Prophet Muhammad did not marry a child

[England my lionheart]

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.[

Am I allowed to participate?.

 

[Augustus]

Not only is there no archaeological or historical evidence to support this claim, it is also refuted by historical evidence, not least from the Quran and other Islamic sources.
It is claimed that Muhammad improved the lot of Arabian women by restricting the rampant polygamy of pre-Islamic society to only four wives.
If female babies were routinely killed, where did all these women come from to enable the multiple wives? Four would be difficult, let alone many more. If what Bahaullah said was true, there would have been a chronic shortage of wives in pre-Islamic Arabia, and early Islam. One would have ben difficult to manage. And yet, there were enough women to allow men to have so many wives that something had to be done to curtail the practice.

Bahaullah was wrong.

Your reasoning here is flawed.

Obviously the jahiliyya narratives are pious exaggerations, half-truths and probably outright fabrications too, but the idea Arabs couldn't have practiced female infanticide because they also practiced polygamy is refuted by numerous examples of this happening in other cultures (the !kung, some Mongolian tribes and some Aboriginal Australian tribes for example).

Many nomadic tribes often practiced infanticide because it was difficult to move around with too many children and could be difficult to feed them all. This could happen to both male and female infants but, for obvious reasons, male sons would be preferred.

These cultures often raided neighbouring tribes for women, and there was certainly a thriving slave trade in Middle East. Many men were killed in violent confrontations too, so it's quite easy to see how polygamy can exist in conjunction with a reasonable degree of female infanticide.

Obviously the idea of a massive jump from "barbarian" pagans to pious Muslims in a generation is a fabrication, especially as many (if not most) Arabs were Christians or Jews by the time Islam emerged, but it is pretty likely that there was some degree of infanticide among bedouin tribes at least. Not all Arabs were nomads of course, and settled peoples would be less likely to have practiced it, but saying the historical evidence "refutes" the idea there was infanticide is not tenable.

While there is no hard evidence either way, it might well be that the practice had declined significantly by the time of Islam even among bedouins, but it is quite probable that a historical memory of some Arabs practicing infanticide does contain a degree of truth.

Before Islam, Mecca was a religiously plural site of pilgrimage for many different beliefs, all coexisting peacefully. Caravans used to travel the length and breadth or Arabia with little or no military protection.
Ironically, it was actually after Muhammad introduced the supremacist, expansionist ideology of Islam that the fighting and pillaging increased.

What is the evidence for any of these points?

No non-Islamic sources mention Mecca, and conflict in pre-Islamic Arabia was common, including that between Himyar and Axum, Jewish and Christian tribes, and between Arabs aligned with Rome and those aligned with Persia. Arab raiding of both these empires was also a common practice.

Why should we assume it was so safe caravans needed minimal protection?

 

[KWED]

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

Not sure what you are on about there. Was it meant for me?

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!

"Based on all the teachings of Islam", Muhammad absolutely did marry Aisha when she was six and consummated the marriage when she was nine - because that's what the teachings of Islam explicitly say!
I understand that you don't like the idea that Muhammad married a child, had people tortured to death, owned slaves, etc - but that's what the available evidence suggests. You can't just dismiss what you don't like.

 

[KWED]

Your reasoning here is flawed.

Obviously the jahiliyya narratives are pious exaggerations, half-truths and probably outright fabrications too, but the idea Arabs couldn't have practiced female infanticide because they also practiced polygamy is refuted by numerous examples of this happening in other cultures (the !kung, some Mongolian tribes and some Aboriginal Australian tribes for example).

Straw man.
I don't claim that female infanticide didn't exist. I said that the evidence suggests that it wasn't common or widespread.

These cultures often raided neighbouring tribes for women,

Those tribes would also be short of women.

Many men were killed in violent confrontations too,

Not really. When you read accounts of the battles in Arabia during the 7th century, it is remarkable how few casualties there were. In all the major battles fought by Muhammad, he lost a total of around 150 men.

so it's quite easy to see how polygamy can exist in conjunction with a reasonable degree of female infanticide.

There was more military conflict in the Islamic period than in the immediate pre-Islamic, but even the losses incurred then would barely be sufficient to balance even occasional female infanticide, let alone make up for a widespread practice, plus rampant polygamy.

Obviously the idea of a massive jump from "barbarian" pagans to pious Muslims in a generation is a fabrication, especially as many (if not most) Arabs were Christians or Jews by the time Islam emerged, but it is pretty likely that there was some degree of infanticide among bedouin tribes at least. Not all Arabs were nomads of course, and settled peoples would be less likely to have practiced it, but saying the historical evidence "refutes" the idea there was infanticide is not tenable.
While there is no hard evidence either way, it might well be that the practice had declined significantly by the time of Islam even among bedouins, but it is quite probable that a historical memory of some Arabs practicing infanticide does contain a degree of truth.

Another straw man. The issue here is common and widespread female infanticide, not just occasional infanticide.

What is the evidence for any of these points?

The only source for information about Mecca at the time is Islamic texts. There is actually no hard evidence that there was even such a place at the time. The Quran, sunnah and works like Ibn Ishaq mention the various different religions all being practiced there and using it as a site of pilgrimage. There is even mention of the Quraysh leaders offering to give Islam equal billing with the other religions if Muhammad stopped blaspheming and attacking them.

No non-Islamic sources mention Mecca, and conflict in pre-Islamic Arabia was common, including that between Himyar and Axum, Jewish and Christian tribes, and between Arabs aligned with Rome and those aligned with Persia. Arab raiding of both these empires was also a common practice.

Not to the same degree as after Muhammad had started his campaigns to conquer the whole region. There is no mention in the Quran or sunnah of any battles of tribal conflicts during the 12 years Muhammad was in Mecca.
Even the "Fijar Wars" involving the Quraysh (including a young Muhammad), which supposedly lated four years, only consisted of a total of 8 days fighting. The first three are described as "mere brawls" in the Encyclopaedia of Islam.

Why should we assume it was so safe caravans needed minimal protection?

It was safer for caravans before Muhammad started his regular raids. Without the necessary assumption that a caravan would be attacked by a large force, there would not be the same need to provide protection.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.

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?

As a Baha’i I only view the Quran as truly accurate and that hadiths which contradict what the Quran states are inaccurate. Because the Hadith is not the Word of God, it cannot claim to be infallible and unquestionable truth. It wasn’t revelation revealed to Muhammad by God. It cannot be held to be indisputable truth because it is not the Word of God.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.

As a Baha’i to me Muhammad and the Quran are a precious gift to humanity and I’m eternally grateful to have the blessing of accepting the truth.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I believe Misbahal Shariah has no falsehood in it. And the content although below God's style, words, and doesn't come close to Quran, is also words that doesn't befit the fabricators to be able to fabricate for "It does not suit them nor are they capable, indeed they are from the hearing far removed".

Ahlulbayt (A) also speak in words beyond capability of fabricators often. The shorter the words, the harder to prove to being from them. The longer the recording of their words, the easier it's to prove it's from them (over all, though some distortions can take place within that).

All I am 100% certain of is that the Quran is the Word of God and infallible.

 

[Link]

All I am 100% certain of is that the Quran is the Word of God and infallible.

That's fine, but others can be certain about other writings.

 

[loverofhumanity]

As a Bahai, you are not in a position to tell Muslims what they believe.
For all but Quranists (who most Muslims condemn as heretics, for rejecting the hadith), the sunnah is a vital and integral element of Islam. To claim otherwise is either ill-informed or dishonest.

You do realise that this verse is telling Muslims to follow the sunnah of Muhammad? It is basically an instruction to accept the hadith.

My aim is only to defend the innocence of the Prophet against slander and false accusation. Baha’is believe Muhammad is a Prophet of God and perfect in that He committed no sin.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That's fine, but others can be certain about other writings.

Where we go wrong is when we believe ourselves instead of God’s Words.

 

[Link]

Where we go wrong is when we believe ourselves instead of God’s Words.

That's irrelevant. Words of Ahlulbayt (a) are often calculated, not as high in calculation as Quran, but enough to tell it's from them. Their words also superior to normal people.

 

[England my lionheart]

As a Baha’i to me Muhammad and the Quran are a precious gift to humanity and I’m eternally grateful to have the blessing of accepting the truth.

If only followers of Islam felt the same way about Baha’i,but if your happy good for you,if you believe it’s true and have that faith good for you,I would say the Quran is a book of faith not truths though.

 

[BrightShadow]

Not sure what you are on about there. Was it meant for me?

"Based on all the teachings of Islam", Muhammad absolutely did marry Aisha when she was six and consummated the marriage when she was nine - because that's what the teachings of Islam explicitly say!
I understand that you don't like the idea that Muhammad married a child, had people tortured to death, owned slaves, etc - but that's what the available evidence suggests. You can't just dismiss what you don't like.

Look, after such a long time - it is practically impossible for you or me to prove to each other without actually inventing a time machine and go back in time and bring some evidence (birth certificate of Aisha). Trump tried this trick with Obama (that he is not a citizen by birth) and lucky for Obama he was able to produce evidence that shut Trump down! However Trump was still able to stir the water for a long time! If something like that could happen in todays world then imagine what you (as a Trump) is also capable of doing in the past (centuries later) or present.

Some fake Muslims came to your conclusion BUT many genuine and learned Muslims are not! Who are you siding with? Who are you supporting? Who are you encouraging?

No Muslim came in your defense here in this thread. But yet you are clinging on to your position like no tomorrow. That begs me to question - in a reverse way - are you promoting this somehow? Just think about it. You should be telling ignorant Muslim that they need to stop believing that nonsense. Instead you attempted to make your case by stating that - this sort of practice was normal for the time and what Muhammad did was normal. You are failing to comprehend that - the description of Muhammad doesn't align with the notion that he married a child. People - especially women from his era would not continue to think highly of him and continue to think he was a noble man - had he done - what you are trying to say he did. Muhammad would have lost respect in front of all his followers. This religion would not have advanced! IMO

Some Muslim leaders and cleric in the past have misrepresented Aisha's age and made her younger for various reasons and because it was feasible to do so, no one had birth certificate back then! Why her age could have been reduced (in your so-called Ahadith) - is something already been explained to you but you refuse to pay any heed to them. You have already been explained that - immediately after Muhammad's departure - a feud broke up regarding leadership. This feud caused Muslims to split up into sects. The damage to the religion started right at that point! IMO. Corruptions found a way to sneak in! The group that was against Aisha - started false allegations to undermine her and demean her. What you see in the Ahadith centuries later - is simply manifestation of corruption from that conflicts! It is far from the truth! IMO

Some succeeding Muslims in the following generations may have knowingly or unknowingly (that it was indeed a false rumor) continued this practice because for personal reasons. History tells us - exaggerating or adjusting the truth for personal gain - is a normal practice for many folks who somehow find themselves in leadership positions. Just look at the current dictators of the world!

So, in conclusion - some fake Muslim leaders and clerics may have dwelled on the false notion that Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6 or 9 years old (probably) because they wanted to practice this heinous crime themselves. You are siding with those crooks. What does that make you?
Wake up and smell the coffee!.... Or don't!

Muhammad did not, could not, would not marry a child! A man could not deliver a book like Quran and retain his high esteem throughout his life among his followers and do such a thing at the same time! It is illogical!

 

[Augustus]

Straw man.
I don't claim that female infanticide didn't exist. I said that the evidence suggests that it wasn't common or widespread.

Not at all a strawman.

It was common in other nomadic societies and simply saying it can't have been common "because polygamy" is wrong. Other societies managed to combine both practices.

"If female babies were routinely killed, where did all these women come from to enable the multiple wives? Four would be difficult, let alone many more. If what Bahaullah said was true, there would have been a chronic shortage of wives in pre-Islamic Arabia, and early Islam. One would have ben difficult to manage. And yet, there were enough women to allow men to have so many wives that something had to be done to curtail the practice."

Powerful people had many wives, not everybody. It was a sign of status.

Powerful tribes took women from other groups.

Another straw man. The issue here is common and widespread female infanticide, not just occasional infanticide.

What would you classify as common?

Those tribes would also be short of women.

So? You can still take the ones they have. You can also raid settled communities.

It is simply a historical fact that numerous nomadic societies practiced both polygamy and infanticide.

As such, why do you think it is impossible that nomadic Arabs did the same?

There was more military conflict in the Islamic period than in the immediate pre-Islamic, but even the losses incurred then would barely be sufficient to balance even occasional female infanticide, let alone make up for a widespread practice, plus rampant polygamy

Again, other violent societies managed to do just this.

Whether the practice was common or not among bedouins at the dawn of Islam we just don't know, but the idea you can't have polygamy and infanticide is fallacious as numerous historical societies demonstrate.

The only source for information about Mecca at the time is Islamic texts. There is actually no hard evidence that there was even such a place at the time. The Quran, sunnah and works like Ibn Ishaq mention the various different religions all being practiced there and using it as a site of pilgrimage. There is even mention of the Quraysh leaders offering to give Islam equal billing with the other religions if Muhammad stopped blaspheming and attacking them.

Personally I don't put a great deal of faith in theological sources written centuries after the fact.

Not to the same degree as after Muhammad had started his campaigns to conquer the whole region. There is no mention in the Quran or sunnah of any battles of tribal conflicts during the 12 years Muhammad was in Mecca.
Even the "Fijar Wars" involving the Quraysh (including a young Muhammad), which supposedly lated four years, only consisted of a total of 8 days fighting. The first three are described as "mere brawls" in the Encyclopaedia of Islam.

But from actual history, not Islamic theology, we know the Hijaz saw plenty of conflict in the centuries leading up to the rise of Islam: tribal, political, religious, economic.

Why should we assume it was safe for caravans until Muhammad?

It was safer for caravans before Muhammad started his regular raids. Without the necessary assumption that a caravan would be attacked by a large force, there would not be the same need to provide protection.

Arab tribes raided each other and raided the Persian and Roman Empires long before Muhammad, he was simply more successful.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Baha’is believe Muhammad is a Prophet of God and perfect in that He committed no sin.

Yikes. Should've stuck with Jesus when it comes to that. Bit harder to look past Mo's child abuse, slave trading and ownership, being a warlord, raiding caravans, etc. Not the best moral example, imo.

The worst you can say about Jesus is that maybe he was disrespectful of His mother or said xenophobic things about Gentiles.

 

[KWED]

As a Baha’i I only view the Quran as truly accurate and that hadiths which contradict what the Quran states are inaccurate.

The hadith that show Muhammad marrying Aisha when she was a child does not contradict the Quran, so on what other grounds do you reject them?

Because the Hadith is not the Word of God, it cannot claim to be infallible and unquestionable truth. It wasn’t revelation revealed to Muhammad by God. It cannot be held to be indisputable truth because it is not the Word of God.

The Quran does not mention Aisha. Do you therefore believe that she did not exist?

 

[KWED]

As a Baha’i to me Muhammad and the Quran are a precious gift to humanity and I’m eternally grateful to have the blessing of accepting the truth.

In what way are they "a precious gift to humanity"?
Does your belief mean that you simply reject any claim about Muhammad that you don't like the sound of?
What about the violent, intolerant and discriminatory passages in the Quran? How do you justify rejecting those?

 

[KWED]

All I am 100% certain of is that the Quran is the Word of God and infallible.

How are you 100% certain of this?
On what evidence do you base this certainty? Why do you think that there is absolutely zero possibility that is was written by men? After all, it reads exactly like it was written by 7th century Arabs.

 

[KWED]

My aim is only to defend the innocence of the Prophet against slander and false accusation. Baha’is believe Muhammad is a Prophet of God and perfect in that He committed no sin.

This is just question begging. Why do you think the hadith about Aisha's age are "slander and false accusation", especially given that the majority of Muslim scholars over the centuries have accepted it as fact without any problem?
The answer is pretty clear. It doesn't fit well with modern ideas of morality and acceptable behaviour. You are attempting to impose 21st century western values on people living in 7th century Arabia.This is cultural imperialism.

 

[KWED]

Look, after such a long time - it is practically impossible for you or me to prove to each other without actually inventing a time machine and go back in time and bring some evidence (birth certificate of Aisha).

We have a pretty good picture of what happened in the past through the accounts handed down, both written and oral, and through archaeological evidence. It's called "history". It is our "time machine".

The written records from Islamic history show that Aisha was a young girl when Muhammad married her. Those records are hagiographies, so we know there is no attempt made to attack the character of either of them. The opposite, in fact.

Trump tried this trick with Obama (that he is not a citizen by birth) and lucky for Obama he was able to produce evidence that shut Trump down! However Trump was still able to stir the water for a long time! If something like that could happen in todays world then imagine what you (as a Trump) is also capable of doing in the past (centuries later) or present.

You have this the wrong way round. The hadith are Aisha's "birth certificate" which confirms her age. You are the "Trump" ignoring that and still insisting, without evidence, that she was much older.

Some fake Muslims came to your conclusion BUT many genuine and learned Muslims are not! Who are you siding with? Who are you supporting? Who are you encouraging?

This is just getting stupid now. You are calling the most renowned Islamic scholars through history "fake Muslims", simply because you aren't comfortable with events in 7th century Arabia by 21st century western standards.

No Muslim came in your defense here in this thread.

Yes they did. Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Kathir, Hisham, Al Tabari, Ibn Ishaq, Shaykh al Munajjid, etc, etc...
(BTW, there don't seem to be many Muslims on this forum, the only regular contributors either simply deflect and obfuscate, or are obsessed with black magic).

But yet you are clinging on to your position like no tomorrow.

I am simply stating the mainstream, Islamic position, as supported by early Sialmic sources and cond=firmed by the consensus of authoritative scholars.
You, on the other hand, are simply repeating "But Muhammad would never marry a child because I don't like the idea!".

You should be telling ignorant Muslim that they need to stop believing that nonsense.

This issue isn't about whether Islam is true, but about whether the historical character of Muhammad married a child. Even if he made up the Quran, he still had to have a life.
Ironically, it is you who is telling Muslims that they are "ignorant" in believing that sahih hadith are an authentic and reliable record of Muhammad's life.

Instead you attempted to make your case by stating that - this sort of practice was normal for the time and what Muhammad did was normal.

Wrong. I don't say it was normal. I said it was seen as acceptable.

You are failing to comprehend that - the description of Muhammad doesn't align with the notion that he married a child. People - especially women from his era would not continue to think highly of him and continue to think he was a noble man - had he done - what you are trying to say he did. Muhammad would have lost respect in front of all his followers. This religion would not have advanced! IMO

More cultural imperialism. People living in 7th century Arabia didn't have the same moral values as people living in the 21st century west.

Some Muslim leaders and cleric in the past have misrepresented Aisha's age and made her younger for various reasons and because it was feasible to do so, no one had birth certificate back then!

Wrong. Pretty much all Muslims accepted the accounts in the sunnah, because they had no reason to doubt it. It is only recently, since sceptics have been pointing out the conflict between marrying a child and being the perfect role model, that some Muslims (still not even most) have tried to invent a different narrative.

Why her age could have been reduced (in your so-called Ahadith)

It's not "my so-called" hadith. It is "the sahih hadith accepted as reliable and authentic by scholars throughout history".
Really can't see why you are struggling to grasp this concept.

is something already been explained to you but you refuse to pay any heed to them. You have already been explained that - immediately after Muhammad's departure - a feud broke up regarding leadership. This feud caused Muslims to split up into sects. The damage to the religion started right at that point! IMO. Corruptions found a way to sneak in! The group that was against Aisha - started false allegations to undermine her and demean her. What you see in the Ahadith centuries later - is simply manifestation of corruption from that conflicts! It is far from the truth! IMO

So your argument for the sahih hadith being false is that they were made up by enemies of Islam in order to demean Aisha and Muhammad. And not a single scholar at the time or for centuries after realised this. Do you have any evidence to support this claim, or is it just your opinion? Surely there must be some contemporary records that mention this?

Muhammad did not, could not, would not marry a child! A man could not deliver a book like Quran and retain his high esteem throughout his life among his followers and do such a thing at the same time! It is illogical!

Yet again, you assume that people in 7th century Arabia had the same moral values as people in the 21st century west. But we know they didn't, because the Quran explicitly prescribes execution by torture and other barbaric punishments, but these have been outlawed as morally unacceptable by civilised society today. So we know your claim that Muhammad couldn't have married a child because it is unacceptable today is fatally flawed and can be rejected.

By your argument, the Quran cannot be true as it contradicts today's moral values.
QED.