Prophet Muhammad did not marry a child

[KWED]

It’s a lot like the church and the sacraments. They created rituals that Christ never formulated yet billions follow them. Doesn’t mean they are truth. For over a thousand years Christians will literally eat bread believing Christ is entering their body.

Jesus literally told the disciples that the bread was his body and the wine was his blood. Seems reasonable for Christians to repeat this ritual.

I believed it when I was a child but I know it’s just superstition. People still practising today doesn’t mean it’s true or came from God’s Book.

So you accept that religious belief based on scripture is just superstition. Except yours, of course.

 

[KWED]

Yes but In an arranged marriage as in the nobility they could be promised at an early age,12 years old is still a child.

The political marriages were often merely symbolic, with consummation tasing place much later, sometimes not at all.
Some have suggested that Muhammad's marriage to Aisha was political, with Muhammad wanting to cement relations with the most powerful and popular of his companions Abu Bakr, Aisha's father.

 

[KWED]

@KWED, you wish to stay at a superficial level of trusting whatever authorities colonialists want us to accept in Islam and make popular. That's fine if that is your reliance, but honestly, you truly are narrow minded, and not worth debating, because you are so hard headed in how you approach Islam.

If you want to tell all Muslims - Saudi Arabia dictates Islam and we should follow the discourse their money trail has caused, that's fine. But it holds no weight to people with brains.

You truly and all those who follow such ways, deserve what you surely will get.

Are you really calling Ibn Ishaq, Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Kathir Al Tabari, Ibn Abbas, etc "authorities colonialists want Muslims to accept"?
Wow! Just wow.
You have outdone yourself there.

 

[Link]

Are you really calling Ibn Ishaq, Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Kathir Al Tabari, Ibn Abbas, etc "authorities colonialists want Muslims to accept"?
Wow! Just wow.
You have outdone yourself there.

Ibn Abbas was a companion of the Prophet. How do you know what is attributed to him is truth?

Yes, I'm saying, there is a lot more scholars then the ones you quote. Also, the only true authorities in religion per Quran are those who God sends himself, no one else is a true authority but them.

Most Muslims use to be Sufis who believed Twelve Imams to be the spiritual successors of Mohammad (S) exclusively. This is a problem because division between Muslims would be difficult to create.

We all saw the "moderate" interpretation of rebels Obama funded and trained and what the lead to as well.

You guys always support worse interpretations.

In a short time due to money trail along with slaughtering and other means of oppression and propaganda, Wahabis have changed mindset of Muslims and destroyed the central spirituality they use to rely on.

Most of Muslim world use to be Sufi.

 

[KWED]

For marriage or divorce- a person has to give consent. It is a prerequisite! A kid cannot give consent!

"Consent" is a modern concept. There is nothing in the Quran that even suggests that consent is necessary for sex. Islamic scholar Dr J Brown says that consent is not required because the right of sexual access is granted by marriage or ownership (of female slaves).

Muhammad couldn't introduce something against the teachings of Islam.
[Quran 69:44-45] And if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name, We should certainly seize him by his right hand.

And as Allah never seized Muhammad, then everything he said must therefore be approved by Allah.

If you read about him (whatever is available) you will see he was trying to set good examples - not bad examples. So, it would be contradictory for him to provide such a crazy bad example.

But you are assuming that whatever you consider "good" and "bad" is the same as 7th century Arabs' ideas. History shows us that you are completely wrong. Today, we consider torturing people to death to be wrong. In 7th century Arabia it was perfectly acceptable. So much so that Allah included it in the Quran, and Muhammad ordered it himself.

So, by process of deduction - you should come to the conclusion that - Mohammad couldn't have married a child! It would be inconsistent with the teachings of Quran he was trying to deliver.

Some woeful question begging there. You are assuming that Muhammad and Allah consider marring a child to be bad. However, the scriptural evidence suggests that they considered it acceptable.
You are merely trying to impose 21st century ideas on 7th century people. That is moral imperialism. Naughty!

 

[KWED]

But there is a conflict. The Quran states that Muhammad was an example to humanity which does conflict very much with a Hadith claiming He had sex with a child.

But consider this - if Muhammad did have sex with Aisha when she was 9, then that is an example to humanity.
Your entire argument is based on you not wanting sex with children to be an example to humanity, not on the evidence for whether Muhammad actually did have sex with Aisha when she was 9, or not.

Of course it is typical that those who are biased against Islam and Muslims will cling to such hadiths to attempt to defame Muhammad instead of refer to the Quran, the Word of God which praises Him.

What evidence do you have to refute those sahih hadith which show Muhammad having sex with Aisha who she was 9?
And why do you think no Muslim scholar challenged the idea until recently?

 

[stevecanuck]

Nope. Simply not true. Some individual verses had been written down and were kept by different people but not all of it, in one place. The Quran was first compiled and written down as one book during Abu Bakr's caliphate - after Muhammad had died. This was because a number of the people who had memorised it were being killed in battles and he was worried that parts may be lost if it was not written down in its entirety. This is the narrative you will find in any Islamic source. Ask your imam.
It is not a matter of contention or debate between Muslims and sceptics. It is simply an accepted fact (as much as anything from the period can be known).

That's exactly the story my Egyptian coworkers told me.

 

[KWED]

Shiites don't believe in it.

So, when do Shiites believe the Quran was first collated, compiled and written down as a single volume?

 

[Link]

So, when do Shiites believe the Quran was first collated, compiled and written down as a single volume?

During Prophet's (s) life. Khoei for example has a whole book about this. He uses multiple evidence, including Sunni hadiths to prove this.

That said, what was Uthman collection truly about. Remember according to Bukhari and Muslim and other sources, Abu Bakr and Umar "forbid" writing of hadiths. According to Sunni historians, it was not until Umar Abdul Aziz, that writing anything other then Quran was allowed.

If you read Tufaqal Uqool for example, Imam Reda (a) shows commentary from God or Mohammad (s), about Quran itself, was removed when Uthman was collecting Qurans.

So when people weren't allowed to write outside of Quran, they often wrote commentary within the Quran for interpretation of the Sunnah, but all that was removed and forbidden as well.

Of course, Shiites use to meet and write down hadiths from instructions of Imams (a) in secret meetings, and were told not to rely on memorizing (since that can distort meaning from memory very fast and Chinese whispers effect).

The war against the Sunnah per words of Imam Ali (a) also were during time of Prophet (s) so much so that Prophet (s) had to emphasize "whoever attributes to me a lie..." and warned of hell and this saying is numerously reported.

And there is the event called "tragedy of Thursday" (coined by Ibn Abbas I believe) when Prophet (s) called people to write a will so that people don't go astray after him, Umar said "he was sick" and to let him be, and said "Quran is enough for us". We all see now Quran is not enough and was never enough to unite people.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Bahaullah was wrong.

I will take what the Baha'i Writings say, as to me they have been proved truthful.

Your opinion on history does not include the other opinions that confirm what is offered in the Baha'i Writings.

The net offers lots of links to consider.

Women in pre-Islamic Arabia - Wikipedia

Pre-Islamic Arabs Used to Bury Their Children Alive

So the best anyone can offer is we really do not know, but to know, it is plausible with what history is available. Thus what Abdul'baha wrote, is most likely based in Truth, as a Messenger of God would know of our history.

That would be difficult to accept if one does not consider there is an all knowing God.

Regards Tony

 

[England my lionheart]

The political marriages were often merely symbolic, with consummation tasing place much later, sometimes not at all.
Some have suggested that Muhammad's marriage to Aisha was political, with Muhammad wanting to cement relations with the most powerful and popular of his companions Abu Bakr, Aisha's father.

Muhammed had 14 wives,some have suggested that it was out of charity,of course you need to cement relations with a powerful political figure when your sponsored by god.

 

[Link]

Muhammed had 14 wives,some have suggested that it was out of charity,of course you need to cement relations with a powerful political figure when your sponsored by god.

Most probably from my research just 9 but I don't know.

 

[England my lionheart]

Most probably from my research just 9 but I don't know.

More than 4 though.

 

[Link]

More than 4 though.

It maybe not more then four too. There are some Muslim scholars (I don't know much about their evidence and reasoning) that historically after Khadija (a). These three were really emphasized in history and no one else really but named but as if they had no historical influence and almost no existence. Some maintained it was these three that really were married to Prophet while there exists all sorts of numbers and names attributed to Prophet but only these were legacy.

Aisha, Hafsa, Umm Salama. Mariya was however emphasized historically during Prophet (s) life, but I Don't know, it's horrible story to grasp and one I don't understand myself.

But after his life, we see mainly Aisha and Umm Salama with historically presence while all others as if they didn't exist. Hafsa I don't know why doesn't have much legacy in history as well. Perhaps she didn't want to get involved in the conflict?

Also two wives (not Aisha, Hafsa or Umm Salama) are historically said have married or had relations (Sexually) with other men in some history sources. I forget their two names but most people unaware of this.

It seems so much is written about this, that it's hard to make out the truth of all this. I've seen so many different numbers attributed as far wives is concerned.

I'm not saying there is no proof for more then four wives, but I'm saying, I don't know.

There is however something that makes believe he never married more then four (at the same time) because it says in Surah Ahzab that it's not permitted to exchange one for another. If he was truly allowed more or no limit as Shiites hadiths say he had no limit amount, why would it say that?

 

[England my lionheart]

It maybe not more then four too. There are some Muslim scholars (I don't know much about their evidence and reasoning) that historically after Khadija (a). These three were really emphasized in history and no one else really but named but as if they had no historical influence and almost no existence. Some maintained it was these three that really were married to Prophet while there exists all sorts of numbers and names attributed to Prophet but only these were legacy.

Aisha, Hafsa, Umm Salama. Mariya was however emphasized historically during Prophet (s) life, but I Don't know, it's horrible story to grasp and one I don't understand myself.

But after his life, we see mainly Aisha and Umm Salama with historically presence while all others as if they didn't exist. Hafsa I don't know why doesn't have much legacy in history as well. Perhaps she didn't want to get involved in the conflict?

Also two wives (not Aisha, Hafsa or Umm Salama) are historically said have married or had relations (Sexually) with other men in some history sources. I forget their two names but most people unaware of this.

It seems so much is written about this, that it's hard to make out the truth of all this. I've seen so many different numbers attributed as far wives is concerned.

I'm not saying there is no proof for more then four wives, but I'm saying, I don't know.

There is however something that makes believe he never married more then four (at the same time) because it says in Surah Ahzab that it's not permitted to exchange one for another. If he was truly allowed more or no limit as Shiites hadiths say he had no limit amount, why would it say that?

He’s not the only polymorphic prophet,there were others before him but saying that he could really have whatever he wanted.

 

[Link]

He’s not the only polymorphic prophet,there were others before him but saying that he could really have whatever he wanted.

One can argue, Umm Salama was only one historically to stand with Ahlulbayt (a). It can be argued if he had 14 or 9 wives or whatever amount, more would have stood in solidarity with Ahlulbayt (a) and there would be some sort of historical recording of this.

I'm just thinking it's bizarre Aisha fought Ali (a) yet only Umm Salama opposed her and the rest of the wives were neutral. Doesn't make sense.

 

[Link]

So in Quran, we have Zaid's wife talked about, Aisha and Hafsa warned and cautioned in Surah Tahrim. Umm Salama has historical presence and Khadija undoubtable. Aisha fought Ali (a). Hafsa and what she did after, not really historically emphasized.

I'm thinking if so many wives, they would have taken side.

Also when Aisha and Hafsa are warned about, it's warned if he divorces them, it maybe God would replace them. If there was no maximum at that point, that does not make sense.

Same with Surah Ahzab, telling Prophet (s) he can't exchange his wives if he finds another woman more beautiful.

 

[England my lionheart]

One can argue, Umm Salama was only one historically to stand with Ahlulbayt (a). It can be argued if he had 14 or 9 wives or whatever amount, more would have stood in solidarity with Ahlulbayt (a) and there would be some sort of historical recording of this.

I'm just thinking it's bizarre Aisha fought Ali (a) yet only Umm Salama opposed her and the rest of the wives were neutral. Doesn't make sense.

It’s interesting how ahulbayt (family) caused so much division.

 

[BrightShadow]

When a hadith says that Muhammad said giving a thirsty dog water cancels your sin, I accept it.
When a hadith says that Muhammad married a six year old and had sex with her when she was 9, I accept it.

You are not questioning the authenticity of any Hadith? You are accepting all Ahadith as Islamic facts? I don't think that is a smart approach! I never met any moderate Muslim who would accept all Ahadith as facts. If any non believer (such as you) is accepting it as fact then what is the difference between him and the extremists who usually have ulterior motives? Are you fruits of the same tree?
You should know when the Ahadith were collected and written down. It was centuries after Muhammad passed away! Why do you have so much faith in them? Here are some of the names you mentioned regarding your source. Let me show you when they were born.
Muhammad al-Bukhari was born in Uzbekistan 178 years after Mohammad passed away.
Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj was born in Iran approx. 190 years after Mohammad passed away.
Al Tabari was born in Iran approx. 206 after Mohammad passed away.
Ibn Kathir was born in Syria approx. 668 years after Mohammad passed away.
Ibn Abbas was 13 years old when Muhammad passed away. Whatever you will try to pass as his words - are only hearsay and were written generations later.
Ibn Ishaq was born approx. 62 years after Muhammad passed away. What are you crediting to him and who wrote it?

Whatever Ahadith is out there were collected generations after Muhammad was gone and whether or not the collectors themselves were decent believers - their sources cannot be 100% reliable because the source also heard it from another source and so on! There is no way to authenticate Ahadith IMO. Even if you establish a chain - it is still multiple generations old hearsay!
So, as you can see the only reliable source for Islam is Quran. Everything else need to be taken with a grain of salt. If something from Ahadith remotely disagrees with the Quran - it should be labeled as false or fabrication. Everything must align with Quran - otherwise it should be viewed as manufactured lie! When you have a primary doctrine - It is not that difficult to do that because you have something to compared with.

It is hinted at in the Quran, and explicitly described in hadith and Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah.

Appreciate if you can provide where in the Quran it is hinted that prisoner killing was authorized by Muhammad. Please do not provide Ahadith reference even if you have some. Ibn Ishaq was born 62 years after Muhammad passed away. A whole lot of conflicts happened after Muhammad passed away and a whole lot of corrupted rumors circled around for various reasons.

The texts have him ordering or approving the killings himself.

You mean Ahadith? They are unreliable! Try and stop believing in them as truth! As I pointed out - they were written generations later!

Why not? It was common practice at the time to kill all those who were not valuable for ransom or desirable for slavery.
The problem is not because he did it then. It is because Muslims claim that he is the perfect moral and practical role model for all Muslims to aspire to.

Are you claiming to be a historian of that era? How do you know what was a common practice? Did they kill every captive (after a war) back in those days?
Like I said - in army soldiers can take actions on their own. A leader who is trying to set good example wouldn't do that. Muhammad became famous for his honestly and good character. So, it is illogical to assume he became a "killer" and yet retained his good status among believers. For every bad story you may produce from your sources - there are hundreds of good morale stories regarding his generosity and decent behavior. So, your conclusion is very wrong. IMO

Nonsense. Not only does the Quran not say that you must not execute prisoners, 8:57 says to deal harshly with prisoners taken in battle to deter others who might oppose you.

You are reading between the lines! Only thing it says there is - "if you meet them in war"!
What should it say? If you meet them in war - kiss them?
As you already been told - Quran is two things. 1) A book of law and 2) A historical document.
Historical document part only relays what happened and learn what to do and what not to do.
The other parts mentions directions as to what is allowed and what not.
If you read it - you could distinguish between the two.
Don't get stuck on the historical parts because you will need to know the context. That is where skeptics and critics try to find things because they don't understand the context.

I do hope this irony was deliberate. It's brilliant!

Why is it brilliant? Do you hear yourself. Go to a mirror and speak to yourself sometimes. You may realize some of your remarks are lousy. You are not on a honest crusade to educate anyone!

 

[BrightShadow]

"Consent" is a modern concept. There is nothing in the Quran that even suggests that consent is necessary for sex. Islamic scholar Dr J Brown says that consent is not required because the right of sexual access is granted by marriage or ownership (of female slaves).

Let me provide you a simple verse from Quran [24:58] where you are asked to protect a child's innocence at any cost. A parent is asked not to mingle with their own children and servants who are under age at certain private times to preserve the innocence of children! Children should not be exposed to any unwarranted situations even by their own parents. So, why would the same book tell a father to give away his baby daughter to another man for marriage? How that makes sense to you?
Read [Quran 24:58]. It is about protecting the innocence of children! I am not an expert in Quran but I didn't see any verse that would suggest harming children and marrying out young girl at age 9 is harmful! Why would a Muslim father do that?

And as Allah never seized Muhammad, then everything he said must therefore be approved by Allah.

Things you are trying to condemn him with - simply cannot be true!

But you are assuming that whatever you consider "good" and "bad" is the same as 7th century Arabs' ideas. History shows us that you are completely wrong. Today, we consider torturing people to death to be wrong. In 7th century Arabia it was perfectly acceptable. So much so that Allah included it in the Quran, and Muhammad ordered it himself.

I would like to see this verse in Quran. Let me figure out if you have any point in it.