Hello parvez mushtaq,
parvez mushtaq wrote:dear chin,haik,Pragmatist
let me tell one thing and pl keep this in your mind till you die
Oh…dear. Please don’t be goddamn sappy. We can sort out everything reasonably.
parvez mushtaq wrote: you got all the rights in the world to think yourself as the most brilliant person in the world , but at the same time you cannot think that the person sitting in front of you is a idiot , neither you have that right nor you can think like that
Again, nothing personal.., though I could enjoy the rights of putting myself on air, I never tried it so far. All I did is presented some facts with enough documentation. What makes you think I am belittling you? Did I ever underestimate your potentials? NO. I consented to your brilliance but added you should divert your potentials to a more productive conduit.
I don’t understand what makes you personalize matters to the extent of deducing I am attacking you in person when in fact I am dead focused on the faith you adhered to.
parvez mushtaq wrote: lets see our business now
before this i want to qoute what haik said
And stop shouting too using Capitalized letters. Who are you shouting at? None here have vision or comprehension problems.
Yes. You quoted me right and what is the problem in it? I was just alerting you of the right mode of discussion. Capital lettered sentences are indicative of shouting and what is wrong in asking you to stop the practice?
parvez mushtaq wrote: now , read my post
you are giving the legal age for marriage but aksel was more sensible than you haik
he said 15
but i say , you cannot fix a age for marriage
This is what you want to say but it should not necessarily be right just because you want it to be right. Let me see how you substantiate your statement:
parvez mushtaq wrote: i will explain with two example
decades ago , there was a madwad (people from rajastan) family residing near by , and they had two girls , one of 7 and other was 13 . suddely their father died and girl was made to take care of her father's business even at age of 13 since her mother was a illiterate even at that age she did made that business effectively with all responsibilities ( it was a distribution agency of COAT thread)
Alright bob. This is an exceptional case and very interesting too. I admire the courage of this thirteen year old girl who managed to run a business after losing her father at a tender age. She should be exceptionally brilliant. So..?
parvez mushtaq wrote: since her mother felt insecure they made that girl to get married at 15
even now she is running the same business and living a happy a married life
my point is , situations make a person to learn things fast
Since THIS girl showed such an audacity as you illustrated above, she should have developed a sound psychological make up at the age of fifteen through her experience of running a business which only an adult can do. In this case she forced into it and come out successful. The lessons she got from running a serious show in her life for two years, she might have been matured to a level to understand the responsibilities of a married life, she should have developed physiological maturity too when she entered into her teens. But to build up a more sound physiological features her mother should have waited a little more or to be precise over another five years so that her physical structure will be ripened to a satiated level. Anyway, since we have to treat this as an exceptional case, this shortcoming can be neglected.
But remember, this is an exceptional case. We are not going to formulate rules that are meant for a general public in view of an atypical incident. If we do, that would be morally reprehensible. Not all girls should necessarily mature in both physically and psychologically at the age of fifteen. Odds should remain odd.
parvez mushtaq wrote: their was a anglo Indian girl studying with me ,it was in the eight standard (the age will be about 13) the wonder was she got pregnant and her parents forced marriage upon her but even now she is happily married with the same guy
This makes me chuckle. The girl you mentioned is forced because she got pregnant at the age of thirteen which is unusual. For the reason of pregnancy, she is forced to marry the guy who might be responsible for impregnating her at that age. But it was very unfortunate and the guy should have been trialed and punished for abusing a minor. Anyway, the case is EXCEPTIONAL. The incident does not endorse impregnating minors and later marrying them. Do you think it is morally adequate to do so?
parvez mushtaq wrote: my point is , marriage teaches responsibilities
Laughs… If this is the reason you brought two atypical instances, your point is ridiculous to the most. Early marriage in most cases with few (very few) exceptions poses serious health risks. It is very much detrimental to physical and psychological structure of victims. (I say victims because girls forced to marry at a tender age are in fact being victimized) Marriage at the right time is a healthy practice for both individual and society, but at wrong junctures it pays quite negatively to the individual and society vice versa.
Just for example; if you look upon the life of Aisha who had been victimized at a very tender age by being forced into a perverted relationship with an old Muhammad, my point can be easily clarified. The so-called marriage affected her very much to the extent the girl could never develop a sound psychological make up in her life. If you deny this, I challenge you to bring out reasons for the deplorable deeds she committed after the death of her husband. How can you vindicate a woman who caused a rift in your Muslim Ummah to trigger a civil war that ended up in real carnage? Can you forgive her for causing twenty thousand Muslim deaths which brought no fruit at all at the end?
Can you suspend PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) in the case of Aisha? What was the reason for her arming up against an elected Caliph of Islam to cause bloodshed? Can you formulate any theory other than just forgiving her for being a victim of a perverted affair?
parvez mushtaq wrote: so marriage and responsibilities stand at equilibrium to each other
either , a responsible person can marry as in case of madwad girl or a irresponsible person will get responsibilities by marriage as in the case of Anglo Indian girl immaterial of age
you cannot fix a age for marriage , practically speaking
I answered to this above and this is not at all a sufficient reason for us to consider early marriages are approvable. We should necessarily fix an age limit for marriage. Evidences from your Islamic history necessitate it. Yes. We should fix an age limit otherwise; it will be catastrophic.
parvez mushtaq wrote: i never lied , haik
you asked for the tafsir , i gave you from the same source which you picked for your manipulation ,
did you gave any account on that , haik
Again, forgive me for saying you are a liar. You brought no Tafsir to back up your claim Quranic verse 65:4 does not approve paedophilia. In fact you omitted obvious references I gave you in my earlier post or posts. You skipped over a very pertinent part of my article. I would bring a very prominent Mufassir’s explanation again only to remind you, your falsification is not going to work at all. This is the Tafsir of Quran Chapter 65: verse 4:
Allah the Exalted clarifies the waiting period of the woman in menopause. And that is the one whose menstruation has stopped due to her older age. Her `Iddah is three months instead of the three monthly cycles for those who menstruate, which is based upon the Ayah in (Surat) Al-Baqarah. 2:228). The same for the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation. Their `Iddah is three months like those in menopause. [Ibn Kathir on Quran 65:4]
This is Tafsir Ibn Kathir which is not disputed in Islamic tenets. See the bolded part. Please focus on the bolded highlighted part in the Tafsir and tell me what does it mean to you? Do not escape from this.
And I hate to do this, but am forced. The above one was a classic commentary and some will be asking for a newer one. Here I bring Abul Ala Maududi’s Tafsir too to clarify further:
Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Quran has held as permissible. [Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi: Tafhim al Quran. Commentary on Quran Chapter 65:4]
These are not my falsifications but I am just quoting what your authentic scholars said and approved in the case of a verse in Quran which I put on trial. You can check the sources and confirm it if needed and stop accusing me of misrepresenting. Accusing someone without any basis for accusation is very much contemptible. You should not resort to this foul practice just to make things better.
parvez mushtaq wrote: you asked me quranic verse which i did gave , did you gave any account for that either
and moreover ,can you able to prove me the verse 65-4 sanctions child marriage
Hey man… what is this all about? My article was based on a Quranic verse and you claim bringing the same verse in your defense will be proving your case? Look mate, I brought Quran chapter 65:4 and scrutinized it using the most authentic Islamic sources. I proved the verse is a clear indication of Quran sanctioning pre-pubertal marriage and intercourse which is the most abominable of all sexual crimes. It is paedophilia in its purest sense. IF you just manage to say, I didn’t prove anything and IF that makes you happy, sorry I never deny anyone this privilege. But fact is not going to fade away just because you are embarrassed of it.
parvez mushtaq wrote: but i proved i never gave sanctions for child marriage by tafsir and quran itself
Sorry pal. You are lying. You know it you are lying. You didn’t bring anything to defend your case.
parvez mushtaq wrote: now you are hiding behind the veil of ISLAMIC Scholars in order to justify your claim
do you mean to say , immaterial of what that verse says , we should take what those scholars said
it was their view point haik
This is very funny indeed and if you mean joke, I welcome it. What is more ridiculous than accusing me of using ISLAMIC scholars to prove my case? You mean I should have used Robert Spencer’s or Ali Sina’s explanation? To prove paedophilia in Quran you mean I should have used non-Islamic sources?
Would you please, I repeat please... stop this nonsense? It makes you singularly unattractive;
parvez mushtaq wrote: since they matches your opinion you will fight for them
is this not the case of shameless opportunistic , haik
Look you Muslim opportunist, I am not going to fight for any charlatan Islamic scholars. I don’t give a damn to your Quran or the sources that explain your book. But if you are aimlessly throwing insults against me like this, it is not going to affect me in any way but will put your credibility at stake. Who is opportunistic here? What sucking reason you have to accuse me of being opportunistic when I am going along with your most authentic sources? Isn’t the tag fitting you most when you deliberately evading the points I make through evaluating, interpreting your book in the way it has to be analyzed?
parvez mushtaq wrote: why don't you take the translation of rashid khalifa in that case
you don't have this case itself as per him , haik
what account your are going to give for his translation
will you join with Muslims here to say rashid khalifa was wrong in his translation
Huh… What if I throw this question at you? Are you only happy with Rashad Khalifa? If you are, let me ask you: Do you concur to Rashad Khalifa’s version the last verses of Quran Surah Tauba is not a part of Quran and is a fabrication?
Here is the Rashad Khalifa’s translation of Quran chapter 9. Click the link below and see two verses are missing in his translation.
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Quran chapter 9 contains 129
verses, but Rashad Khalifa omits last two verses to constrict it into 127
verses. Go figure;
Rest of your post deserves nothing from my part. If you can not discuss preserving manners, it would be better if you stop this business. Truth will hurt and obviously you are hurt by it. But that does not give you any excuse to ridicule the person who speaks TRUTH.