Haydar Husayn

Western society seem to have developed an obsession with these topics.

Good for him. Hopefully it will start a trend.

True, but in most cases you would expect the husband to have participated, and if not he probably would have been enslaved anyway. This would be after they have both been enslaved. I didn’t say it was primarily to protect them or look after them. At the end of the day, they have become property. Nevertheless, considering some of the alternatives in the harsh world they lived in, it wasn’t necessarily the worst outcome.

Women didn’t just come to the battlefield to fight, but also to support the men in various ways. The issue is, what would you do with the women and children of defeated enemies? If you leave them to fend for themselves, they won’t survive very long and will probably be enslaved by someone else. Looking after them at no cost isn’t very realistic either. So instead they were taken as slaves, which was normal at that time when defeated in battle, and would then have the opportunity of being invited to Islam, integrated into the community and most likely freed within a few years. In the meantime, they were provided with food and shelter, and the possibility of spiritual salvation. Once freed, they had just as good prospects in life as anyone else. Of course, I’m not saying this was something anyone would welcome, but it was part of life back then, and therefore something that was within the realms of possibility for anyone living at that time. So of course the reaction to it happening to someone wouldn’t be like it would now. The problem we often have when thinking about these issues is we imagine how it would feel for us to be enslaved, but the situations are not comparable. For most of us, being enslaved is completely unthinkable and just about the worst imaginable outcome. So of course something that is not within the realms of what we consider likely to ever happen to us would be more traumatic than something that was quite common.

Sure, we you need to prove that your concepts of what an ideal physical relationship is like are derived from Islamic teachings. It seems like you have your preconceived notions of what an ideal physical relationship should look like, and are imposing that understanding on the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Personally, I don’t cringe when I read the descriptions in those narrations. I just think these are things that shouldn’t necessarily be discussed between unrelated men and women. I also don’t think the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) or Imams (عليه السلام) necessarily had a deep spiritual connection with all of their wives and slave girls. My feeling here is that in general there might be a slight difference in how these things are viewed between those who are married and those who aren’t (yet).

We aren’t Christians. There is nothing shameful in ‘carnal relations’. Allah has placed these urges in us, and given us halal outlets for them. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was a man, and had manly urges. In fact, he rebuked companions of his that abstained from their women.

Why? What’s the problem with it? Is it disrespectful to acknowledge that he had conjugal relations with his wives?

Yes, that is my issue with a lot of these narrations from Aisha. I wonder how many Sunnis would be happy with their wives talking to other men about such things?

No, I didn’t say they were fabrications. They could very well have taken place. I just don’t think sharing such details is very decent, especially with men,

Something being observed and the explanation for what is being observed are two different things. Macro evolution by its very nature is going to be very difficult to observe, since it’s supposed to take place over a very long period of time. Personally, I’m fairly agnostic on the issue. I’m not a research-level biologist, so I take what I know about Biology essentially on trust (and even the researchers have to do this to some extent). Since this isn’t knowledge I can consider certain, I’m not going to throw out my whole belief system just because I took a class on evolution (as an aside the majority of Muslims who are disturbed by evolution generally don’t know anything about it beyond a few high school lessons and what they’ve gleaned from a book or two on popular science). With regards to science generally, it’s important to remember that scientists look for the most convincing naturalistic explanation for any given phenomenon. So if you hold to a miraculous explanation, that is never going to be validated by science. The very methodology of science precludes such an explanation (and rightly so in my opinion). This is without even going into the biases of scientists as a group, who these days are in general pretty hostile to organised religion. You can be certain biologists would defend Darwinism to the death even if it did come under serious attack. There is just too much riding on it from a cultural point of view. So it’s not like they have no preference for this or that explanation. Just like philosophically speaking, many scientists had a preference for the steady state model of the universe to the Big Bang. In general, many of them prefer explanations that don’t give ammunition to religious believers. Hence for example, the speculative ‘multiverse’ theory. In the end, for most of us, it comes down to trust. What do you want to believe? The Qur’an, or the current scientific consensus (which by its nature is subject to change)? Now, let’s assume the current scientific consensus is essentially the final word on the matter and there will never be a substantial revision of the theory of evolution as it stands, and it is essentially ‘correct’. Event then, can you prove there is absolutely no way of rationally reconciling this explanation with Islam? For example, just as Adam may have been formed with a belly button despite not having had an umbilical cord, he may have been created to appear to conform with the rest of creation, which may have been formed through the process of evolution. I’m not saying this is true, but it’s possible. There are just too many uncertainties here for me to reject the things I am certain about.

I’m not sure I follow either. Surely the question should be about the wisdom in Aisha sharing such details, which almost certainly took place after the death of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), and which he therefore had no control over.

I meant in this specific case which one seems more likely to be correct? Can you post the narration?

I’m pretty sure his gradings in Hayat al-Quloob aren’t very reliable. Which of the two grading seems more likely to be correct to you?

Aqil would have been around 76 years old at the time Siffin. Seems unlikely that he would have been fighting at that age, let alone have gone out of his way to fight his own brother. In terms of impacting his status as part of the family of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), then even if it were true I don’t think it makes any difference. Nobody claims every member of the Ahlulbayt is infallible. The Imams after all had children who went astray.

Not really. The word theory in science doesn’t have the same connotations as in common language. The fact that this word is used doesn’t indicate any uncertainty on the part of scientists. On the other hand, no scientific theory or fact is proven beyond all possible doubt. Such an attitude is itself unscientific.