• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Islam fights free speech

Rival

Diex Aie
Staff member
Premium Member
Nonsense .. what was the average age of death in this society 1500 years ago .. bearing in mind the extreme temperatures and lack of technological development, and all the squabbling between tribes, I would have thought quite young.
If they didn't marry when their women were young, I doubt they would have even survived as small tribes.
The trouble with many people is that they "think in a box", assuming that all their values are 'spot-on' and that they are really smart o_O
And did Aisha have children? Why do you think not? So what was Allah's point? :rolleyes:
 

Godobeyer

the word "Islam" means "submission" to God
Premium Member
And did Aisha have children? Why do you think not? So what was Allah's point? :rolleyes:
No she don't had childern.

For my opinion the point since good percentage of Hadiths delivered by her,so that's the point :)
 
Interesting point.
One wonders if you think same point applies to Aisha being 9?
If not, why not?

Aisha is a very politicised figure in the early history of Sunni/Shia differences and is pretty much despised by many Shias. She was aligned with the Umayyads, who won out over the backers of Ali and started the Umayyad dynasty.

Under the Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik is when lots of clearly 'Islamic' things start to enter the historical record (inscriptions featuring both Muhammad and God, rather than God for example), also the Dome of the Rock and its Quranic inscriptions (well they don't quite match the contemporary Quran but pretty close).

So it seems like a reification of Islamic identity was happening around this period, and subsequently a (proto)Sunni identity began to emerge, and elsewhere a Shia identity.

Unless you assume that the hadith tradition flawlessly recorded objective history then it would be reasonable to assume that Aishas backstory has been shaped considerably in order to support the political needs of the Ummayad and Sunni communities.

As for her age, no one knows. Early Muslims weren't that good with dates. According to various Muslim sources Muhammad "was born in the Year of the Elephant, or fifty days after the attack of the troops of the Elephant, or thirty years after the Year of the Elephant, or forty years after the Year of the Elephant Many traditions are recorded in Ibn N~ al-Din's Jami' al-iithiu, fols. 179b-180b:the Prophet was born in the Year of the Elephant, he received the Revelation forty years after the Elephant (The fight at - K.) 'Ukaz took place fifteen years after the Elephant and the Ka'ba was built twenty-five years after the Elephant; the Prophet was born thirty days after the Elephant, or fifty days, or fifty-five days, or two months and six days, or ten years; some say twenty years, some say twenty-three years, some say thirty years, some say that God sent the Prophet with his mission fifteen years after the Ka'ba was built, and thus there were seventy years between the Elephant and the mission (mab'aJh) of the Prophet; some say that he was born fifteen years before the Elephant, some say forty days or fifty days, some say thirty years before the Elephant, and finally, some say that there were ten years between the expedition of the Elephant and the mission"

(I post this source all the time but it is the best, concise example of how little early Muslims agreed upon. Tradition becomes more standardised, and also more detailed, the further it gets from the time of Muhammad.)

It's quite possible her age was politically expedient to both prolong her time with the Prophet to help establish her status as his favourite wife, and also to guarantee her chastity at marriage in response to Shia attacks on her virtue. Ultimately the only things we know about her are from the Islamic tradition so if you consider that unreliable then you are just left with speculation.
 

meghanwaterlillies

Well-Known Member
The arrogance of West is that they intimitate and force every country to accept their way of life. This is biggest injustice
Well one thing is for sure we no one's really doing that here. Ur welcome. Just discussing one's life. No force or intimidation. And I never would just assume that you couldn't be a child of God.
I'm here because I'm such a garden of eden fan. What do you think about that story?
 

McBell

Unbound
Just to clarify, are you asking if I think Aisha's age of 9 is as equally unverifiable because it relies on the same level of supposition, therefore should be treated with the same scepticism as Dr Ibrahim's claims?
Yes.

If so, yes. I think that's the case.
We agree

The reason I'm arguing as I am is because the age of 9 is an accepted part of Muslim orthodoxy as well as the cultural conditions & views of women prevalent at the time.
I understand

I don't believe it's true (since I don't believe in the veracity of Muslim scripture at all) but Muslims do.
Fair enough

Personally, I could care less either way.
So many people get up on a high horse over Aisha's age at marriage that they make themselves look like complete idiots.
marrying young was the thing back then.
The world over.

Does that help?
yes
 

McBell

Unbound
Nonsense .. what was the average age of death in this society 1500 years ago? bearing in mind the extreme temperatures and lack of technological development, and all the squabbling between tribes, I would have thought quite young.
If they didn't marry when their women were young, I doubt they would have even survived as small tribes.
The trouble with many people is that they "think in a box", assuming that all their values are 'spot-on' and that they are really smart o_O
wow
Eighty three words
Five sentences
Four periods
Four commas
One vague implication

and yet you still were unable to address the point of the post in reply to....
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
The arrogance of West is that they intimitate and force every country to accept their way of life. This is biggest injustice

A second response: The best counts I've heard is that BOTH Christianity and Islam are responsible for between 200-300 million murders in the last 1400 years. That's 200-300 million EACH. I imagine this claim is apt to get some pushback. Start off by counting the 80 million Hindus that Muslims murdered in the area of the Kush over several centuries.
 

The Emperor of Mankind

Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Nonsense .. what was the average age of death in this society 1500 years ago? bearing in mind the extreme temperatures and lack of technological development, and all the squabbling between tribes, I would have thought quite young.
If they didn't marry when their women were young, I doubt they would have even survived as small tribes.
The trouble with many people is that they "think in a box", assuming that all their values are 'spot-on' and that they are really smart o_O

You're still missing the point. I'm not questioning the necessity of such cultural practices back then when life expectancy was far lower; I'm questioning the morality of Muhammad marrying and having sex with Aisha. The cultural & social conditions of the time are sufficient tell us why it happened but are not sufficient to justify it morally - especially when Muslims to this day use Muhammad's marriage to Aisha at such a tender age to justify child marriages continuing in their own societies, especially when human populations and quality of life have improved to the point it's no longer necessary to ensure the survival of a group.

After all, if you view this marriage in the context of the 'complete and perfect religion' how can it possibly be immoral?
 

Akivah

Well-Known Member
You miss my condemnation of charlie hebdo attacks ?

So do you think everytime we suppose to condemn again and again each time, if a anti-Islam and anti-Muslim member re-made thread about such crimes or fatwas ?

This isn't the Charlie Hebdo thread. That was over a year ago.

Are you saying that you only need to condemn despicable actions once?
Do you approve of the death threats made against authors noted in THIS thread?
Do you consider assassination to be permissable against authors whose books are banned?
 
A second response: The best counts I've heard is that BOTH Christianity and Islam are responsible for between 200-300 million murders in the last 1400 years. That's 200-300 million EACH. I imagine this claim is apt to get some pushback. Start off by counting the 80 million Hindus that Muslims murdered in the area of the Kush over several centuries.

Can we do secular regimes too? :cool:

Can't be too far off that in only 100 years...
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Can we do secular regimes too? :cool:

Can't be too far off that in only 100 years...

Sure we can. I just wanted to push back on the implication that somehow Islam has been one-sidedly oppressed. It's certainly the case that the ME has seen a lot of western intervention in the last 100 years - and a lot of it has been horrific - but it's extremely misleading to paint Muslims as never taking the role of oppressors themselves. That's just revisionist history.
 
Sure we can. I just wanted to push back on the implication that somehow Islam has been one-sidedly oppressed. It's certainly the case that the ME has seen a lot of western intervention in the last 100 years - and a lot of it has been horrific - but it's extremely misleading to paint Muslims as never taking the role of oppressors themselves. That's just revisionist history.

That doesn't count as imperialism because they are all Muslims now so they benefited from it :D
 

Godobeyer

the word "Islam" means "submission" to God
Premium Member
This isn't the Charlie Hebdo thread. That was over a year ago.

Are you saying that you only need to condemn despicable actions once?
Do you approve of the death threats made against authors noted in THIS thread?
Do you consider assassination to be permissable against authors whose books are banned?
I thought the reply of @YmirGF was enough !

1- How much "condemns" suppose to satify anti-Muslims members as @icehorse ?
2-No.
3-No
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
1- How much "condemns" suppose to satify anti-Muslims members as @icehorse ?

Hi Godo,

I didn't go back and review all 16 pages of this thread. I don't know your exact responses. With that said, it seems like 90% of the arguments against the OP did not in fact acknowledge the problem. So you might acknowledge the problem, but most of the apologists in this thread have not.
 

Godobeyer

the word "Islam" means "submission" to God
Premium Member
Hi Godo,

I didn't go back and review all 16 pages of this thread. I don't know your exact responses. With that said, it seems like 90% of the arguments against the OP did not in fact acknowledge the problem. So you might acknowledge the problem, but most of the apologists in this thread have not.
First of all
1- The title is total wrong . because it's about individuals NOT religion.
2-I replied maybe in each page of this thread, I quote many of your replies !!
3- you always you used generalizing about individual crimes or
4- I can't satisfy you (your hate to Islam or Muslims), because we always explain to you over and over , but you seems take our "extremists" as respresentation of Muslims.
 

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
You're still missing the point. I'm not questioning the necessity of such cultural practices back then when life expectancy was far lower; I'm questioning the morality of Muhammad marrying and having sex with Aisha. The cultural & social conditions of the time are sufficient tell us why it happened but are not sufficient to justify it morally

No .. YOU are missing the point!
You are thinking "in a box" .. you are assuming that modern secular morality is "spot-on"
..even your forefathers would have had different morality than you have..

Those people who do not judge by what Almighty God has revealed are not fit to make moral judgements .. they might think that they are.

Did Muhammad, peace be with him, commit adultery? No
Did he force unwanted attentions on his wife? No
Did he consumate his marriage while she had no sexual urges ie. before puberty? No

Now .. on yer bike mister! :)
 

faroukfarouk

Active Member
Are you saying that if an author's book are banned, that it is permissible to assassinate the author?

Where did you get that nonsense from?
I have given a list of books banned in certain countries.
My question is simply what is the reason for those books being banned?
 

faroukfarouk

Active Member
Its funny how people of the book (bible followers....new and old) speak ill about our Prophets(PBBUH) marriage to an 9 year old when in fact their own bible confirms a marriage of a female of 4 to 5 year old.
Please go and study your bible and if you cannot find it then you ignorant of its contents.
 

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
Its funny how people of the book (bible followers....new and old) speak ill about our Prophets(PBBUH) marriage to an 9 year old when in fact their own bible confirms a marriage of a female of 4 to 5 year old.
Please go and study your bible and if you cannot find it then you ignorant of its contents.
I don't think I've heard of this before. Who are you talking about?
 
Top