______________________________________
fudgy wrote: KhaliL FarieL wrote:Okay, if it is what you meant. But the age of marriage differing from state to state in America does not make prepubescent marriage endorsed. Let the states vary, let the world vary, I think we must have our own judgment in this matter.
Right, now do you get it that marriage age is not a constant? No it does not, but the law of marriageable age was as low as 10 before. Therefore, if you married a 10 or 12 year old girl you would not be violating the law at that period of time. And still today in some states there is no minimum stipulating age for marriage and would allow underage guys and gals to get married with parental and/or judicial consent.
That means you have a comprehension problem. (I attack you in person because you did it so many times in this post. I believe in give the devil its due)
Read what I wrote. That is why I left my quote there for you. Age of consent might have varied in the past and present but that does not make marrying and having sex with a pre-pubescent girl morally right. It is highly reprehensible, be it in US, or in any remote part of Mauritania. I said, let the whole world vary but you and I must have our own judgment in this matter. I find it very disgusting to my morals to get sexually aroused at the sight of a nine, ten, eleven…. year old girls. They are kids you man; when are you going to learn?
fudgy wrote: I'm gonna refer to you as a Joker from now on, ok?
You can call me anything or everything, it depends on your personal level of decency. But when quoting me, use my nick, otherwise readers are not going to get whom you answer.
What makes Quran mention reaching the stage of Nikah and then again say “If you find them in sound judgment”? That means reaching the stage of marriage does not mean reaching the stage of having “sound judgment”. Is it clear for you now?
fudgy wrote: If it gave a numerical number say like 15 or 16 you would bitch and moan about it too, because this is what jokers like you do in their life. You want to go to a class room and make your own rules.
Where did you get that from my post? I don’t give a damn to your holy book, and I would care least whether it dictated any age limit or not because it does not affect me at all. Simply for the reason, it is not a book that I pay attention to for how should I live my life. If your almighty Allah failed to know what the marriageable age is for persons, he could have stayed mute and let his subjects decide based on their intuitions. When and where did I demand Quran should have stipulated an age limit?
I can sense the sarcasm and insult at the same time since I am multi-talented. I can answer you and piss you off at the same time for the very reason. Giving a little respect to the person you are addressing will not quake the earth under your foot.
fudgy wrote: See what I mean? Even "sound judgment and responsibilities" is not good enough for a joker atheist like you. Sound judgment comes with age and experience. I am not talking about how smart/shewed/keen someone is.
I got what you meant and my previous post is there for you to refer in case. What I meant is reaching the stage of having sound judgment is not made as a stipulation for marriage in the verses you brought. And even that sound judgment thing has flaws because I have seen many talented teens with sound psychological make up. That does not make them fit for marriage. Physical and psychological growth, both these are to be achieved to enter an enterprise like marriage since it is meant to raise a family. A girl of nine years who is still playing with her dolls is not fit for marriage for the same reason. Did you get me this time or?
fudgy wrote: You don't need 4:5 to understand 4:6.
What is the big problem in quoting your book in context?
fudgy wrote: I know 4:6 is about dealing with orphans, and at the same time gives us insight into marriage.
NO. It does not. I made it clear in my earlier post.
fudgy wrote:Scroll up 3 verses earlier(4:3) and see how/in what context marriage up to four wives was stipulated. What this verse is saying is that at marriageable age you are supposed to have sound judgment and responsibilities, which in essence is the reason for releasing the property.
You try to draw out things from your book which is not there. The verse before or after 4:6 does not give any of such notions. It is what you impose upon it, not what actually your book says.
fudgy wrote:The "If... then part" means that just because they have reached marriageable age it doesn't necessarily mean they have sound judgment and responsibility.
Yea…, shoot on your foot. I know Muslims often do this because I have experience debating all weird kinds of Muslims. Most often it is only a matter of time before they shoot on their own foot.
You make my assertion strengthened “having sound judgment does not mean the person is at a marriageable stage’. So, Quran is still short of perfection in this matter. If your god can not make it clear, why on the hell he tries to?
fudgy wrote:And you are supposed to check for that, which is why earlier I've said that you could be a 30 year old retard. And in that case properties should not be released nor should you marry. Very simple stuff.
Simple..? in what sense? Releasing property is what your Quran chapter Nisa verse 6 mentions not marriage. You try to connect them and I would say a very pathetic attempt which is not going to work when you have an Ex-Muslim on the other side who was a Hafidh in his past life.
fudgy wrote:If this is too complicated for you just think of it in another way. If you can not even release property to someone then how can you to expect to marry someone?
Ask this question to yourself. Quran or your authentic sources do not say one can not marry someone just because she is not fit enough to have her properties released. Where in the hell Quran or your Sahih sources mention it? Leave my personal opinions aside; you are not supposed to act upon them. So, do not personalize matters. Your book is faulty for allowing pre-pubescent marriage. Personally you might detest such a notion, but as long as your god did not have this detest, you are not supposed to personalize matters and form theories based on it. You as a Muslim should act upon what your god dictated in his book. Not what your inner-self tells you.
fudgy wrote: And if you still don't get this please don't waste my time on it.
First of all, I was not begging you for your time. Then stop this nonsensical wasting time” kind of blabbering. Make your case solid; then everybody will get it. Otherwise, you can do whatever you want. Your exit is just a mouse click away if you want to, but do not trivialize others in this forum if you are looking for a serious dialogue. I read your other post too and that is why I am being in this offensive tone.
fudgy wrote: Look pal as I've said my main focus is on 4:6 for now.
But you failed to make your case out of it. I made a case with the verse 65:4 handsomely. And that was the reason I brought the verse in my post.
fudgy wrote: I don't know much of the medical terms myself. If it had said something like "those who have not reached the age of menstruation" then you can say it is talking about children--no doubt.
Yes…, it is what the phrase means. Quran did not make it clear but your authentic Mufassirs have made it crystal clear. It is not a modern apologetic Mufassir but I can bring you at least a dozen authentic Mufassirs who are “Tabioon” in your Islam. All have defined the term “Wallaee Lam yahidhna” denotes those who have not reached the age of menstruation. Or what the hell of a meaning you are going to construe from a phrase that literally means = “Those who have not menstruated”?
fudgy wrote:But if you think that only little children who does not menstruate then you should go bury yourself in the Saharan dessert.
I don’t want to but you can flush your book because it is what gives green signal to paedophilia. I won’t recommend sending it to Saharan dessert because it will be recovered by any enthusiastic traveler again sometimes in the future.
fudgy wrote:It's all about women and does not sanction child marriage.
Verse 65:4? It is not about women if you want to know. It is talking about Iddah (waiting period after divorce or death of husband) of females. And we see this Iddah is stipulated to those girls who are not menstruated too. What the hell that means? Can you think of it and make it clear for all here?
fudgy wrote: We need a consent from a women to get married and we have to make sure children does not see nudity;they are our angels.
Sources? I can show you exact opposite to what you claim. Aisha not only saw the nudity of Muhammad but had been exploited for sex at a very tender age. I would say teach morals to your holy man and not us in FFI. He was the one who molested a minor for more than seven years.
fudgy wrote: If marriage was supposed to be of when we have sound judgment and responsibilities, and that we need consent from he women and we can't allow little children to see nudity then how can we fudge them?
Prove it here marriage is only allowed in Islam when one has reached the age of sound judgment. You are yet to do it and weaving theories from a refuted, false premise. No deduction will stand if it is deduced from a faulty premise.
fudgy wrote: The Joker is out of his mind. And last I checked it was hell bounded kafir like yourself who are leading in teen pregnancy. My parents have been married for over 40 years and my grand parents about 80(they lived for 100+). I do not need any marriage counseling from a joker like yourself.
I don’t answer this. Your decency is oozing out of it and you try to trash me as paedophile when you got no clue on who and what I am. Kid.., I can be of your father’s age.
fudgy wrote: Dark Knight's Next Joker wrote: Quran alone does not give you the name of Muhammad’s father or mother. At the same time, it tells you Muhammad is not the father of any believer. There are many things missing in Quran so trash not what you do not find in your Quran. It is too ambiguous a text as the author himself confirms.
Who told you that he is? If Aisha was really that important she could have been easily referred as "9 year old wife" or something in line with that. Quran is not meant to give you everything in the world. Quran's main objective is about proclaim of One God, his Angels, and his Prophets,etc.
Your god did not find anything important with Muhammad too as I stated above. Does that mean Muhammad is an ignorable figure for you?
Just because you don’t see an Aisha in your book does not make Aisha’s position in Islam weak or negligible. After all, the service she did for your Ummah can not overlooked. She cause a huge rift in your Ummah to end up twenty thousand Muslims lives..!! (this kinds of historical information can not be found in Quran, but that does not mean they are to be ignored. )
Quran’s objective as we understand from the very second chapter is to shackle one’s thought processes. It is very authoritative and arbitrary to say “there should be no doubt in this book”. And moreover we see talking ants and hoopoes in the book in which there is no room for doubt as your god commanded. If Quran’s objective is to talk about god, we have to consider your god is a self flatterer. And he did not understand what he is talking about as he slipped into speaking on many things that are utterly nonsensical. What good message you get from stars chasing djinns? Is it also meant to proclaim god’s oneness?
fudgy wrote: I am the Muslim dear not you. That's difference ,
Where did I claim to be one? I know I differ to Muslims because I do not believe in a god or gods. I don’t believe in anything if they can not be verified. But you do and there is difference. I admit this, but your reason to state this now?
fudgy wrote: we do not consider Hadith to be heavenly inspired as the Quran is.
I did not question your freedom of believing in anything you want. But when you try to impose your beliefs on others, we will have to intervene. When you try to defend something on false pretexts, then too we will have to intervene. Otherwise, we do not care a person who believes a seventh century hate manual is god’s words. More bizarre beliefs are still in existence but we care them less because there is not an attempt to impose those beliefs on others.
fudgy wrote: Simply put belief in the Quran is what it is: a belief, which is what God wants you to do-- to believe. If God wants to prove to you that he exist he can easily do so, but he wants you to believe.
You are wrong in saying god wants me to believe and that is all (if that is what you meant by above). Your god is very much in need of my worship too or else he threatens me to roast me in his hell where he seems to be staying most of his time to keep the temperature steady. He is not going to let me off the hook as he asks for many things from me from obedience to a lot of nonsensical rituals like bumming up three or five times a day, running like a fanatic between two mountains…,
I don’t simply waste my time to believe such a disturbed personality is the one who created this universe or universes and things in it. Your god is a highly disturbed person as we see he is cursing his own creations like a frantic. Just go through your book chapter 111 and tell us who is this guy cursing a Abu Lahab and his wife. An all powerful god cursing two of his creatures..!!! It is what your Allah as we understand from your book. A man of very short temper. No wonder why you Muslims can not keep cool because your god could not then how on hell the devotees can..??
fudgy wrote: And both Bukhari and you can take a hike, Haik. What a convenient name for you in your signature.
Orignally, I thought that I would let him in the bin with Cassie. But now I have realized that he would be a waste there. Since I have discovered his immense talent as a Joker, I think he is better off taking the Next Joker part in Dark Knight II.
Poor attempt, and it didn’t even make me chuckle. What a disappointing end..!!
Regards
KF