With so many conspiracy theories floating about, who in your opinion is to blame for the Lahore attack on the Sri Lankan players today
[poll id=”5″]
With so many conspiracy theories floating about, who in your opinion is to blame for the Lahore attack on the Sri Lankan players today
[poll id=”5″]
Comments
198 responses to “POLL: Who would you blame for the Lahore Attacks”
sam is asking the question about islam to those who are ashamed to be muslims.thats really funny
Jawwad,
It is great that you speak the truth and dont hide behind something.
Fatima, Riaz are not able to justify their interpretation of islam.
If they cannot justify, they should accept the scholars from Saudi arabia's interpretation.
They should be either knowledgeable or honest.
I am still waiting for their answers.
(they can call me any names to make themselves superior or think i am an idiot).
But the reality is i will wait patiently for their answers.
I will not be angry at them or call them bad names.
That is my pledge.
"How can we be sure Jinnah wanted secularism?…..historical facts can tell that Jinnah was a secularist"
may i ask you who provide you these historical facts?
quaid e azam was not the leader of jurrasic era.the people are still alive who saw the whole process of independence.
countless people gave the testimony in the forms of books.
you can not the change of recorded history of pakistan.i can assure you that he was not a secular leader.this is just your perception or a wish as secularist,nothing else
Allam Dr Mohd Iqbal will be mentioned imperatively when some one talks about the genesis of Pakistan.
Hakeem ul ummat, in his Presidential Address of All-India Muslim League Session at Allahabad, in 1930. Such a State, he said:
“Would mean security and peace for India resulting from an internal balance of power, and for Islam an opportunity to rid itself of the stamp that Arabian Imperialism was forced to give it, to mobilise its law, its education, its culture, and to bring them into closer contact with its own original spirit and with the spirit of modern times.
(Speeches and statements of Iqbal–P.15)
Two years later, while addressing the nation at the Annual Session of the All-India Muslim Conference at Lahore, on 21/3/1932, he said:
“The possibilities of the faith you represent are not yet exhausted. It can still create a new world where the social rank of man is not determined by his caste or colour, or the amount of the dividend he earns, but by the kind of life he lives; where Capital cannot be allowed to accumulate so as to dominate the real producer of wealth. This superb ideal of your faith, however, needs emancipation from the medieval fancies of theologians and legists. Spiritually, we are living in a prison-house of thoughts and emotions which, during the course of centuries we have woven round ourselves. And be it further said to the same of us– men of older generation– that we have failed to equip the younger generation for the economic, political and even religious crises that the present age is likely to bring. The whole community needs a complete overhauling of its mentality in order that it may again become capable of feeling the urge of fresh desires and ideals.
(Ibid p.55)
Iqbal has beautifully narrated this unique feature of the Islamic State. He says in his Lectures:
“The ultimate spiritual basis of all life, as conceived by Islam, is eternal and reveals itself in variety and change. A society based on such a conception of Reality must reconcile in its life the categories of permanence and change; it must possess eternal principles to regulate its collective life; for the eternal gives us a foothold in the world of perpetual change. But eternal principles when they are understood to exclude all possibilities of change, which, according to Quran is one of the greatest sings of God, tend to immobilise what is essentially mobile in its nature.
(Reconstruction of Religious Thoughts in Islam…P-149)
Iqbal examined critically what had been going on in our past history, and said that
“ The teaching of the Quran that life is a process of progressive creation necessitates that each generation, guided but unhampered by the work of its predecessors, should be permitted to solve its own problems.
(Lectures P-160)
Who says that we are ashamed to be Muslims???
It is not easy to reply to every one so I think I can give a general statement!!
We the Muslims should not excuse anybody…Right now we are going through a phase of redefining ourselves. Many actions are linked with Islam although they are more like individually committed crimes. Comparatively more condemnable crimes are committed in West & India too. They don't link that with religion. Whenever any Muslim commits any crime people quickly jump to link that to Islam..
Islam is pure, true and above all dirty allegations people are running to charge.
I damn care about standards of so called Intellects of the world. I am proud I have chose the path shown by my Lord. I need the help of my Lord…not from those who are depending on worldly powers.
Each and every verse of Quran is gem, a guiding light a true warning and above all…Quran is the world of Allah!!! Our creator is speaking with us, He knows every thing, hidden and visible, He knows what we think, He knows what we do…Believing in the day of Judgment is one of the pillar of belief…and I am blessed that I found the true path.
One thing more, Quran allows Muslims to teach lesson to those who are initiating attacks on our territory, our ideology and our security..We are legitimatized to take action against those who are conspiring against us. We are allowed to enslave, execute, punish those who are aggressors against Islam…No Muslim should fee ashamed of it. I repeat I don't care what Kafirs say about it…let them call it barbaric, unjust or blah! blah!!…I am focused…Islam allows us to beat those crooks and Insha Allah that time is very near!!!
I think it is inevitable that rest of the pakistan is going to come into the fold of Taliban like people.
Why resist the inevitable ?
Doesnt islam mean submission ?
Why are moderates resisting the TRUE islam from Taliban.
Accept true islam and stop the bloodshed.
I think most so called moderates want to drink and dance (maybe in secret) and in public appear true followers.
Once the pure islam is implemented by Taliban, then they cannot be hyprocite anymore and are getting worried about this.
jawwad is a true muslim.
To bring order in the world..Taliban type force is necessary.
The storm of Talibans is reaching the borders of ever infidel and the shivering bodies, the typewriting teeth and haphazard actions of the Infidels show that the awe of Islam is again shattering their midnight dreams..
One thing is to be understood…Talibans proved that they are unstoppable…they made USA curse themselves and their war on terror has become real horror for them when their economy is nose diving…the continuous packages of dead bodies reaching USA…the job losses and above all…and above all the hopeless situation of understanding that no success is visible for them in either Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Talibani storm would soon reach many forts…may be Lal Qila very soon..I know Hindus are fast in running…don't forget Prithvi Raj Chohan…who was enslaved in Ghor..and suicided after his eyes were burnt after ugly punishment
Mansoor—
atleast taliban are truthful and honest..
i always like people who are not afraid of talking truth.
SAM is a true hindu!
baghal men churee munh pe ram ram
hey denial!
whats the matter.are you and sam brothers?
same comments.
same question.
same filthy language and mentality.
why don't you search for guidance and right path instead of few disputed issues to confuse others.
technically both are sick.
like a fly which prefer to sit and eat the shit rather sit on a flower and extract good food and cure.
hello everyone,
please answer the questions…
i am still waiting for the answers
some differences between hindus and islam
hindu
Common Concept of God in Hinduism:
* Hinduism is commonly perceived as a polytheistic religion. Indeed, most Hindus would attest to this, by professing belief in multiple Gods. While some Hindus believe in the existence of three gods, some believe in thousands of gods, and some others in thirty three crore i.e. 330 million Gods. However, learned Hindus, who are well versed in their scriptures, insist that a Hindu should believe in and worship only one God.
* The major difference between the Hindu and the Muslim perception of God is the common Hindus’ belief in the philosophy of Pantheism. Pantheism considers everything, living and non-living, to be Divine and Sacred. The common Hindu, therefore, considers everything as God. He considers the trees as God, the sun as God, the moon as God, the monkey as God, the snake as God and even human beings as manifestations of God!
Islam
* In Islam, belief in One God is the most important belief. Allah in arabic refers to the One God. It is a known fact that every language has one or more terms that are used in reference to God and sometimes to lesser deities. This is not the case with Allah. Allah is the personal name of the One true God. Nothing else can be called Allah. The term has no plural or gender. This shows its uniqueness when compared with the word god which can be made plural, gods, or feminine, goddess. It is interesting to notice that Allah is the personal name of God in Aramaic, the language of Jesus and a sister language of Arabic. The One true God is a reflection of the unique concept that Islam associates with God. To a Muslim, Allah is the Almighty, Creator and Sustainer of the universe, Who is similar to nothing and nothing is comparable to Him.
(monotheism)
* Islam exhorts man to consider himself and his surroundings as examples of Divine Creation rather than as divinity itself. Muslims therefore believe that everything is God’s i.e. the word ‘God’ with an apostrophe ‘s’. In other words the Muslims believe that everything belongs to God. The trees belong to God, the sun belongs to God, the moon belongs to God, the monkey belongs to God, the snake belongs to God, the human beings belong to God and everything in this universe belongs to God.
* Thus the major difference between the Hindu and the Muslim beliefs is the difference of the apostrophe ‘s’. The Hindu says everything is God. The Muslim says everything is God’s.
hindu
Hinduism has a caste system, with four major castes. Members of each are required by strict religious laws to follow certain hereditary occupations and to refrain from intermarriage or eating with members of the other castes. The highest, or priestly and intellectual, caste is that of the Brahmans. The remaining three in order are Kshatriya (ruling or warrior caste), Vaisya (common artisan and agricultural caste), and the Sudras (the low caste people).
islam
In Islam, all humans are created equal. For example, there is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab, or vice versa. Blacks and whites have no superiority over each other. The same holds with any other nationality or ethnicity. Islam rejects characterizing God in any human form or depicting Him as favoring certain individuals or nations on the basis of wealth, power or race. He created the human beings as equals. They may distinguish themselves and get His favor through virtue and piety only.
THE AGE OF HAZRAT AYESHA (RA) WHEN HER MARRIAGE WAS CONSUMMATED.
It is normally believed that she was nine years old at the time of her marriage with Mohammad (sws) was consummated. I do think it was according to the traditions of the Arab culture, as otherwise people would have objected to this marriage. But unfortunately, the modern day man is not satisfied with an answer as simple as that.
Answer:
To begin with[1], I think it is the responsibility of all those who believe that marrying a girl as young as nine years old was an accepted norm of the Arab culture, to provide at least a few examples to substantiate their point of view. I have not yet been able to find a single reliable instance in the books of Arab history where a girl as young as nine years old was given away in marriage. Unless such examples are given, we do not have any reasonable grounds to believe that it really was an accepted norm.
In my opinion, the age of Ayesha (ra) has been grossly misreported in the narratives of the incident. Not only that, I think that the narratives reporting this event are not only highly unreliable but also that on the basis of other historical data, the event reported, is quite an unlikely happening. Let us look at the issue from an objective stand point. My reservations in accepting the narratives, on the basis of which, Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of her marriage with the Prophet (pbuh) is held to be nine years are:
*
Most of these narratives are reported only by Hisham ibn `urwah reporting on the authority of his father. An event as well known as the one being reported, should logically have been reported by more people than just one, two or three.
*
It is quite strange that no one from Medinah, where Hisham ibn `urwah lived the first seventy-one years of his life has narrated the event, even though in Medinah his pupils included people as well known as Malik ibn Anas. All the narratives of this event have been reported by narrators from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have shifted after living in Medinah for seventy-one years.
*
Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: "narratives reported by Hisham are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq". It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham, which were reported through people of Iraq (Vol. 11, pg. 48 – 51).
*
Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal, another book on the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that when he was old, Hisham's memory suffered quite badly (Vol. 4, pg. 301 – 302).
*
According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha (ra) was born about eight years before Hijrah. However, according to another narrative in Bukhari (Kitaab al-Tafseer) Ayesha (ra) is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur'an , was revealed, "I was a young girl". The 54th Surah of the Qur'an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Ayesha (ra) had not only been born before the revelation of the referred Surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not even only an infant (sibyah) at that time. Obviously, if this narrative is held to be true, it is in clear contradiction with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah. I see absolutely no reason that after the comments of the experts on the narratives of Hisham ibn `urwah, why should we not accept this narrative to be more accurate.
*
According to a number of narratives, Ayesha (ra) accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back. Ayesha's (ra) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud clearly indicates that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to accompany men to the battlefields to help them, not to be a burden upon them.
*
According to almost all the historians Asma (ra), the elder sister of Ayesha (ra) was ten years older than Ayesha (ra). It is reported in Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb as well as Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah that Asma (ra) died in the 73rd year after hijrah[2] when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma (ra) was 100 years old in the 73rd year after hijrah, she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma (ra) was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha (ra) should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Ayesha (ra) – if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH – was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.
*
Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history, while mentioning Abu Bakr (ra) reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah – the pre Islamic period. Obviously, if Ayesha (ra) was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH – the time she most likely got married.
*
According to Ibn Hisham, the historian, Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam quite some time before Umar ibn Khattab (ra). This shows that Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam during the first year of Islam. While, if the narrative of Ayesha's (ra) marriage at seven years of age is held to be true, Ayesha (ra) should not even have been born during the first year of Islam.
*
Tabari has also reported that at the time Abu Bakr (ra) planned on migrating to Habshah (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am – with whose son Ayesha (ra) was engaged at that time – and asked him to take Ayesha (ra) in his house as his son's wife. Mut`am refused, because Abu Bakr had embraced Islam. Subsequently, his son divorced Ayesha (ra). Now, if Ayesha (ra) was only seven years old at the time of her marriage, she could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr decided on migrating to Habshah. On the basis of this report it seems only reasonable to assume that Ayesha (ra) had not only been born 8 years before hijrah, but was also a young lady, quite prepared for marriage.
*
According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of Khadijah (ra), when Khaulah (ra) came to the Prophet (pbuh) advising him to marry again, the Prophet (pbuh) asked her regarding the choices she had in her mind. Khaulah said: "You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)". When the Prophet (pbuh) asked about who the virgin was, Khaulah proposed Ayesha's (ra) name. All those who know the Arabic language, are aware that the word "bikr" in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine-year old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier is "Jariyah". "Bikr" on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady, and obviously a nine year old is not a "lady".
*
According to Ibn Hajar, Fatimah (ra) was five years older than Ayesha (ra). Fatimah (ra) is reported to have been born when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35 years old. Thus, even if this information is taken to be correct, Ayesha (ra) could by no means be less than 14 years old at the time of hijrah, and 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage.
These are some of the major points that go against accepting the commonly known narrative regarding Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of her marriage.
In my opinion, neither was it an Arab tradition to give away girls in marriage at an age as young as nine or ten years, nor did the Prophet (pbuh) marry Ayesha (ra) at such a young age. The people of Arabia did not object to this marriage, because it never happened in the manner it has been narrated.
JIZYA AND STATUS OF NON MUSLIMS IN A ISLAMIC STATE.
in Surah Tauba 9:29, where it is explicitly revealed as a sign of the subjugation of conquered non-Muslims. Hence, the tax is clearly a tribute, and a sign of subjection, in no way equivalent to the alms tax Zakat. Yusuf Ali's comment on the Jizyah clarifies this:
1281 Jizya: the root meaning is compensation. The derived meaning, which became the technical meaning, was a poll-tax levied from those who did not accept Islam, but were willing to live under the protection of Islam, and were thus tacitly willing to submit to its ideals being enforced in the Muslim State. There was no amount permanently fixed for it. It was in acknowledgment that those whose religion was tolerated would in their turn not interfere with the preaching and progress of Islam. Imam Shafi'i suggests one dinar per year, which would be the Arabian gold dinar of the Muslim States. The tax varied in amount, and there were exemptions for the poor, for females and children (according to Abu Hanifa), for slaves, and for monks and hermits. Being a tax on able-bodied males of military age, it was in a sense a commutation for military service. But see the next note. (9.29)
1282 'An Yadin (literally, from the hand) has been variously interpreted. The hand being the symbol of power and authority. I accept the interpretation "in token of willing submission." The Jizya was thus partly symbolic and partly a commutation for military service, but as the amount was insignificant and the exemptions numerous, its symbolic character predominated. See the last note. (9.29)
Abul 'Ala Mawdudi, Qur'anic exegete and founder of the Islamist Pakistani group Jama'at-i-Islami was quite unapologetic about Jizyah:
…the Muslims should feel proud of such a humane law as that of Jizya. For it is obvious that a maximum freedom that can be allowed to those who do not adopt the way of Allah but choose to tread the ways of error is that they should be tolerated to lead the life they like.
He interprets the Qur'anic imperative to Jihad as having the aim of subjugating non-Muslims, to force them to pay the Jizyah as the defining symbol of their subjection:
… Jews and the Christians …should be forced to pay Jizya in order to put an end to their independence and supremacy so that they should not remain rulers and sovereigns in the land. These powers should be wrested from them by the followers of the true Faith, who should assume the sovereignty and lead others towards the Right Way.
The consequence of this is that in an Islamic State – specifically the Khilafah – non-Muslims should be denied Government posts, since the state exists for the Muslims, who alone are true citizens, whilst the non-Muslims are merely conquered residents, and the Jizyah signifies this:
That is why the Islamic state offers them protection, if they agree to live as Zimmis by paying Jizya, but it can not allow that they should remain supreme rulers in any place and establish wrong ways and establish them on others. As this state of things inevitably produce chaos and disorder, it is the duty of the true Muslims to exert their utmost to bring an end to their wicked rule and bring them under a righteous order.
Differences of taxation demonstrate distinctions in citizenship. As a symbol of subjection, it signifies that the state is not really the common property of all its permanent residents, but only the Muslims. The non-Muslims are conquered outsiders. It demonstrates their inferior condition. It also punishes them for their disbelief in Islam. Islamic law makes it very clear that the Jizyah is punitive in character. Further, it is to levied with humiliation. Hence, it is in no way comparable to Western tax systems. Even progressive taxation is not a 'punishment' for economic success, nor is any tax specifically humiliating in character.
This illustrates that essentially, in an Islamic State, the non-Muslims are in a worse situation than prisoners out on parole, since they are still being punished – they are not considered 'good, law-abiding citizens' however exemplary their conduct, but rather criminals given day-leave. Their crime is their faith. Moreover, their crime is capital in nature – they deserve death. This demonstrates the unique character of the Jizyah tax – unlike Western taxes, payment does not grant equality and liberty to the payee, but rather merely permission for another tax period to live; failure to pay it results in death. Again, it is rather analogous to a convict on parole regularly visiting the police station or parole officer to register. This is different from the case of someone in the West who refuses to pay his tax for whatever reason; he is punished, though it must be stated not by execution, for breaking the law. The reverse is true with the Jizyah – the tax itself is punishment, and the payee lives in the permanent condition of being punished for his faith until he converts. Essentially, non-Muslims live under a permanent death-threat
you did not even read the answer!!!did you?
THE TESTIMONY OF WOMEN
Most Qur’anic references to testimony (witness) do not make any reference to gender. Some references fully equate the testimony of males and females.
And for those who launch a charge against their spouses and have (in support) no evidence but their own, their solitary evidence (can be received) if they bear witness four times (with an oath) by Allah that they are solemnly telling the truth; And the fifth (oath) (should be) that they solemnly invoke the curse of Allah on themselves if they tell a lie. But it would avert the punishment from the wife if she bears witness four times (with an oath) by Allah that (her husband) is telling a like; And the fifth (oath) should be that she solemnly invokes the wrath of Allah on herself if (her accuser) is telling the truth. (Qur’an 24:6-9)
One reference in the Qur’an distinguishes between the witness of a male and a female. It is useful to quote this reference and explain it in its own context and in the context of other Qur’anic references to testimony:
O you who believe! When you deal with each other in transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time, reduce them to writing. Let a scribe write down faithfully as between the parties: let not the scribe refuse to write: as Allah has taught him, so let him write. Let him who incurs the liability dictate, but let him fear his Lord, Allah, and not diminish aught of what he owes. If the party liable is mentally deficient, or weak, or unable himself to dictate, let his guardian dictate faithfully. And get two witnesses out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as you choose for witnesses so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her.
The witnesses should not refuse when they are called on (for evidence). Disdain not to reduce to writing (your contract) for a future period, whether it be small or big: it is more just in the sight of Allah, more suitable as evidence, and more convenient to prevent doubts among yourselves, but if it be a transaction with you carry out on the spot among yourselves, there is not blame on you if you reduce it not to writing, But take witnesses whenever you make a commercial contract; and let neither scribe nor witness suffer harm. If you do (such harm), it would be wickedness in you. So fear Allah; for it is Allah that teaches you. And Allah is well acquainted with all things. (Qur’an 2:282)
A few comments on this text are essential in order to prevent common misinterpretations:
First, when generally considered, in some instances of bearing witness to certain civil contracts, two men are required or one man and two women. Again, this is no indication of the woman being inferior to man. It is a measure of securing the rights of the contracting parties, because woman as a rule, is not so experienced in practical life as man. This lack of experience may cause a loss to any party in a given contract. So the Law requires that at least two women should bear witness with one man. If a woman of the witness forgets something, the other one would remind her. Or if she makes an error, due to lack of experience, the other would help to correct her. This is a precautionary measure to guarantee honest transactions and proper dealings between people. In fact, it gives woman a role to play in civil life and helps to establish justice. At any rate, lack of experience in civil life does not necessarily mean that women is inferior to man in her status. Every human being lacks one thing or another, yet no one questions their human status (2:282).
It cannot be used as an argument that there is a general rule in the Qur’an that the worth of a female’s witness is only half the male’s. This presumed “rule” is voided by the above reference (24:6-9), which explicitly equates the testimony of both genders on the issue at hand.
The context of this passage (verse, or ayah) relates to testimony on financial transactions, which are often complex and laden with business jargon. The passage does not make a blanket generalization that would otherwise contradict 24:6-9, cited above.
The reason for variations in the number of male and female witnesses required is given in the same passage. No reference is made to the inferiority or superiority of one gender’s witness or the other’s. The only reason given is to corroborate the female’s witness and prevent unintended errors in the perception of the business deal. The Arabic term used in this passage, tadhilla, literally means “loses the way,” “gets confused,” or “errs.” But are females the only gender that may err and need corroboration of their testimony? Definitely not, and that is why the general rule of testimony in Islamic law is to have two witnesses, even when they are both male.
One possible interpretation of the requirements related to this particular type of testimony is that in numerous societies, past and present, women generally may not be heavily involved with and experienced in business transactions. As such, they may not be completely cognizant of what is involved. Therefore, corroboration of a woman’s testimony by another woman who may be present ascertains accuracy and, hence, justice. It would be unreasonable to interpret this requirement as a reflection on the worth of women’s testimony, as it is the ONLY exception discerned from the text of the Qur’an . This may be one reason why a great scholar like Al-Tabari could not find any evidence from any primary text (Qur’an or hadith) to exclude women from something more important than testimony: being herself a judge who hears and evaluates the testimony of others.
It must be added that unlike pure acts of worship, which must be observed exactly as taught by the prophet (P), testimony is a means to an end, ascertaining justice as a major objective of Islamic law. Therefore, it is the duty of a fair judge to be guided by this objective when assessing the worth and credibility of a given testimony, regardless of the gender of the witness. A witness of a female graduate of a business school is certainly far more worthy than the witness of an illiterate person with no business education or experience.
there could be one more possible interpertation of this revelation that the exclusion of woman’s testimony, altogether, from cases of major crimes, and cases requiring retaliation in kind, is meant to protect women and steer her away from scenes of crime and aggressions against souls, honor and property. It is frequent, for instance, to see a woman closing her eyes, or running away in panic from a scene of bloodshed; therefore, it becomes difficult for that woman to give a reliable account of the crime
"Blood money where a muslim man’s death = 32 Hindu’s death in saudi arabia.
utter non sense
@fatima!
i have tons of material(if you convert in the books).that is why i make mistakes more often especially "copy" and "paste" type mistakes.
QUAID E AZAM SECULARIST OR REVOLUTIONARY MUSLIM.
Quaid e azam believed in islam and wanted an Islamic republic of Pakistan in which shariyah would be the supreme law. Here is some references:
Quaid-e-Azam said in his presidential address in 1940:
“It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders… The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, literatures. They belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects of life and our life are different.”
In his speech at the Frontier Muslim League Conference on November 21, 1945, he said:
“We have to fight a double edged battle, one against the Hindu Congress and the British Imperialists, both of them being capitalists. The Muslims demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions and Islamic laws.”
In a message to NWFP Muslim Students Federation in April 1943, he said:
“You have asked me to give a message. What message can I give you? We have got the great message in the Quran for our guidance and enlightenment.”
In an Eid message to the nation in 1945, he said:
“Every Muslim knows that the injunctions of the Quran are not confined to religious and moral duties. Everyone except those who are ignorant, knows that the Quran is the general code of the Muslims. A religious, social, civil, commercial, military, judicial, criminal and penal code; it regulates everything from the ceremonies of religion to those of daily life; from the salvation of the soul to the health of the body; from the rights of all, to those of each individual; from morality to crime; from punishment here to that in the life to come, and our Prophet (S) has enjoined on us that every Muslim should possess a copy of the Holy Quran and be his own priest. Therefore, Islam is not confined to the spiritual tenets and doctrines and rituals and ceremonies. It is a complete code regulating the whole Muslim society in every department of life, collectively and individually.”
QUESTION ANSWER SESSION BETWEEN MULIM STUDENT FEDRATION AND QUID E AZAM AFTER THE SPEECH
Q. What are the essential features of religion and a religious state?
A. When I hear the word “religion,” my mind thinks at once, according to the English language and British usage, of private relations between man and God. But I know full well that according to Islam, the word is not restricted to the English connotation. I am neither a Maulwi nor a Mullah, nor do I claim knowledge of theology. But I have studied in my own way the Holy Quran and Islamic tenets. This magnificent book is full of guidance respecting all human life, whether spiritual, or economic, political or social, leaving no aspect untouched.
Q. What is the distinctive feature of the Islamic state?
A. There is a special feature of the Islamic state which must not be overlooked. There, obedience is due to God and God alone, which takes practical shape in the observance of the Quranic principles and commands. In Islam, obedience is due neither to a king, nor to a parliament, nor to any other organization. It is the Quranic provisions which determine the limits of our freedom and restrictions in political and social spheres. In other words, the Islamic state is an agency for enforcement of the Quranic principles and injunctions.
There will be no economic exploitation by the capitalists in an Islamic state. In his presidential address delivered to the annual session of the All India Muslim League, in
Delhi on April 24, 1943, he said:
“Here I should like to give a warning to the landlords and capitalists who have flourished at our expense by a system which is so vicious, which is so wicked and which makes them so selfish that it is difficult to reason with them. The exploitation of the masses has gone into their blood. They have forgotten the lessons of Islam. Greed and selfishness have made these people subordinate to the interests of others in order to fatten themselves. It is true we are not in power today. You go anywhere to the countryside. I have visited villages. There are millions and millions of our people who hardly get one meal a day. Is this civilization? Is this the aim of Pakistan? Do you visualize that millions have been exploited and cannot get one meal a day? If this is the idea of Pakistan, I would not have it. If they are wise, they will have to adjust themselves to the new modern conditions of life. If they don’t, God help them, we shall not help them.”
In light of the above, we can see that Quaid-e-Azam was neither for Western-style democracy nor for Mulla-style theocracy. He essentially advocated what may be called Islamic social democracy. But tell this to secularists or to Islamists. They would never believe it. No wonder truth is stranger than fiction. The result? Pakistanis are the real losers, no matter how much materially some have gained. Quaid-e-Azam, on the other hand, will always shine like a bright star in the annals of modern human history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diyya
Saudi Arabia
In Saudi Arabia, when a person has been killed or caused to die by another, the prescribed blood money rates are as follows[7]:
* 100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man
* 50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman
* 50,000 riyals if a Christian man
* 25,000 riyals if a Christian woman
* 6,666 riyals if a Hindu man
* 3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman.
Make your own conclusions about all humans being equal
H
I firmly believe in one god..It doesnt matter whether He/She is from Islam, Hindu, Christianity..All those people who are committing atrocities in the name of God, do they really know God?Or, are they sure they will reach salvation after they leave this world? No one knows. Then why such atrocities? I believe that when someone kills an innocent person, he/she has lost all right to reach God..Now, each of us have their own view of who is innocent but I believe that Islam never preached anarchy. I have a lot of friends who are muslims and you cannot find a more kinder, respectful set of people anywhere. But, there are certain factions who are out to defame muslims by their atrocities against innocents.India wants a stable Pakistan people..please understand that..It is of no help to South Asia or India if Pakistan comes under the influence of certain factions..more importantly its of no help to Pakistan itself..Pakistan will be set back by more than 20 years…think of the economic loss, the funding that will go off, the investments that would dry up, US attacks will increase, peace lost? Does Pakistan really want to end up like Afghanistan or Iraq? I have been to Lahore many times in my capacity and you cannot find a more modern city anywhere.The people are so kind, helpful and always welcome others with open arms..The common man in India doesn't hate the common man in Pakistan and vice versa..Its only those certain factions on both sides that reap benefits out of the unrest in both countries.It doesn't matter if you are a Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist etc.End of the day, all of us are humans, plain and simple.We came into this world without anything and we will leave this world without anything.Why this fight in between? There is no God in any religion that wants it followers to commit atrocities.Indians need to remove this concept of Islam being a combative religion and Pakistanis need to see India as someone who wants Pakistan to be stable and improve their own economic growth.Peace is important not only to India and Pakistan but to the whole world.
THE PUNISHMENT OF APOSTASY IN ISLAM.
(text was taken from the book of maulan syed abu al aala modudi "THE PUNISHMENT OF THE APOSTATE ACCORDING TO ISLAMIC LAW"
"The person who says "the execution of the apostate" means simply a punishment for changing a faith after choosing it in fact himself already interprets one matter wrongly and then himself imposes a false commandment upon it. As indicated above the true position of an apostate is that he by his apostasy provides proof that he not only rejects the foundation for the order of society and state but offers no hope that he will ever accept it in the future. When such a person finds this foundation on which society and the state are constructed to be unacceptable to himself, it will be appropriate for him to move outside its borders. But when he fails to do this, only two ways of dealing with him are possible. Either he should be stripped of all his rights of citizenship and allowed to remain alive or else his life should be terminated. In fact the first form of punishment is worse than the second since in this terrible state "he will neither die nor live" (Qur'an 20:74). Moreover, alive, he becomes a greater danger for society, since his existence will be a permanent plague spreading among the people and a source of fear lest also the other whole and healthy members of society be permeated with his poison. It is therefore better to punish him by death and thereby at one and the same time to put an end to his own and society's misery.
It is also wrong to interpret "the execution of the apostate" as our forcing a person, by threatening him with death, to adopt a hypocritical behaviour. In fact the matter is the opposite. We want to block entrance into our society of those people who are afflicted with the disease of capriciousness and keep on playing musical chairs with theories and ideas for their own amusement, and who lack totally the stability of belief and character which the building of an order of life requires. Constructing an order of life is a highly serious task. In the society which takes on this task, there can be no place for fickle and unstable people. Only those people should compose it who seriously accept the order and, having accepted it, apply heart and soul to its construction and maintenance. It is therefore a matter of true wisdom and discretion that everyone who wishes to join this community should first be informed that the punishment for reverting is death, so that he may think a hundred times whether or not he ought to join this community before he joins. Then only he will join the community who will never leave it.
What the critics have in mind is, in fact, the matter of the "religions" and their propagation, which we have explained in the beginning. Truly such religions should keep their doors open for those who come and go. Closing them to those wishing to leave would be an inappropriate action on their part. But any reasonable person who has even some understanding of a co-operative society cannot advise the religion on whose ideas and actions society and state are constructed to keep open its door that would spell its own ruin, the scattering of its own structure's parts, the stripping away of the bonds of its own existence. Building and destroying an ordered society and state have always been a life-risking task. By its very nature this task will always remain the same. It has never happened in the world, and it cannot be expected to happen in the future, that any order of life can be changed apart from playing with fire and blood. Only that order of life can be ready for change, without hindrance, whose roots have rotted and in whose foundation no confidence remains to justify its continued existence.
Then there is the criticism of contradiction, which for the most part will disappear automatically by carefully reading the above discussion. "There is no compulsion in religion" (la ikraha fi'd din: Qur'an 2:256) means that we do not compel anyone to come into our religion.[2] And this is truly our practice. But we initially warn whoever would come and go back that this door is not open to come and go. Therefore anyone who comes should decide before coming that there is no going back. Otherwise he should kindly not come. Let someone explain what contradiction is finally to be found here. Without doubt, we deplore hypocrisy and want to see everyone in our community as a true believer. But if hypocrisy overtakes anyone who steps away from his community through the door he knows is no exit, the fault lies with himself. To extricate him from this condition, we cannot expose our order to anarchy. If he has such concern for righteousness that he does not want to remain a hypocrite but wants to be true to the object of his present belief, then why would he himself not come forward to receive the punishment of execution?
True, the criticism that Islam does not consider it objectionable to punish its followers who renounce it but objects that other religions may punish their followers for leaving their religions to embrace Islam holds some weight superficially. But the contradiction which superficially appears from these two attitudes in reality does not exist. Moreover, if in both cases a single attitude were adopted, then assuredly there would be a contradiction. Islam calls itself the truth and considers itself to be the truth in all sincerity. For this reason it can never recognize those moving toward the truth and those moving away from the truth to be on an equal level. It is right for anyone coming to the truth to come and whoever blocks his path deserves to be reprimanded. It is not right for anyone reverting from the truth to revert and whoever blocks his path does not deserve to be reprimanded. There is no contradiction in this attitude. Surely, if Islam calls itself the truth and then recognizes those moving toward it and those moving away from it to be on the same level, no doubt it would be acting in a contradictory manner.
Sam, you proved me right by quoting from wikipedia. u r a child. 🙂 grow up.
you pakistanis are so so stupid…blaming us Indians for all the crap in your country…I am a muslim but more proud of being an Indian. Our whole family and its previous generations have lived in Hyderabad for a long time and are a respected lot. India is not Pakistan.We are secular..We have the Khans ruling bollywood, the pathans giving us glory in the T20 world cup where we smashed you lot, Dr. Abdul Kalam as President, AR Rehman winning us the Oscar..dont think for one second that all the muslims in India will support infidels like the talibans..there might be some misguided people in India who do that but not the whole set of muslims..In India we are allowed to live life the way we want. there is also respect for Islam..Please do not for one second think that the muslims in India are in anyway against India..
satisfied????
how can you?
you got all the answers now piss off.
Dr Jawwad, do you really want me to rip apart all the stuff that you've quoted? You equate 'belief' with 'absolute truth', which is where the problem begins.
Also, the apostasy section you've pasted above is a classic example of fascist thought.
It's hilarious that all religions, not just Islam, claim to have the absolute truth but are so insecure about criticism! Heh, if I believed I had the absolute truth, I won't care what anyone else says. And it is because of this insecurity that the religious lot are also most prone to conspiracy theories.
@Sam: while you've pointed to the 'hypocrisy' of others, you cannot do that with me. I'm a declared non-believer; others here are rabid Taliban lovers, secular believers and some sit on the fence. Who are you? What is it that you want to argue? Because while I'm really trying hard to converse with you, every one of your post reeks of some kind of desperation to put another religion down, while subliminally claiming superiority of your religion. So please, I don't want to assume anything, what religion do you belong to? Because I'm an equal opportunity ass-kicker of all religions. You're most welcome too.
So let me summarize what jawwad or someonesays.
1. It is justified to kill someone who leaves islam.
2. No one could show humans are all equal
In saudi 1Muslim = 32 Hindu's from blood money perspective
3. Slavery was part of islam
==Koran let's you have sex with slave girls, beyond 4 legal wifes
4. Mohammed married Ayesha when she is 6 and had sex with Ayesha when she is 9. (This is from TV clip by Official Saudi Marriage Authority)
5. People are stoned to death in Iran & Nigeria as per sharia law..
Please look on internet to know if this true or not
So my statements are still true.
No disagreement with your criticism of Islam, Sam. What religion do you belong to?
Looks like it is time to learn how to live with each other.
Maybe someone should start a new religion on this basis.
I think humanity is going go through a new phase, where I would not be surprised if new religions pop up.
In this process, some of the older religions will be relegated to the heap of dustbin.
This is an ongoing process in human history (just like evolution).
All fingers point towards India….bagal may churri, muh pay ram ram.
well well well
what we got here.
we got two vainglorious morons from the paradise of fools.
trying to invent a new religion.lolzzzzzzzzz
lolz for two new prophets.
hahahahhahahhahahhahahah
mughal emporer invented the "deen e ilahi" under the influence of "afeem".
you both can use pakistani "pauwwa" to boost your energy.
mughal emperor invented the "deen e ilahi" under the influence of "afeem".
you both can use pakistani "pauwwa" to boost your energy.
Sam,
Is that all you could find?
Well listen to this…
La Ilaha Ila-Allah, Muhammad-ur-Rasool Allah
May Allah curse you in this life and hereafter, same goes for the other Murtads like Danial.
Long live those people who are painful to you and likes of you. Ameen.
@Sam, all religion is bollocks. No thanks, but I don't need another religion. I'm already good with none!
Dr Jawwad: You know my views on religion; then why would you think I'm trying to invent a new one? Oh right, I forgot, you can barely read or write English.
@Aflatoon: Oooh! So scary. I bet God is about to strike me down with a bolt of lightening.
Okay, still waiting. No lightening bolt.
Still waiting…let me know when it's my turn to bear the fires of hell. Heh.
if you want to write to me personally please email me at sam_sc95051@Yahoo.com
Danial,
There was a king called Firaun, who ruled egypt. He and his likes were arrogant about their intelligence and their civilization. He didn't think there was something called GOD. He asked for signs, and even when presnted he refused to use his brain(just like you) and proclaimed his arrogance.
And when it(his death) came to him with all the signs, then he begged and acknowledged Allah, but it was too late for him.
Comapred to Firaun, you are shit. So I don't think there will be a lightening bolt for you, as you are not significant enough. But who knows, if you really want it, you may even get it.
To Each His Own.
Thoray tolerant ho jao gay sub k sub tu kiya ho jaye ga?
Islam ka thaika uthaya hua hai kiya apnay? It doesn't need defending. God doesn't need defending. So, if someone is different than you in his beliefs or lifestyle or whatever, you're no one to judge him on it.
What goes around, comes around. So stop hating, already. Let and let live. Practice your faith and let others practice theirs. Stop imposing. Get over yourselves. You're a bunch of intolerant idiots. Got nothing better to do?
dear arif and aflatoon!
nothing can scare denial because he is a ass kicker….
sorry ass licker.he licks the secular asses day and night.
as long he is licking the asses of americans and giving them a nice blow jobs,nothing can scare him.
"Because I’m an equal opportunity ass-kicker of all
religions…"
did you ever heard this kind of rant before?
what a freaky asshole!
once again lolzzzzz for assholesssssssss
fatima!
agreed.but please do not include the freaks in it…
i believe that freaky asses always need to be spanked.
Dude, it ain't buffet tolerance. If you are tolerant, you are tolerant of EVERYONE. And stop defining 'freaks'. Its a VERY relative term. I'd suggest you don't label and you don't impose.
not agreed!
the right place for freaks are psychiatric hospitals.
they should be given the treatment fascilities.
they should be treated by the best doctors.
the treatment should be free.
but they are not allowed to walk freely on the streets.
not only for the public saftey but most humbly for the safety of the freak also.
dude??????
fatima!
i request you.please do not use this name?
So everyone who doesn't adhere to your belief system is a freak? Well, then, News Flash: you need to find psychiatric hospitals for 4.5 Billion people.
Up to the challenge, pal? Need sponsorship for all that construction and medical-staff contracts?
4.5 billions freaks? my goodness
who told you that?
tell me @fatima or whatever.
how many people of pakistan can say that line?
"Because I’m an equal opportunity ass-kicker of all
religions…”
or
how many people could pass a n extremely abnoxious remarks against "NABE E KAREEM(SAAW) & UMMUL MOMINEEN HAZRAT AYESHA(RA)?
or
how many people in pakistan hate the great religion of islam?
or
how many people can say that they do not believe in GOD?
or how many people invite the wrath of ALLAH(SWT) by saying"
"let me know when it’s my turn to bear the fires of hell"
or
how many could mock with ALLAH(SWT) by saying:
"Oooh! So scary. I bet God is about to strike me down with a bolt of lightening"
4.5 billions?????
the last time i checked,i found secular?yes..there are secular fascist…yes there are few.
but freak?
he is the only one i saw.
4.5 billions???????
who told you that?
Any new answers ??
1. It is justified to kill someone who leaves islam.
2. No one could show humans are all equal
In saudi 1Muslim = 32 Hindu’s from blood money perspective
3. Slavery was part of islam
==Koran let’s you have sex with slave girls, beyond 4 legal wifes
4. Mohammed married Ayesha when she is 6 and had sex with Ayesha when she is 9. (This is from TV clip by Official Saudi Marriage Authority. Link provided in earlier postings)
5. People are stoned to death in Iran & Nigeria as per sharia law..
Please look on internet to know if this true or not
So are these statements still true ?
Can you please show if these statements are wrong ?
Fatwa against Cricket in Pakistan ??
So all of you, who are true muslims must stop playing cricket now.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,2519…
Islamists wage war against cricket, 'the other religion'
* Font Size: Decrease Increase
* Print Page: Print
Amanda Hodge, South Asia correspondent | March 06, 2009
Article from: The Australian
CRICKET is akin to a religion in Pakistan, which might explain why it is so loathed by Islamic extremists there.
While few believe Tuesday's terror strike on the Sri Lankan team was designed as a specific attack on the sport of cricket, the ambush has highlighted one of the more peculiar preoccupations of Islamic extremists.
Following the Indian cricket tour of Pakistan in 2004 — the first in a decade — the Lashkar-e-Toiba terror group in Pakistan issued what amounted to a fatwa against the sport.
"The British gave Muslims the bat, snatched the sword and said to them: 'You take this bat and play cricket. Give us your sword. With its help we will kill you and rape your women'," the LET magazine Zarb-e-Toiba said in its April 2004 edition.
The magazine article commented: "It is sad that Pakistanis are committing suicide after losing cricket matches to India. But they are not sacrificing their lives to protect the honour of the raped Kashmiri women. To watch a cricket match we would take a day off work. But for jihad, we have not time!"
More fitting for a mujahid (or holy fighter), the magazine said, were the sports of archery, horseriding and swimming.
"The above are not just sports but exercises for jihad," Zarb-e-Toiba told its readers.
"Cricket is an evil and sinful sport. Under the intoxication of cricket, Pakistanis have forgotten that these Hindu players come from the same nation that raped our mothers, sisters, daughters, wives and daughters-in-law."
The Punjab-based LET is a prime suspect for the Lahore attack, with analysts suggesting it could be motivated by a desire to retaliate for the recent arrests of six top operatives linked to November's Mumbai terror strike.
The other major suspect for the ambush, the Tehrik-e-Taliban — which has waged a bloody campaign for control of the northwestern tribal areas and Swat Valley — has also made clear its distaste for flannelled fools.
Just days before Tuesday's attack, Sufi Mohammad, the Taliban-linked cleric who brokered the dubious peace deal between militants in the Swat Valley and the Islamabad Government in return for the imposition of sharia law, condemned cricket as a distraction that needed to be curbed.
But cricket is not universally condemned among Islamists. During its years in power, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan applied — unsuccessfully — for membership of the International Cricket Council. The sport was played in Afghanistan during that time, although with a distinct Talibani flavour. Players were forbidden from wearing short-sleeved shirts, and crowd participation of any sort was banned, as were women spectators.
Several of Pakistan's national cricket team are devout Muslims.
But there is a growing movement against the sport among Pakistan's increasingly powerful Islamist militants now waging war within Pakistan for the overthrow of the civilian Government.
The Hindu newspaper noted yesterday that the weekly radical Islamist magazine al-Qalam last year attacked Pakistan's plans to reform its religious schools, or madrassas, which included plans for an inter-schools cricket tournament it branded as "evil".
"We, the ulema (arbiters of sharia law) of the Deoband school, will have nothing to do with this tournament," al-Qalam's editors wrote in April last year, saying the West was "promoting obscenity" in Pakistan's schools.
"Freaky asses need to be spanked"?! Haha! I think the primitive literalism you impose on yourself through religion has suppressed some seriously strange sexual tendencies in you. But hey, each to his own.
Also, why is it that when you cannot defend your point of view clearly, you start using abusive language? Oh well.
I do not believe in a higher being that created the universe, I choose to base my worldview on what we have been able to determine through the human experience over the millennia and the observation and discovery that has been allowed by scientific advance (in which some Muslim scientists were instrumental). I am not arrogant or dumb enough to accept that there is an ultimate truth and therefore I should believe in a god. I trust my faculty of reason over that.
And for that, you consider me a freak, heh. Though I respect your right to do so and will defend your right to do so. On the other hand, you'd love for a Tallie to behead me (your love for violence is well documented in the comments sections of this blog) for my beliefs. Despite claiming to be of a religion that is the 'absolute truth' and the 'right path', why are you so insecure and violent?
Sure thing, Dr Jawwad, "I" am the freak. Heh.
So, Basic Mathematics for Dr. Jawwad (How DID you become a doctor?!!)
Muslims on Planet Earth: 1.5 Billion
Total Population on Planet Earth: 6 Billion
Hence, Non-Muslims on Planet Earth: 4.5 Billion
Again, it doesn't matter what the numbers are. You have no right to force anyone to respect or disrespect what you hold sacred. Your religion is your business. Danial's belief is his business. Stop complaining. If you're offended by what he's saying, stop reading it.
Thanks for bringing some common sense into the conversation, Fatima.
@jaram
here is the proof.
THE AGE OF HAZRAT AYESHA (RA) WHEN HER MARRIAGE WAS CONSUMMATED.(taken from the text)
It is normally believed that she was nine years old at the time of her marriage with Mohammad (sws) was consummated. I do think it was according to the traditions of the Arab culture, as otherwise people would have objected to this marriage. But unfortunately, the modern day man is not satisfied with an answer as simple as that.
Answer:
To begin with[1], I think it is the responsibility of all those who believe that marrying a girl as young as nine years old was an accepted norm of the Arab culture, to provide at least a few examples to substantiate their point of view. I have not yet been able to find a single reliable instance in the books of Arab history where a girl as young as nine years old was given away in marriage. Unless such examples are given, we do not have any reasonable grounds to believe that it really was an accepted norm.
In my opinion, the age of Ayesha (ra) has been grossly misreported in the narratives of the incident. Not only that, I think that the narratives reporting this event are not only highly unreliable but also that on the basis of other historical data, the event reported, is quite an unlikely happening. Let us look at the issue from an objective stand point. My reservations in accepting the narratives, on the basis of which, Ayesha’s (ra) age at the time of her marriage with the Prophet (pbuh) is held to be nine years are:
*
Most of these narratives are reported only by Hisham ibn `urwah reporting on the authority of his father. An event as well known as the one being reported, should logically have been reported by more people than just one, two or three.
*
It is quite strange that no one from Medinah, where Hisham ibn `urwah lived the first seventy-one years of his life has narrated the event, even though in Medinah his pupils included people as well known as Malik ibn Anas. All the narratives of this event have been reported by narrators from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have shifted after living in Medinah for seventy-one years.
*
Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: “narratives reported by Hisham are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq”. It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham, which were reported through people of Iraq (Vol. 11, pg. 48 – 51).
*
Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal, another book on the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that when he was old, Hisham’s memory suffered quite badly (Vol. 4, pg. 301 – 302).
*
According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha (ra) was born about eight years before Hijrah. However, according to another narrative in Bukhari (Kitaab al-Tafseer) Ayesha (ra) is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur’an , was revealed, “I was a young girl”. The 54th Surah of the Qur’an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Ayesha (ra) had not only been born before the revelation of the referred Surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not even only an infant (sibyah) at that time. Obviously, if this narrative is held to be true, it is in clear contradiction with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah. I see absolutely no reason that after the comments of the experts on the narratives of Hisham ibn `urwah, why should we not accept this narrative to be more accurate.
*
According to a number of narratives, Ayesha (ra) accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back. Ayesha’s (ra) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud clearly indicates that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to accompany men to the battlefields to help them, not to be a burden upon them.
*
According to almost all the historians Asma (ra), the elder sister of Ayesha (ra) was ten years older than Ayesha (ra). It is reported in Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb as well as Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah that Asma (ra) died in the 73rd year after hijrah[2] when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma (ra) was 100 years old in the 73rd year after hijrah, she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma (ra) was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha (ra) should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Ayesha (ra) – if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH – was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.
*
Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history, while mentioning Abu Bakr (ra) reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah – the pre Islamic period. Obviously, if Ayesha (ra) was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH – the time she most likely got married.
*
According to Ibn Hisham, the historian, Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam quite some time before Umar ibn Khattab (ra). This shows that Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam during the first year of Islam. While, if the narrative of Ayesha’s (ra) marriage at seven years of age is held to be true, Ayesha (ra) should not even have been born during the first year of Islam.
*
Tabari has also reported that at the time Abu Bakr (ra) planned on migrating to Habshah (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am – with whose son Ayesha (ra) was engaged at that time – and asked him to take Ayesha (ra) in his house as his son’s wife. Mut`am refused, because Abu Bakr had embraced Islam. Subsequently, his son divorced Ayesha (ra). Now, if Ayesha (ra) was only seven years old at the time of her marriage, she could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr decided on migrating to Habshah. On the basis of this report it seems only reasonable to assume that Ayesha (ra) had not only been born 8 years before hijrah, but was also a young lady, quite prepared for marriage.
*
According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of Khadijah (ra), when Khaulah (ra) came to the Prophet (pbuh) advising him to marry again, the Prophet (pbuh) asked her regarding the choices she had in her mind. Khaulah said: “You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)”. When the Prophet (pbuh) asked about who the virgin was, Khaulah proposed Ayesha’s (ra) name. All those who know the Arabic language, are aware that the word “bikr” in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine-year old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier is “Jariyah”. “Bikr” on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady, and obviously a nine year old is not a “lady”.
*
According to Ibn Hajar, Fatimah (ra) was five years older than Ayesha (ra). Fatimah (ra) is reported to have been born when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35 years old. Thus, even if this information is taken to be correct, Ayesha (ra) could by no means be less than 14 years old at the time of hijrah, and 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage.
These are some of the major points that go against accepting the commonly known narrative regarding Ayesha’s (ra) age at the time of her marriage.
In my opinion, neither was it an Arab tradition to give away girls in marriage at an age as young as nine or ten years, nor did the Prophet (pbuh) marry Ayesha (ra) at such a young age. The people of Arabia did not object to this marriage, because it never happened in the manner it has been narrated.
@jaram
prove it wrong with reasons if you have any. not by filthy language.