|
Post by muslimanswers on Feb 8, 2017 5:04:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by muslimanswers on Jan 17, 2017 10:26:59 GMT
Wa ‘alaykumussalām A person’s common sense (‘aql) on this issue would dictate that, given the overwhelming evidence provided, it is conclusively and incontestably true that ‘Ā’ishah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā) herself stated her age as being six or seven at marriage, and nine when moving in with the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), and that she probably said this on several different occasions. I think one issue about the 'Aql is that well-meaning Muslims cannot conceive how the Prophet (Salla Allahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) could have ever married 'Ayesha (RAA) at that age; meaning for them the sure evidence from the Quran and many sources that the Prophet (Salla Allahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) is Rahmatun lil-'Alameen preponderates over textual evidence about the timing of this marriage (which could potentially be called into question as far as they see it by means of other evidence - this includes even the testimony of Ayesha (RAA) herself, meaning they would rather say she was mistaken rather than say the Prophet (SAW) did something that is to them unquestionably against Rahmah... I am not sure how one would define it in Usool terms but perhaps for them, a certain Unquestionable General conception of 'Rahmah' as connected to the Prophet (SAW) cannot be overturned even by Preponderant yet Probabilistic Textual evidence to the contrary). Perhaps it is necessary to look into what the 'Aql "instructs us" to consider as "Rahmah to the Worlds" in the general sense (after all, there are potentially thousands of events in the Prophet's (SAW) life that could 'shake one's faith' in this respect if they don't know what the 'Aql truly considers as a general rule in this regard).
|
|
|
Post by muslimanswers on Jan 15, 2017 22:28:56 GMT
Whatever one may have against Shaykh GF Haddad, I would say if we just look at the link at eshaykh and the reference he gives to his own 2 articles, there he is showing the falsity of the "older age" view, and he is very clear about that.
|
|
|
Post by muslimanswers on Jan 15, 2017 16:41:13 GMT
Salam Alaykum
I was asked by someone whether such marriages actually took place in the history of the early Arabs and early Muslims - the inference being that an exception cannot be made for Ayesha (RAA) if such was never the norm and she spoke of the marriage as something customary (i.e. her age would have been like that of other women of her time). I am aware of Shaykh GF Haddad's article mentioning some instances, but is there any additional evidence in this regard?
|
|
|
Post by muslimanswers on Jan 15, 2017 16:30:52 GMT
^
One comment I will make here, Wa Allahu A'lam:
I cannot see how the age of 14 would solve the issue; in modern ethical sentiments of the Euro-American worldview, marrying a girl at 14, even if she moves to her husband's house by 18, is still a whole lot of bad words and criminal in their systems (since whether the girl is 6, 8, 12, 14 or even 16-17 in most jurisdictions, she would not even know what a serious thing like marriage entails to begin with and cannot by definition make any choice in this regard).
Thus, it doesn't "solve" anything, even supposing everything else to be as per the revisionist's arguments...meaning if somehow this becomes accepted scholarship, there will need to be another round of "revisions" very soon.
|
|
|
Post by muslimanswers on May 21, 2016 18:31:47 GMT
Salam Alaykum, I know this might seem a little far from the topic, but I feel it is an 'application' of these supposedly 'Hanafi principles': A certain issue came up on my site, with respect to the miracle of the splitting of the moon, whether it is literally true or a metaphor subjectively described by the Companions. The link starts from: muslimanswers.net/2015/04/13/question-does-islams-emphasis-on-reality-not-show-our-disdain-for-how-different-people-perceive-things/comment-page-1/#comment-16437You can make out very easily that the last response of the questioner includes a comment from "Shaykh Atabek's Group" - no overt disrespect intended, but it is obvious how his students would respond and present matters. What would you say on top of what I have mentioned in my replies? Thank you Wa Salam.
|
|
|
Post by muslimanswers on Feb 26, 2016 17:17:45 GMT
^
Salam Alaykum,
The question of only judging based on the apparent is there, of course. But the beliefs alluded to (like corruption of the Quran) need some more elucidation: The Shia will not say that the words and phrases from the Quran have been deleted [at least not openly], but some of their scholars have said (and it can be found online and in their books of contemporary scholars) that the location of some of the Verses is misplaced - yet very smartly, they will not categorize it under "corruption of the Quran".
Same thing with 'Abusing the Sahabah' - they will say they do not abuse the Sahaba, never ever. But this means for them that they never say anything other than what they deem to have historically happened; thus a story like that of the Martyrdom of Fatimah's (RAA) by 'Umar (RAA) so prominent in their hagiography will be repeated time and again, along with the associated La'nas on 'Umar (RAA), but they can look at the Sunni with a straight face and say they do not abuse the Companions, again since in their minds they are only relating truths and reacting to truths... (it is somewhat analogous to the Wahaabi case, of saying that 'جسم' [Body] or 'عضو' [Organ/Limb] are something other than what normal people understand and it is in fact what Ibn Taymiyya or someone else defined them as, and thus Allah can be attributed with limbs, organs, and a body.)
So perhaps something about this can be elucidated as well, since this is common among the Shias, and is not an outlier.
|
|
|
Post by muslimanswers on Jan 15, 2016 14:35:33 GMT
^
Salam Alaykum,
With regards to showing exampled of 'Hanafi Maturidi' instances where this was applied to apostasy in particular, my advice is: Don't hold your breath. The Shaykh of the "Avicenna Academy" who holds a similar position, said at the end of his video that the 'real Hanafi methodology' would lead to there being no punishment of any kind on the apostate, yet he also said that Hanafi scholars have not applied this due to not being able to use the methodology properly, and he implied that for him even though Abu Hanifa's (RA) position may have been one thing, he (RA) said that no one should follow his (RA) opinions unless that person knows where they came from .
|
|
|
Post by muslimanswers on Jan 13, 2016 17:22:20 GMT
Salam Alaykum,
I wanted to add some things Insha Allah it is not a problem:
One is that there should be a study perhaps about how the "very rational" yet "traditional" Mu'tazili Fiqhi issues were derived, in comparison to what the 'Reformers' might say; it might seem like a truism, but both sides see that there some "very, very obvious" rational rules that must be true of Allah's Commands and Prohibitions, yet the only obvious thing is that one side cannot agree with the other as to what these rules actually are and what the conclusions in terms of final Fiqh rulings actually are.
Second, the whole issue of 'cleansing Islam of old-fashioned ways of thinking' can go on and on, and can even reach the classical Arabic language itself, since there are very well-known elements in the Arabic language seen throughout the Quran and all primary texts of Islam which the opponent can say "smack of patriarchy", yet I believe we should not entertain the beginnings of such matters, and simply cut of the root of the argument.
Wa Salam.
|
|
|
Post by muslimanswers on Jan 12, 2016 17:19:26 GMT
Salam Alaykum dear Mufti,
I think this is one of the issues that the Avicenna Academy is 'controversial' for, is it not? For example, saying that the Quran [being Mutawaatir] does not allow killing of people without just cause, and the Ahadeeth about killing apostates (for example) don't reach this level of certainty, thus the rule is to be dropped according to the 'real Hanafi Usool'.
But yes, I agree with the prime conceptual issue: Even if we follow an "extreme Quran-centric approach" akin to the Mu'tazilites, the practical changes to the Shariah rules will be here and there (again alluding to the Avicenna people, the huge controversy with the "real Hanafi timings for Ramadhan" that there was a few months back is a very small matter when seen in the big picture)... but nowhere near that of a 'secular liberal democracy'... exactly because the 'Reformer' has placed some modern concept of "Justice" or "Human Rights" as "obviously undergirding" the Quran and all Islamic texts, thus forcing a reinterpretation of Verses of Inheritance, Polygamy, Corporal Punishments, etc. (much in the same way we say that Allah has a knowable Reality even prior to Revelation, any texts that 'appear to contradict' this Reality must be interpreted to fit what we necessarily know to be true of Allah).
Maybe you can expand on these two points.
Wa Salam.
|
|