Announcement

**Mr Partypooper** · Jun 3, 2001, 03:46 AM

Originally posted by skv anand:

What is Jizia Tax?

Jiziyah, according to the Qur�an was a part of the punishment of the non-acceptance of God�s truth, after it had become manifest through the messenger of Allah in the Arabian Peninsula (Al-Taubah 9: 29) and subsequently through the companions of the messenger for the rest of the world (Al-Baqarah 2: 143). It may be mentioned over here that this punishment was only for those who were not polytheists by belief. As far as the polytheists were concerned, their punishment for the non-acceptance of God�s truth was nothing less than death (Al-Taubah 9: 5). Thus, the Prophet (pbuh) and subsequently his companions imposed Jiziyah upon the people of the Book, and other creeds ascribing to non-polytheistic belief, which refused to accept Islam.

Originally posted by skv anand:

Is it still implemented in any Islamic State?

I am not aware of any such implemetation. Since this is the religious forum, I can only restrict my points to that of the Islamic injunctions regarding this matter. In view of the foregoing explanation, Jiziyah cannot be implemented at any time after the Prophet and his companions. According to the Qur'an, Jizyah was a part of the punishment of the rejection of the messenger of Allah, which the non-polytheists among his direct addressees or among the addressees of the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) were subjected to.

Originally posted by skv anand:

Can it be compared to the present Taleban dictate against Hindus?

In view of the foregoing explanation, such a comparison would not be pertinent. However, I will agree with you in saying that this seems to be an absolutely unwarranted piece of legislation.

However, the Taliban, with due respects to their sincerity and attachment with their understanding of Islam, seem to have an approach toward the implementation of Islam, which is significantly different from the one which I hold to be correct.

Therefore, I really would not like to comment on the referred legislation, as it is only one of the secondary effects of some of the basic differences that I have with the Taliban's approach toward the understanding of Islam.

Originally posted by skv anand:

Why in Islamic States laws are not equal for all?

Islamic injunctions clearly stipulate that they should be equal. An Islamic government should give the same importance to the welfare of all its citizens whether Muslim or non-Muslim. Non-Muslim citizens of a Muslim country are called Mu�ahads that is, they become citizens of an Islamic State on account of a treaty with it. All dealings with them should be according to the terms of the peace treaty concluded with them. Muslims must abide by these terms in all circumstances and should never violate them in the slightest way. Such violations according to Islam are totally forbidden and, in fact, amount to a grave transgression. The Qur�an says:

Keep [your] covenants; because indeed on the Day of Judgement you will be held accountable for them. (17:34)

The Prophet (sws) is reported to have said:

Beware! I myself shall invoke the justice of the Almighty on the Day of Judgement against the person who oppresses and persecutes a Mu�ahad or reduces his rights, or burdens him [with responsibilities] he cannot bear, or takes something from him against his will." (Abu Da`wud: Kitabu�l Jihad)

Following are some basic rights of non-Muslim citizens:

Their life, wealth and honour should be protected by the state such that no one whosoever is able to lay hands on them;
The needy and poor among them should be provided with the basic necessities of life;
Their personal matters and religious rituals should be exempted from the law of the state and no interference should be made in their faith and religion;
Their places of worship should not be tampered with;
They should be allowed to present their religion to others in a non-seditious manner.

In short, they should be given all the rights which are sanctioned by the norms of justice and fairness for people in a civilised society, and in this regard all dealings should be done in a befitting manner � simply because, from an Islamic point of view, God has directed people to adopt this attitude.

------------------
They shoot partypoopers, don't they?

**Mr Partypooper** · Jun 3, 2001, 03:50 AM

Originally posted by skv anand:

What is the standard of woman in Islam? She is supposed to be under parda, is she a second class human being?

Before answering your question, I would ask you to consider two distinctly separate views regarding mankind: According to one, all men (including women) are equal, and therefore a sound social system is one that is based on the principle of absolute "equality". According to the other, all men (or women) are different � they are different in their mental, physical and emotional qualities, they are different in the opportunities life gives them and they are different in their natural strengths and weaknesses � and because they are different, a good society is not the one based on the principle of equality, but the one based on the principle of "justice". Just for the sake of further clarification, "equality" means that all persons should be dealt with equally, irrespective of their needs, abilities or strengths and weaknesses. In other words, according to this principle, a sound society is the one that places equal responsibilities and gives equal privileges and authorities to its members. On the other hand, "justice" means that a person should be dealt with on the basis of what he deserves. In other words, according to this principle, a sound society is the one that places responsibilities and gives privileges and authorities to its members according to their abilities and qualities.

I would like to clearly state here (even at the risk of being misconstrued) that Islam has based its teachings on the presumption that all human beings are equal in all spheres of life, except in the case of their inherent abilities and in the case of their position in the family (or on a broader scale, the social) setup. In other words, Islam after accepting that all human beings are equal, and should be dealt with according to the principle of equality, wants the society to give only two exceptions to this principle. These exceptions are:
[list][*]Because human beings are different in their inherent abilities, a person (man or woman) with more abilities should have the opportunities to progress further in life as compared to a person (man or woman) with less abilities. The system adopted to insure "justice" in this sphere is quite a simple one. Islam simply advocates that there should be no artificial hindrances in the progress of a person (man or woman) with more abilities.

In this sense, Islam although allows a differentiation among individuals, but this differentiation is not based on the sex of the individuals, but on their abilities.
[*]Because a sound social setup is possible only through strengthening the basic unit of this setup, (i.e. the family) Islam wants the family to have a well defined authority-responsibility relationship.

According to the Qur�an, man and woman are two units of a pair. When both are taken independent of each other, there are certain obvious vacuums in the mental, physical and emotional personalities of each. God has created the two in such a way that they complement each other in different ways, so that these vacuums are generally removed to a great extent. For this very purpose, God gave different mental, physical and emotional qualities to the male and the female. These different mental, physical and emotional qualities, on the one hand complement man and woman, and on the other establishes for them different spheres of activity in their interpersonal relationships.

According to the Qur�an, man, for two reasons, should be the head of the family: One, because he is given the responsibility of earning the livelihood for the family (i.e. he is to strive for the provision of the financial requirements of the family); and two, because he is given the mental, physical and emotional qualities that are more suitable for this responsibility; just like women are given certain qualities that make them more suitable for responsibilities in a number of other spheres. It is only in this sphere (i.e. in the relationship of husband and wife) that God has given the man a degree of authority over the woman. Besides this sphere, both are considered equal.

If the above explanation is clearly understood, you shall be able to see that Islam does not assign a lower status to the womankind, as compared to the mankind, it is only in a particular relationship that one is given a degree of authority over the other, and that too for fulfilling the responsibility assigned to him from the perspective of this life as well as the hereafter. In this sense, it is the same thing as saying that:

the parents (both male and female) are responsible for the well being of their children (both male and female) and therefore should be given a degree of authority over them; or
the teachers (both male and female) are responsible for the well being of their pupil (both male and female) and therefore should be given a degree of authority over them; or
the head of the state (whether male or female) is responsible for the well being of the citizens (both male and female) and therefore should be given a degree of authority over them.

[/list=a]

I hope it is clear from the above explanation that in my opinion, Islam does not differentiate between the status of a man or a woman. It is only in the particular relationship of husband and wife that Islam gives a degree of authority to the husband. It would be as wrong to say on this basis that Islam gives women a lower status in the social setup as compared to men, as it would be to say that Islam gives men a lower status as compared to women on the basis of the degree of authority that a mother has over her male child.

------------------
They shoot partypoopers, don't they?

[This message has been edited by Mr Partypooper (edited June 03, 2001).]

**Mr Partypooper** · Jun 3, 2001, 03:55 AM

Originally posted by skv anand:

Why Jihad is so cheaply implemented, that so often two enemy Muslim armies declare each other� side to be kafir and announce counter jihad?

It would be advisable, in my opinion, to first understand the directives of Islam governing Jihad, remaining absolutely independent of these isolated situations. We should first try to understand the directives for Jihad in the Islamic Shari`ah and then see whether the directives of the Shari`ah are being followed by various movements in some areas or whether these directives are even applicable to such situations.

Let us first try to understand the issue purely from the perspective of understanding the directives of the Shari`ah.
In our present times, the term �Jihad� has generally been used to imply �killing the opponent (non-Muslim) using any means, whatsoever�. This implication of the term, if seen in the light of the Qur�an as well as the life of the Prophet (pbuh) does not seem to be accurate. On the contrary, if seen in the light of the Qur�an and the Seerah of the Prophet (pbuh), we come to the conclusion that Jihad is not merely fighting against non-Muslims for whatever reasons and in whatever manner; it is, in fact, a war declared under specific circumstances carried out by an organized Muslim state.

To fully comprehend the directives of the Shari`ah relating to the institution of Jihad, answers to the following questions seems indispensable:
[list=1][*]As an entity, who is the addressee of the verses related to Jihad? Is it the Muslim individuals? Is it a group of Muslims? Or is it an organized collectivity (a Muslim state)? In other words, who, precisely, is given the directive of waging a war against another people?
[*]Can a group of trained and armed Muslims initiate a war for absolutely any reason or are there any reasons specified in the Shari`ah for which a war can be declared on another people?
[*]Are there are any directives of the Shari`ah relating to the ethical and moral behavior of the collectivity as well as the individuals participating in a war to which they should adhere during the times of war, whether within the battlefield or outside it. [/list=a]

In the following paragraphs, we shall try to give comprehensive answers to the stated questions.

The Addressee of the Directives Relating to Jihad:

The first question relates to the determination of the addressees of the directives relating to Jihad. This, in other words, is an attempt to determine the entity, which is responsible to carryout the directives relating to Jihad.

If seen in the light of the nature of the directive as well as the timing of its implementation in the Qur�an, one can easily derive that it addresses, not the Muslim individuals or any groups thereof, but the organized collectivity of the Muslims. In other words, the directive of Jihad, like all other directives of Islam pertaining to the collectivity of the Muslims is addressed to the Organized Muslim state. This, in other words, implies that the first and the foremost condition � unanimously acknowledged as a necessary condition by all classical Muslim jurists � for any aggressive action against a people to qualify as Jihad is that it should be carried out and implemented by an organized Muslim state.

Another issue relating to the addressees of the directives of Jihad is the recommended balance of power between the Muslim state (planning aggression in the name of Jihad) and the other state (against which an aggressive action is being planned). This issue is especially pertinent, from the Islamic perspective, because the Qur�an has given clear guidance in this regard. The Qur�an promises God�s help for any Muslim army, which is fighting for a just cause, even if the power-balance of the Muslims and their adversaries is one to two. That is the Muslims are half as strong as their adversaries. If seen closely, this verse, on the one hand, provides a glad tiding for the Muslims that even if they are half as powerful as their adversaries and are fighting for a just cause, God shall help them and, as a result, they shall be successful. However, on the other hand, this verse also implies that if the power-balance between the two armies is more than 1:2 (that is the Muslims are less than even half as strong as their adversaries), then the Muslims, rather than declaring any wars, should first improve this power-balance and bring it to at least the minimum recommended 1:2.

Thus, from the above explanation, it is clear that:

It is only a Muslim state (not individuals or groups of individuals), whose aggression against another people, for a just cause, can qualify as �Jihad�.
A Muslim state has been promised God�s help if its relative power-balance (with its adversary state) is not less 1:2.

The Purpose of Jihad

According to the Qur�an, a Muslim state has been directed to fight against persecution. This is the only reason for which a Muslim state can take an aggressive armed action against another people. The Qur�an has stressed this point in its verses relating to Jihad as well as those relating to taking of human life.

It is obvious that Qitaal (or Jihad) invariably results in the loss of lives and property. Taking a human life or even giving life is not a trivial matter. If any of our decision entails even the possibility of taking a human life (as would obviously be the case in declaring war), especially in the name of Islam, we must at least have a clear permission of our Lord to take life for the particular purpose for which we are declaring that war. Without such clear permission, it is quite possible that our decision may not be correct and, if that is indeed the case, we are held responsible for all the loss of life and property that occurs consequent upon our decision. We must keep in mind that, according to the Qur�an, taking even one life for a cause not authorized by God shall follow the same consequence as that of killing the whole of mankind. The Qur�an has clearly declared:

Whoever killed even a single soul � except being a punishment of murder or that of spreading unrest in the land � is as if he killed the whole of mankind. (Al-Maaidah 5: 32)

It is due to the extremely grave consequences of taking a human life, as have been mentioned in the cited verse, that we should be overly careful in finding out whether or not we have been allowed by an express directive of the Almighty to take life for the particular cause for which we are planning or even contemplating to declare a war.

Thus, Muslim states, when they are in a position to do so, have been ordained by the Qur�an to fight only against persecution (injustice, oppression etc.). Muslim swords are raised only against the oppressors and persecutors, irrespective of whether the oppressor is a Muslim or a non-Muslim.

Some Ethical Issues Relating to Jihad

The Qur�an and the narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) have pointed a number of ethical issues relating to Jihad � whether relating to the situations inside the battlefield or outside it. Some of the most important among these issues are:
[list=1][*]Jihad is a declared war against another people. Jihad does not cover any covert or hypocritical actions of a Muslim state against another. Thus, Jihad does not cover actions like secretly sponsoring terrorist activities against the adversaries, even if such adversaries are, in the opinion of the Islamic state, guilty of persecuting its citizens or any particular segment of its citizens.
[*]A Muslim state cannot carry out Jihad, against an adversary state, in violation of any mutual or international agreements. This ethical condition, according to the Qur�an, would remain applicable even if the adversary state is clearly guilty of persecuting its citizens and even if the persecuted Muslims call other Muslim states for help.
[*]While in a state of war against another nation, Muslims cannot, under any circumstances, make the non-fighting peoples of that nation (including men, women and children not taking part in the war) a target of their attacks.
[*]Finally, a Muslim has been strictly admonished against showing cowardice and spinelessness in the battlefields.[/list=a]

The above are some of the important ethical teachings of Islam relating to the matter under consideration.

Keeping the preceding explanation in perspective, it should be clear that �Jihad�, in the Islamic Shari`ah, �is a declared warfare against injustice and oppression carried-out by an organized Islamic state, under the strict compliance of all ethical teachings of Islam, relating to it.�

The above, in my opinion, is the gist of the teachings and the directives of Islam relating to Jihad. As far as whether or not a particular aggression of a Muslim group should be termed �Jihad� is concerned, it is a matter related to the application of the teachings explained in the preceding paragraphs. It is obvious that if the aggression under consideration complies with the teachings of Islam stipulated above, it would lie within the folds of Jihad, otherwise not. Thus, it is for the Muslims to make an opinion regarding whether or not the term can/should be used for the various Muslim freedom movements in the world.

------------------
They shoot partypoopers, don't they?

[This message has been edited by Mr Partypooper (edited June 03, 2001).]

**Mr Partypooper** · Jun 3, 2001, 03:58 AM

Originally posted by skv anand:

Why paradise in Islam is full of lust? Is it true that a true Muslim will have virility of 100 men in paradise and 72 beautiful virgins?

As far as the contention of these statements is concerned, I really do not think that they deserve any attention unless an academic basis is provided to support them. I cannot recall ever having coming across this narration before.

Originally posted by skv anand:

What is waiting a true Muslim woman in paradise?

A reward, which is equal in content to what her male counterpart receives. I will simply extend K-2�s line of examination here. Let us examine the evidence:

1. Hoor mentioned in the Qur�an

The word hoor occurs in the Qur�an in no less than four different places:
[list=1][*]In Surah Dukhan chapter 44, verse 54:

"Moreover, We shall join them to companions With beautiful, big and lustrous eyes." [Al-Qur�an 44:54]
[*]In Surah Al-Tur chapter 52 verse 20:

"...And We shall join them to companions, with beautiful, big and lustrous eyes." [Al-Qur�an 52:20]
[*]In Surah Rahman chapter 55 verse 72:

"Companions restrained (as to their glances), in goodly pavilions." [Al-Qur�an 55:72]
[*]In Surah Al-Waqiah chapter 56 verse 22:

"And (there will be) companions with beautiful, big and lustrous eyes." [Al-Qur�an 56:22] [/list=a]

2. Hoor Translated as Beautiful Maidens

Many translators of the Qur�an have translated the word hoor as �beautiful maidens� especially in the Urdu translations. If hoor means �beautiful maidens� or girls, then they are meant only for the men. Hence, what will the women get if they enter Paradise?

3. Meaning of Hoor

The word hoor is actually the plural of ahwar (applicable to man) and of haura (applicable to woman) and signifies a person having eyes characterized by hauar a special quality bestowed upon a good soul, male or female in paradise and it denotes the intense whiteness of the white part of the spiritual eye.

The Qur�an describes in several other verses that in paradise you will have azwaj which mean a pair or spouse or companion which means you will have spouses or companions pure and holy (mutaharratun means pure, holy).

"But give glad tidings to those who believe and work righteousness, that their portion is gardens, beneath which rivers flow. Every time they are fed with fruits therefrom, they say: "Why, this is what we were fed with before", for they are given things in similitude; and they have therein companions pure (and holy); and they abide therein (forever)". [Al-Qur�an 2:25]

"But those who believe and do deeds of righteousness, We shall soon admit to Gardens, with rivers flowing beneath - their eternal home; therein shall they have companions pure and holy: we shall admit them to shades, cool and ever deepening". [Al-Qur�an 4:57]

Therefore the word hoor has no specific gender. Mohammad Asad has translated the word hoor as spouse and Abdullah Yusuf Ali as companion. Therefore according to some scholars a man in paradise will have a hoor that is a beautiful maiden with beautiful big and lustrous eyes and a woman in paradise will get a man with beautiful big and lustrous eyes.

4. Women will get something exceptional in Paradise

Many scholars say that in context, the word hoor used in the Qur�an refers only to ladies since gents are addressed. A reply that would be accepted by all types of people would rather be the answer given in the Hadith when a similar question was posed that if a man gets a hoor, a beautiful Maiden in Paradise, then what will the women get? The reply was that the women will get that which the heart has not desired for, the ear hasn�t heard off and the eye hasn�t seen, indicating that even the women will also get something exceptional in Paradise.

------------------
They shoot partypoopers, don't they?

[This message has been edited by Mr Partypooper (edited June 03, 2001).]

**Mr Partypooper** · Jun 3, 2001, 04:02 AM

Originally posted by skv anand:

Why Zayed, adopted son of Prophet divorced his wife Zainab? Did Prophet marry her?

The Prophet (pbuh), for the purpose of elevating the status of the freed slaves in the society, had persuaded and encouraged marriage between one of his cousins � Zainab (ra) � and his adopted son and a freed slave � Zayed ibn Thabit (ra). However, the arrangement did not work out and the marriage ultimately resulted in divorce. After the divorce, Zainab (ra) was now faced with another dilemma. Being a divorcee of a slave, no respectable person in the society was genuinely willing to marry her. This state of affairs had obvious emotional affects on the Prophet (pbuh), as he had himself persuaded and encouraged the marriage to take place. At this juncture, he might even have considered taking Zainab (ra) in marriage, but was probably reluctant in doing so, because she was a divorcee of his adopted son. At this juncture, the Qur�an directed the Prophet (pbuh) to marry Zainab (ra), even though it was against the accepted norms of the prevalent social setup. Through this directive, not only Zainab (ra)�s immediate problem was sought to be resolved, but from a long-term perspective, it was also meant to correct the social concept of considering the divorced and widowed wives of one�s adopted sons to be prohibited in marriage. Surah Al-Ahzaab Verse 37 � 39 entails reference to this social concept and its correction through the Prophet (pbuh). If you would read the related verses once again, in the light of the foregoing explanation, I am sure you would understand the stress and the implication of each of the statements in these verses, in their correct perspective.

Originally posted by skv anand:

What was the age of Ayesha when Prophet married her?

To begin with, 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 dependable 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 mis-reported in the ahadith. 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, Ayeshas (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 had shifted after living in Medinah for seventy one years.
Tehzibu'l-tehzib, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions of 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)
Mizanu'l-ai`tidal, 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. But according to another narrative in Bukhari (kitabu'l-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 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 we should 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 indicate that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to accompany men to the battle fields to help them, not to be a burden on 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 Taqri'bu'l-tehzi'b as well as Al-bidayah wa'l-nihayah that Asma (ra) died in 73 hijrah when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma (ra) was 100 years old in 73 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 have been born during the first year of Islam.
Tabari has also reported that at the time Abu Bakr planned on migrating to Habshah (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am -- with whose son Ayesha (ra) was engaged -- and asked him to take Ayesha (ra) in his house as his son's wife. Mut`am refused, because Abu Bakr had embraced Islam, and 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.

------------------
They shoot partypoopers, don't they?

[This message has been edited by Mr Partypooper (edited June 03, 2001).]

**Mr Partypooper** · Jun 3, 2001, 04:06 AM

Originally posted by skv anand:

What was the relation ship between Safiya Bint Huyway, a jewish beauty and Prophet? How many times prophet got married and how many women became his companion?

Let us first take your second general question and expound upon it in some detail, which in turn, should adequately answer your first query.

For understanding the wisdom behind this act of the Prophet (pbuh), that is marrying eleven women and keeping one slave girl, one has to take into account his various positions. First, he was a human being; secondly, he was a Prophet (Nabi); thirdly, he was an Apostle (Rasu'l) and lastly, he was the seal of prophets, that is to say, that he was the last prophet. Another important thing to note is that he was not restricted by the Shari`ah to marry up to only four women at a time. In fact, there is a separate injunction, as far as his marriages are concerned, in the Qur�an, which is quite distinct from the one that is for ordinary Muslims. This injunction is given in Al-Ahzaab 33: 50-52.

For his human and natural needs, the Prophet (pbuh) married twice. His first marriage was with Hadhrat Khadija (ra). During this time, he did not marry another woman. After her death, he married Hadhrat Sawdah (ra). The purpose of this marriage was purely a human need, that is after the death of Hadhrat Khadija (ra) his two younger daughters were left alone and he needed somebody to look after them. Therefore, he married Hadhrat Sawdah (ra) who was 50 at the time of marriage and so was the Prophet (pbuh).

In the capacity of a Prophet (Nabi), he married four women, namely Hadhrat Ayesha (ra), Hadhrat Hafsa (ra), Hadhrat Zaynab bint-i-Khazeema (ra) and Hadhrat Ume Salama (ra). The Prophet�s wives (pbuh) were also made associates in his prophetic mission. Especially for this purpose, he married Hadhrat Ayesha (ra) and it is a known fact that in fulfilling this responsibility she had no match. She became the mentor of the Ummah after the Prophet (pbuh)�s death. The rest of the three marriages were the result of social requirements. This social requirement was, taking care of widows and orphans as the Qur�an directed to do in Surah Al-Nisaa. Taking care of widows and orphans was a very big responsibility. It became necessary that the Prophet (pbuh) set an example for the Muslims in this regard to give them an incentive, as he was, in the capacity of a Nabi an example for the Muslims to follow. Hadhrat Hafsa (ra) was the daughter of Hadhrat Umar (ra). She was a widow and Hadhrat Umar (ra) was worried about her. Therefore, the Prophet (pbuh) married her. Hadhrat Zainab (ra) was a one time divorcee and a two-time widow. The Prophet (pbuh) married her in order to support her. However, with this marriage the number of wives allowed for Muslims, which is four wives at the most, came to an end. However, when after a few months Hadhrat Zainab (ra) died, it became possible for him to support another woman. So, he married Hadhrat Ume Salama (ra) who was a widow with four children. With this marriage again the number of wives allowed, came to an end as two of his wives had died and four were alive.

In the capacity of the last Prophet he married one woman namely Hadhrat Zaynab bint-i-Jahash (ra). Hadhrat Zainab bint-i-Jahash (ra) was also a cousin of the Prophet (pbuh). Before this marriage, Allah revealed the special injunction regarding the law governing the marriages of the Prophet (pbuh), removing the limit of four wives for him, so that he could fulfill his responsibilities in his different capacities. This marriage was prompted by a special incident. Hadhrat Zaynab (ra) got married to Hadhrat Zayed (ra) � the freed slave and adopted son of the Prophet (pbuh). This marriage took place on the insistence of the Prophet (pbuh), although Hadhrat Zaynab (ra) did not want it. The reason was that she belonged to the elite of Makkah and Hadhrat Zayed (ra) was a former slave. The marriage remained on rocks throughout the period that they lived together because Hadhrat Zaynab (ra) considered herself socially superior to Hadhrat Zayed (ra). Tired by their regular clashes and Hadhrat Zaynab�s (ra) indifference towards him, Hadhrat Zayed (ra) showed his intention to divorce Hadhrat Zaynab (ra) time and again. However, the Prophet (pbuh) persuaded him not to do so, because he felt responsible for any mishap, as the marriage had taken place on his insistence. Secondly the message of equality of slaves and free humans that he wanted to practically communicate through this marriage would fail in case of divorce. Nevertheless, because of these troubles of the marriage, foreseeing divorce as inevitable in the near future, the Prophet (pbuh) was already considering to marry Hadhrat Zaynab (ra) if as the last resort the incident of divorce did take place, in order to console her (because the marriage had taken place on the Prophet�s insistence). Moreover, keeping in mind the social status of slaves, it was highly unlikely that any person of a good social standing would take Hadhrat Zaynab in marriage, as she would then be a divorcee of a slave. The only reluctance, which the Prophet (pbuh) had in this regard, was that marriage with the divorcee or the widow of one�s adopted son was considered prohibited, exactly like marriage with the divorcee or the widow of one�s real son. However, ultimately, Hadhrat Zayed (ra) divorced Hadhrat Zaynab (ra). It was at this juncture that the Qur�an intervened and in order to correct the wrong tradition (of holding the divorcee or the widow of one�s adopted son prohibited), the Prophet (pbuh) was directed to marry Hadhrat Zaynab. While directing the Prophet (pbuh) to marry Hadhrat Zaynab (ra), the Qur�an has specifically mentioned that because as the last prophet Mohammad (pbuh) is also supposed to correct all the wrong traditions that are followed in the name of the Shari`ah and thereby complete God�s religion in totality, therefore it is essential that this tradition be corrected by the Prophet (pbuh).

Lastly the Prophet (pbuh) married four women in the capacity of an Apostle (Rasul). As a Rasul he was destined to have political control of Arabia. For this purpose war with the polytheistic tribes was inevitable. However, war brings the psyche of hate, revenge and resistance to truth. In order to curb that and to change it into love and compassion, he married I]Hadhrat Jowayriah[/I] (ra), Hadhrat Ume Habibah (ra), Hadhrat Safia (ra) and Hadhrat Maymoonah (ra). According to the Arabian tradition, when a person married a woman of a certain tribe all hostilities against that person from that tribe ceased. That was because the Arabs highly respected the relationship of a son-in-law. The above-mentioned four women were daughters of four famous tribal chiefs. Hadhrat Jowayriah (ra) was the daughter of the chief of Banu Mustalaq. Hadhrat Ume Habibah (ra) was the daughter of Abu Sufyan � the chief of Quraish. Hadhrat Safia (ra) was the daughter of one of the chiefs of the Jews of Khyber. Lastly Hadhrat Maymoonah (ra) who presented herself to the Prophet (pbuh), and the Prophet (pbuh) was allowed to accept such proposals by Divine injunction in the same verses which governed the law for his marriages, belonged to a respected family of Makkah and the chief of Ahl-i-Najd was her brother-in-law.

All hostilities of these tribes ended or were greatly reduced after the Prophet (pbuh) married these four women. In fact after a short period these tribes accepted Islam. However. All these four women were either divorcees or widows at the time of their marriage with the Prophet (pbuh).

As far as the slave girl Hadhrat Maria Qibtia (ra) is concerned, the Prophet (pbuh) kept her as a slave girl because he was barred from marrying those slave girls who were not part of the booty of war, in the same verse that governed his marriage regulations. Hadhrat Maria Qibtia (ra) was presented to the Prophet (pbuh) by the ruler of Egypt. He loved her very much and treated her very well, in order to set an example for the Muslims in treatment of their slaves.

It should be kept in mind that although Islam condemned slavery, it did not abolish it instantly. The institution of slavery was so deep rooted in the society that it was not possible to do away with it at once. In fact Islam adopted a gradual approach towards it by giving incentives to free slaves in return for reward in the hereafter or by treating them fairly and respectably. It was during this intermediary period that the Prophet (pbuh) set an example of good treatment of the slaves, in the case of Hadhrat Maria Qibtia (ra), for the Muslims to follow. The other example of the he set in relation to slaves was in the case of Hadhrat Zayed (ra), whom he freed and made his adopted son. There is no strong evidence of any other slave girl in the household of the Prophet (pbuh).

This foregoing explanation should adequately cover the answers to your queries.

------------------
They shoot partypoopers, don't they?

[This message has been edited by Mr Partypooper (edited June 03, 2001).]

**Mr Partypooper** · Jun 3, 2001, 04:09 AM

Originally posted by skv anand:

Does Islam dictate a one Muslim nation theory, a division between darul-Islam and darul-Harb?

Before I address your specific question I would like to clarify a few related concepts.

It is generally held that Muslims must fight the polytheist nations as well as the Jews and Christians of today until they subdue them. It is further held that while the polytheist nations must be put to death if they do not accept faith, the Jews and Christians can be allowed to live on their religions if they submit to Muslim authority by paying Jizyah. The following verses are generally presented in support of this view:

"Slay the Idolaters wherever you find them. Seize them, surround them and everywhere lie in ambush for them. But if they repent from their wrong beliefs and establish regular prayers and pay Zakah, then spare their lives. God is Oft-Forgiving and Ever Merciful."(9:5)

"Fight those who believe not in Allah or the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah after being subdued and live a life of submission." (9:29)

These verses and other verses of similar meaning specifically pertain to the polytheists, the Jews and the Christians of the Prophet�s times. They had knowingly denied the truth and were as a result given this punishment. Today, in the absence of the Prophet (sws), it cannot be known whether people are knowingly denying it; therefore, no action can be taken against them. Muslims must continue to develop friendly relations with them and cordially invite them to Islam without threatening their existence or authority.

After the Prophet, his authorised companions carried on the mission against the major political powers of their times. This onslaught, was specific to their status as witnesses to the truth, and their endeavour was basically a manifestation of a divine scheme. Consequently, the age old debate about whether Islam was spread through the sword or not should also be understood in this perspective. The companions of the Prophet (sws) in their collective capacity were only enforcing the implication of their status as witnesses to the religion of the truth. They were not spreading Islam; they were punishing people who had deliberately denied the truth.

Consequently, after them, as has been stated earlier, Muslims have no right to subdue nations and countries in the name of Islam or impose Jizyah upon them.

In view of the foregoing explanation, let us take a look at your specific question. According to popular Islamic legal theory, a certain political classification exists in this world. According to this classification, lands where Muslims rule and the Islamic law prevails are known collectively as the Daru�l-Islam (the Abode of Islam), and areas of the outside world, inhabited and also governed by non-Muslims constitute what is called the Daru�l-Harb (the Abode of War). The basis of this classification is the theory of Jihad according to which the realm of Islam and the realms of unbelief are canonically in an obligatory and perpetual state of war, which will continue until the whole world either accepts the message of Islam or submits to the rule of those who bring it.

It has been shown above that this classification is specific to the age of the Prophet Muhammad (sws) and his worthy companions. Today, this classification no longer holds. Muslims do not have the authority to fight the rest of the world to make them accept Islam.

------------------
They shoot partypoopers, don't they?

[This message has been edited by Mr Partypooper (edited June 04, 2001).]

**Mr Partypooper** · Jun 3, 2001, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by skv anand:

Does Quran ask Muslims to look like Prophet? Why some Muslims have beard and others not?

There is no Quranic injunction or any other directive contained within Islamic sources, which directs a Muslim to believe that looking like the Prophet (pbuh), is a concept, which the Prophet (pbuh) generally promoted among ALL his followers, as a part of God�s guidance to man.

The two sources of the Islamic Shari`ah � the Qur�an and the Sunnah � are silent as far as the matter of beard is concerned. Beard, in fact, is something, as you know, which is in the nature of a man (i.e. the male gender of the human species). This would be one reason why some Muslim males, indeed males generally, would have beards. You really would have to ask them.

Originally posted by skv anand:

Is it a coincidence that revelations to Prophet started at the age of 40 and ended exactly by the time of his death?

No. Since he was the exclusively designated prophet of God, among his people, his prophethood started at the age of 40 and ended with his passing away. Similarly, like all other prophets before him i.e. Abraham, Solomon, David, Moses, Jesus etc. � their respective prophethood began within their own time and ended with their passing away. This is the nature of the office of Prophethood.

Originally posted by skv anand:

What was the geographical knowledge of the angles and prophet when Quran was conveyed? As it does not go beyond the Arab land, Syria, Iraq, Persia etc.
(Authors of Bible had no information of American land.)

According to the Qur�an, God sent His prophets and/or messengers initially in all the nations. This clearly implies that in all probability, prophets and messengers were sent among all the nations.

Your observation that the Qur�an has only mentioned the prophets of a particular region is absolutely correct. The fact is that the Qur�an has generally not informed its first addressees of any messenger or prophet. On the contrary, the Qur�an has only referred to those prophets and messengers, who were directly known to its first addressees through their historical traditions or who were indirectly known to them through the Israelites and the Nazarenes living in the Arabian Peninsula.

Originally posted by skv anand:

Why Islam is bonded to definitions?

Any such definition that is sanctioned by the Qur�an and Sunnah is very heavily qualified in light of its context and whom it is generally addressed to. Since Islam is a way of thinking, given that it rests upon a basis, established definitions would thus exist, which in turn, would allow a person to expound and understand that basis. Thus, definitions are a natural by-product of any existing system of thinking.

I would ask you kindly to be more specific in your query regarding this. I cannot seem to fully understand exactly what you are trying to put forward. Would it be possible for you to provide an example or such?

------------------
They shoot partypoopers, don't they?

**Mr Partypooper** · Jun 3, 2001, 04:13 AM

I hope this helps. In case any aspect of your questions remains unanswered, please feel free in conveying any request for clarifications to me at your own convenience.

May God give guidance to the path of his liking.

My fondest regards to you and those around you.

All answers provided to the stated queries are courtesy of Moiz Amjad (aka The Learner) at ( http://www.understanding-islam.com ) and Dr. Zakir Naik, Islamic Research Foundation ( http://www.irf.net ).

------------------
They shoot partypoopers, don't they?

[This message has been edited by Mr Partypooper (edited June 03, 2001).]

**skv anand** · Jun 3, 2001, 10:56 AM

Dear Partypooper,

Thanks for a nice reply.

Why Islam is bonded to definitions?
We have 28 Islamic States and all declare to be true Islamic. And further only differ from each other.

At another forum a Muslim friend offered me to read following quoted from Quran to my enquiry on the validity of Jihad;

l-Baqara (Cow) A

2:191 And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

When I read so, (and turn them out from where they have turned you out)
I think that Shiv Sainiks of Bal Thakre are following the same policy.

Aisha� age. Previous to your reply rest others have only given reasons for Prophet marring a minor.
You have given historical reasons for guessing another age. I will better not contradict.

Geographical limitations of Quran;
I raise this question because many time I read in Islamic press that Quran is thoroughly scientific and Islam is a scientific religion.
There are a lot of discrepancies that easily can be questioned or only blindly believed.

I have every reason to reject the revelation theory of the Prophet.

Rgds

**Alpha1** · Jun 4, 2001, 07:35 AM

Mr Anand

In reply to some questions you have raised, your agruments and indeed this whole debate falls within two levels.

The first is the negation of Islam on its specific elements, i.e. the marriage of the Prophet to Aisha, and so forth....

The second is on its methodology, in what it stands for.

On the first, I would like to state that nothing you have mentioned does your purpose any good, for you can spend a millenium trying to find weak points and they can be countered. Similar approach could be taken with other religions and we could be here all night and day. I wont even try to answer your points as has been done previously because you will move to another area.
In addition to this, I doubt that your understanding of Islam or that of any other contemporary can form a valid basis of your argument.

On the second, you have not stated a single thing, i.e. that the creator exists and is unlike the creation without the need for partners without resembling the creation.

This for me points to the weakness of your approach overall. You do not seek to deny the monotheistic approach of Islam yet you only try to convince us Islam is weak on the specific areas. This orientalist mentalaity will not do anything to anyones understanding of Islam.

And finally, we do not mock a thing for the sake of it. We always seek the truth, so if the revalation to the prophet does not appeal to your thinking (and hence what does not appeal to you should also not appeal to anyone else or so you say) then what does? If you want us to abandon Islam, what shall we take ini ts place? That god has partners? Shall we take what is bad in place of what is good?

[This message has been edited by Alpha1 (edited June 04, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Alpha1 (edited June 04, 2001).]

**skv anand** · Jun 4, 2001, 10:59 AM

Dear friend (Partpooper or Alpha1)

Thanks for another nice reply. Provocation and reaction do a distortion and I am not an exception, but the way you reply, nothing wrong if we continue a little. You are right that no religion is perfect and if we wish to malign other� faith, there are no limits.
Definitely I look at Prophet life more as history, than religion.

Human mind cannot look beyond. And when it wishes to do so, the result will only be fantasy.
What is revelation?
It is not a fraud all the time. It happens that the preacher starts believing in his own extra powers, though every thing takes a start from mind.
And I repeat that human mind cannot go beyond.

It is not strange that Bible mentions nothing of America, author or authors had no information of that land, and could not even make fantasy. Quran is limited in Arab land.
Though all religious books give some information of cosmos, moon, sun etc�because the authors could see all this thing and created different fantasies.
But the follower finds all reasons to boast that his particular religious book is perfect not only about the surroundings, but about cosmos also. It is true for Hindu mythology books as well.

I have come across many verses of Quran that say �slay the enemy�.
I don�t think it is very religious, whatever the reason may be.

Rgds

**Mr Partypooper** · Jun 4, 2001, 11:21 PM

Originally posted skv anand:

Dear Partypooper,
Thanks for a nice reply.

You are really most welcome.

Originally posted skv anand:

Why Islam is bonded to definitions?
We have 28 Islamic States and all declare to be true Islamic. And further only differ from each other.

The answer is quite simple. Islam is a global and wide-encompassing religion stretching to over one billion believers, who regard the application of Islam to their personal lives, with the highest importance. Thus, as you can easily tell, there exists a great tendency and incentive, amongst Muslim folk, to claim great expertise. It is a way to wielding significant, although limited, power, at the very least among the people who are not as highly versed in religion as they ought to be. That is why it is extremely important to distinguish, as I'm sure you will agree, between religious injunctions and current practice. Otherwise this amounts to a fallacy of composition - a logical fallacy.

As far as the current practice of Islamic governments is concerned, I really do not think it is within my jurisdiction, on this forum, to discuss the current politics involved in these States. As you can plainly see, the political forums are there to serve your purpose in this respect, which in turn, contain interested participants who would be highly eager to discuss these issues if you wished them to. This is the "religion" forum.

In my opinions regarding the issues of religious injunctions, I do not consider the current practice in politics or otherwise, in not observing the religious injunctions, to hold any pertinence with the opinion. The mere fact that there exists a rift between the behaviour of politicians and established religious injunctions, holds absolutely no pertinence, in my mind, with whether the religious injunctions are wrong or not. The only pertinent point in forming the stated opinion is whether the religious injunction has been interpreted accurately and correctly, in light of its context, thereby allowing the appropriate understanding and application of it. Current practise by politicians neither validate or invalidate the religious injunctions regarding the matter.

However, I have rectified my answer above, in this respect, with regard to your query on the concept of Dar'ul Islam and Dar'ul Harb. I hope it helps.

Originally posted skv anand:

At another forum a Muslim friend offered me to read following quoted from Quran to my enquiry on the validity of Jihad;

l-Baqara (Cow) A

2:191 And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

When I read so, (and turn them out from where they have turned you out)
I think that Shiv Sainiks of Bal Thakre are following the same policy.

As I have explained my my answer to your query above, these verses, including the one you have kindly provided above, are specifically meant for the idolaters of Arabia who had knowingly denied the truth revealed to them by Muhammad (sws); they were sentenced to death because of this denial:

"When the forbidden months are over, slay the Idolaters wherever you find them. Seize them, surround them and every where lie in ambush for them. But if they repent of their wrong beliefs and establish regular prayers and pay Zakah, then spare their lives. God is Oft-Forgiving and ever Merciful. (9:5)"

Since today it cannot be ascertained that the truth has been unveiled in its ultimate form; neither can the people on which the truth is unveiled in its ultimate form be ascertained - hence this directive, including the one you have provided, cannot be extended to other Muslims. Thus it has absolutely no relevance to the concept of "Jihad", in either theory or practice. The verse which you have so graciously provided is also related to the idolaters of Arabia strictly; it cannot be extended beyond them as I have tried to explain in my response to your question.

Originally posted skv anand:

Aisha� age. Previous to your reply rest others have only given reasons for Prophet marring a minor.

You have given historical reasons for guessing another age. I will better not contradict.

I have given several lines of reasoning which show that they converge upon my conclusion that Aisha (ra) was not a minor when she married. In my opinion, it is unreasonable and inacceptable to accept that Aisha (ra), on the basis and evidence of the reasoning that I have referred you to, was a minor when she was married. Islam would be obviously illogical and downright disgusting to sanction any marriage to a minor. This is why it had been stated earlier in the reply that I had presented above:

... 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 dependable 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 mis-reported in the ahadith. 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.

The referred difference of opinions, which you have pointed out, is one of an academic nature. I really think that the two referred writings (i.e. theirs and mine) have presented their points of views regarding the issue under consideration, on the basis of their respective arguments. I think in such cases, the interested reader should closely consider the arguments presented by both points of views and accept the opinion, which he considers to be correct.

Originally posted skv anand:

Geographical limitations of Quran;
I raise this question because many time I read in Islamic press that Quran is thoroughly scientific and Islam is a scientific religion.
There are a lot of discrepancies that easily can be questioned or only blindly believed.

I must confess, that I cannot see how the explanation that I have presented, regarding the query you have raised, that I have presented has anything to do with "science" or the role of "science" in Islam. The explanation that I have presented is simply a matter of fact. You may check the Qu'ran for yourself.

Originally posted skv anand:

I have every reason to reject the revelation theory of the Prophet.

What exactly do you mean, if I may ask, by "revelation theory"?

Originally posted skv anand:
Rgds

And my fondest regards to you and those around you.

PS: Rest assured, I am not Alpha1. Do I really sound like him?

------------------
They shoot partypoopers, don't they?

[This message has been edited by Mr Partypooper (edited June 05, 2001).]

**Alpha1** · Jun 5, 2001, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by skv anand:

Human mind cannot look beyond. And when it wishes to do so, the result will only be fantasy.

The human mind operates within the confines of its own limitations and surroundings. Therefore I would ask who are you to pass judgement on those who have preceeded you, and what gives you the right to pass your interpretations as a representation of Islam?

Islam is perfect in every way, it is a religion based on the concept of monotheism from which everything stems, every action, and so forth.

The very rational way of thinkning to which you subscribe is false, as scientific theory is based on relative thinking and the assumption that if things have been a certain way they will always be so. (The analogy is that is all the metals you test so far expand when heated, can you then assume therefore that all metals will expand when heated?) Read the works of the austrian philosopher Karl Popper for a further explanation.

There is a limit to what can be said so I will reply no more.

As has been said, 'Those whom Allah guides, there is none to misguide, and thoe whom Allah chooses to misguide there is none to guide'.

Announcement

Answers to skv anand's queries...

Answers to skv anand's queries...

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment