What makes something good?

[Hugo]

Looking through the last series of post I want to restate an earlier one and essentially its about honesty. Epictetus (AD55), commented on human behaviour by saying "it is not things in themselves that trouble us, but our opinion of things".

In other words it is not what happens that determines our behaviour but how we interpret it. For example, facing a failure of some kind one person sees it as a new challenge, another as abject defeat while someone else will see it as punishment he or she deserves. So critically, our decisions about what to do follow from the interpretation we have made surrounding what has happened or what we see or hear or read. So this uncertainty lies at the heart of what we need to know to understand ourselves and behave differently. So more often than not we are not responsible for what happens to us but we are always responsible for how we interpret it. Sadly, though we seem to dislike taking responsibility for ourselves as much as we dislike uncertainty.

In a way this is frightening because events can and will invalidate our ideas, show them to be false or weak and all we can do is hold on to what we really know is untrue, get rid of what we thought was true and replace it with new ideas or possibly modify our previous knowledge. All this can be traumatic and cause considerable stress and tension but inescapably your future depends on how you respond. Unlike lies, truth requires evidence to support it. But no matter how much evidence we accumulate, our truths will be an approximation not absolute certainty - certainty exists only in our fantasies.

The difficulties outlined above are often multiplied with matters of faith because when we hear something it may well shake our certainty about what we believe and then there are only two ways to go: lie to ourselves or face up to what we have no uncovered. Anyone who seriously takes part in these discussions is bound to hear differing views and once you have heard them you cannot go back.

Be interested to hear wheat you think?

 

[aamirsaab]

.....But are you now saying that child marriage was acceptable then and therefore moral or are you saying, as others have done that this was a special case?

First off, I'm not a scholar or sheik.
Secondly, I've read around this subject and I don't know for 100% exactly what age she was when the marriage took place (I've read conflicting hadith).

But what my whole post is about, my substantive point is what teaching do you take from the Prophet's example with Aisha - does that example mean that marriage and its full consummation with a child is acceptable in Islam, is it therefore good and to be emulated - do you now see what these posts are about?

Just because the Prophet did it, does not automatically mean it is to be emulated. There is a concept in Islam called urf (or in laymens terms, social customs/norms) that covers things like this (one in particular is the Prophet's use of Gold as a currency, but we can save that for another discussion). Also, there were certain Sunnah that only the Prophet was to do (because he was a Prophet), and were not to be emulated.

If the marriage of Aisha was indeed a case of urf, it is not to be emulated since the social customs are not the same.
If it was a case of only the Prophet can do it, again we are left with the same outcome: it is not to be emulated.
If it was a special case, then again not to be emulated because it was a unique case (from what I have read, it was the fact that Aisha had an excellent memory, greater than others older than her)

 

[Hugo]

First off, I'm not a scholar or sheik. Secondly, I've read around this subject and I don't know for 100% exactly what age she was when the marriage took place (I've read conflicting hadith). Just because the Prophet did it, does not automatically mean it is to be emulated. There is a concept in Islam called urf (or in laymens terms, social customs/norms) that covers things like this (one in particular is the Prophet's use of Gold as a currency, but we can save that for another discussion). Also, there were certain Sunnah that only the Prophet was to do (because he was a Prophet), and were not to be emulated.

If the marriage of Aisha was indeed a case of urf, it is not to be emulated since the social customs are not the same.
If it was a case of only the Prophet can do it, again we are left with the same outcome: it is not to be emulated.
If it was a special case, then again not to be emulated because it was a unique case (from what I have read, it was the fact that Aisha had an excellent memory, greater than others older than her)

I think this is a fair answer and urf in some cases can be equivalent to other forms of deriving law and in any case it is acknowledged that not every possibility or case is covered by the sacred texts and this may be one of them. But it seems rational and reasonable to me that one does not automatically have to follow the practice of a person no matter how eminent or revered without careful and considered thought. We can and must make a judgement on past events since they may be taken as precedents. From here we therefore might ask are there any principles or guidelines we might use when examining an action to help us decide if it was 'good' and therefore worthy of emulation?

 

[Hugo]

You in fact do a great deal of rant.. btw I am quite familiar with Aisha abdur'rahman and her work, which part of your quote is a direct quotation of her writing? further, Aisha (bint as'shati') had her scholarship and PhD in Arabic language and literature, which doesn't make her a scholar in theology. lastly, which part of the 12 pages here did you find difficult to understand with regards of customs and laws, and most importantly.. should child marriages be sanctioned in christianity given that your God slept with a 12 year old, was born of her while she was married to a 95 year old? Hopefully you can move beyond your inertia and offer a response to the tough questions, I think you've tired all of us with your, well rant/diatribe!

Please read my post and you will see where the quote is and it. I find your words about Mary are inappropriate and only a sullied mind would think like that. The Bible teaches that Mary would be with child by the Holy spirit - how that came about we cannot say but to describe it as you have done is scandalous. Secondly, you repeatedly mention this 95 years old man but cannot support this nonsense with a source or show that source to be a valid one.

 

[aamirsaab]

... From here we therefore might ask are there any principles or guidelines we might use when examining an action to help us decide if it was 'good' and therefore worthy of emulation?

This can be answered very simply (and didn't require bringing in the marriage of Aisha into it): what determines something is good, is not only the action BUT also the intention behind it. Again, understanding social norms is key here, because as we know laws and social customs change throughout time, thus limiting what can and cannot be emulated.

If, however we are talking specifically about the Aisha Marriage and whether or not to emulate this, then you would have to consult a scholar, sheik or imaam because as I said previously I have conflicting knowledge on the matter.

 

[جوري]

Please read my post and you will see where the quote is and it. I find your words about Mary are inappropriate and only a sullied mind would think like that. The Bible teaches that Mary would be with child by the Holy spirit - how that came about we cannot say but to describe it as you have done is scandalous. Secondly, you repeatedly mention this 95 years old man but cannot support this nonsense with a source or show that source to be a valid one.

Who cares what your bible teaches? you haven't established validity or textual integrity for the bible.. all it is are fairy tales of old.. Perhaps next time you come up with venomous crap against the prophet Mohammed (PBUH) the Quran, and Muslims at large, you'll think twice considering the horrendous implications that your book is studded with.. as for not supporting what I have written, It has been supported amply, your desire to bury your head in the sand again has little consequence in the matter, and if you consider the source less than adequate then perhaps you'll again think twice before using pieces of trash from 'your scholars' and passing it off as a valid when it comes to Islam!

You want to speak of a sullied mind, I am surprised the mods let you go this far and get away with this much!

 

[Hugo]

This can be answered very simply (and didn't require bringing in the marriage of Aisha into it): what determines something is good, is not only the action BUT also the intention behind it. Again, understanding social norms is key here, because as we know laws and social customs change throughout time, thus limiting what can and cannot be emulated. If, however we are talking specifically about the Aisha Marriage and whether or not to emulate this, then you would have to consult a scholar, sheik or imaam because as I said previously I have conflicting knowledge on the matter.

It is always necessary to bring in examples because at the end of the day it is the way things work out that matters no matter what the intention. There is a famous Biblical parable that deals with this idea and it is related in Matthew 21:28-33 (NIV) "What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work today in the vineyard.' 'I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind and went. "Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, 'I will, sir,' but he did not go. "Which of the two did what his father wanted?" "The first," they answered. Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him. So you can see here the whole focus is on doing not intention because 'intention' can let you off the hook - well I intended to do good but but ....

Many others have commented in a similar way and Rousseau looked backwards to actions and said "It is not when one has just performed a wicked action that it tortures one. It is when one remembers it long afterwards; for the memory of it never disappears. In the case of Aisha one might cite Rousseau again as to whether the action was good or not with his aphorism "Private interest never gives rise to great or noble actions". In short the consensus of the Bible and many philosophers is that intention is a good thing but it is not pivotal, but the action is.

 

[Muezzin]

Generally, academic* debates are not good.

They may have the best of intentions, but they're still utterly ineffective, unless one is not seeking truth so much as he or she is seeking to sharpen his or her intellectual tools.

*not of practical relevance; of only theoretical interest

 

[Hugo]

Generally, academic* debates are not good. They may have the best of intentions, but they're still utterly ineffective, unless one is not seeking truth so much as he or she is seeking to sharpen his or her intellectual tools. *not of practical relevance; of only theoretical interest

I am not sure what this post is saying, is it opening another stream of ideas and in this case that academic debate is not good, never good? If that is the case then I refer you to my post 187 which is about actions. Also you seem to be dismissing science because often, very often it begins with an idea, an idea that may have no practical relevance. For example, Boolean algebra when it was first proposed was just a curiosity of no more value that that. Similarly, Einstein's theory of relativity had no physical proof and lingered like that as just an academic discussion for 11 years until a British Astronomer verified one of its his predications. One can move this to the spiritual realm where for instance talk about heaven or hell can only be academic since there is no material evidence for either. Might be an interesting direction for this thread.

Alternatively, you may have been giving an example of intention and action?

 

[جوري]

I am not sure what this post is saying, is it opening another stream of ideas and in this case that academic debate is not good, never good? If that is the case then I refer you to my post 187 which is about actions. Also you seem to be dismissing science because often, very often it begins with an idea, an idea that may have no practical relevance. For example, Boolean algebra when it was first proposed was just a curiosity of no more value that that. Similarly, Einstein's theory of relativity had no physical proof and lingered like that as just an academic discussion for 11 years until a British Astronomer verified one of its his predications. One can move this to the spiritual realm where for instance talk about heaven or hell can only be academic since there is no material evidence for either. Might be an interesting direction for this thread.

Alternatively, you may have been giving an example of intention and action?

theorizing in science can lead to progress, theorizing in history leads to hearsay (amongst other things).. unless of course like your good friends the Zionists you'd like to re-write history to suit your personal needs?

http://rupeenews.com/2008/05/08/israels-60th-remembering-the-nakaba-with-uri-avnery-jvp/

 

[Hugo]

theorizing in science can lead to progress, theorizing in history leads to hearsay (amongst other things).. unless of course like your good friends the Zionists you'd like to re-write history to suit your personal needs? http://rupeenews.com/2008/05/08/israels-60th-remembering-the-nakaba-with-uri-avnery-jvp/

Now I see where you might be coming from. But I think you miss the point about history, it is to do with facts of course as far as they can be established but more often than not, and this is true of Islamic history as well the historical accounts differ often markedly. So always historians attempt a harmonisation and that involved an interpretation and that cannot be avoided. Theorising is not hearsay it is just an attempt to explain, it is always speculative. Of course one historian will call it a massacre and another justice.

A second point is that much in religious history is problematic since there is often no possibility of corroboration - for example, Mohammed is supposed to have had is heart removed and washed with snow or the Qu'ran given via an angel. Therefore a historian must not get the two kinds of event muddled up, so normal (shall I say) events can mostly be corroborated but mystical ones cannot.

One final point, are you seriously of the opinion that Zionists (for example) re-write history but Muslim never do?

 

[جوري]

Now I see where you might be coming from. But I think you miss the point about history, it is to do with facts of course as far as they can be established but more often than not, and this is true of Islamic history as well the historical accounts differ often markedly. So always historians attempt a harmonisation and that involved an interpretation and that cannot be avoided. Theorising is not hearsay it is just an attempt to explain, it is always speculative. Of course one historian will call it a massacre and another justice.

A second point is that much in religious history is problematic since there is often no possibility of corroboration - for example, Mohammed is supposed to have had is heart removed and washed with snow or the Qu'ran given via an angel. Therefore a historian must not get the two kinds of event muddled up, so normal (shall I say) events can mostly be corroborated but mystical ones cannot.

One final point, are you seriously of the opinion that Zionists (for example) re-write history but Muslim never do?

Harmonization is only needed for the bible on the account of differing stories all completely at odds. If you have a long chain of narrations all attesting to one thing, then there is no need for 'harmonization' we don't call it 'harmonization' we call it 'fabrication'!!
I don't see a need to 'harmonize' given the Quran by an angel. we have the Quran in pur possession and hadith completely different style of writing, the Quran written and spoken so that the most eloquent poets of the time couldn't produce the shortest sura akin to it (being three verses) do we need to see the bee to know where the honey came from? articles of faith need no harmonization, anymore than 'miracles' need harmonization you either believe them or you don't! Nothing is going to be watered down or switched to cater to Hugo or be in concert with Hugo's wants so that all books can be taken down to the lowest common denominator and be akin to the conundrum that is the bible or the christian faith!
Muslims have no need to re-write history, they have no need to go into zionist books and change words from Nakbah into denial to suit their purposes and further their agenda:
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Articles/General/Story1649.html

you should start a website on drivel and nonsense.. I think there is a market for that!

 

[Pygoscelis]

From reading this thread I am left with the understanding that both Islam and Christianity have stories in their holy books about marriages to children. Is that the correct understanding? Now, I see that you may argue whether this is incidental and more due to culture than the religions, and not therefore meant to be followed today, and therefore that these religions do not endorse or encourage child marriage. But that holy people did this would also seem to indicate that these religions are not OPPOSED to child marriage.

So that leads me to wonder how Christian society developed the concepts of statutory rape and of an age of maturity for marriage. Did that come with change in culture and secularization? Or did the religion have something to do with it?

And it leaves me to ask if these concepts exist in Islam? And if so how they developed if not from the Quran?

 

[syed_z]

From reading this thread I am left with the understanding that both Islam and Christianity have stories in their holy books about marriages to children. Is that the correct understanding? Now, I see that you may argue whether this is incidental and more due to culture than the religions, and not therefore meant to be followed today, and therefore that these religions do not endorse or encourage child marriage. But that holy people did this would also seem to indicate that these religions are not OPPOSED to child marriage.

So that leads me to wonder how Christian society developed the concepts of statutory rape and of an age of maturity for marriage. Did that come with change in culture and secularization? Or did the religion have something to do with it?

And it leaves me to ask if these concepts exist in Islam? And if so how they developed if not from the Quran?

Hello... well the Marriage of Prophet Muhammad (Saw) to Aisha (r.a) is not 100% authentic that, marriage was consummated at the Age of 9 .... rather there are many books written by many other Islamic Scholars, which say that Aisha (r.a) age was around about 17 or more, because he had married her when they were in Madinah, and if understood properly, during the days of Madinah her sister Asma bint Abu Bakr was 27 years old and Aisha (r.a) was 10 years younger than her.... in many books her age is 27 years old in Madinah, or at the time of Migration from Makkah to Madina... and since that would make Aisha about 17 years old....

thats why many scholars of Islam, think that the Authentic Tradition that is quoted in the Hadith Book, of Aisha being 9 at the time of consummation of Marriage with Muhammad (Saw), could be an error!


The Laws for Humanity which are to be seen after West was Secularized, or as the West developed them because of the Rennaisance period and when West moved away from Christianity.... in Islam they were handed down to us 1400 years ago in the Law of Quran and Sunnah....

We did not Develop them with time!

 

[syed_z]

As Marmaduke Pickthall once said Not very long time ago as Muslim Condition around the world began to deteriorate ..

"It was not until the Western Nations broke away from their religious Law that they became more tolerant, and it was only when Muslims fell away from their religious Law that they declined in tolerance."

 

[Predator]

So that leads me to wonder how Christian society developed the concepts of statutory rape and of an age of maturity for marriage. Did that come with change in culture and secularization? Or did the religion have something to do with it?

And it leaves me to ask if these concepts exist in Islam? And if so how they developed if not from the Quran?

Let us first examine how Christianity deals with the rapist:

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. ( Deuteronomy 22:28)"

Although this Verse from the Bible only talks about virgins, but its the only verse in the entire Bible that talks about raping single women. Not to be biased or anything, but the Bible seems to have quite weird things in it that are quite irrational and quite ridiculous. Deuteronomy 22:28 forces the raped woman to marry her rapist.
And why in the world would any raped female victim want to be in the same town, not the same bedroom !! with her rapist?.

Also, the Bible seems to promote raping of single women:

"But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. ( Deuteronomy 22:25)"

This is quite an interesting verse. We see in Deuteronomy 22:28 that if a man rapes a single woman then she will be forced to be his wife, while if a man rapes a married woman or a woman who is spoken for, in Deuteronomy 22:25, then he shall be put to death. There is absolutely no punishment for the rapist of a single woman in the Bible

InIslam ,The punishment for rape exists in the Sayings of our beloved Prophet peace be upon him, Let us look at what Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him said regarding this issue:

Narrated Wa'il ibn Hujr:

"When a woman went out in the time of the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) for prayer, a man attacked her and overpowered (raped) her. She shouted and he went off, and when a man came by, she said: That (man) did such and such to me. And when a company of the Emigrants came by, she said: That man did such and such to me.


They went and seized the man whom they thought had had intercourse with her and brought him to her.

She said: Yes, this is he. Then they brought him to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him). When he (the Prophet) was about to pass sentence, the man who (actually) had assaulted her stood up and said: Apostle of Allah, I am the man who did it to her.


He (the Prophet) said to the woman: Go away, for Allah has forgiven you. And about the man who had intercourse with her, he said: Stone him to death.


He also said: He has repented to such an extent that if the people of Medina had repented similarly, it would have been accepted from them. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4366)"

 

[syed_z]

Well actually .... sorry to say this... but Worst is that Even the Western Secular States do not Punish those criminals who Sexually Molest Children and Young Girls.... rather after a few Years, they let them go on Parole and then those same people do the same things when they go out....

Usually the Child Molesters and Criminals who have done rape are usually, let go on parole... Consider the recent allegations of Church abuse taking place, and Pope keeps protecting those Bishops...

 

[Pygoscelis]

That particular bible verse I think is better understood in the context of the society viewing women as having no legal standing as equals and needing to be looked after. It was a very mysogenistic society. I think that rape verse is essentially saying "You broke it, you bought it" and I think its concerned entirely with the man and his having to look after the woman he deflowered, and not even holding the woman's perspective as an afterthought.

I still ask my question above though. How these religions address rape is one thing, but what about statutory rape (meaning having sex with anybody under a set age is deemed as rape even if they are willing) and marriages to children? Does Islam address that in any way? Or is it just silent on the issue (not for or against)?

 

[جوري]

From reading this thread I am left with the understanding that both Islam and Christianity have stories in their holy books about marriages to children. Is that the correct understanding? Now, I see that you may argue whether this is incidental and more due to culture than the religions, and not therefore meant to be followed today, and therefore that these religions do not endorse or encourage child marriage. But that holy people did this would also seem to indicate that these religions are not OPPOSED to child marriage.

So that leads me to wonder how Christian society developed the concepts of statutory rape and of an age of maturity for marriage. Did that come with change in culture and secularization? Or did the religion have something to do with it?

And it leaves me to ask if these concepts exist in Islam? And if so how they developed if not from the Quran?

raising the age of consent was a movement that started in 1885 so it is quite recent, as even under 'secular laws' marriage was at a pretty young age for a number of factors, 1- children didn't always survive childhood and 2-women didn't always survive childbirth..
men not so different from yourself, paupers and kings alike were succumbing to spirochetes!

I think along with raising the age of consent, lowering the limit for abstract thought and deductive reasoning has been reduced drastically during the last century and a half as well!

American reformers were shocked to discover that the laws of most states set the age of consent at the age of ten or twelve, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only seven. Women reformers and advocates of social purity initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least sixteen,

http://womhist.alexanderstreet.com/teacher/aoc.htm

all the best!

 

[syed_z]

I still ask my question above though. How these religions address rape is one thing, but what about statutory rape (meaning having sex with anybody under a set age is deemed as rape even if they are willing) and marriages to children? Does Islam address that in any way? Or is it just silent on the issue (not for or against)?

A woman in Islam , whether Virgin or older, cannot be married against her will, girls who are children, their consent cannot be taken as they are young and not mature enough to think for themselves... it is when a Girl is mature and reaches the age of puberty is when she is allowed to give her consent to marry and her consent become Legally acceptable in Islam...


In Islam, specifically in Quran, it is the Husband and Wife both, of their mutual agreement is needed for all decisions regarding family matters..... and if one of them is immature then there cannot be a successive marriage life.... in Islam a girls needs to be mature .....




Prophet Muhammad (Saw) said "Whoever supports 2 daughters daughters till they mature, he and i will come in the day of Judgment as this (and he pointed with his two fingers)"

he said till they mature....


Also there is an event recorded in which a Girl came to Prophet (Saw) to complain that her parents were forcing her to marry, and he gave her the choice to reject the marriage, because if she does not consent then it CANNOT be a marriage....


Ibn Abbass (r.a) reported that a girl came to Messenger of Allah (Saw) and reported that her father had forced to marry without her consent. The Messenger of Allah (saw) gave her the choice (between accepting the marriage or invalidating it) (Ibn Hanbal No. 2469) In another version the girl said "actually i accept this marriage but i wanted the women to know that parents have no right (to force a husband on them)." (Ibn Majah No. 1873)


So how can there be a marriage of a Child, who hasnt reached puberty and is immature with any person in Islam ? it is not permissible in Islam...