| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
TG12345 
Senior Member
Male
Joined: 16 December 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 1146
|
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote  Reply
 Posted: 14 February 2015 at 8:48pm |
 Quranexplorer wrote:
Thanks TG,
|
Afwan, and salaam alaikum, QuranExplorer.
Quranexplorer wrote:
I can see a lot of problems with your arguments. First of all you are jumping to definitive conclusions based on some shallow data which fail to represent the full picture.
|
Can you present any "non-shallow" data that contradicts mine?
Quranexplorer wrote:
Specifying a minimum 6 months gestation for a legal framework makes perfect sense based on the following:
1. Specifying a gestation period less than 6 months will definitely skew the judgement towards the female as explained below:
The legal point you quoted says:
TG12345 wrote:
The following legal injunctions are derived from the three verses when they are read together: The woman who gives birth to a sound and complete child in less than six months after marriage (i.e. in a proper delivery and not abortion) will be declared an adulteress and her child's lineage from her husband will not be established. |
The conditions to declare a case of adultery would be a child birth less than 6 months and the child survives and the child is in a sound and complete condition. The below quote from your Wikipedia reference says the incidence of major disabilities remains high for child births less than 6 months which clearly means a less than 50% chance for a �sound and complete� child.
The limit of viability is the gestational age at which a prematurely born fetus/infant has a 50% chance of long-term survival outside its mother's womb. With the support of neonatal intensive care units, the limit of viability in the developed world has declined since 50 years ago, but has remained unchanged in the last 12 years.[8][9] Currently the limit of viability is considered to be around 24 weeks although the incidence of major disabilities remains high at this point.[10][11] Neo-natologists generally would not provide intensive care at 23 weeks, but would from 26 weeks.[12][13]
So even if you argue the viability of a child before 6 months is more than 50% (which is not the case as explained below), when you factor in the �sound and complete child� condition as well, the % goes below 50 which means more than 50% chance of adultery if a child is born before six months and survives and is in sound and complete condition.
|
How do you know that "sound and complete" means not disabled? If we look at the commentary of Maulana Maududi, this is how he defines "sound and complete"
The
following legal injunctions are derived from the three verses when
they are read together: The woman who gives birth to a sound and
complete child in less than six months after marriage (i.e. in a
proper delivery and not abortion) will be declared an adulteress and
her child's lineage from her husband will not be established.
http://englishtafsir.com/Quran/46/index.html#sdfootnote19sym How can a living child, disabled or not, be "aborted"? According to Yusuf Ali, 6 months being the minimum period means it is the minimum period of viability. Viability does not mean life without disabilities. It means life.
C4790. In
31:14 the time of weaning was
stated to be at the age of two years, i.e., 24 months. See also
2:233.
That leaves six months as the minimum period
of human gestation after which the child is known to be viable.
This is in accordance with the latest
ascertained scientific facts. The average period is 280 days, or ten times the
inter-menstrual period, and of course the average period of weaning is much less
than 24 months.
http://quran4u.com/Tafsiraya/046ahkaf.htm I look forward to seeing what evidence you can provide that "sound and complete" means what you claim it means. Even though if we are going to assume that "sound and complete" means that a child is born without disabilities, then this still would not prove the law correct. Accordingly to medical studies, extremely premature children have a very high chance, nearly 80%, of developing disabilities. As shocking as this is, it means that some 20% or less will not develop a disability. http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20050105/lasting-disabilities-common-in-preterm-babies The law still may end up falsely accusing an innocent woman.
Quranexplorer wrote:
2. I don�t agree that the viability of babies born before 6 months is more than 50% globally:
|
If you can find me global stats, then please show. I have a feeling you may be right. However, "minimum" does not mean "below half", it means lowest. The tafsirs clearly state 6 months is the minimum period after which a child can be born and live. All it takes is one example to disprove a minimum. The moment you find a lower value, the minimum changes.
TG12345 wrote:
There are a few problems I see with your rebuttal.
Firstly, it is not true that the viability of babies born during the 6th month is less than 50%. That applies only to babies born before the 24th week. Babies born after 24 weeks have a 40%-70% chance of survival and babies born after 25 weeks have a 50%-80% chance of survival. Both fall into the category of less than 6 months.
Completed weeks of Gestation at birth 21 and less 22 23 24 25 26 27 30 34
Chance of survival[5]
0% 0-10% 10-35% 40-70% 50-80% 80-90% >90% >95% >98%
|
Quranexplorer wrote:
Your Wikipedia reference says:
Viability exists as a function of biomedical and technological capacities, which are different in different parts of the world. As a consequence, there is, at the present time, no worldwide, uniform gestational age that defines viability.[3]
With the support of neonatal intensive care units, the limit of viability in the developed world has declined since 50 years ago, but has remained unchanged in the last 12 years.[8][9] Currently the limit of viability is considered to be around 24 weeks although the incidence of major disabilities remains high at this point.[10][11] Neo-natologists generally would not provide intensive care at 23 weeks, but would from 26 weeks.[12][13]
So the data of developed world cannot be applied as a global data without applying the correction factors. Just to give you a feel how these correction factors could vary, just have a look at the infant mortality rates (The infant mortality rate (IMR) is the number of deaths of infants under one year old per 1,000 live births) which gives a representation of the biomedical and technological capabilities. While the global average is 49.4, in US it is 5.2. Even if we take the developed world average to be 10, there is a correction factor of 5 while we apply this to the global stage.
Now, going by this the viability of a baby below 26 weeks at global level could be something around 15%-20%.
Based on the foregoing, I must say the Islamic interpretation here does a fantastic job within the limitations of human knowledge in judging these matters.
|
Thanks for showing this, QuranExplorer. If you make the assumption that the viability of a baby below 26 weeks at a global level could be around 15%-20%, what makes you assume that after 26 weeks, it would jump up to 50%? Also, as I have said before, it is irrelevant if the chance of survival is above 50% after 6 months. Islamic law does not say that after 6 months there is a more than half probability that a child will live. It states clearly that 6 months is the minimum. Minimum does not mean the same as "more than half".
TG12345 wrote:
Secondly, you pointed out the US legal system have used 28 weeks as the usual limit for fetal viability. That was perhaps the limit when this law was written, it isn't true anymore.
Are you putting Islamic law on the same level as secular law? Secular law is from human beings, and needs to be sometimes revised as new knowledge comes up, because it is not perfect. Stating that the age of viability is 28 weeks is a perfect example. What was perhaps correct at a certain point in history is incorrect now. The same actually applies to Islamic law which states that 6 months after marriage is the determining factor as to whether a child that is born belongs to his/her father or mother. Perhaps at a certain point in history, 6 months was the age of viability... though I can guarantee it wasn't when the Quran was written and if you want me to prove why, let me know. However, now we know that a child born less than 6 months after sex (which would certainly happen during the wedding night) is not necessarily a product of adultery. Like American secular law, the Islamic law in regards to this issue proved to be outdated and no longer correct.
Thirdly, what difference does it make even if (which is not the case actually) not kids born during the 6th month have less than 50% chance of survival? The law states that children born within 6 months do not belong to the father. Even one instance of the opposite being true shows that the law is mistaken and not perfect, and needs to be revised in order to avoid a wrong ruling. |
Quranexplorer wrote:
Here you need a better understanding of the concepts my friend. Allah has given man the guidelines to judge things within the confines of man�s abilities and the human imperfections are already built in to all these systems that men use based on their limited knowledge. So a man following Allah�s guidelines is not immune to human imperfections. Imperfection is a fact of this world and there can be no perfect system in the human domain. The only place where all these apparent imperfections and inequalities will be corrected is on the judgement day. The beauty of Allah�s system is that there is an absolute level of personal responsibility�i.e. you are responsible for all your thoughts, intentions and actions and you are the only one responsible for that�there is no confusion of somebody else taking responsibility for all your mistakes and stuff like that. Coming to the specific case of judging a birth before 6 months, there could be a judgement in this imperfect world, but the true judgement with an absolute establishment of personal responsibility will be done on the judgement day. So a Muslim does not have to really worry about the judgement at all�because his true destination is the hereafter and all imperfections are going to be settled there for eternity.
|
So in other words, are you saying that God's law is not good enough to stop an innocent person from falsely being convicted? It doesn't really matter in the great scheme of things if a woman is falsely accused of adultery based on a minimum that was set that turned out not to be the minimum at all?
Quranexplorer wrote:
So there is no point in arguing about the perfection of human judgement under Islamic law.
|
I agree humans are imperfect. The problem with the law though, as you just seemed to have admitted, is that it may cause innocent people to be falsely convicted of adultery... not on the basis of human imperfection, but because the ruler making the law used the Quran as his guide to set a minimum which turns out not to have been one in the first place.
TG12345 wrote:
I don't think it's subjective at all. It can determine whether or not a kid dies early in a developing country. Is this something not worth "wasting time" on? |
Quranexplorer wrote:
Coming to breastfeeding I can see lot of contradictory facts from your arguments. I would prefer to get some facts cleared upfront and would appreciate if you can answer the following questions I have in the shortest possible words. Frankly I really have a problem with these long stories:
1. Infant deaths in the west are comparatively very less�is prevalence of 24 months or longer periods of breastfeeding the sole reason for this?
|
I don't know the answer to this, but I do know that breastfeeding a child for less than 2 years exposes him or her to a higher danger of disease, even in the West. The low infant mortality is in most likelihood thanks to better medicine and living standards. Yet even despite this, breastfeeding for less than 2 years means greater risks of disease.
Quranexplorer wrote:
2. You argue that lot of infant deaths happen in the developing world�is cutting a max 3 months from the 24 months breast feeding duration the sole reason for this?
|
Not the sole reason, but it certainly plays a role. Why would God not tell mothers to give their children the best chance at a healthy life? Why make breastfeeding for 2 years not only optional, but also make 2 years the maximum?
TG12345 wrote:
Either God doesn't know everything there is to know about taking care of children and pregnancy, or He did not dictate the Quran word for word.
I believe the second scenario is most likely. |
Quranexplorer wrote:
Absolutely a personal decision. Whether you want be puffed up with pride and jump to wrong conclusions on things that you can�t really judge based on some shallow data or you would like to humble yourself and appreciate the truth based on the numerous signs that are around.
|
Prove to me that my data is "shallow", and please provide better data if you have it. The truth is that a law that states that 6 months is the minimum period after which a child is viable, is mistaken. The truth is also that children worldwide benefit from 2 years or more of breastfeeding and if they have less than 23 months of breastfeeding, they face higher mortality than those who don't. The truth is also that, even in the West, a child who breastfeeds for less than 2 years is more likely to catch diseases than a child who was breastfed for 2 years or longer. The Quran has many true things in it, and some amazingly accurate information. So does the Bible. Unfortunately, both of these books also contain some mistakes.
|
 |
airmano
Senior Member
Joined: 31 March 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 884
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 February 2015 at 2:43am |
QE:
| Coming to the specific case of judging a birth before 6 months, there could be a judgement in this imperfect world, but the true judgement with an absolute establishment of personal responsibility will be done on the judgement day |
After producing a lot of verbal smoke, you say nothing else than: Independent of [scientific] facts, in the end it is always the Quran that has the final word.
To me this sounds shockingly close to the (in-)famous: "Tuez les tous dieu reconnaitra les siens" of the Beziers massacre in 1209.
It is exactly the thinking I mentioned already earlier:
A) The Quran is always right
B) In case that the Quran is wrong A) automatically applies.
Undoubtedly under these assumptions A) is indeed always logically true.
Airmano
Edited by airmano - 17 February 2015 at 11:33am
|
|
Quranexplorer
Senior Member
Male
Joined: 09 May 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 152
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 February 2015 at 10:23pm |
Salam TG,
TG12345 wrote:
Can you present any "non-shallow" data that contradicts mine? |
Your Wikipedia reference says:
Viability exists as a function of biomedical and technological capacities, which are different in different parts of the world. As a consequence, there is, at the present time, no worldwide, uniform gestational age that defines viability.[3]
Also as I mentioned in the outset of this discussion, I prefer not to waste time on subjective discussions unless you have something concrete to establish. So I am not here for data mining on these subjects, I am just letting you know the dangers of jumping to conclusions on things that even the experts seem not sure of.
However, it�s Allah�s plan to leave each individual to judge things based on the limited freewill he has bestowed on each of us and it becomes an absolute personal responsibility how each one uses that freewill. It is absolutely your decision how you want to use your judgement.
TG12345 wrote:
How do you know that "sound and complete" means not disabled? If we look at the commentary of Maulana Maududi, this is how he defines "sound and complete"
The following legal injunctions are derived from the three verses when they are read together: The woman who gives birth to a sound and complete child in less than six months after marriage (i.e. in a proper delivery and not abortion) will be declared an adulteress and her child's lineage from her husband will not be established.
http://englishtafsir.com/Quran/46/index.html#sdfootnote19sym
How can a living child, disabled or not, be "aborted"?
According to Yusuf Ali, 6 months being the minimum period means it is the minimum period of viability.
Viability does not mean life without disabilities. It means life.
C4790. In 31:14 the time of weaning was stated to be at the age of two years, i.e., 24 months. See also 2:233.
That leaves six months as the minimum period of human gestation after which the child is known to be viable.
This is in accordance with the latest ascertained scientific facts. The average period is 280 days, or ten times the inter-menstrual period, and of course the average period of weaning is much less than 24 months.
http://quran4u.com/Tafsiraya/046ahkaf.htm
I look forward to seeing what evidence you can provide that "sound and complete" means what you claim it means. |
The following definitions from google should be self explanatory, and I don�t see any definition of �sound and complete� in Maulana�s commentary, do you?
sound2
saʊnd/
adjective
adjective: sound; comparative adjective: sounder; superlative adjective: soundest
1. 1.
in good condition; not damaged, injured, or diseased.
"they returned safe and sound"
synonyms: healthy, in good condition, toned, fit, physically fit, hale and hearty,in good shape, in fine fettle, in trim, disease-free, undamaged,uninjured, unimpaired More
antonyms: unhealthy, unsafe, flimsy
� financially secure.
"she could get her business on a sound footing for the first time"
synonyms: solvent, able to pay its debts, debt-free, not in debt, out of debt, in the black, in funds, in credit, creditworthy, of good financial standing, solid, secure;
rareunindebted
"the company is financially sound"
antonyms: insolvent, in debt, bankrupt
� BRITISHinformal
excellent.
"He ate his lasagne with relish. �It's sound, this.�"
complete
kəmˈpliːt/
adjective
1. 1.
having all the necessary or appropriate parts.
"a complete list of courses offered by the university"
o
o
o
2. 2.
(often used for emphasis) to the greatest extent or degree; total.
"a complete ban on smoking"
synonyms: absolute, out-and-out, utter, total, real, outright, downright,thoroughgoing, thorough, positive, proper, veritable, prize, perfect,consummate, unqualified, unmitigated, sheer, rank; More
TG12345 wrote:
Even though if we are going to assume that "sound and complete" means that a child is born without disabilities, then this still would not prove the law correct.
Accordingly to medical studies, extremely premature children have a very high chance, nearly 80%, of developing disabilities. As shocking as this is, it means that some 20% or less will not develop a disability.
http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20050105/lasting-disabilities-common-in-preterm-babies
The law still may end up falsely accusing an innocent woman. |
So where is the problem? The viability before 6 months itself is around 20%, you factor in say another 50% for the �sound and complete� provision, and the Islamic interpretation here does a marvellous job within the limitations of human knowledge in judging these matters.
TG12345 wrote:
If you can find me global stats, then please show. I have a feeling you may be right.
However, "minimum" does not mean "below half", it means lowest. The tafsirs clearly state 6 months is the minimum period after which a child can be born and live.
All it takes is one example to disprove a minimum. The moment you find a lower value, the minimum changes. |
As I told you earlier, I am just letting you know the dangers of jumping to conclusions on things that even the experts seem not sure of . I gave you the reason for rejecting your statistics for not representing a global picture. I�m happy that you find it makes sense, however , I�m open for some critical reviews as well and you are free to share your statistics in this regard.
So even our current scientific knowledge is wrong to say minimum gestation as 24, 28 or any weeks? So are we discussing something we already know is wrong? See we have more reasons not to waste time on such discussions.
TG12345 wrote:
Thanks for showing this, QuranExplorer. If you make the assumption that the viability of a baby below 26 weeks at a global level could be around 15%-20%, what makes you assume that after 26 weeks, it would jump up to 50%?
Also, as I have said before, it is irrelevant if the chance of survival is above 50% after 6 months. Islamic law does not say that after 6 months there is a more than half probability that a child will live. It states clearly that 6 months is the minimum.
Minimum does not mean the same as "more than half". |
Why should it jump to 50% after 26 weeks? Don�t get confused with the percentages. The bottom line is that the probability of a genuine, viable, sound and complete child birth before 6 months gestation is very low � anything lower than 50% makes the law good, lower the % better the law in judging a case of adultery.
This is another characteristic of these subjective discussions, after a few iterations, you won�t have an idea what you are really talking about.
TG12345 wrote:
So in other words, are you saying that God's law is not good enough to stop an innocent person from falsely being convicted?
It doesn't really matter in the great scheme of things if a woman is falsely accused of adultery based on a minimum that was set that turned out not to be the minimum at all? |
I would explain you this way:
Any law when executed by humans cannot absolutely ensure to stop an innocent person from being falsely convicted.
I can see 2 ways how this could be resolved:
1. Humans to have perfect knowledge in everything so that they can make perfect judgements � however, this is not the case as the case in discussion itself shows
2. Allah has asked man to patiently persevere for an appointed term after which perfect justice will be established with an absolute personal responsibility � my reason based on the holy Quran and the countless signs around tells me that�s the absolute truth.
That�s something for the individual to choose which way suits his thoughts.
TG12345 wrote:
I agree humans are imperfect. The problem with the law though, as you just seemed to have admitted, is that it may cause innocent people to be falsely convicted of adultery... not on the basis of human imperfection, but because the ruler making the law used the Quran as his guide to set a minimum which turns out not to have been one in the first place. |
As I mentioned earlier, even our current scientific knowledge is wrong to say minimum gestation as 24, 28 or any weeks as the minimum changes from individual to individual. So any judgement based on the current human knowledge will have a possibility that it may go wrong.
So the point to ponder is whether one should be so arrogant to blame Allah for his own imperfection or should he be humble enough to thank Allah for at least giving him a valuable piece of information without which he could have committed more mistakes with his imperfect judgement. However as the saying goes �a bad worker blames his tools� � again the choice is for the individual to make.
TG12345 wrote:
I don't know the answer to this, but I do know that breastfeeding a child for less than 2 years exposes him or her to a higher danger of disease, even in the West. The low infant mortality is in most likelihood thanks to better medicine and living standards.
Yet even despite this, breastfeeding for less than 2 years means greater risks of disease.
Not the sole reason, but it certainly plays a role. Why would God not tell mothers to give their children the best chance at a healthy life? Why make breastfeeding for 2 years not only optional, but also make 2 years the maximum? |
So you don�t have much of a clue on this. When I read your earlier comment, I was seriously concerned about these 25% or more babies in US ( US breastfeeding figures) that never received breastfeeding at all!
But Alhamdulillah, your argument is wrong, we don�t have 25% infant mortality in the US. 21-24 months doesn't even appear in this chart � so it�s again your choice to ponder the triviality of the issue.
TG12345 wrote:
Prove to me that my data is "shallow", and please provide better data if you have it.
The truth is that a law that states that 6 months is the minimum period after which a child is viable, is mistaken. The truth is also that children worldwide benefit from 2 years or more of breastfeeding and if they have less than 23 months of breastfeeding, they face higher mortality than those who don't. The truth is also that, even in the West, a child who breastfeeds for less than 2 years is more likely to catch diseases than a child who was breastfed for 2 years or longer. |
Here are the proofs for your shallow data:
1. You gave some viability statistics which I gave you the reason why it does not represent the global data and you feel that makes sense
2. I asked you a couple of questions on the breastfeeding statistics which you were so confident to draw definitive conclusion from. You couldn't answer these questions fully.
If your data were not shallow, you should have had these answers on your finger tips.
The truth is that specifying minimum 6 months viability gives the best case for a legal framework in a subject where absolute human knowledge is impossible.
The truth is also that while human judgements tend to be skewed in one direction or the other, the Quran presents a more pragmatic and flexible approach to breastfeeding which is what will be practically possible in the human domain as proved in the statistics that are available to us.
TG12345 wrote:
The Quran has many true things in it, and some amazingly accurate information. So does the Bible.
Unfortunately, both of these books also contain some mistakes. |
But you have not yet proved a wrong statement in Quran my friend! I had a feeling you are a man of reason, but seems now you also just base your decisions on personal opinions and feelings rather than reason � but then it�s a personal choice and best of luck with your choice my friend.
|
|
TG12345
Senior Member
Male
Joined: 16 December 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 1146
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 February 2015 at 7:32pm |
Quranexplorer wrote:
Salam TG,
|
Wa alaikum salaam to you also, QuranExplorer. IshAllah you had a good weekend.
TG12345 wrote:
Can you present any "non-shallow" data that contradicts mine? |
Quranexplorer wrote:
Your Wikipedia reference says:
Viability exists as a function of biomedical and technological capacities, which are different in different parts of the world. As a consequence, there is, at the present time, no worldwide, uniform gestational age that defines viability.[3]
|
The quote says there is no uniform gestational age that defines viability. Can you find any data that shows that a child born before 6 full months is not viable?
Quranexplorer wrote:
Also as I mentioned in the outset of this discussion, I prefer not to waste time on subjective discussions unless you have something concrete to establish. So I am not here for data mining on these subjects, I am just letting you know the dangers of jumping to conclusions on things that even the experts seem not sure of.
|
I have shown you evidence that it is not true that 6 months is the minimum period of gestation, since children have been and continue to be born before 6 months have passed.
Quranexplorer wrote:
However, it�s Allah�s plan to leave each individual to judge things based on the limited freewill he has bestowed on each of us and it becomes an absolute personal responsibility how each one uses that freewill. It is absolutely your decision how you want to use your judgement.
|
Correct. Because I love Allah, I would not want to ascribe a book to Him unless I am 100% sure it is correct.
TG12345 wrote:
How do you know that "sound and complete" means not disabled? If we look at the commentary of Maulana Maududi, this is how he defines "sound and complete"
The following legal injunctions are derived from the three verses when they are read together: The woman who gives birth to a sound and complete child in less than six months after marriage (i.e. in a proper delivery and not abortion) will be declared an adulteress and her child's lineage from her husband will not be established.
http://englishtafsir.com/Quran/46/index.html#sdfootnote19sym
How can a living child, disabled or not, be "aborted"?
According to Yusuf Ali, 6 months being the minimum period means it is the minimum period of viability.
Viability does not mean life without disabilities. It means life.
C4790. In 31:14 the time of weaning was stated to be at the age of two years, i.e., 24 months. See also 2:233.
That leaves six months as the minimum period of human gestation after which the child is known to be viable.
This is in accordance with the latest ascertained scientific facts. The average period is 280 days, or ten times the inter-menstrual period, and of course the average period of weaning is much less than 24 months.
http://quran4u.com/Tafsiraya/046ahkaf.htm
I look forward to seeing what evidence you can provide that "sound and complete" means what you claim it means. |
Quranexplorer wrote:
The following definitions from google should be self explanatory, and I don�t see any definition of �sound and complete� in Maulana�s commentary, do you?
|
What do you think (ie in a proper delivery, not abortion) means?
Quranexplorer wrote:
sound2
saʊnd/
adjective
adjective: sound; comparative adjective: sounder; superlative adjective: soundest
1. 1.
in good condition; not damaged, injured, or diseased.
"they returned safe and sound"
synonyms: healthy, in good condition, toned, fit, physically fit, hale and hearty,in good shape, in fine fettle, in trim, disease-free, undamaged,uninjured, unimpaired More
antonyms: unhealthy, unsafe, flimsy
� financially secure.
"she could get her business on a sound footing for the first time"
synonyms: solvent, able to pay its debts, debt-free, not in debt, out of debt, in the black, in funds, in credit, creditworthy, of good financial standing, solid, secure;
rareunindebted
"the company is financially sound"
antonyms: insolvent, in debt, bankrupt
� BRITISHinformal
excellent.
"He ate his lasagne with relish. �It's sound, this.�"
complete
kəmˈpliːt/
adjective
1. 1.
having all the necessary or appropriate parts.
"a complete list of courses offered by the university"
o
o
o
2. 2.
(often used for emphasis) to the greatest extent or degree; total.
"a complete ban on smoking"
synonyms: absolute, out-and-out, utter, total, real, outright, downright,thoroughgoing, thorough, positive, proper, veritable, prize, perfect,consummate, unqualified, unmitigated, sheer, rank; More
|
Great. Notice that "in good condition" is one of the definitions of sound. Did you know that a preborn child is unable to feed without a tube until 28 weeks? How could a 6 month old child have been "sound and complete" without being able to feed?
http://newbornwhocc.org/pdf/Feeding_of_Low_Birth_weight_Infants_050508.pdf The threshold for a "sound and complete" child should be 28 weeks, not 6 months.
TG12345 wrote:
Even though if we are going to assume that "sound and complete" means that a child is born without disabilities, then this still would not prove the law correct.
Accordingly to medical studies, extremely premature children have a very high chance, nearly 80%, of developing disabilities. As shocking as this is, it means that some 20% or less will not develop a disability.
http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20050105/lasting-disabilities-common-in-preterm-babies
The law still may end up falsely accusing an innocent woman. |
Quranexplorer wrote:
So where is the problem? The viability before 6 months itself is around 20%, you factor in say another 50% for the �sound and complete� provision, and the Islamic interpretation here does a marvellous job within the limitations of human knowledge in judging these matters.
|
Viability before 6 months is 20%? That is an estimate you came up with. Even if only 10% or even less children born before 6 months were born without disabilities, it takes only one to prove that the law is imperfect, and that its methodology for establishing guilt is flawed.
TG12345 wrote:
If you can find me global stats, then please show. I have a feeling you may be right.
However, "minimum" does not mean "below half", it means lowest. The tafsirs clearly state 6 months is the minimum period after which a child can be born and live.
All it takes is one example to disprove a minimum. The moment you find a lower value, the minimum changes. |
Quranexplorer wrote:
As I told you earlier, I am just letting you know the dangers of jumping to conclusions on things that even the experts seem not sure of . I gave you the reason for rejecting your statistics for not representing a global picture. I�m happy that you find it makes sense, however , I�m open for some critical reviews as well and you are free to share your statistics in this regard.
So even our current scientific knowledge is wrong to say minimum gestation as 24, 28 or any weeks? So are we discussing something we already know is wrong? See we have more reasons not to waste time on such discussions.
|
The minimum period of gestation currently is 21 weeks and 5 days. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1380282/Earliest-surviving-premature-baby-goes-home-parents.html Minimum means smallest amount possible. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/minimum Whatever the average turns out to be globally, we know that it is not true that a child born before 6 months have passed is non-viable.
TG12345 wrote:
Thanks for showing this, QuranExplorer. If you make the assumption that the viability of a baby below 26 weeks at a global level could be around 15%-20%, what makes you assume that after 26 weeks, it would jump up to 50%?
Also, as I have said before, it is irrelevant if the chance of survival is above 50% after 6 months. Islamic law does not say that after 6 months there is a more than half probability that a child will live. It states clearly that 6 months is the minimum.
Minimum does not mean the same as "more than half". |
Quranexplorer wrote:
Why should it jump to 50% after 26 weeks? Don�t get confused with the percentages. The bottom line is that the probability of a genuine, viable, sound and complete child birth before 6 months gestation is very low � anything lower than 50% makes the law good, lower the % better the law in judging a case of adultery.
|
I grant you that it is very low, but very low does not mean impossible. If you set a minimum and someone gets a lower figure, your minimum is no longer the minimum.
Quranexplorer wrote:
This is another characteristic of these subjective discussions, after a few iterations, you won�t have an idea what you are really talking about.
|
LOL it is true we may be going in circles. Nevertheless, I enjoy discussing with you because it's nice to debate with someone who backs up his words with sources.
TG12345 wrote:
So in other words, are you saying that God's law is not good enough to stop an innocent person from falsely being convicted?
It doesn't really matter in the great scheme of things if a woman is falsely accused of adultery based on a minimum that was set that turned out not to be the minimum at all? |
Quranexplorer wrote:
I would explain you this way:
Any law when executed by humans cannot absolutely ensure to stop an innocent person from being falsely convicted.
I can see 2 ways how this could be resolved:
1. Humans to have perfect knowledge in everything so that they can make perfect judgements � however, this is not the case as the case in discussion itself shows
2. Allah has asked man to patiently persevere for an appointed term after which perfect justice will be established with an absolute personal responsibility � my reason based on the holy Quran and the countless signs around tells me that�s the absolute truth.
That�s something for the individual to choose which way suits his thoughts.
|
I hear what you are saying, but you are implying that error by humans would mean that someone is convicted, even under a perfect law. The problem is that the law itself seems to state that a child born before 6 months have passed is a product of adultery, and we know that children have been born earlier than that. Therefore, a person following the law properly could still end up convicting an innocent person of adultery, even if she is not guilty.
TG12345 wrote:
I agree humans are imperfect. The problem with the law though, as you just seemed to have admitted, is that it may cause innocent people to be falsely convicted of adultery... not on the basis of human imperfection, but because the ruler making the law used the Quran as his guide to set a minimum which turns out not to have been one in the first place. |
Quranexplorer wrote:
As I mentioned earlier, even our current scientific knowledge is wrong to say minimum gestation as 24, 28 or any weeks as the minimum changes from individual to individual. So any judgement based on the current human knowledge will have a possibility that it may go wrong.
|
The minimum is currently 21 weeks and 5 days.
Quranexplorer wrote:
So the point to ponder is whether one should be so arrogant to blame Allah for his own imperfection or should he be humble enough to thank Allah for at least giving him a valuable piece of information without which he could have committed more mistakes with his imperfect judgement. However as the saying goes �a bad worker blames his tools� � again the choice is for the individual to make.
|
I agree that a bad worker blames his tools if he uses them improperly, but what if the tools themselves have a defect and the worker using them as a consequence makes a mistake?
TG12345 wrote:
I don't know the answer to this, but I do know that breastfeeding a child for less than 2 years exposes him or her to a higher danger of disease, even in the West. The low infant mortality is in most likelihood thanks to better medicine and living standards.
Yet even despite this, breastfeeding for less than 2 years means greater risks of disease.
Not the sole reason, but it certainly plays a role. Why would God not tell mothers to give their children the best chance at a healthy life? Why make breastfeeding for 2 years not only optional, but also make 2 years the maximum? |
Quranexplorer wrote:
So you don�t have much of a clue on this. When I read your earlier comment, I was seriously concerned about these 25% or more babies in US (US breastfeeding figures) that never received breastfeeding at all!
But Alhamdulillah, your argument is wrong, we don�t have 25% infant mortality in the US. 21-24 months doesn't even appear in this chart � so it�s again your choice to ponder the triviality of the issue.
|
Did I say that infant mortality due to a lack of breastfeeding exists in the United States, or did I say that this is the case in developing countries? Please set up your strawmen more carefully if you choose to build and use them. Did you see the source that states that in the US, children who are breastfed for less than 2 years face a higher risk of diseases, or did you overlook that?
TG12345 wrote:
Prove to me that my data is "shallow", and please provide better data if you have it.
The truth is that a law that states that 6 months is the minimum period after which a child is viable, is mistaken. The truth is also that children worldwide benefit from 2 years or more of breastfeeding and if they have less than 23 months of breastfeeding, they face higher mortality than those who don't. The truth is also that, even in the West, a child who breastfeeds for less than 2 years is more likely to catch diseases than a child who was breastfed for 2 years or longer. |
Quranexplorer wrote:
Here are the proofs for your shallow data:
1. You gave some viability statistics which I gave you the reason why it does not represent the global data and you feel that makes sense
|
You have shown that in different countries, due to different technologies an living standards, the age of viability varies. That does not take away from the fact that the most premature baby... therefore, the current minimum age of viability... was born at 21 weeks and 5 months.
Quranexplorer wrote:
2. I asked you a couple of questions on the breastfeeding statistics which you were so confident to draw definitive conclusion from. You couldn't answer these questions fully.
If your data were not shallow, you should have had these answers on your finger tips.
|
What conclusions did I draw? I stated that in developing countries, according to the WHO, children who were breastfed for less than 23 months have a higher mortality rate than those who were breastfed for that period, and I stated that the WHO recommends breastfeeding up and beyond 2 years of age. I have shown cases studies where in Indonesia and Guinea, children who were breastfed up to three years were healthier and in Guinea lived longer, than those who were breastfed for a shorter period of time. I have also stated that even in the US, children who are breastfed for a full 2 years have a lesser risk of diseases than those who do not. Based on these facts, I stated that it is bad parenting advice to make two years the maximum period for breastfeeding and to say that breastfeeding a kid for that period is "optional".
Quranexplorer wrote:
The truth is that specifying minimum 6 months viability gives the best case for a legal framework in a subject where absolute human knowledge is impossible.
|
How do you know it is the best case? Why not set it to 21 weeks and 5 days?
Quranexplorer wrote:
The truth is also that while human judgements tend to be skewed in one direction or the other, the Quran presents a more pragmatic and flexible approach to breastfeeding which is what will be practically possible in the human domain as proved in the statistics that are available to us.
|
Are you saying that breastfeeding for more than 2 years is not "practically possible"?
TG12345 wrote:
The Quran has many true things in it, and some amazingly accurate information. So does the Bible.
Unfortunately, both of these books also contain some mistakes. |
Quranexplorer wrote:
But you have not yet proved a wrong statement in Quran my friend! I had a feeling you are a man of reason, but seems now you also just base your decisions on personal opinions and feelings rather than reason � but then it�s a personal choice and best of luck with your choice my friend.
|
Sure I have. 1. If the scholars who the Quran tells us to follow are correct, the Quran states that the minimum period of viability is after 6 months. We know this is not true. 2. The Quran tells parents that the term for breastfeeding is two years, and that it is OK to breastfeed less than that. The period of nursing and gestation is 30 months, so that means that the only kids who need 23 or more months of breastfeeding are those who are born at 7 months. Most children need 21-22 months of breastfeeding. Yet we know from the WHO that children who are breastfed for less than 23 months in the developing world are at a higher risk of death than those who are breastfed for that whole period. We also know that in the US, kids who are breastfed for less than 2 years are at a higher risk of disease than those who breastfed for 2 years. It is recommended by the WHO that children breastfeed two years or more. 3. If you would like, I can show you another example. Before we do that though, I would like you to answer the question below. Tell me if this is a correct or incorrect statement. "From among the messengers and prophets, God sent four to humanity" Would this be a true or false thing to say according to what Islam teaches, and why?
|
|
Quranexplorer
Senior Member
Male
Joined: 09 May 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 152
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 February 2015 at 6:34am |
Salam TG,
It's that time of the week again!
TG12345 wrote:
The quote says there is no uniform gestational age that defines viability. Can you find any data that shows that a child born before 6 full months is not viable? |
Why do I need that? A global viability of less than 50% before 6 months is good enough to justify fixing 6 months as the minimum gestation to judge a case of adultery.
TG12345 wrote:
I have shown you evidence that it is not true that 6 months is the minimum period of gestation, since children have been and continue to be born before 6 months have passed. |
And I have given you the reason why 6 months as minimum gestation makes sense to judge a case of adultery.
TG12345 wrote:
Correct. Because I love Allah, I would not want to ascribe a book to Him unless I am 100% sure it is correct. |
Ironically, you base that judgement on data that are too shallow to make any kind of meaningful, definitive decisions.
TG12345 wrote:
What do you think (ie in a proper delivery, not abortion) means? |
You may get some idea from this google definition:
stillbirth
ˈstɪlbəːθ/
noun
the birth of an infant that has died in the womb (strictly, after having survived through at least the first 28 weeks of pregnancy, earlier instances being regarded as abortion or miscarriage).
"an enquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy"
TG12345 wrote:
Great. Notice that "in good condition" is one of the definitions of sound. Did you know that a preborn child is unable to feed without a tube until 28 weeks? How could a 6 month old child have been "sound and complete" without being able to feed?
http://newbornwhocc.org/pdf/Feeding_of_Low_Birth_weight_Infants_050508.pdfThe threshold for a "sound and complete" child should be 28 weeks, not 6 months. |
See how the woman gets such a wonderful indemnity here. Still you complain the woman is wronged by fixing a 6 months minimum gestation!
TG12345 wrote:
Viability before 6 months is 20%? That is an estimate you came up with.Even if only 10% or even less children born before 6 months were born without disabilities, it takes only one to prove that the law is imperfect, and that its methodology for establishing guilt is flawed. |
As I told earlier, you are free to prove otherwise.
I have already explained you that a 100% perfect judgement is impossible in the human domain. You just mentioned a human interpretation of the �sound and complete� provision which means not even one smart woman will get punished wrongly(?) under the imperfect human judgement anyway.
On a larger plane, there are signs for men of understanding in all these. Having seen that all human judgements are ultimately flawed, shouldn�t it be obvious that there has to be a power who can remove all the inequalities in the human domain and establish perfect justice at some point. A sincere approach to Quran makes these things more clear.
TG12345 wrote:
The minimum period of gestation currently is 21 weeks and 5 days.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1380282/Earliest-surviving-premature-baby-goes-home-parents.htmlMinimum means smallest amount possible.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/minimum�Whatever the average turns out to be globally, we know that it is not true that a child born before 6 months have passed is non-viable. |
I just have two questions:
1. If 21 weeks and 5 days is �the minimum�, then why do countries, organization or people worldwide still talk about 24, 28 or more weeks as minimum gestation for all meaningful purposes?
2. Will defining 21 weeks and 5 days as the minimum gestation ensure 100% perfect judgement of all adultery cases?
TG12345 wrote:
I grant you that it is very low, but very low does not mean impossible. If you set a minimum and someone gets a lower figure, your minimum is no longer the minimum. |
Exactly! So what�s the point of your 21 weeks 5 days as �the minimum�?
TG12345 wrote:
I hear what you are saying, but you are implying that error by humans would mean that someone is convicted, even under a perfect law.The problem is that the law itself seems to state that a child born before 6 months have passed is a product of adultery, and we know that children have been born earlier than that. Therefore, a person following the law properly could still end up convicting an innocent person of adultery, even if she is not guilty. |
As I have already explained, any law where there is a human element of involvement is bound to be imperfect.
Again:
Will defining 21 weeks and 5 days as the minimum gestation ensure 100% perfect judgement of all adultery cases?
Under the Islamic law, the most important pre-condition is the belief in Allah and the hereafter. Any human judgement received or delivered is under this pre-condition. Man makes a judgement within his best abilities of judgement which even at its best still remains imperfect. The only point when all the balances are set right is on the day of judgement. So the law as a whole always remains perfect for a believer.
Now what you are doing is judging that law by removing the important pre-condition of belief in Allah and the hereafter and you want the human judgement part alone to be perfect. And you very well know that it is impossible to have a 100% perfect judgement in the human domain � fundamentally your basic argument itself is flawed my friend!
TG12345 wrote:
The minimum is currently 21 weeks and 5 days. |
Again if 21 weeks and 5 days is �the minimum�, then why do countries, organization or people worldwide still talk about 24, 28 or more weeks as minimum gestation for all meaningful purposes?
TG12345 wrote:
I agree that a bad worker blames his tools if he uses them improperly, but what if the tools themselves have a defect and the worker using them as a consequence makes a mistake? |
What if the worker uses his imperfect judgement combined with some shallow data to jump to a wrong conclusion that the tool has a defect, whereas the real problem lies with his judgement?
Frankly, I would say one of the biggest failure anyone can have in this world is to have a wrong judgement and still remain in the illusion that he is always right!
TG12345 wrote:
Did I say that infant mortality due to a lack of breastfeeding exists in the United States, or did I say that this is the case in developing countries? Please set up your strawmen more carefully if you choose to build and use them.Did you see the source that states that in the US, children who are breastfed for less than 2 years face a higher risk of diseases, or did you overlook that? |
TG12345 wrote:
What conclusions did I draw? I stated that in developing countries, according to the WHO, children who were breastfed for less than 23 months have a higher mortality rate than those who were breastfed for that period, and I stated that the WHO recommends breastfeeding up and beyond 2 years of age. I have shown cases studies where in Indonesia and Guinea, children who were breastfed up to three years were healthier and in Guinea lived longer, than those who were breastfed for a shorter period of time. I have also stated that even in the US, children who are breastfed for a full 2 years have a lesser risk of diseases than those who do not.Based on these facts, I stated that it is bad parenting advice to make two years the maximum period for breastfeeding and to say that breastfeeding a kid for that period is "optional". |
No worries TG, so again your data in this case also seems too shallow to make any kind of meaningful, definitive decisions. Let me try to summarize as below:
1. Quran explicitly recommends 2 years breastfeeding.
2. Allah has designed the mother �child relation to be the best in this world in terms of love and caring so that a mother will always try to give her best when it comes to caring her child.
3. However, Allah in his infinite mercy does not want to burden a mother due to her child. So he has left the choice of breastfeeding to the best judgement of the mother. However, it becomes part of each mother�s personal responsibility to her child.
4. Breastfeeding is not the sole reason that can decide infant mortality as the cases of children surviving with zero breastfeeding shows. So discussions of 21 to 24 months breast feeding duration becomes extremely trivial especially when you see the global breast feeding statistics show the actual breastfeeding periods are much lower than these.
So again we have another instance of Quranic wisdom far exceeding the normal human wisdom based on the following:
1. Quaran gave man a clear indication of the importance of breastfeeding by recommending a 2 years breastfeeding duration 1400 years ago which is now being recognized by modern day studies.
2. Limited human wisdom may just look at one side and could have jumped to some recommendations like making breastfeeding mandatory for 2 years or more. But Allah in his infinite wisdom considers all the practical aspects and has made this flexible, but compensated it with the best love and care in the mother-child relation so that no mother would settle for something inferior when it comes to caring her child. At the same time he did not burden her considering all practical human aspects which is again vindicated by the actual breastfeeding figures that we observe.
TG12345 wrote:
How do you know it is the best case? Why not set it to 21 weeks and 5 days? |
Again:
1. If 21 weeks and 5 days is �the minimum�, then why do countries, organization or people worldwide still talk about 24, 28 or more weeks as minimum gestation for all meaningful purposes?
2. Will defining 21 weeks and 5 days as the minimum gestation ensure 100% perfect judgement of all adultery cases?
TG12345 wrote:
You have shown that in different countries, due to different technologies an living standards, the age of viability varies. That does not take away from the fact that the most premature baby... therefore, the current minimum age of viability... was born at 21 weeks and 5 months. |
Again:
1. If 21 weeks and 5 days is �the minimum�, then why do countries, organization or people worldwide still talk about 24, 28 or more weeks as minimum gestation for all meaningful purposes?
2. Will defining 21 weeks and 5 days as the minimum gestation ensure 100% perfect judgement of all adultery cases?
TG12345 wrote:
Are you saying that breastfeeding for more than 2 years is not "practically possible"? |
Why else would a mother deny her beloved child the best possible care she can provide?
TG12345 wrote:
Sure I have.1. If the scholars who the Quran tells us to follow are correct, the Quran states that the minimum period of viability is after 6 months. We know this is not true. |
That itself stand proof for the Quran�s divinity. First of all, you can�t find any wrong statement in the Quran, then what you do is to look for a Quranic verse that gives room for a human interpretation and then try to pass your subjective opinion on that human interpretation as something wrong in the Quran � and ironically even your subjective interpretations do not look reasonable.
TG12345 wrote:
2. The Quran tells parents that the term for breastfeeding is two years, and that it is OK to breastfeed less than that. The period of nursing and gestation is 30 months, so that means that the only kids who need 23 or more months of breastfeeding are those who are born at 7 months. Most children need 21-22 months of breastfeeding. Yet we know from the WHO that children who are breastfed for less than 23 months in the developing world are at a higher risk of death than those who are breastfed for that whole period. We also know that in the US, kids who are breastfed for less than 2 years are at a higher risk of disease than those who breastfed for 2 years. It is recommended by the WHO that children breastfeed two years or more. |
As explained earlier:
1. Quran explicitly recommends 2 years breastfeeding.
2. Allah has designed the mother �child relation to be the best in this world in terms of love and caring so that a mother will always try to give her best when it comes to caring her child.
3. However, Allah in his infinite mercy does not want to burden a mother due to her child. So he has left the choice of breastfeeding to the best judgement of the mother. However, it becomes part of each mother�s personal responsibility to her child.
4. Breastfeeding is not the sole reason that can decide infant mortality as the cases of children surviving with zero breastfeeding shows. So discussions of 21 to 24 months breast feeding duration becomes extremely trivial especially when you see the global breastfeeding statistics show the actual breastfeeding periods are much lower than these.
So again we have another instance of Quranic wisdom far exceeding the normal human wisdom based on the following:
1. Quaran gave man a clear indication of the importance of breastfeeding by recommending a 2 years breastfeeding duration 1400 years ago which is now being recognized by modern day studies.
2. Limited human wisdom may just look at one side and could have jumped to some recommendations like making breastfeeding mandatory for 2 years or more. But Allah in his infinite wisdom considers all the practical aspects and has made this flexible, but compensated it with the best love and care in the mother-child relation so that no mother would settle for something inferior when it comes to caring her child. At the same time he did not burden her considering all practical human aspects which is again vindicated by the actual breastfeeding figures that we observe.
TG12345 wrote:
3. If you would like, I can show you another example.Before we do that though, I would like you to answer the question below.Tell me if this is a correct or incorrect statement."From among the messengers and prophets, God sent four to humanity"Would this be a true or false thing to say according to what Islam teaches, and why? |
I prefer not to jump to conclusions without knowing the full context of that statement. If you are talking about a Quranic verse please quote the verse and then we can discuss.
|
|
TG12345
Senior Member
Male
Joined: 16 December 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 1146
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 March 2015 at 3:11am |
|
Thanks for the response, QuranExplorer. I send a response after 2 weeks, God willing.
|
|
TG12345
Senior Member
Male
Joined: 16 December 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 1146
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 March 2015 at 11:17pm |
Quranexplorer wrote:
Salam TG,
It's that time of the week again!
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFloZbT99oE
TG12345 wrote:
The quote says there is no uniform gestational age that defines viability. Can you find any data that shows that a child born before 6 full months is not viable? |
Quranexplorer wrote:
Why do I need that? A global viability of less than 50% before 6 months is good enough to justify fixing 6 months as the minimum gestation to judge a case of adultery.
|
It doesn't, because the probability of being wrong is only less than 50%, not 0%. This makes the law imperfect, and is proof of a human and not a divine origin. Or are you suggesting God would impress on people to use a methodology for establishing guilt that is flawed and could lead to innocent people being convicted of crimes they did not commit? The global viability of less than 50% before 6 months is the average, it does not apply to every single human being.
TG12345 wrote:
I have shown you evidence that it is not true that 6 months is the minimum period of gestation, since children have been and continue to be born before 6 months have passed. |
Quranexplorer wrote:
And I have given you the reason why 6 months as minimum gestation makes sense to judge a case of adultery.
|
The reason seems to be is that it lowers the probability that an innocent person may be convicted to less than 50 percent. I would think that a law inspired by God would have a 0% chance of convicting an innocent person,
TG12345 wrote:
Correct. Because I love Allah, I would not want to ascribe a book to Him unless I am 100% sure it is correct. |
Quranexplorer wrote:
Ironically, you base that judgement on data that are too shallow to make any kind of meaningful, definitive decisions.
|
How is my data shallow? It shows that children have been born before a full 6 months have passed, thereby demonstrating that 6 months is not the minimum period of gestation.
TG12345 wrote:
What do you think (ie in a proper delivery, not abortion) means? |
Quranexplorer wrote:
You may get some idea from this google definition:
stillbirth
ˈstɪlbəːθ/
noun
the birth of an infant that has died in the womb (strictly, after having survived through at least the first 28 weeks of pregnancy, earlier instances being regarded as abortion or miscarriage).
"an enquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy"
|
Great. So as we see, Maududi's commentary defines "a sound and complete child" as one who has been given birth to in a proper delivery and not an abortion. The
following legal injunctions are derived from the three verses when
they are read together: The woman who gives birth to a sound and
complete child in less than six months after marriage (i.e. in a
proper delivery and not abortion) will be declared an adulteress and
her child's lineage from her husband will not be established.
TG12345 wrote:
Great. Notice that "in good condition" is one of the definitions of sound. Did you know that a preborn child is unable to feed without a tube until 28 weeks? How could a 6 month old child have been "sound and complete" without being able to feed?
http://newbornwhocc.org/pdf/Feeding_of_Low_Birth_weight_Infants_050508.pdfThe threshold for a "sound and complete" child should be 28 weeks, not 6 months. |
[/QUOTE]
Quranexplorer wrote:
See how the woman gets such a wonderful indemnity here. Still you complain the woman is wronged by fixing a 6 months minimum gestation!
|
My point is that if by "sound" you mean "in good condition", then no premature child before the age of 28 weeks is "sound", because they can't feed without a tube. This also casts doubt on the alleged story that a child was born after six months and lived during the time of the Caliphs... he would have needed to have been born after 28 weeks to have a chance.
I don't see how the woman gets "such a wonderful indemnity". What if she gives birth to a child not 6 months after marriage, but 23 weeks after marriage? According to the law, she would be declared an adulteress.
TG12345 wrote:
Viability before 6 months is 20%? That is an estimate you came up with.Even if only 10% or even less children born before 6 months were born without disabilities, it takes only one to prove that the law is imperfect, and that its methodology for establishing guilt is flawed. |
Quranexplorer wrote:
As I told earlier, you are free to prove otherwise.
|
Prove to me that viability before 6 months is 20%. You may have a point that the chance of not developing a disability is only 20%... but 20% is not 0. If this statistic is applicable everywhere in the world, it would mean that a law that states that healthy children born before 6 months have passed are products of adultery is correct... 80% of the time. Yet it is also wrong 20% of the time. This would mean that a guideline that God has allegedly given for establishing guilt is usually correct... but not always. So in effect this seems to be saying that even God can make mistakes, by giving advice that, if followed, will lead people to an erroneous conclusion. Either that or He likes to trick people once in a while.
Quranexplorer wrote:
I have already explained you that a 100% perfect judgement is impossible in the human domain. You just mentioned a human interpretation of the �sound and complete� provision which means not even one smart woman will get punished wrongly(?) under the imperfect human judgement anyway.
|
Where did I say that not even one smart woman would be wrongly punished? A woman whose child falls into the 20% category of those who were born less than 6 months after marital intercourse and is not disabled, would be falsely accused of adultery.
Quranexplorer wrote:
On a larger plane, there are signs for men of understanding in all these. Having seen that all human judgements are ultimately flawed, shouldn�t it be obvious that there has to be a power who can remove all the inequalities in the human domain and establish perfect justice at some point. A sincere approach to Quran makes these things more clear.
|
Of course, human judgements are flawed and God will make things right. However, the problem is that according to Islam, God gave people a system for establishing the innocence or guilt of a mother that is flawed in the first place, and if followed, may lead to innocent people being found guilty of adultery.
TG12345 wrote:
The minimum period of gestation currently is 21 weeks and 5 days.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1380282/Earliest-surviving-premature-baby-goes-home-parents.htmlMinimum means smallest amount possible.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/minimum Whatever the average turns out to be globally, we know that it is not true that a child born before 6 months have passed is non-viable. |
Quranexplorer wrote:
I just have two questions:
1. If 21 weeks and 5 days is �the minimum�, then why do countries, organization or people worldwide still talk about 24, 28 or more weeks as minimum gestation for all meaningful purposes? |
I have no idea. Perhaps they are looking at the global or their own national average. This does not take away from the reality that the minimum is less than either of these figures. Minimum is defined as the lowest possible number. So if a child is born before 24 weeks (ie at 22 weeks for example), the minimum cannot be claimed to be 24 weeks, it is now lower.
Quranexplorer wrote:
2. Will defining 21 weeks and 5 days as the minimum gestation ensure 100% perfect judgement of all adultery cases?
|
If that is indeed the minimum and it is used as a criteria for establishing innocence or guilt of the mother, then yes. I have no idea if 21 weeks and 5 days is the minimum. Perhaps at some point in the future, a child may even be born earlier. I don't know what the minimum is, as I am not God. Clearly, neither is the author of the Quran, since he set a minimum that turns out is not that!
TG12345 wrote:
I grant you that it is very low, but very low does not mean impossible. If you set a minimum and someone gets a lower figure, your minimum is no longer the minimum. |
Quranexplorer wrote:
Exactly! So what�s the point of your 21 weeks 5 days as �the minimum�?
|
My point is that it is closer to being the minimum than 6 months.
TG12345 wrote:
I hear what you are saying, but you are implying that error by humans would mean that someone is convicted, even under a perfect law.The problem is that the law itself seems to state that a child born before 6 months have passed is a product of adultery, and we know that children have been born earlier than that. Therefore, a person following the law properly could still end up convicting an innocent person of adultery, even if she is not guilty. |
Quranexplorer wrote:
As I have already explained, any law where there is a human element of involvement is bound to be imperfect.
|
Even a law where a human follows God's instructions? In other words, you are saying that following God's directions will usually lead you to a truthful conclusion, but not always.
Quranexplorer wrote:
Again:
Will defining 21 weeks and 5 days as the minimum gestation ensure 100% perfect judgement of all adultery cases?
|
If it is the minimum, yes. I do not know whether it is or is not, do you?
Quranexplorer wrote:
Under the Islamic law, the most important pre-condition is the belief in Allah and the hereafter. Any human judgement received or delivered is under this pre-condition. Man makes a judgement within his best abilities of judgement which even at its best still remains imperfect. The only point when all the balances are set right is on the day of judgement. So the law as a whole always remains perfect for a believer.
Now what you are doing is judging that law by removing the important pre-condition of belief in Allah and the hereafter and you want the human judgement part alone to be perfect. And you very well know that it is impossible to have a 100% perfect judgement in the human domain � fundamentally your basic argument itself is flawed my friend!
|
I definitely agree with you that human judgement is imperfect and that God will make everything right on the Day of Judgement. Do you believe that if God's words are properly followed, they can still lead to the person following them making an error?
TG12345 wrote:
The minimum is currently 21 weeks and 5 days. |
Quranexplorer wrote:
Again if 21 weeks and 5 days is �the minimum�, then why do countries, organization or people worldwide still talk about 24, 28 or more weeks as minimum gestation for all meaningful purposes?
|
Responded to above.
TG12345 wrote:
I agree that a bad worker blames his tools if he uses them improperly, but what if the tools themselves have a defect and the worker using them as a consequence makes a mistake? |
Quranexplorer wrote:
What if the worker uses his imperfect judgement combined with some shallow data to jump to a wrong conclusion that the tool has a defect, whereas the real problem lies with his judgement?
|
Then the worker has made an error. What if the worker uses the tool properly and it still leads him to make a mistake? Whose fault is it then- that of the worker or of the tool? I answered your question, please answer mine also.
Quranexplorer wrote:
Frankly, I would say one of the biggest failure anyone can have in this world is to have a wrong judgement and still remain in the illusion that he is always right!
|
Amen to that, my friend.
TG12345 wrote:
Did I say that infant mortality due to a lack of breastfeeding exists in the United States, or did I say that this is the case in developing countries? Please set up your strawmen more carefully if you choose to build and use them.Did you see the source that states that in the US, children who are breastfed for less than 2 years face a higher risk of diseases, or did you overlook that? |
TG12345 wrote:
What conclusions did I draw? I stated that in developing countries, according to the WHO, children who were breastfed for less than 23 months have a higher mortality rate than those who were breastfed for that period, and I stated that the WHO recommends breastfeeding up and beyond 2 years of age. I have shown cases studies where in Indonesia and Guinea, children who were breastfed up to three years were healthier and in Guinea lived longer, than those who were breastfed for a shorter period of time. I have also stated that even in the US, children who are breastfed for a full 2 years have a lesser risk of diseases than those who do not.Based on these facts, I stated that it is bad parenting advice to make two years the maximum period for breastfeeding and to say that breastfeeding a kid for that period is "optional". |
Quranexplorer wrote:
No worries TG, so again your data in this case also seems too shallow to make any kind of meaningful, definitive decisions. |
It clearly states that both in developing and non-developing countries, children who breastfeed for 2 years or more are healthier than those who don't. If you believe it is "shallow", show me why that is the case.
Quranexplorer wrote:
Let me try to summarize as below:
1. Quran explicitly recommends 2 years breastfeeding. |
... but only for premature 6 month babies. If the period of gestation and weaning is 30 months, it would naturally follow that children who are not born prematurely are to be breastfed less than 2 years.
Quranexplorer wrote:
2. Allah has designed the mother �child relation to be the best in this world in terms of love and caring so that a mother will always try to give her best when it comes to caring her child.
3. However, Allah in his infinite mercy does not want to burden a mother due to her child. So he has left the choice of breastfeeding to the best judgement of the mother. However, it becomes part of each mother�s personal responsibility to her child. |
If a mother will always try to giver her best when it comes to caring for her child and she knows that breastfeeding for at least 2 years is best for him/her, why would she not? Which mother is not burdened by her child? Having a child requires a great deal of burden and sacrifice.
Quranexplorer wrote:
4. Breastfeeding is not the sole reason that can decide infant mortality as the cases of children surviving with zero breastfeeding shows. So discussions of 21 to 24 months breast feeding duration becomes extremely trivial especially when you see the global breast feeding statistics show the actual breastfeeding periods are much lower than these.
|
Eating healthy is also not the sole reason that can decide cancer, but it's better to do so than not. The fact that breastfeeding statistics globally show that actual breastfeeding periods are lower does not mean that breastfeeding for less than 23 months raises the prospect of a child dying than breastfeeding him/her for 23 months or more. Interestingly, historically the time of weaning in many societies was after more than 2 years. http://thebabybond.com/NaturalWeaningAgeFORWEBSITE.pdf
Quranexplorer wrote:
So again we have another instance of Quranic wisdom far exceeding the normal human wisdom based on the following:
1. Quaran gave man a clear indication of the importance of breastfeeding by recommending a 2 years breastfeeding duration 1400 years ago which is now being recognized by modern day studies.
|
How could a 2 year breastfeeding duration be recommended if the period of breastfeeding and gestation is 30 months? It would follow that 2 years is only recommended for babies born 6 months premature.
Quranexplorer wrote:
2. Limited human wisdom may just look at one side and could have jumped to some recommendations like making breastfeeding mandatory for 2 years or more. But Allah in his infinite wisdom considers all the practical aspects and has made this flexible, but compensated it with the best love and care in the mother-child relation so that no mother would settle for something inferior when it comes to caring her child. At the same time he did not burden her considering all practical human aspects which is again vindicated by the actual breastfeeding figures that we observe.
|
How is it that breastfeeding for 2+ years is impractical, if people had done so through the ages? If no mother would settle for something inferior when it comes to caring for her child, why accept the notion that the time of weaning and gestation is 30 months... or even that the period of suckling is within 2 years?
TG12345 wrote:
How do you know it is the best case? Why not set it to 21 weeks and 5 days? |
Quranexplorer wrote:
Again:
1. If 21 weeks and 5 days is �the minimum�, then why do countries, organization or people worldwide still talk about 24, 28 or more weeks as minimum gestation for all meaningful purposes?
2. Will defining 21 weeks and 5 days as the minimum gestation ensure 100% perfect judgement of all adultery cases?
|
LOL we are going in circles again. I take responsibility for that, I do sometimes repeat the same point a few times. 1. The minimums being referred to are probably the average minimum, but the actual minimum. However, we see that up to this point, the actual minimum is 21 weeks and 5 days.
2. If we were to use that figure as an indicator of innocence or guilt and it is actually the minimum and will not change to become even lower, then yes.
TG12345 wrote:
You have shown that in different countries, due to different technologies an living standards, the age of viability varies. That does not take away from the fact that the most premature baby... therefore, the current minimum age of viability... was born at 21 weeks and 5 months. |
Quranexplorer wrote:
Again:
1. If 21 weeks and 5 days is �the minimum�, then why do countries, organization or people worldwide still talk about 24, 28 or more weeks as minimum gestation for all meaningful purposes?
2. Will defining 21 weeks and 5 days as the minimum gestation ensure 100% perfect judgement of all adultery cases?
|
See above. :)
TG12345 wrote:
Are you saying that breastfeeding for more than 2 years is not "practically possible"? |
Quranexplorer wrote:
Why else would a mother deny her beloved child the best possible care she can provide?
|
Maybe because someone said that the period for breastfeeding is within 2 years, and she didn't have enough information to know that it's better for her child to give him or her more time than this?
TG12345 wrote:
Sure I have.1. If the scholars who the Quran tells us to follow are correct, the Quran states that the minimum period of viability is after 6 months. We know this is not true. |
Quranexplorer wrote:
That itself stand proof for the Quran�s divinity. First of all, you can�t find any wrong statement in the Quran, then what you do is to look for a Quranic verse that gives room for a human interpretation and then try to pass your subjective opinion on that human interpretation as something wrong in the Quran � and ironically even your subjective interpretations do not look reasonable.
|
Does the Quran say or not say to obey those in authority over you, in addition to obeying God and Muhammad? If I tell a group of people to obey what my friend Steve says and my friend Steve says something that is mistaken, whose fault is it that were led into error? Only Steve's fault, or also mine for using directing people to obey him?
TG12345 wrote:
2. The Quran tells parents that the term for breastfeeding is two years, and that it is OK to breastfeed less than that. The period of nursing and gestation is 30 months, so that means that the only kids who need 23 or more months of breastfeeding are those who are born at 7 months. Most children need 21-22 months of breastfeeding. Yet we know from the WHO that children who are breastfed for less than 23 months in the developing world are at a higher risk of death than those who are breastfed for that whole period. We also know that in the US, kids who are breastfed for less than 2 years are at a higher risk of disease than those who breastfed for 2 years. It is recommended by the WHO that children breastfeed two years or more. |
Quranexplorer wrote:
As explained earlier:
1. Quran explicitly recommends 2 years breastfeeding. |
Then why say that breastfeeding+gestation is 30 months?
Quranexplorer wrote:
2. Allah has designed the mother �child relation to be the best in this world in terms of love and caring so that a mother will always try to give her best when it comes to caring her child.
3. However, Allah in his infinite mercy does not want to burden a mother due to her child. So he has left the choice of breastfeeding to the best judgement of the mother. However, it becomes part of each mother�s personal responsibility to her child.
4. Breastfeeding is not the sole reason that can decide infant mortality as the cases of children surviving with zero breastfeeding shows. So discussions of 21 to 24 months breast feeding duration becomes extremely trivial especially when you see the global breastfeeding statistics show the actual breastfeeding periods are much lower than these.
So again we have another instance of Quranic wisdom far exceeding the normal human wisdom based on the following:
1. Quaran gave man a clear indication of the importance of breastfeeding by recommending a 2 years breastfeeding duration 1400 years ago which is now being recognized by modern day studies.
2. Limited human wisdom may just look at one side and could have jumped to some recommendations like making breastfeeding mandatory for 2 years or more. But Allah in his infinite wisdom considers all the practical aspects and has made this flexible, but compensated it with the best love and care in the mother-child relation so that no mother would settle for something inferior when it comes to caring her child. At the same time he did not burden her considering all practical human aspects which is again vindicated by the actual breastfeeding figures that we observe.
|
Thanks for restating your points. My responses can be found above in the debate.
TG12345 wrote:
3. If you would like, I can show you another example.Before we do that though, I would like you to answer the question below.Tell me if this is a correct or incorrect statement."From among the messengers and prophets, God sent four to humanity"Would this be a true or false thing to say according to what Islam teaches, and why? |
Quranexplorer wrote:
I prefer not to jump to conclusions without knowing the full context of that statement. If you are talking about a Quranic verse please quote the verse and then we can discuss. |
I am not quoting a Quranic verse verbatim, but am saying something that sounds familiar to 39:6, except the subject is cattle and not prophets and the number given is not three but eight.
39:6He created you from one
soul. Then He made from it its mate, and He produced for you
from the grazing livestock eight mates. He creates you in the
wombs of your mothers, creation after creation, within three
darknesses. That is Allah , your Lord; to Him belongs dominion.
There is no deity except Him, so how are you averted?Now that you have the verse cited, I will paste my question again. Tell me if this is a correct or incorrect statement."From among the
messengers and prophets, God sent four to humanity"Would this be a true
or false thing to say according to what Islam teaches, and why?
Edited by TG12345 - 14 March 2015 at 11:18pm
|
|
Quranexplorer
Senior Member
Male
Joined: 09 May 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 152
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 March 2015 at 10:44pm |
Looking at the length of this post I seriously wish if they had set a character limitation per post [IMG]smileys/smiley1.gif" align="middle" />
TG12345 wrote:
It doesn't, because the probability of being wrong is only less than 50%, not 0%. This makes the law imperfect, and is proof of a human and not a divine origin. Or are you suggesting God would impress on people to use a methodology for establishing guilt that is flawed and could lead to innocent people being convicted of crimes they did not commit?The global viability of less than 50% before 6 months is the average, it does not apply to every single human being.
|
The law was made and judged by humans and not by Allah, and is obviously imperfect to the level of any law followed by countries or organisations basing on an average figure for the minimum viability. You can't blame Allah for the human imperfection in judging these issues. Allah has left humans to use their imperfect judgement for an appointed term beyond which a perfect judgement will be established by Allah.
TG12345 wrote:
The reason seems to be is that it lowers the probability that an innocent person may be convicted to less than 50 percent. I would think that a law inspired by God would have a 0% chance of convicting an innocent person, |
It's only a matter of time and patience for the believer and for an unbeliever there is even no hope for a perfect judgement at all!
TG12345 wrote:
How is my data shallow? It shows that children have been born before a full 6 months have passed, thereby demonstrating that 6 months is not the minimum period of gestation. |
Because your wikipedia reference claiming more than 50% viability at 24 weeks gestation does not represent a true global data.
TG12345 wrote:
Great. So as we see, Maududi's commentary defines "a sound and complete child" as one who has been given birth to in a proper delivery and not an abortion. The
following legal injunctions are derived from the three verses when
they are read together: The woman who gives birth to a sound and
complete child in less than six months after marriage (i.e. in a
proper delivery and not abortion) will be declared an adulteress and
her child's lineage from her husband will not be established. |
I don't think so. I would say "sound and complete" means no disabilities and "in a proper delivery and not abortion" means no stillbirth. So these are two independent conditions.
TG12345 wrote:
My point is that if by "sound" you mean "in good condition", then no premature child before the age of 28 weeks is "sound", because they can't feed without a tube.This also casts doubt on the alleged story that a child was born after six months and lived during the time of the Caliphs... he would have needed to have been born after 28 weeks to have a chance.
I don't see how the woman gets "such a wonderful indemnity". What if she gives birth to a child not 6 months after marriage, but 23 weeks after marriage? According to the law, she would be declared an adulteress. |
The woman get�s an indemnity because according to the wording in the legal injunctions she can argue that the child is not �sound� and hence she cannot be declared an adultress.
TG12345 wrote:
Prove to me that viability before 6 months is 20%.You may have a point that the chance of not developing a disability is only 20%... but 20% is not 0. If this statistic is applicable everywhere in the world, it would mean that a law that states that healthy children born before 6 months have passed are products of adultery is correct... 80% of the time. Yet it is also wrong 20% of the time.This would mean that a guideline that God has allegedly given for establishing guilt is usually correct... but not always. So in effect this seems to be saying that even God can make mistakes, by giving advice that, if followed, will lead people to an erroneous conclusion. Either that or He likes to trick people once in a while. |
I told you from the beginning of this discussions that I have no time for data mining on these subjective discussions. I can just show you the way, you can do the data mining if you want.
As explained numerous times, any law developed and executed by humans are bound to be imperfect, whether it has been derived from divine guidance or not, that�s not the mistake of Allah, but the inbuilt imperfection of humans. The only point at which there will be a perfect judgement will be on the judgement day.
TG12345 wrote:
Where did I say that not even one smart woman would be wrongly punished?A woman whose child falls into the 20% category of those who were born less than 6 months after marital intercourse and is not disabled, would be falsely accused of adultery. |
You stated a child born before 6 months cannot be �sound� due to some feeding issues and hence a woman can argue that in her favour as per the wording in the legal injunction.
Refer to previous comments explaining no perfect judgment in the human domain.
TG12345 wrote:
Of course, human judgements are flawed and God will make things right.However, the problem is that according to Islam, God gave people a system for establishing the innocence or guilt of a mother that is flawed in the first place, and if followed, may lead to innocent people being found guilty of adultery. |
Allah gave men the guidance when no information was available on the minimum gestation�which saved many from getting wrongly punished.
There is no uniform number that can strictly define the minimum gestation period. Which means any number that you fix for a legal framework at its best is still going to be an approximation.
The legal framework developed by believers under this guidance gives the best approximation within human judgements, which is again predominantly what is being adopted in most civil societies and the minimum 6 months gestation again is in line with the global average that is expected.
TG12345 wrote:
I have no idea. Perhaps they are looking at the global or their own national average. This does not take away from the reality that the minimum is less than either of these figures. Minimum is defined as the lowest possible number. So if a child is born before 24 weeks (ie at 22 weeks for example), the minimum cannot be claimed to be 24 weeks, it is now lower. |
That�s the problem. You have no idea, but you would still argue what you are saying is correct. Fortunately, those who made the legal framework has got some idea to think that there is no point in looking at an absolute minimum for something that is going to vary from individual to individual. So they have thought of an average figure to define the minimum which will be useful for all meaningful purposes and not an absolute minimum which has no meaning at all in such a case.
TG12345 wrote:
If that is indeed the minimum and it is used as a criteria for establishing innocence or guilt of the mother, then yes. I have no idea if 21 weeks and 5 days is the minimum. Perhaps at some point in the future, a child may even be born earlier. I don't know what the minimum is, as I am not God.Clearly, neither is the author of the Quran, since he set a minimum that turns out is not that! |
Good, neither is Mr.Maududi the god, so he has made a legal framework based on his best judgement from the Quranic guidance. Whilst Mr. Maududi�s legal framework is in line with what is being adopted in most civil societies and the minimum 6 months gestation is in line with the global average that is expected, I have not heard 21 weeks 5 days as the minimum gestation in any legal frameworks in the world.
Also if you plot a normal curve of the minimum gestation, the 21 weeks 5 days will be the left tail of that curve as a one off case. Which means majority of the cases where the actual minimum gestation is definitely more than 21 weeks 5 days will be judged unfairly in favour of the woman.�so it doesn�t make any sense in fixing the absolute minimum as the limit for a legal framework.
As I explained earlier, the absolute minimum has no meaning in gestation as it is going to vary from individual to individual. So the 6 months minimum gestation as a global average conveyed from the Quranic verses makes all the more sense.
TG12345 wrote:
My point is that it is closer to being the minimum than 6 months. |
As explained above, you can�t have a legal framework with a floating minimum. It just defeats the whole purpose of the legal framework itself!
TG12345 wrote:
Even a law where a human follows God's instructions? In other words, you are saying that following God's directions will usually lead you to a truthful conclusion, but not always. |
Following Allah�s instructions will always lead you to truthful conclusions�if not in this world, definitely in the hereafter.
Not following Allah�s instructions will always lead you to doom�if not in this world, definitely in the hereafter.
Quranexplorer wrote:
Again:
Will defining 21 weeks and 5 days as the minimum gestation ensure 100% perfect judgement of all adultery cases? |
TG12345 wrote:
If it is the minimum, yes. I do not know whether it is or is not, do you? |
You are wrong. Defining the absolute minimum as the limit for a legal frame work will not ensure 100% perfect judgement of all adultery cases as explained below:
If you plot a normal curve of the minimum gestation, the absolute minimum will be the left tail of that curve as a one off case. Which means majority of the cases where the actual minimum gestation is definitely more than 21 weeks 5 days will be judged unfairly in favour of the woman.�so it doesn�t make any sense in fixing the absolute minimum as the limit for a legal framework.
TG12345 wrote:
I definitely agree with you that human judgement is imperfect and that God will make everything right on the Day of Judgement.Do you believe that if God's words are properly followed, they can still lead to the person following them making an error? |
Yes, as long as the laws are interpreted and executed by humans with their imperfect knowledge.
TG12345 wrote:
Then the worker has made an error.What if the worker uses the tool properly and it still leads him to make a mistake? Whose fault is it then- that of the worker or of the tool?I answered your question, please answer mine also. |
The worker's process has an inbuilt margin of error which cannot be eliminated whatever tool he uses. So he always has a possibility to make mistakes.
TG12345 wrote:
It clearly states that both in developing and non-developing countries, children who breastfeed for 2 years or more are healthier than those who don't.If you believe it is "shallow", show me why that is the case. |
If breastfeeding for more than 2 years is such a critical issue which outweighs all other pragmatic considerations with respect to the child-mother relation, then why not WHO or medical science fix an exact figure of say 5 or 10 years as the minimum mandatory breastfeeding duration?
TG12345 wrote:
If a mother will always try to giver her best when it comes to caring for her child and she knows that breastfeeding for at least 2 years is best for him/her, why would she not? |
Bingo! Instead of wasting time on the 21-24 months breastfeeding duration, if you could ask this question to all those majority number of mothers who never care to breastfeed their children, or breastfeed them for just under 12 months, that�s going to be make a real change. 21-24 months becomes so trivial in comparison to those numbers.
TG12345 wrote:
Which mother is not burdened by her child? Having a child requires a great deal of burden and sacrifice. |
Exactly! That�s why Allah has given the choice to the mother to make that decision on breastfeeding.
TG12345 wrote:
Eating healthy is also not the sole reason that can decide cancer, but it's better to do so than not.The fact that breastfeeding statistics globally show that actual breastfeeding periods are lower does not mean that breastfeeding for less than 23 months raises the prospect of a child dying than breastfeeding him/her for 23 months or more.Interestingly, historically the time of weaning in many societies was after more than 2 years.http://thebabybond.com/NaturalWeaningAgeFORWEBSITE.pdf |
So again, if breastfeeding for more than 2 years is such a critical issue which outweighs all other pragmatic considerations with respect to the child-mother relation, then why not WHO or medical science fix an exact figure of say 5 or 10 years as the minimum mandatory breastfeeding duration?
TG12345 wrote:
How could a 2 year breastfeeding duration be recommended if the period of breastfeeding and gestation is 30 months? It would follow that 2 years is only recommended for babies born 6 months premature. |
There comes the practical aspect which is another speciality of Allah�s instructions. Even though breastfeeding is an important aspect in child�s development, he has not made it an absolute critical requirement so that a duration of 21-24 months or even lower is still possible and the same has been proved by actual data available to us.
TG12345 wrote:
How is it that breastfeeding for 2+ years is impractical, if people had done so through the ages?If no mother would settle for something inferior when it comes to caring for her child, why accept the notion that the time of weaning and gestation is 30 months... or even that the period of suckling is within 2 years? |
That could be your next point for research. The actual current data speaks out loud that breastfeeding durations exceeding even 12 months is rare in many countries.
As I told earlier, if you could ask these question to all those majority number of mothers who never care to breastfeed their children, or breastfeed them for just under 12 months, that�s going to be make a real change. 21-24 months becomes so trivial in comparison to those numbers.
TG12345 wrote:
How do you know it is the best case? Why not set it to 21 weeks and 5 days? |
As explained earlier, if you plot a normal curve of the minimum gestation, the absolute minimum will be the left tail of that curve as a one off case. Which means majority of the cases where the actual minimum gestation is definitely more than 21 weeks 5 days will be judged unfairly in favour of the woman.�so it doesn�t make any sense in fixing the absolute minimum as the limit for a legal framework.
TG12345 wrote:
Maybe because someone said that the period for breastfeeding is within 2 years, and she didn't have enough information to know that it's better for her child to give him or her more time than this? |
Does bible also say so? I think US have a majority Christians.
TG12345 wrote:
Does the Quran say or not say to obey those in authority over you, in addition to obeying God and Muhammad?If I tell a group of people to obey what my friend Steve says and my friend Steve says something that is mistaken, whose fault is it that were led into error? Only Steve's fault, or also mine for using directing people to obey him? |
You rightly said �mistaken�, then does it not put some responsibility on the person who takes the advise, not to be mistaken?
That�s what makes humans different from other creations�the ability to think and make own decisions�the ability to take personal responsibility.
One of the cardinal points emphasised all throughout the Quran is this concept of Personal Responsibility. Ultimately, you are responsible for all your actions�you can take advise, but then you have the personal responsibility to interpret and make your decisions�in this world maybe it is possible you can point finger at someone and try to escape. But on the day of judgement all your thoughts, intentions and actions whether you kept it secret or made it open, will be open in front of Allah, and then you will not be able to find any excuses of someone misleading you�if someone has really mislead someone else, then the misleader will be punished for his guilt, and the one who was misled will be punished if he just used it as an excuse without using the faculties Allah has bestowed on him.
I think it�s this concept of personal responsibility that differentiates us: you are looking for excuses how you need not be responsible to Allah for anything, whereas I am looking for ways how I can be best responsible to Allah in all that I do.
TG12345 wrote:
I am not quoting a Quranic verse verbatim, but am saying something that sounds familiar to 39:6, except the subject is cattle and not prophets and the number given is not three but eight.39:6<span id="verse_4064__6_content">He created you from one
soul. Then He made from it its mate, and He produced for you
from the grazing livestock eight mates. He creates you in the
wombs of your mothers, creation after creation, within three
darknesses. That is Allah , your Lord; to Him belongs dominion.
There is no deity except Him, so how are you averted?</span>Now that you have the verse cited, I will paste my question again.Tell me if this is a correct or incorrect statement."From among the
messengers and prophets, God sent four to humanity"Would this be a true
or false thing to say according to what Islam teaches, and why?
|
So we have a hypothetical question and something so open for subjective interpretations. Frankly as I have stated before I am not a fan of these subjective and hypothetical stuff because it always leaves the room for someone to misinterpret. And Allah has mentioned this in Quran about people changing the sayings:
Al-Baqara 2:59: But those who did wrong changed the word which had been told them for another saying, and We sent down upon the evil-doers wrath from heaven for their evil-doing. (59)
Based on my limited knowledge I can say 4 were sent to humanity and there were more also. So I am not in a position to give a definitive true/false answer to your question. If you wish, instead of wasting time on such shadow questions, you could state your objective clearly and I can also try to answer fully knowing what I am answering for.
Edited by Quranexplorer - 21 March 2015 at 3:25am
|
|
Tweet
