کیا یہ سترہ سالہ لڑکا جنسی درندہ ہے؟

[Sohail Shuja]

I don't know and it really doesn't matter

In that case, you must know, before arguing against it.

What has been set in stone has been set in stone, what anyone does or did after that is inconsequential.

This is the mental shortcut you are applying here. It is really very unlikely to expect such a thing from someone who stood with the Prophet (SAW) through every thick and thin and risked his life, fought wars for him and even did not change an Islamic sentence for his own son.... his son was flogged till death and he died on the 80th... Hazrat Umar (RA) asked to complete the sentence with the 20 whips on the dead body.

Again, reconsider your line of argument in the case of slavery. Shall I disapprove it just because the west does? or shall I approve it just because it is set in stone as in Quran and Hadith?

Nah I'm totally chill like a pill, must mahol te mittay chowl. I just detest unnecessary ha ha ho ho in midst of a discussion.

Wish you a good day ahead
God Bless you and your family (Ameen)

 

[Citizen X]

This is the mental shortcut you are applying here.

No you are trying to unnecessarily complicate something is which is very easy and clear.

It is really very unlikely to expect such a thing from someone who stood with the Prophet (SAW) through every thick and thin and risked his life, fought wars for him and even did not change an Islamic sentence for his own son

Abu Bakar r.a was not only the first khalifah and sahabi but first and foremost he was the Prophet s.a.w best friend and who spent the most time with him, more than anyone else, then why didn't he outlaw it?

In that case, you must know, before arguing against it.

I don't need to because it's not relevant to this argument. If the subject of the argument was why did Umar r.a ban it, then yes it would be relevant but that's not the subject of this debate.

Again, reconsider your line of argument in the case of slavery.

You are bouncing all over the place, slavery, children, nikkah, stakes, single parent family etc etc you've discussed everything under the sun except what was actually my point, that Muslim society until recently was never this super conservative and this conservatism has been brought upon our own self by follow fraudia moulvis.

I'll simply conclude with this, what is a nikkah? Nikkah means a contract of marriage, and what is a contract? Its just a set of terms and agreements between two parties. Now two consenting adults can put anything in the contract they choose to, including how long that contract is valid for, or if it is open ended.

 

[Sohail Shuja]

Abu Bakar r.a was not only the first khalifah and sahabi but first and foremost he was the Prophet s.a.w best friend and who spent the most time with him, more than anyone else, then why didn't he outlaw it?

You are deviating from the heart of the argument here. It is not about a comparison between sahaba (AS), but thinking objectively that how can a person like Hazrat Umar (RA) did not discount for this simple fact that he is outlawing something which is lawful in the eyes of Allah (SWT) and His Prophet (SAW)? Was he that naive or a simpleton, and was the Muslim society of that time so weak as to follow him without any objection?

There must be a reason behind it. Moreover, as you have said that you do not know what reason was behind it and still you have not searched for it.

Let me give you another example to ponder upon. In Islam, the punishment of theft is chopping off the hands of the culprit and of fornication is a 100 lashes or stoning till death.

Now it was Hazrat Umar (RA) who said NO.... not in every case.

I don't need to because it's not relevant to this argument. If the subject of the argument was why did Umar r.a ban it, then yes it would be relevant but that's not the subject of this debate.

It is very much relevant, if your proposed solution to the given problem is Mut'ah, which is a banned practice, then you should be knowing why it was banned, before proposing it as a solution. May be the same conditions might be applying in muslim societies of today, then what made Hazrat Umar (RA) to do it then?

Without such knowledge, I am afraid your argument remains as lousy as a news of a European newspaper.

You are bouncing all over the place, slavery, children, nikkah, stakes, single parent family etc etc you've discussed everything under the sun except what was actually my point, that Muslim society until recently was never this super conservative and this conservatism has been brought upon our own self by follow fraudia moulvis.

Sir, there were no two opinions about the making of Nikkah easy as a solution to the problem referred to in the OPs post.

The whole argument spun on your innocent proposition like that made by ex-president Mamnoon Hussain, asking the Moulvis to legitimize interest (Riba) and his famous saying goes

" Aalim e deen hazrat kuch sood ki gunjaish paida karain".

And your innocent proposition was no different than that Sir.

I'll simply conclude with this, what is a nikkah? Nikkah means a contract of marriage, and what is a contract? Its just a set of terms and agreements between two parties. Now two consenting adults can put anything in the contract they choose to, including how long that contract is valid for, or if it is open ended.

So it means you are neither informed about a "Contract" nor the "Marriage".
Legally, a contract is "void ab initio" if it does not conform to the governing laws.
And if there are laws, there is their Jurisprudence as well.

May I be allowed to write a contract of supply of Narcotics with a supplier?
Just because it is a contract and a deal is a deal. Whether it is of potatoes or drugs.

 

[Citizen X]

You are deviating from the heart of the argument here.

I'm not you are. as I already mentioned in my previous post, you want to discuss everything except the topic at hand, and this post of your is pretty much exactly the same. Oh well, here we go again.

but thinking objectively that how can a person like Hazrat Umar (RA) did not discount for this simple fact that he is outlawing something which is lawful in the eyes of Allah (SWT) and His Prophet (SAW)? Was he that naive or a simpleton, and was the Muslim society of that time so weak as to follow him without any objection?

Because he did not say from today this is divine law and it will be like this till the end of time for all people to follow and neither did he ( or does anybody else ) have that kind of authority and I'm a billion % sure he knew that too. What you are arguing Khalifas have the authority to change and modify law as they deem fit for all Muslims for all time.

Let me give you another example to ponder upon. In Islam, the punishment of theft is chopping off the hands of the culprit and of fornication is a 100 lashes or stoning till death.

No it's not, this is what the moulvis want you to believe according to their interpretation.

It is very much relevant, if your proposed solution to the given problem is Mut'ah, which is a banned practice, then you should be knowing why it was banned, before proposing it as a solution. May be the same conditions might be applying in muslim societies of today, then what made Hazrat Umar (RA) to do it then?

Again playing what if this and what if that. You need to come up with some new debating skills. You can only rephrase a question so many times before it starts getting tedious.

I am afraid your argument remains as lousy as a news of a European newspaper.

You are entitled to your opinion. Doesn't mean it's the right one though.

So it means you are neither informed about a "Contract" nor the "Marriage".
Legally, a contract is "void ab initio" if it does not conform to the governing laws.
And if there are laws, there is their Jurisprudence as well.

May I be allowed to write a contract of supply of Narcotics with a supplier?
Just because it is a contract and a deal is a deal. Whether it is of potatoes or drugs.

Strawman fallacy, nice try but I'm not falling for it.

Don't mind it, but if you are going to be just going round in circles about the same thing over and over again with the same what if this and what if that's I'll have to excuse myself from this debate.

Thank you

 

[Sohail Shuja]

I'm not you are. as I already mentioned in my previous post, you want to discuss everything except the topic at hand, and this post of your is pretty much exactly the same. Oh well, here we go again.



Because he did not say from today this is divine law and it will be like this till the end of time for all people to follow and neither did he ( or does anybody else ) have that kind of authority and I'm a billion % sure he knew that too. What you are arguing Khalifas have the authority to change and modify law as they deem fit for all Muslims for all time.



No it's not, this is what the moulvis want you to believe according to their interpretation.



Again playing what if this and what if that. You need to come up with some new debating skills. You can only rephrase a question so many times before it starts getting tedious.



You are entitled to your opinion. Doesn't mean it's the right one though.



Strawman fallacy, nice try but I'm not falling for it.

Don't mind it, but if you are going to be just going round in circles about the same thing over and over again with the same what if this and what if that's I'll have to excuse myself from this debate.

Thank you

Ha ha ha... what else would happen to an argument like this....

Mut'ah was not banned by Prophet (SAW).... so allow it (Because I see most people in the west doing one night stands and having temporary relationships and it works for them... so it will work for us as well. Just make those one night stands halaal for us).

OKAY....

So what about Slavery? it was not even banned by the Prophet (SAW) or any of his disciples (Khalifa)

NO..... Apply your logic to it (No... the people in the country I am living in will bash me for favoring such a thing like slavery..... perhaps if the law enforcement finds out about my thoughts.... they will probably get me to a sanitarium or put me up on a terrorist watch list)

????

But you do not want to apply logic to why Mut'ah was prohibited (you want to be a hardliner only where it suits you)?



OKAY.... So do you know why was Mut'ah disallowed by Hazrat Umar (RA)?

NO... and I don't want to know... I don't care (Just allow those one night stands for me... making me feel that I have not done any sin while engaging in it)

?????

Overall man, it was a good discussion. Look, I am not here to win any arguments, literally and I appreciate the time and effort you imparted to this discussion.

I practically do not care what people like for themselves personally. But as far as we are discussing something which is to be generalized or normalized in a society, only then I chip in my two cents in there.

Women, children and their proper upbringing are all parts of this thing sex. Not only gratification.

And I have seen many people like you living in the west and are pressurized by the social values around them. They get boggled by the amount of sanity they see over there and the quantum of insanity back home. So they deduce that the values of the west are the things which have rendered this superiority. And in some manners, it is really the Mullahs back here in the Muslim world who have made their religion a laughing stock. I do not blame you. But at least I see that you think upon these matters otherwise you would just vanish from the discussion. So I think I gave you some pointers to think upon lately and find the truth, as in my POV, you are a thinker and...

NOT EVERYONE WHO WANDERS IS NECESSARILY LOST.

May Allah (SWT) Give you strength to keep upright and May He Keeps you away from sinning, knowingly or unknowingly (Ameen). I hope no hard feelings resulting after such a discussion.

Cheers!

 

[Citizen X]

So what about Slavery? it was not even banned by the Prophet (SAW) or any of his disciples (Khalifa)

Comparing slavery to mutah, is comparing horses with flowers. The Quran talks extensively about it and so does the Prophet s.a.w other is barely mentioned in passing.

And I have seen many people like you living in the west

Again you make a lot of assumptions. First you thought I was shia and now you think I live in the west, you are trying too hard to compartmentalize me so you can find a chink in my armour and try chipping away at it from there and because of these assumptions your arguments mostly fall flat.

Your arguments are on not on the merit of points of discussions but rather the person who is making these points. Oh he is pro mutah so he MUST be shia so I'll try to get him from that angle, oh I think just a burger boy living in the west who goes clubbing every night, gets pissed and bring a new girl home every night, so I'll get him with the ol' what do you know you are just a BBCD British Born Confused Desi schtick. You are trying to mix you wannabe gora culture and sensibilities into my traditional conservative mullah Islam.

FYI : I don't live in the west. Never have.

 

[Sohail Shuja]

Comparing slavery to mutah, is comparing horses with flowers. The Quran talks extensively about it and so does the Prophet s.a.w other is barely mentioned in passing.

Its your own assumption that these two are mutually exclusive things, to be simply put... If Mut'ah can be one viable option for releasing sexual tension, then why not Slavery be invoked in the name of it? You are also allowed by Quran to seek sexual pleasure from a slave girl.... No?

Your argument = Mut'ah was not banned by Muhammad (SAW)
So wasn't the Slavery..... as simple as that.

You apply logic in defense of banning slavery.... but you are not ready to do so for Mut'ah.

A person should have a single standard, at least in these matters.
If you are not ready to accept logic against Mut'ah, then do not give logic for Slavery as well. Take everything as it is written in Quran and Hadith.

Or if you apply logic to banning slavery, in contrast to the inscriptions of Quran and Hadith, then you must also consider the logic given by Hazrat Umar (RA) while banning Mut'ah.

Simple and conclusive.

Again you make a lot of assumptions. First you thought I was shia and now you think I live in the west, you are trying too hard to compartmentalize me so you can find a chink in my armour and try chipping away at it from there and because of these assumptions your arguments mostly fall flat.

No, I never thought you were a Shia, it was clear from the line of your arguments earlier. Want me to refer back to your post? That is the reason why I continued with such an argument with you. Otherwise, I would have refrained from discussing a controversial topic like this in such details. However, you did seem to presume about me that I am a Shia hater..... that is why I clarified that I am personally not a Shia hater and have received quite some criticism from the people for being like this. However, your presumption was that I am resisting this idea of Mut'ah as being a devout and staunch sunni/anti shia.

Your arguments are on not on the merit of points of discussions but rather the person who is making these points. Oh he is pro mutah so he MUST be shia so I'll try to get him from that angle, oh I think just a burger boy living in the west who goes clubbing every night, gets pissed and bring a new girl home every night, so I'll get him with the ol' what do you know you are just a BBCD British Born Confused Desi schtick. You are trying to mix you wannabe gora culture and sensibilities into my traditional conservative mullah Islam.

Well you are entitled to have your own "merit of points of discussion" and it does not bother me at all.

What I know is from the information provided by you. You have spent most of your time abroad. However, I must admit that I did consider that you have been living in the west. You yourself told me in this very thread that I do not need to tell you what happens outside Pakistan as you have spent most of your time abroad. So was it just a wild guess? I think NO.

Look, I am not here to win an argument. I am really interested in exchange of ideas, with reasoning. Since you do not know why Mut'ah was banned, then it does not make any sense to argue any further on this. Because it is just like asking a blind person that whether the painting on the wall is yellow or pink. So, I admit my mistake here.

FYI : I don't live in the west. Never have.

FYI: Please see your below mentioned statement on this thread:

I live outside of Pakistan and have spent most of my life outside so there really isn't anything you can tell me that I already don't know.

Link to the post

Anyways. It was nice talking to you.