh" kills only if self-defense or to protect the innocents. s/he doesn't kill because someone converted to another religion.
Name me a country anywhere which applies the full islamic law today? If not - then it's not really an islamic state is it?
In sikhism, aren't those who say bad about the pious sikhi's killed? The one who says bad about them, and tries to make others leave the way of the sikhi's? Aren't these people harming the innocent sikhi's?
The person is only killed if they make their apostasy public anyway. And when they make it public, they are becoming a threat. So if they want to make it hidden and leave the islamic state - then why don't they do that? Then they won't be killed as their not in the muslim state.
Well that's simply how you feel. But if they don't feel the same, they can't leave Islam because they will be killed if they do.
Because they are a threat to the muslims.
So what happens to those who do kill women? You may condemn terrorism if this is true. But you don't fight terrorism or drug dealing even though according to you they are anti-Islam even though you might support killing someone if they leave Islam, which is also anti-Islam.
Who says we don't? Let's find some fatwas shall we?
Praise be to Allaah.
Undoubtedly the fight against intoxicants and drugs is one of the greatest forms of jihad for the sake of Allaah. One of the most important duties is for all members of society to cooperate in fighting that, because fighting it is in the interests of everyone, and because its spread harms everyone. Whoever is killed in the fight against this evil and has a good intention is one of the martyrs. Whoever helps to expose drug dens and tells the law-enforcement officers where they are will be rewarded for that and is also regarded as a mujaahid fighting for the sake of the truth, in the interests of the Muslims and to protect their society against something harmful. We ask Allaah to guide those who deal in drugs and to bring them back to their senses and grant them refuge from the evil of their own selves and the traps of their enemy the Shaytaan. May He help those who are fighting against them to do a good job. May He help them to do their duty, guide them aright and grant them victory over the Shaytaan, for He is the best to be asked.
Majmoo’ Fataawa wa Maqaalaat Mutanawwi’ah by Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him), vol. 4, p. 410
http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=34495&ln=eng&txt=
Just because you don't know the answer, doesn't mean it isn't there. If you want, i can also try to read up on anti sikhi sites and try to quote all the arguments and you can try to refute them one by one, yeah?
Anyways, we are looking at things from two different angles and therefore, it will be almost impossible for us to come to one common point. So I think it's useless arguing from two different perspectives. But those who share their understanding of spirituality with me do understand what I am talking about.
I agree in a way. But i don't agree with some aspects because you claim that my beliefs are contradictory and you don't explain how or in what way, yet you don't even explain your views on being with God, which is supposed to be the highest status that a person reaches. If that was the case, it should be explained clearly as every sikhi is striving for that.
Instead you keep trying to divert that away by finding lots of anti islamic views which are continouslly refuted praise be to Allaah, which is one of the reasons why we're not reaching to a conclusion.
Regards.
