Empiree:
I have told you that you don't understand 3 Talaq. It is not pronounced in a sitting. It takes time because there are other considerations you failed to acknowledge with respect to women. I will implore you to stop hate and read Sharia policy from different sources on this issue before you jump the gun.

I remembered when I was a kid my uncles, dad and other imams were discussing this issue and they said Talaq is not I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you and then you send her packing. That's not how it works bro. Whoever you see do that is following his whim.

If this is the case, why is the sunnah of the prophet on this issue of 3talak so confusing and complex that for over 1200years, the ummah had been trying to determine how to manage the 3talak issue? It is not about hate pointing out the issue of 3talak but an attempt to protect women whose emotion and life had been negatively affected by this policy. In many countries the 3talak is still constitutional and are being enforced.

Rashduct4luv:


This is a Sunnah with setting. The toilets then are usually in open spaces. The toilets today have doors and walls hence not applicable.
.
But it's still advisable to build loos not facing the Qibla out of respect for our direction of worship.

So building a toilet backing or facing the kaaba is disrespectful; this is strange and equally irrational. What you do here is to reinterpret the hadith which expressly forbade building toilet facing and backing the kabba. So the whole world, according to you and in order to respect the arabs and allah, must design or re-design their toilets so that it doesnt face the qibla. This is a supremacist and crazy sunnah bro which is useless in this 21st century.

Empiree:
Nope, it is not binding at all. Umar, in a few cases, ruled the saying of talaq three times in one go as final and annulled the marriage. But he would also flog such men as deterrent punishment. This helped in curbing instances of saying talaq at one go. Certainly, Umar's practice was not a Sharia law. His step was rather an example of hukm al-hakim, or an executive order. His annulment of marriage in cases where men said talaq three times in one go was an exercise of the discretionary power of a ruler. Such executive orders are applicable to particular cases and do not have the status of Sharia law or general rule.

Surah Al-Maeda, Verse 47:

"... and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the transgressors."

true2god:
So building a toilet backing or facing the kaaba is disrespectful; this is strange and equally irrational. What you do here is to reinterpret the hadith which expressly forbade building toilet facing and backing the kabba. So the whole world, according to you and in order to respect the arabs and allah, must design or re-design their toilets so that it doesnt face the qibla. This is a supremacist and crazy sunnah bro which is useless in this 21st century.

It may be useless in Christianity but not in Islam. The religion of Islam explains even the rudiments of the Islamic tradition.


You know your religion has no code of conduct. Anything goes. So far as you do it for Jesus. How do you Praise/worship the Lord according to Jesus? How do you fast? When do you fast? How do you dress? Unity of worship is zero. etc.

Did Jesus ever sang, dance or clap to music in the Bible? But apparently he had to put his face to the ground in worship.

There has been so much debates in the Churches on many of issues hence the differences in varieties of the Protestant churches. I remember you are the one mentioning Sahih translation of the Qur'an. But as usual hypocrisy will let you overlook the over 40 different translations of the Bible in English.

So in summary i will reiterate this to you. You don't determine what part of our religion fits in the 21st century for us. We have a constitution in Islam which we follow. Expend your energy on the loopholes in your religion.

Empiree:
Nope, it is not binding at all. Umar, in a few cases, ruled the saying of talaq three times in one go as final and annulled the marriage. But he would also flog such men as deterrent punishment. This helped in curbing instances of saying talaq at one go. Certainly, Umar's practice was not a Sharia law. His step was rather an example of hukm al-hakim, or an executive order. His annulment of marriage in cases where men said talaq three times in one go was an exercise of the discretionary power of a ruler. Such executive orders are applicable to particular cases and do not have the status of Sharia law or general rule.

Do you know that Omar is the most intelligent and mostinfluential among the sahabas? Do you know that Omar is well respected such that some of his advise, to the prophet, were revealed as part of the quran? You cannot discount his input in the development of the Islamic thought. It was Omar's input on the quran (9:29) that led to the formulation of the 'pact of Omar'. If Omar granted the '3talak', you can never discount it as not being part of the sunnah of the prophet.

Rashduct4luv:



It may be useless in Christianity but not in Islam. The religion of Islam explains even the rudiments of the Islamic tradition.


You know your religion has no code of conduct. Anything goes. So far as you do it for Jesus. How do you Praise/worship the Lord according to Jesus? How do you fast? When do you fast? How do you dress? Unity of worship is zero. etc.

Did Jesus ever sang, dance or clap to music in the Bible? But apparently he had to put his face to the ground in worship.

There has been so much debates in the Churches on many of issues hence the differences in varieties of the Protestant churches. I remember you are the one mentioning Sahih translation of the Qur'an. But as usual hypocrisy will let you overlook the over 40 different translations of the Bible in English.

So in summary i will reiterate this to you. You don't determine what part of our religion fits in the 21st century for us. We have a constitution in Islam which we follow. Expend your energy on the loopholes in your religion.

You see, being dogmatic does not mean one righteous or religious. Mecca/Kaaba is about 5,000km from Nigeria and will be purely irrational to build a place of convenience (Toilet or bathroom) in a certain way so as to respect a religious site in far away Arabia. Remember, we are still dealing with 'striving to follow the sunnah'.

true2god:
You see, being dogmatic does not mean one righteous or religious. Mecca/Kaaba is about 5,000km from Nigeria and will be purely irrational to build a place of convenience (Toilet or bathroom) in a certain way so as to respect a religious site in far away Arabia. Remember, we are still dealing with 'striving to follow the sunnah'.

How do you define rationalism?

Is it only rational if it suites your whims & desires or that of the west?

true2god:
Do you know that Omar is the most intelligent and mostinfluential among the sahabas? Do you know that Omar is well respected such that some of his advise, to the prophet, were revealed as part of the quran? You cannot discount his input in the development of the Islamic thought. It was Omar's input on the quran (9:29) that led to the formulation of the 'pact of Omar'. If Omar granted the '3talak', you can never discount it as not being part of the sunnah of the prophet.

was he not human being?. My post is clear. It is not debatable, friend.

AlBaqir:



Surah Al-Maeda, Verse 47:

"... and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the transgressors."

if we are to go this way, 95% of muslims would be guilty of this since 1000 years ago

There is nothing confusing. Those who chose to confuse themselves and others follow their whim. It is like saying punishment for adultery is death. Does that mean bcuz two people are accused of adultery and their case is take to police in this sense and police just pull gun and shoot them?.

No. There is a process before final judgement. In the same instance, 3 Talaq doesn't mean pronouncing divorce 3 times in a sitting. There is a process. It is very clear. The people who are confusing things want to achieve something. This is very common in South East Asia. I don't know why people still debate this in 2019

true2god:
If this is the case, why is the sunnah of the prophet on this issue of 3talak so confusing and complex that for over 1200years, the ummah had been trying to determine how to manage the 3talak issue? It is not about hate pointing out the issue of 3talak but an attempt to protect women whose emotion and life had been negatively affected by this policy. In many countries the 3talak is still constitutional and are being enforced.

Empiree:
if we are to go this way, 95% of muslims would be guilty of this since 1000 years ago

They've been guilty already in many things innovated by the Caliphs. 3 talaq won't make difference.

Empiree:
was he not human being?. My post is clear. It is not debatable, friend.

Your assumption here is that the position of Omar, one of the closest companion of the prophet and the 2nd rightly guided khalifa, must have made a mistake on the issue of the 3talak. If Omar was only human, Mohammed was also human and equally made mistakes on this matter. You seem to understand Islam more than 500million Muslims who still adhere to the principle of 3talak. The fact is that,whichever way you wanna spin it, the 3talak, going by the hadith, is that of sunnah but can be subjected to various interpretations. I have seen first hand where marriages were annulled simply by saying 3talaks.

true2god:
Your assumption here is that the position of Omar, one of the closest companion of the prophet and the 2nd rightly guided khalifa, must have made a mistake on the issue of the 3talak. If Omar was only human, Mohammed was also human and equally made mistakes on this matter. You seem to understand Islam more than 500million Muslims who still adhere to the principle of 3talak. The fact is that,whichever way you wanna spin it, the 3talak, going by the hadith, is that of sunnah but can be subjected to various interpretations. I have seen first hand where marriages were annulled simply by saying 3talaks.

How do you divorce a wife in CHRISTIANity according to Jesus?. Please answer this.

My post was not based on interpretation but text. You only quoted one hadith and then arrived at your conclusion. Even Umar (ra)'s triple Talaq was conditioned. As always you have a mission. Again, triple Talaq means there are rules, space and time within each Talaq in a sitting. You can believe what you want to believe.

Empiree:
How do you divorce a wife in CHRISTIANity according to Jesus?. Please answer this.

My post was not based on interpretation but text. You only quoted one hadith and then arrived at your conclusion. Even Umar (ra)'s triple Talaq was conditioned. As always you have a mission. Again, triple Talaq means there are rules, space and time within each Talaq in a sitting. You can believe what you want to believe.

The only instance divorce is allowed in Christianity, as Jesus commanded, is if formication is involved. If a woman is sleeping outside or the man is having an extramarital affairs, it is spiritually ok for either party to seek divorce if they can't reconcile and forgive each other. According to Jesus, if either party remarries after the divorce it amounts to adultery; both are expected, going by new testament laws, to remain single after the divorce.

You said I quoted only 1 hadith to validate my position, that's true. A lot number of times Muslims have quoted only 1 hadith, without any chain of narration, to validate an argument, especially if their point is favorable to Allah and his messenger but when it goes against Allah and his messenger, it becomes a 'weak or fabricated' hadith. This is hypocrisy!

true2god:
The only instance divorce is allowed in Christianity, as Jesus commanded, is if formication is involved. If a woman is sleeping outside or the man is having an extramarital affairs, it is spiritually ok for either party to seek divorce if they can't reconcile and forgive each other. According to Jesus, if either party remarries after the divorce it amounts to adultery; both are expected, going by new testament laws, to remain single after the divorce.

Sorry bro, this doesn't make sense bcuz you dont apply any biblical laws. You go to secular court or common law to dissolve marriage. And your so called "church marriage" is still secular .So it is irrelevant to quote Jesus when in reality you dont follow him.

true2god:
The only instance divorce is allowed in Christianity, as Jesus commanded, is if formication is involved. If a woman is sleeping outside or the man is having an extramarital affairs, it is spiritually ok for either party to seek divorce if they can't reconcile and forgive each other. According to Jesus, if either party remarries after the divorce it amounts to adultery; both are expected, going by new testament laws, to remain single after the divorce.

You said I quoted only 1 hadith to validate my position, that's true. A lot number of times Muslims have quoted only 1 hadith, without any chain of narration, to validate an argument, especially if their point is favorable to Allah and his messenger but when it goes against Allah and his messenger, it becomes a 'weak or fabricated' hadith. This is hypocrisy!

Jesus forbid divorce. But Moses Permitted it. I taught Jesus never came to abolish the law but to fulfill it?

Empiree:
Sorry bro, this doesn't make sense bcuz you dont apply any biblical laws. You go to secular court or common law to dissolve marriage. And your so called "church marriage" is still secular .So it is irrelevant to quote Jesus when in reality you dont follow him.

Secular court is meant to accommodate all, irrespective of your religious affiliation. There is nothing like 'church marriage' in the bible. What the bible recognized is traditional marriage because 'church marriage' is bida or innovation. And you know that both the Christians and the Muslims do traditional wedding according to ones customs and tradition. I seriously dont understand your point here.

AbuTwins:



Jesus forbid divorce. But Moses Permitted it. I taught Jesus never came to abolish the law but to fulfill it?

Jesus said 'divorce was permitted because of the hardness of human heart'. In the beginning it is not according to God's plan for couple to divorce and Jesus came to reinforce that position. Christ came to fulfill the law and not to abolish it and what does it mean to fulfill the law? To bring the law according to God's plans and desires and not according to His (God's) permissive will. God hates divorce but permitted it because of the hatred and hardness in the heart of a man.

true2god:
Jesus said 'divorce was permitted because of the hardness of human heart'. In the beginning it is not according to God's plan for couple to divorce and Jesus came to reinforce that position. Christ came to fulfill the law and not to abolish it and what does it mean to fulfill the law? To bring the law according to God's plans and desires and not according to His (God's) permissive will. God hates divorce but permitted it because of the hatred and hardness in the heart of a man.

So inadvertently, the law that was not to be abolished was then abolished due to an unforeseen reason. Fine. Does God lack foresight?

Also it was an eye for an eye before. But Jesus said turn the other cheek for another slap. Why was this abolished too?

true2god:
Secular court is meant to accommodate all, irrespective of your religious affiliation. There is nothing like 'church marriage' in the bible. What the bible recognized is traditional marriage because 'church marriage' is bida or innovation. And you know that both the Christians and the Muslims do traditional wedding according to ones customs and tradition. I seriously dont understand your point here.

I smile in Swahili.

AbuTwins:


So inadvertently, the law that was not to be abolished was then abolished due to an unforeseen reason. Fine. Does God lack foresight?

Also it was an eye for an eye before. But Jesus said turn the other cheek for another slap. Why was this abolished too?

The new testament dispensation replaced the old covenant. God saw the difficiency in the law and decided to make a new covenant with the house of Jacob. The old covenant was a shadow of thing to come which was made manifest after the appearance of the holy 'son of man':

Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
— Jeremiah 31:31–34 (the prophecy).

But now Jesus has obtained a superior ministry, since the covenant that he mediates is also better and is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
— Hebrews 8:6–13 (the manifestation)

true2god:
The new testament dispensation replaced the old covenant. God saw the difficiency in the law and decided to make a new covenant with the house of Jacob. The old covenant was a shadow of thing to come which was made manifest after the appearance of the holy 'son of man':

Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
— Jeremiah 31:31–34 (the prophecy).

But now Jesus has obtained a superior ministry, since the covenant that he mediates is also better and is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
— Hebrews 8:6–13 (the manifestation)

I am greatly bewildered to read this. God saw the mistakes in the law He made and decided to create another law right?

This reminds me of God repenting.
Does God repent?

Twice the Bible says that God repented for something he had done in the past (Genesis 6:6-7 and 1 Samuel 15:11), and at least eleven times it says he repented or would repent of something he was about to do in the future (Exodus 32:12-14; 2 Samuel 24:16; 1 Chronicles 21:15; Psalm 106:45; Jeremiah 4:28; 18:8; 26:3, 13, 19; 42:10; Joel 2:13-14; Amos 7:3, 6; Jonah 3:9-10; 4:2).

Nevertheless, the Bible also says that God will not repent. For example, Psalm 110:4 says,

The Lord has sworn; he will not repent: “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.”
And Ezekiel 24:14 says,

I, the Lord, have spoken; it shall come to pass, I will do it, I will not go back, I will not spare, I will not repent; according to your ways and your doings I will judge you, says the Lord God.” (See Jeremiah 4:27-28.)

What do you think?

2. Why reference to Israel/Judah/Egypt? Are you from these provinces?

AbuTwins:


I am greatly bewildered to read this. God saw the mistakes in the law He made and decided to create another law right?

This reminds me of God repenting.
Does God repent?

Twice the Bible says that God repented for something he had done in the past (Genesis 6:6-7 and 1 Samuel 15:11), and at least eleven times it says he repented or would repent of something he was about to do in the future (Exodus 32:12-14; 2 Samuel 24:16; 1 Chronicles 21:15; Psalm 106:45; Jeremiah 4:28; 18:8; 26:3, 13, 19; 42:10; Joel 2:13-14; Amos 7:3, 6; Jonah 3:9-10; 4:2).

Nevertheless, the Bible also says that God will not repent. For example, Psalm 110:4 says,

The Lord has sworn; he will not repent: “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.”
And Ezekiel 24:14 says,

I, the Lord, have spoken; it shall come to pass, I will do it, I will not go back, I will not spare, I will not repent; according to your ways and your doings I will judge you, says the Lord God.” (See Jeremiah 4:27-28.)

What do you think?

2. Why reference to Israel/Judah/Egypt? Are you from these provinces?

AbuTwins, you are now using Empiree's template; divert and avoid the issue at hand. What we are discussing is 'striving to follow the sunnah'. I will address your concern please keep to the topic.

true2god:
AbuTwins, you are now using Empiree's template; divert and avoid the issue at hand. What we are discussing is 'striving to follow the sunnah'. I will address your concern please keep to the topic.

There was a Sunnah God made for the people of the Old Testament. You said God discovered his sunnah was hard right?

So he had to bring another new sunnah in the NT.

We are still on the topic following the sunnah. It is still related. Answer the questions.