Prophet Muhammad did not marry a child

[KWED]

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

Yet another demonstration of blind adherence to dogma.
I presented good reasons to doubt what Bahaullah said. Not only is there no evidence for the practice being widespread, the fact that there was no shortage of women is proof it wasn't a common practice.
Yet you ignore all that and simply follow whatever Bahaullah says because you feel obliged to.

The net offers lots of links to consider.
Women in pre-Islamic Arabia - Wikipedia

That article states that there is no evidence to support the claim of widespread female infanticide. (Did you even read it? Probably not)

Pre-Islamic Arabs Used to Bury Their Children Alive

That is just a partisan opinion piece by a Muslim who writes some pretty weird stuff - but even that does not claim that female infanticide was a common practice.

So the best anyone can offer is we really do not know, but to know,

If we do not know, then it is wrong to claim it did happen, so you admit that Bahaullah was wrong to claim it did happen.

it is plausible with what history is available. [/quote] No, it is not plausible. The fact that there was no shortage of women in pre Islamic Arabia alone suggests that female infanticide was not a common practice.

Thus what Abdul'baha wrote, is most likely based in Truth, as a Messenger of God would know of our history.

How did you get from"we don't know" to "he was right"?

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

Just more question begging.
Your belief that he is right is based on the assumption that he is a messenger of god, you you cannot know if a god even exists, so you certainly can't be sure Bahaullah was a messenger of a god.
So to claim that whatever he says therefore must be right, even if it is nonsensical, it irrational to the point of delusional.

 

[KWED]

You are not questioning the authenticity of any Hadith? You are accepting all Ahadith as Islamic facts?

If they are graded as sahih, I don't question that the vast majority of Muslims doesn't question them. Many scholars have spent huge amounts of time researching and confirming the lines of transmission, their authenticity and reliability. In an Islamic context, I see no reason to question them.

I don't think that is a smart approach!

So what do you do? Do you research all the details of every hadith yourself? I don't think so. I suspect (like others) that you accept or dismiss then on the basis of how they portray Islam or Muhammad in a modern context.

I never met any moderate Muslim who would accept all Ahadith as facts.

Remember we are only talking about sahih hadith here.
And what is a "moderate Muslim"? Is it a Muslim who is uncomfortable with the more violent, intolerant and barbaric elements of life in 7th century Arabia?

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?

You seem to misunderstand what hadith are. They are not stories about Muhammad written many years after. They are eyewitness accounts, transmitted orally or textually, with verifiable chins of transmission, through people who could be verified as reliable.
People like Bukhari and Muslim merely collated collections of the hadith that were the most reliable and authentic of all. They are essentially editors, not writers. There are thousands that never made it into their collections.
People like Ibn Kathir and Tabari were scholars who used hadith in the production of their tafsir (volumes of detailed explanations of the meaning of the Quran).

So, as you can see the only reliable source for Islam is Quran.

Ah, you are a Quranist. You should have said. It would have saved us both a lot of bother. When discussing Islam with Quranists, I ignore the hadith.

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.

So what part of the several sahih hadith stating Aisha's age disagrees with the Quran?

Appreciate if you can provide where in the Quran it is hinted that prisoner killing was authorized by Muhammad.

8:57 says "So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson."
8:67 tells Muhammad not to take prisoners until he has subdued the enemy (do you really think this means to realise any enemies taken captive?)

Now, can you provide a passage from the Quran that says you must not kill prisoners? (Clue: no you can't)

Please do not provide Ahadith reference even if you have some.

I love this...
Show what Islam says about x, but you cannot reference any hadith, even sahih"

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.

How do you know they are rumours or corrupted? You have insisted that you can only use the Quran as reference, so on what basis do you dismiss any of the content of any hadith, tafsir, or sirat?

You mean Ahadith? They are unreliable!

So you keep saying, but you fail to produce any cogent argument (in an Islamic context).

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

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.

Muhammad was a military leader in 7th century Arabia. If you want to claim that he did not behave as a 7th century Arab military leader would behave, you need to provide some evidence.
As you insist that the Quran is the only acceptable source, then you will struggle because there are many passages that describe the kind of brutally violent behaviour one would expect. Instructions to hunt down and kill opponents. Instructions to torture opponents to death. Instructions to smite the enemies' necks. Instructions to not take prisoners until the enemy has been subdued.

Now, you might claim that while all this was going on Muhammad was holding his hands up crying "but this is terrible, we must not do any of this" while his men followed Allah's instructions. It would be rather embarrassing though.

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!

You said that popularity is not an argument for anything, then immediately cited the popularity of Islam as an argument!
My quest (never like the connotations of "crusade) to educate people is even more important when people don't realise they need to be educated.

 

[KWED]

Let me provide you a simple verse from Quran [24:58] where you are asked to protect a child's innocence at any cost.

It doesn't say that. It merely says that slaves and children need to ask permission to entering their room at three specific times. They can enter freely at other times. It is unclear what purpose this is supposed to serve.

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.

That is just your own interpretation. The Quran does not say that, and you can only go by what the Quran says, apparently.

So, why would the same book tell a father to give away his baby daughter to another man for marriage?

No idea what you are talking about there. What verse are you referring to?

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?

More question begging. You are assuming that 7th century Arabs would consider their young daughter getting married to be wrong and harmful, because you consider it wrong and harmful by today's standards. But we also consider torturing people to death to be not just wrong, but morally abhorrent by today's standards - yet the Quran specifically prescribes it.
You really need to stop this moral imperialism and forcing your own 21st century, western standards on 7th century Arabs.

Things you are trying to condemn him with

I am not trying to condemn him with anything. His behaviour would be in keeping with the time and the place.
What I am condemning is the idea that such behaviour is the perfect moral and practical example for all humanity.

- simply cannot be true!

Yes, I understand that you don't want them to be true. You have probably been raised with this cherry-picked, sanitised vision of a saintly, pacifist Muhammad, like some kind of Arab Ghandi. Unfortunately, the reality was almost certainly as violent and brutal as any other 7th century Arab warlord who conquered large areas and won many battles would have been.

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

5:33 "Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and spread mischief in the land is none but that they be killed or crucified..."
Crucifixion is execution by torture. It was designed to produce a slow, agonising death. In the Quran, Allah specifically and explicitly instructs its use.
If Allah and Muhammad believed that torturing people to death was acceptable, why is marrying a 9 year old too much for them?

There is also a graphic description in several sahih hadith of Muhammad having some people horrendously tortured to death - but of course, you don't accept any of the hadith, so I won't mention it.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yet you ignore all that and simply follow whatever Bahaullah says because you feel obliged to.

The reason is, that I did my research and found that Baha'u'llah was trustworthy and truthful.

Have you?

Regards Tony

 

[BrightShadow]

If they are graded as sahih, I don't question that the vast majority of Muslims doesn't question them. Many scholars have spent huge amounts of time researching and confirming the lines of transmission, their authenticity and reliability. In an Islamic context, I see no reason to question them.

You should question them otherwise you are the fruit of the same tree as those who believe them unconditionally.
Everything should be questioned. In Islam Quran suggests to do that.

[Quran 8:22] "Indeed, the worst of living creatures in sight of Allah are the deaf and dumb who do not use reason."
Only the Ahadith that aligns with the concept of Quran and doesn't conflict with Quran can be considered. Everything else should be questioned and if necessary - discarded! IMO
[Quran 6:115] "The word of your Lord is complete in its truth and justice. No one can change His words: He is the All Hearing, the All Knowing"

Attempts to change any core teachings of Quran via Ahadith is simply a wrong path as per Quran itself! There is no harm in consulting Ahadith about something (harmless) such as how some special prayers Muhammad used to perform etc. - but you cannot attempt to make critical changes that would contradict with the Quran.

Here are couple of verses that tells that Quran says not to alter anything...
[Quran 18:27] And recite (and teach) what has been revealed to thee of the Book of thy Lord: none can change His Words, and none wilt thou find as a refuge other than Him.
[Quran 45:6] These are Allah’s verses that We recite to you rightly. Then, in which discourse, after Allah and His verses, will they believe?

So what do you do? Do you research all the details of every hadith yourself? I don't think so. I suspect (like others) that you accept or dismiss then on the basis of how they portray Islam or Muhammad in a modern context.

Any believer of any religion - is required to hold some basic concepts and perform some basic rituals etc. Every single historical event during a messenger's life - need not to be analyzed by believers especially if context is hard to attain. IMO

Remember we are only talking about sahih hadith here.
And what is a "moderate Muslim"? Is it a Muslim who is uncomfortable with the more violent, intolerant and barbaric elements of life in 7th century Arabia?

Like I said - all elements of history is not required to be analyzed if context is difficult to attain. I am doubtful - God in Islam wants everyone to be historian regarding 7th century Arabia! Enough information is there to maintain principle concept and teachings of the religion. Rules and regulations are provided and not hard to comprehend. However to understand the historical parts - you have to understand context.

You seem to misunderstand what hadith are. They are not stories about Muhammad written many years after. They are eyewitness accounts, transmitted orally or textually, with verifiable chins of transmission, through people who could be verified as reliable.
People like Bukhari and Muslim merely collated collections of the hadith that were the most reliable and authentic of all. They are essentially editors, not writers. There are thousands that never made it into their collections.
People like Ibn Kathir and Tabari were scholars who used hadith in the production of their tafsir (volumes of detailed explanations of the meaning of the Quran).

If there wasn't anything for you to grab from Ahadith and use here on the forum then what would you call these Ahadith? Since they have been collected at least 214 years after Muhammad's departure - I am pretty sure you would have questioned their authenticity, you would have called them "hearsay".
Like I said - some Ahadith can be consulted if they align with Quran's core teachings.

So what part of the several sahih hadith stating Aisha's age disagrees with the Quran?

Why would a non issue be mentioned in Quran? If Aisha wasn't a child then why would it be mentioned?
After Muhammad - a conflict broke up between Muslims as to who will lead. They broke up into sects. Like I said earlier in this thread - regardless of how minor the disputes were - what it does is - it creates a division. Each side tries to build a case in favor of their position. In that process - the truth gets distorted to suit the need of an argument. It starts slowly then in evolves into something that no longer represents the truth anymore! I believe that's is what happened regarding this rumor about the age of Aisha. One side accused her and the other side defended her - in the process facts about her got distorted! Your Ahadith is a result of those divisions. Information that passed through generations - had a biased beginning to begin with! Is it really that hard to understand that?

8:57 says "So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson."
8:67 tells Muhammad not to take prisoners until he has subdued the enemy (do you really think this means to realise any enemies taken captive?)

Now, can you provide a passage from the Quran that says you must not kill prisoners? (Clue: no you can't)

Look I am not an expert in Quran in any shape or form. I do not claim to be part of any organized religion. But information is so readily available if you search properly - I could attempt to explain.
Like I said - you are dealing with historical element of Quran. You have to search for context if you want to deal with a incident specific verse. What you provided was an incident specific scenario (Battle of Badr). Read about it online and you will understand better.
It seems prior to this verse - another verse already was there for Muslims [Quran 47:4] where prisoners were supposed to be subdued ( restrained) and then either released when safe to do so (war over) or collect ransom against them. The verse that came earlier [Quran 47:4] doesn't allow prisoners to be killed. [Quran 76:8] shows prisoners must be fed properly. So, there you go! I provided the verse you asked for!
Anyhow, war times are different - if you randomly release your prisoners of war before the war is behind you - it could cost you the war. That was almost the case when the verse you provided came to Muhammad. Wars are ugly!

I love this...
Show what Islam says about x, but you cannot reference any hadith, even sahih"

Are you purposely ignoring parts of what I wrote? I said the parts that contradict with Quran should be ignored.... not everything needs to be ignored! You can utilize whatever corresponds with Quran's core teaching.

As you insist that the Quran is the only acceptable source, then you will struggle because there are many passages that describe the kind of brutally violent behaviour one would expect. Instructions to hunt down and kill opponents. Instructions to torture opponents to death. Instructions to smite the enemies' necks. Instructions to not take prisoners until the enemy has been subdued.

I told you Quran can be classified into two parts. 1) A book of law and 2) A historical document. To understand historical parts (pretty much everything you are quoting is from the historical parts) - you have to know the context. For example a verse could have come to Muhammad in the context of a war. That verse only applies to that particular context. It doesn't apply to all future wars and peaceful times. For future followers who can't avail proper context can concentrate on other parts of Quran that applies to their needs. IMO
Everyone is born with basic moral compass - it is not hard to figure out what applies to you and what not. You are having problem like the extremists. But extremist purposely misinterprets verses to suit their needs. What is your agenda? I am curious? Why have you devoted your life to bring Islam down? Who are you really trying to help?

You said that popularity is not an argument for anything, then immediately cited the popularity of Islam as an argument!

You misunderstood what I wrote there. I said not all clerics (the ones you are devotedly following) are innocent and impartial. Look how Christianity was tainted by the creed of Nicaea in 325 A.D. by one man. Emperor Constantine was able to influence so many bishops and was able to transform the religion of Christianity by adopting the concept of Trinity. So, why Islam can't have some clerics misrepresenting the truth by mixing it up with fabricated lies that cannot be easily disproven due to the fact that so much time has elapsed?
Just like any other religion - some believers (even clerics) have their faith in "faith altering" secondary sources such as Ahadiths for whatever reason I do not know! But Quran says the following...

[Quran 28:56] You surely cannot guide whoever you like ˹O Prophet˺, but it is Allah Who guides whoever He wills, and He knows best who are ˹fit to be˺ guided.
So, it seems not everyone is fit to be guided!

It doesn't say that. It merely says that slaves and children need to ask permission to entering their room at three specific times. They can enter freely at other times. It is unclear what purpose this is supposed to serve.

No! Read again and use multiple translation format. You may realize it is about preserving the innocence of children! It is about being discrete while changing clothes and during possible sex. One should keep children innocent and not allow them to witness something they shouldn't.

But we also consider torturing people to death to be not just wrong, but morally abhorrent by today's standards - yet the Quran specifically prescribes it.

It is your interpretation. The verse clearly incident specific. It doesn't apply to all time and every prisoner situation. I told you already - if you are not reading an incident specific verse without understanding the context (when the verse was provided) then you are bound to get it wrong!

 

[BrightShadow]

5:33 "Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and spread mischief in the land is none but that they be killed or crucified..."
Crucifixion is execution by torture. It was designed to produce a slow, agonising death. In the Quran, Allah specifically and explicitly instructs its use.
If Allah and Muhammad believed that torturing people to death was acceptable, why is marrying a 9 year old too much for them?

You have been explained before .....
Check previous verse. [Quran 5:32]. It would seem in contradiction to verse [5:33]. So, common sense should dictate that an exception is made in regards to verse [5:33] and that it must be about a particular group of people for a particular reason.
Right after mentioning killing (randomly) is an extreme sin - in a particular scenario it was authorized against a particular deceitful people.
A slight check via google should have suggested to you that it is about a group of tribe men who came and claimed to be sick and Muhammad and his men took them in and helped them recover. After recovering they killed the host (herder) and stole all his Camels and ran away. I am not sure what else they did but the punishment seemed to be sanctioned for their killing of their host, stealing his Camels and for deceiving in general. So, it was murder, stealing and deceit and possibly more crime. You already mentioned that this kind of punishment was norm for that era. What else were Muhammad men supposed to do? Just catch and release them? Wouldn't they come back and kill and and steal again? It is common sense that you are not required to catch and kill a guest who kills your family members and steals from you and runs away these days. Now we have police and a court system. But wouldn't you still like to go after that ungrateful guest if the law allowed you to do so? Something like that happened. IMO
If some Muslims are getting misled by this verse in today's world then they are fake Muslims IMO and if you are also not checking the background then there is no difference between you and them! IMO

Anyhow it has been a circular ride conversing with you. I understand you are a firm believer of all Ahadith. So, we need to agree to disagree regarding our position on this! This discussion is fruitless!

 

[KWED]

The reason is, that I did my research and found that Baha'u'llah was trustworthy and truthful.

What does that even mean? How is it relevant?
Bahaullah made a statement that it was common practice for pre-Islamic fathers to kill baby daughters. That statement is wrong because there is no evidence for it, and the fact that there wasn't a chronic shortage of women.
Now, Bahaullah may have believed that it was true, but it doesn't make any difference. People (even doctors) used to genuinely believe that diseases like cholera and typhus were caused by "bad air". Many of those doctors were trustworthy and truthful. But they were still wrong.

And what was your "research"? What have you actually done beyond reading the writings of Bahaullah? And how did you determine that he was trustworthy and truthful? What tests did you apply? What was the evidence you based your conclusion on?

Have you?

Obviously.
I took his statement and compared it to the available evidence and considered arguments for and against, and tested it by hypothesising outcomes if his claim were true. My conclusion was that his statement about it being common practice was wrong.

The whole issue seems to be part of a narrative designed to promote Islam's feminist credentials, as opposed to pre-Islamic Arabia where "the female infant that the people of the pre-Islamic time of ignorance would bury in the dirt due to their hatred of girls" (Ibn Kathir). However, the fact that Muhammad's first wife was a very wealthy and important woman who inherited her estate from her father shows this not to be the case. Plus, of course, the fact that there were enough women for pre-Islamic men to have so many wives that Allah had to reveal a verse to reduce the amount of polygamy.

In your next reply, please try and address the points raised rather than ignoring them and simply saying "but I believe whatever Bahaullah says".

 

[KWED]

You should question them otherwise you are the fruit of the same tree as those who believe them unconditionally.
Everything should be questioned.

You still aren't getting it, are you?
In the "real world", of course I question them. The whole concept of the hadith being an accurate historical record is nonsense.
However, in the context of Islamic belief, I accept that most Muslims accept the as true. In this context I can use them in constructing arguments about certain issues when debating Islamic issues.

In Islam Quran suggests to do that.

No it doesn't. It promotes acceptance of dogma. 5:101 even says "Do not ask questions about things whose answers may disturb you. People in the past did that and lost their faith"

[Quran 8:22]

"Indeed, the worst of living creatures in sight of Allah are the deaf and dumb who do not use reason."

That is referring to people who do not believe Islam. Are you really saying that only Muslims have critically examined Islam, while non-Muslim haven't thought about it?
Also, note the intolerance and dehumanisation of non-Muslims by calling them "the worst of creatures". History has shown us the appalling treatment that man can visit on his fellow man if they are told they are somehow less than human.

Only the Ahadith that aligns with the concept of Quran and doesn't conflict with Quran can be considered. Everything else should be questioned and if necessary - discarded! IMO

So, to get back to the original topic, because the Quran does not set a minimum age on marriage, and there is the verse that implies very young girls can be married, then the hadith about Aisha's age can be accepted.

[Quran 6:115]

"The word of your Lord is complete in its truth and justice. No one can change His words: He is the All Hearing, the All Knowing"

Attempts to change any core teachings of Quran via Ahadith is simply a wrong path as per Quran itself! There is no harm in consulting Ahadith about something (harmless) such as how some special prayers Muhammad used to perform etc. - but you cannot attempt to make critical changes that would contradict with the Quran.

So you are saying that anything in Islam that is from the sunnah is optional?

Here are couple of verses that tells that Quran says not to alter anything...
[Quran 18:27] And recite (and teach) what has been revealed to thee of the Book of thy Lord: none can change His Words, and none wilt thou find as a refuge other than Him.
[Quran 45:6] These are Allah’s verses that We recite to you rightly. Then, in which discourse, after Allah and His verses, will they believe?

Who is saying the hadith "alter" the Quran? They add to and clarify, not alter.

Any believer of any religion - is required to hold some basic concepts and perform some basic rituals etc. Every single historical event during a messenger's life - need not to be analyzed by believers especially if context is hard to attain. IMO

You said that you only accept hadith that correspond to the ethos of the Quran and do not contradict or change it. So, how do you determine this if you don't analyse every hadith in detail?
Remember that renowned and respected scholars have already spent years doing this for you. Why do you think your conclusion is more valid than theirs - especially as you just said that you won't analyse them?

Like I said - all elements of history is not required to be analyzed if context is difficult to attain. I am doubtful - God in Islam wants everyone to be historian regarding 7th century Arabia! Enough information is there to maintain principle concept and teachings of the religion. Rules and regulations are provided and not hard to comprehend. However to understand the historical parts - you have to understand context.

Not sure what your argument is here. Much of the Quran is relating historical events and behaviour. How can you hope to understand that if you simply dismiss any historical context?

And more importantly, from an objective perspective, how can you hope to understand islam without an historical context?

If there wasn't anything for you to grab from Ahadith and use here on the forum then what would you call these Ahadith? Since they have been collected at least 214 years after Muhammad's departure - I am pretty sure you would have questioned their authenticity, you would have called them "hearsay".
Like I said - some Ahadith can be consulted if they align with Quran's core teachings.

*sigh*
Yes! In an historical context they are very much anecdotal hearsay which cannot be considered historically accurate.
However, in an Islamic context they are considered by most Muslims as authentic and accurate (depending on their grade).
I have already explained this many times.

As you reject the hadith as fabricated and not a part of Islam, I am happy not to quote them when replying to you. Have you not noticed that since you explained that, I have not cited any hadith?
The issue now is that you seem to be arguing that Islam in general, most Muslims do not regard the hadith as a vital component of Islam. That is entirely false.

Why would a non issue be mentioned in Quran? If Aisha wasn't a child then why would it be mentioned?

She is not mentioned at all in the Quran. The whole subject of Aisha is based solely on hadith. Without the hadith, she does not exist.

After Muhammad - a conflict broke up between Muslims as to who will lead. They broke up into sects.

How do you know? Is it mentioned in the Quran? Are you just relying on hearsay written down after the event?

Like I said earlier in this thread - regardless of how minor the disputes were - what it does is - it creates a division. Each side tries to build a case in favor of their position. In that process - the truth gets distorted to suit the need of an argument. It starts slowly then in evolves into something that no longer represents the truth anymore! I believe that's is what happened regarding this rumor about the age of Aisha. One side accused her and the other side defended her - in the process facts about her got distorted! Your Ahadith is a result of those divisions. Information that passed through generations - had a biased beginning to begin with! Is it really that hard to understand that?

Huh? Aisha's young age was never an issue. There were no criticisms of Muhammad over it until recently, so don't know where you got the idea that it was fabricated centuries ago as a means of smearing Muhammad's name.

Look I am not an expert in Quran in any shape or form. I do not claim to be part of any organized religion. But information is so readily available if you search properly - I could attempt to explain.
Like I said - you are dealing with historical element of Quran. You have to search for context if you want to deal with a incident specific verse. What you provided was an incident specific scenario (Battle of Badr). Read about it online and you will understand better.
It seems prior to this verse - another verse already was there for Muslims [Quran 47:4] where prisoners were supposed to be subdued ( restrained) and then either released when safe to do so (war over) or collect ransom against them. The verse that came earlier [Quran 47:4] doesn't allow prisoners to be killed. [Quran 76:8] shows prisoners must be fed properly. So, there you go! I provided the verse you asked for!
Anyhow, war times are different - if you randomly release your prisoners of war before the war is behind you - it could cost you the war. That was almost the case when the verse you provided came to Muhammad. Wars are ugly!

1. Yes, the Quran is often contradictory. I fully acknowledge that. (Although the principle of abrogation allows for later verses to replace earlier ones - although this contradicts the claim thatch Quran is unchangeable. Problem upon problem)
2. The argument that passages in the Quran only apply to events already in the past at the time is incoherent if it is also supposed to be Allah's final and perfect, unchangeable guide for all mankind.

Are you purposely ignoring parts of what I wrote? I said the parts that contradict with Quran should be ignored.... not everything needs to be ignored! You can utilize whatever corresponds with Quran's core teaching.

OK. Got it!
The hadith regarding Aisha's age do not contradict the Quran. Therefore we can accept them.

I told you Quran can be classified into two parts. 1) A book of law and 2) A historical document.

Which makes no sense. Why would Allah include accounts of past historical events into his final, perfect, unchangeable guide for all humanity - unless that were to be used as examples for future behaviour?

To understand historical parts (pretty much everything you are quoting is from the historical parts) - you have to know the context. For example a verse could have come to Muhammad in the context of a war. That verse only applies to that particular context.

Ah, so parts of the Quran can be removed now that historical context is now irrelevant - especially as they keep being used incorrectly as justification for similar behaviour today.

As a matter of interest, if Allah sent down a ruling that only applied to a particular moment in 7th century Arabia, why did he tell Muhammad to include it in the Quran? Why didn't he separate the one-off, one place stuff from the forever, everyone stuff. Surely being omniscient he would have known the problems it was going to cause.

Everyone is born with basic moral compass

Indeed. Innate empathy and altruism are essential evolutionary traits that enabled the formation of early societies that were able to develop and grow, long before god told us how to behave to each other (like calling people with different ideas "the worst of beasts").

- it is not hard to figure out what applies to you and what not. You are having problem like the extremists. But extremist purposely misinterprets verses to suit their needs. What is your agenda? I am curious? Why have you devoted your life to bring Islam down? Who are you really trying to help?

Your problem here is assuming that your own interpretation of vague and contradictory texts is the only possible correct one. The thing is, everyone else thinks the same. The extremist is just as convinced that they are right (and you are wrong) as you are, and can cite chapter and verse to prove it. Which just leaves us back at square one.

My position is that the whole thing is so vague, contradictory and confused that there isn't any "one true Islam". The whole mess is clearly the product of an unsophisticated author reacting events in 7th century Arabia ad hoc, rather than and omniscient, omnipotent god with a perfect message for all mankind.

You misunderstood what I wrote there. I said not all clerics (the ones you are devotedly following) are innocent and impartial.

No, you didn't say that. You said...
"Whether a bunch of critics are with you - doesn't make your position any stronger". That implies that the number of people supporting your position does not validate your position.
You immediately used the number of people following Islam to validate your position.

 

[KWED]

Look how Christianity was tainted by the creed of Nicaea in 325 A.D. by one man. Emperor Constantine was able to influence so many bishops and was able to transform the religion of Christianity by adopting the concept of Trinity. So, why Islam can't have some clerics misrepresenting the truth by mixing it up with fabricated lies that cannot be easily disproven due to the fact that so much time has elapsed?

You are getting confused again.
In an historical context, the Council of Nicaea is evidence of the manipulation of Christianity.
In a Christian context, it is regarded as valid and authoritative.

Just like any other religion - some believers (even clerics) have their faith in "faith altering" secondary sources such as Ahadiths for whatever reason I do not know!

In reality, people often do things for their own advantage. It really isn't any mystery.
The reality of Muhammad himself is that he was almost certainly manipulating "revelation" for his own advantage, or delusional, or a combination.

But Quran says the following...
[Quran 28:56] You surely cannot guide whoever you like ˹O Prophet˺, but it is Allah Who guides whoever He wills, and He knows best who are ˹fit to be˺ guided.
So, it seems not everyone is fit to be guided!

Yeah, the whole concept of "Allah created mankind only to worship him" and also "Allah misguides who he wills and creates some people for hell" is utterly incoherent.

No! Read again and use multiple translation format. You may realize it is about preserving the innocence of children! It is about being discrete while changing clothes and during possible sex. One should keep children innocent and not allow them to witness something they shouldn't.

Sorry, but your interpretation makes no sense. Why would the instruction include slaves? Why does their innocence need protecting? And why only three specific times. Do adults never do anything indiscrete outside of those times? Also, does the Quran say not not let children see the floggings and amputations and beheadings and stoning and crucifixions? By your argument, those things would not compromise their innocence in the way seeing a parent naked would - which is pretty weird, I'm sure you'll agree.
And more importantly, Aisha was not considered a child because she was married!

It is your interpretation.

Whoah there! It is "just my interpretation" that torturing people to death is wrong? Yikes! Religion really has warped your sense of morality.

The verse clearly incident specific. It doesn't apply to all time and every prisoner situation. I told you already - if you are not reading an incident specific verse without understanding the context (when the verse was provided) then you are bound to get it wrong!

No. That verse is not "incident specific". It is a general proclamation. A rule regarding punishment.
If you keep going like this, there won't be anything left in the Quran that applies to life in the 21st century!

Are you saying that verse 5:33 no longer applies? And if so, can be removed from the Quran? And if not, why not?

And from where to you derive the "context"? The hadith and tafsir? Then you have your problem of analysing each one to determine if you accept it or not.

 

[KWED]

Check previous verse. [Quran 5:32]. It would seem in contradiction to verse [5:33].

How does 5:33 contradict 5:32?

So, common sense should dictate that an exception is made in regards to verse [5:33] and that it must be about a particular group of people for a particular reason.

Don't follow. Why would Allah include a general prescription in his final, unchangeable guide for all humanity if it was only to be a punishment in one specific event that had already happened?

Right after mentioning killing (randomly) is an extreme sin

It actually says killing in response to murder or spreading mischief is permitted.
(It also addresses that verse to "The Children of Israel", which is a term used for Jews, not Muslims, who are referred to as "believers, you who believe, servants of Allah", etc)

- in a particular scenario it was authorized against a particular deceitful people.
A slight check via google should have suggested to you that it is about a group of tribe men who came and claimed to be sick and Muhammad and his men took them in and helped them recover. After recovering they killed the host (herder) and stole all his Camels and ran away. I am not sure what else they did but the punishment seemed to be sanctioned for their killing of their host, stealing his Camels and for deceiving in general. So, it was murder, stealing and deceit and possibly more crime. You already mentioned that this kind of punishment was norm for that era. What else were Muhammad men supposed to do? Just catch and release them? Wouldn't they come back and kill and and steal again? It is common sense that you are not required to catch and kill a guest who kills your family members and steals from you and runs away these days. Now we have police and a court system. But wouldn't you still like to go after that ungrateful guest if the law allowed you to do so? Something like that happened. IMO
If some Muslims are getting misled by this verse in today's world then they are fake Muslims IMO and if you are also not checking the background then there is no difference between you and them! IMO

I am familiar with the hadith about the people of Ukl. However, as the hadith describes Muhammad torturing people to death in the most barbaric manner, you should reject it as it surely goes against the core Quranic message of treating people kindly and justly.
Also, those men were not crucified, so it clearly isn't referring to them.

Anyhow it has been a circular ride conversing with you. I understand you are a firm believer of all Ahadith. So, we need to agree to disagree regarding our position on this! This discussion is fruitless!

No, I am happy to discuss the issues without referring to hadith. Unfortunately, it seems that it is you who cannot.

 

[firedragon]

The reason is, that I did my research and found that Baha'u'llah was trustworthy and truthful.

Have you?

Regards Tony

Topic = Muhammed
Response = Bahaullah is trustworthy and truthful.

Strange.

 

[firedragon]

Read this,it doesn’t matter whether I believe the hadith is authentic or not,it doesn’t conflict with the Quran as the age isn’t given in you book.

What does matter is the millions of Muslims who do believe it’s authenticity and a precedent to follow so go and spread the word,it’s wrong to marry children and have intercourse with them,makes me sick to even think about it.

So basically you don't care about the truth! You think no one should utter anything but what others think!

).

 

[firedragon]

The only authoritative scripture in Islam is the Quran. All else is here say and stories which cannot be proven. Opinion is not evidence neither are hadiths.

You are making too much of a general statement. These kind of general statements are extreme. Rather, make an informed statement. Know what you are speaking about.

 

[BrightShadow]

No, I am happy to discuss the issues without referring to hadith. Unfortunately, it seems that it is you who cannot.

As you may already know - I do not belong to any known organized religion. I follow my own path. So, I hope you will find someone to educated you better with the verses from Quran. But I think you are trying to find something that is not there! Wild goose chase!

My belief is different than traditional believers of most religion. I wrote the following in the other thread... My understanding is - we are rejects from God's immediate kingdom. We already failed God somehow. Not Adam and eve fruit story! I believe we all did something wrong. Depending on what we did and how severe it was - we are predestined by God into where we are born. Some born into rich family, some born in poor, some born into a decent family of believers and some to atheist parents. When we are born - we come with our baggage (our original sin). This is why Jesus said - "why do you call me good?" [Luke 18:19] [Mark 10:18]. IMO
Jesus claimed to know Abraham, Moses. Right? How did he know them? He isn't god in my opinion. I believe - Jesus knew them because we were all there in God's kingdom in our soul form and we all could have met each then! In our physical body - we don't remember it. Even in our physical body - there is a partition in our brain. A part we can access (our memory here on earth) and another part that takes care of the functions of our body. For example - our brain is making sure all the organs are working within parameters etc. but we don't directly do brain's work.
I believe we are sent here to prove that we are still worthy to be taken back into God's immediate kingdom. IMO. That is why we are sent here in our physical body and not in our soul form. Physical body can be manipulated, for example memory can be erased to give us a new start. Human body can be susceptible to outside influence (such as an entity). Devil or his counterparts could posses it and deliver its influence without us even realizing it. IMO. Devil is not omni-present. This is how he and his counterparts deliver.
I believe Angels bowed to God's will and are facilitating God with this worldly experiment where we are given a second chance. Some of us will prove to be salvageable and while others might not! If you read Quran - you may notice - God talks in plural... "We did this" .... "we did that".... I think it means God and his Angels! Just think - if Muhammad wrote Quran then why would he talk in plural?
So, while on exile here in our physical form on this earth - the main thing is asked of us is to believe in God's absolute authority over all things (this world and spiritual world). In other words we are to believe in one God concept! IMO. We must not believe in any human god or animal god or multiple gods. IMO
So, as you see, since we are rejects - I do not believe we deserve any doctrine at all. God is doing us a favor by providing whatever doctrine we have. I believe truth is scattered in multiple religions but it is mixed with lies and deceptions and we have to sort it out.

So, even though I believe Quran wasn't corrupted but Ahadith were. It is pointless to contemplate what is right and what is wrong. The basic thing is asked of us - is to believe in ONE God concept! IMO. This is the most important thing in Islam and part of the reason - I think this religion is right on the money! IMO. Of course Judaism is also monotheistic but things are clearer in Islam. IMO

I believe (even though we don't deserve it) God delivered a bunch of messengers over a long period of time but almost every messenger failed to deliver their message in any significant way until Muhammad. As soon as the earlier messengers passed away or killed by disbelievers - their message pretty much faded away with them over short periods of time. In some instances their message lost its true face and the distorted message continued to circulate around causing damage and it took the believers onto a wrong path. God allowed the distortions to take place because - like I said - we didn't deserve any guidance.

I could mention two instances where the message got distorted to a point that God decided to provide some guidance.

1) After the departure of Moses - Judaism got distorted as people started to incorporate many traditional practices into the religion and started practicing them as if they were God's directives. For example: Sabbath was meant only for Moses immediate followers. After travelling for years and settling down - they had to work really hard to establish their new society - so a mandatory day off was sanctioned for them. However - after Moses' departure - Jews continued to maintain Sabbath in a strict way. So, came Jesus! He tried to correct Jews by declaring Sabbath null and void. IMO. Jesus openly broke Sabbath in front of synagogue to convince the practice needed to be abolished but Jews didn't like it. They didn't want any change! You know how it ended.

2) After Jesus' departure - his followers maintained his teaching for a while but then in 325 A.D. Emperor Constantine thought if they could give a face lift to Christianity and make it more compatible with other existing polytheistic practices such as Paganism - then more people could be drawn to Christianity. Other than Judaism - most other religions had a polytheism basis. Those religions had fun and colorful rituals and were drawing the crowd. So, Constantine called a meeting with all the bishops around the area and together they created the concept of Trinity etc. to make the religion more appealing to a crowd who were more interested in multiple gods concept. IMO. So, now Christianity took a different turn and lost its true face. Then came Muhammad! Muhammad didn't bring any new religion - he just tried to restore existing religion to its intended place. He advocated and pointed out where Jews and Christians had gone astray and tried to guide them back. In the Quran they are addressed as "people of the book". In the process of trying to guide Jews and Christians back - he had to fight many battles! It was crazy times and people were not willing to give up their old but corrupted belief systems that they were so strongly clinging on to for generations. What do you think Muhammad should have done? Leave the Jews and Christians alone and let them continue on their path that shifted from God's intended path? In such a period of time - it was much easier for Muhammad to just announce he had come with a new religion rather than trying to change and restore existing ones but he took the tough path and did his best.

Of course Quran exhibits and values Muhammad's hard work by documenting many of those wars he faced - and of course there are things to learn from it - But some folks are taking those verses and pretty much twisting it to mean something they are not!

For a basic Muslim to hold his basic beliefs and perform his basic duties - he has enough to get him by with other verses that are not about the history and struggles and achievements of Muhammad. How many Muslim do you know are concerned about the verses describing those struggles Muhammad had to face? Of course law makers can take a note and use it as a guidance but law makers would take all historical components into consideration. No one (except you and the extremists) will make a ruling without understanding the concept and context.
A Muslim is required to lead a righteous life and believe in One God, perform the prayer, fast, give zakat and perform the pilgrimage. Moderate Muslims are all peace loving humans.
None of them are holding a grudge or anger against you the way you have against them! IMO

Based on all the teachings of Islam - it is illogical to assume Muhammad would ever marry a child. He was famous for his goodwill, compassion and honesty and he maintained it throughout. So, it is time for you to take your load of crap and dump it elsewhere. I am sure you will find another place! I don't have time to continue this conversation. I am sure I will hear from you in another thread though!

 

[England my lionheart]

So basically you don't care about the truth! You think no one should utter anything but what others think!

).

I have never said anything of the sort,really it’s not my burden,the “truth” is very complicated when it’s about the followers of Islam,1.8 billion followers but not all the same,for a Quran alone Muslim hadith are not an issue whereas for Sunnis they are and for a deobandi they only know what they learn in the madrases,these are just examples of just a few ways of how followers of Islam think imo.

 

[firedragon]

I have never said anything of the sort,really it’s not my burden,the “truth” is very complicated when it’s about the followers of Islam,1.8 billion followers but not all the same,for a Quran alone Muslim hadith are not an issue whereas for Sunnis they are and for a deobandi they only know what they learn in the madrases,these are just examples of just a few ways of how followers of Islam think imo.

That's irrelevant. Your position is that what you believe, and all that you said, or I say does not matter. None of that is important. what's important to you is what some people believe. That's what you said.

So there is no point in any of this discussion because none of that is important. AN objective truth is not important, nor is the endeavour in finding it. That's basically your position.

 

[England my lionheart]

That's irrelevant. Your position is that what you believe, and all that you said, or I say does not matter. None of that is important. what's important to you is what some people believe. That's what you said.

So there is no point in any of this discussion because none of that is important. AN objective truth is not important, nor is the endeavour in finding it. That's basically your position.

Yes it’s important for the thousands of child brides that suffer because of the millions of Muslims who have no idea of your selected truth and probably never will.

 

[firedragon]

Yes it’s important for the thousands of child brides that suffer because of the millions of Muslims who have no idea of your selected truth and probably never will.

But you are muting anyone who will ever try to change it because "it does not matter to you" what objective truth is. So you are not helping any of these "thousands of child brides" that you care about. In fact, you are muting anyone who tries to. That's your aim.

Maybe you will find this thread interesting.

What a lot of people believe vs the truth - What's important to you?

 

[England my lionheart]

But you are muting anyone who will ever try to change it because "it does not matter to you" what objective truth is. So you are not helping any of these "thousands of child brides" that you care about. In fact, you are muting anyone who tries to. That's your aim.

Maybe you will find this thread interesting.

What a lot of people believe vs the truth - What's important to you?

I wish so much that I could help them but it’s difficult to help people who won’t help themselves,I’m an observer and have little time for apologetics so go and tell the people who practice this heinous crime and good luck.

 

[firedragon]

I wish so much that I could help them but it’s difficult to help people who won’t help themselves,I’m an observer and have little time for apologetics so go and tell the people who practice this heinous crime and good luck.

Then at least try not to dismiss others who try presenting evidence which you ignore, and say "it's not important. What people think is what matters".

So the usual end to that is "So go and tell them", but you are participating in a thread that's discussing a particular topic. If you think its useless, don't participate. It's your prerogative. telling other's not to because "it doesn't matter" is the definition of the word hypocrisy.