Prophet Muhammad did not marry a child

[KWED]

Not at all a strawman.

My argument was that the evidence suggests that female infanticide was not common and widespread. You replied that by reasoning was flawed because infanticide sometimes occurred. You misrepresented my initial argument in order to more easily respond. Now, I accept that you might not have realised you were doing it, but do it you did.

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.

This is just question begging. You can't simply assert that "female infanticide was common where polygamy was rampant". You need to present evidence to argument to support your claim.

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

So polygamy was not so rampant and culturally embedded as to require a law from god. Which also supports my argument from a different angle - that the two elements do not match.

That also leaves the academic argument that the "myth" of widespread and common female infanticide in Greece, Rome and the ANE is not supported by the evidence.

Powerful tribes took women from other groups.

This practice is unaffected by widespread female infanticide.

What would you classify as common?

That many people practiced it more than occasionally.

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

Again, not affected by female infanticide.

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?

Still with the straw man, I see.
The issue isn't that infanticide wasn't ever practiced in societies polygamy was practiced. It is that widespread and common female infanticide and rampant polygamy are mutually exclusive.

the idea you can't have polygamy and infanticide is fallacious as numerous historical societies demonstrate.

There it is again!
I even explained your problem clearly in the previous post, but you keep repeating it.
Naughty.

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

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

"From actual history" we know that there were fewer battles, less military conflict, more stable society in the region before the rise of Islam than immediately after. Obviously, once Muhammad and his successors had invaded, conquered and suppressed the local populations, things quietened down considerably. Kinda how empire building works. And the imperialists will usually claim to have brought peace and stability to the barbarous and warlike natives.

 

[BrightShadow]

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".

You ate your cake already. You no longer possess your cake.
On one hand - you question Muhammad's existence and on other hand you claim "history" suggests Muhammad did this and did that! That continue to amaze me! That is a perfect example of double standard! Let the people who actually believe Muhammad existed - worry about what he did and didn't do!
History tells us - it is written by conquerors or whoever can influence it! History shows us - it is not reliable and must not be trusted without questioning. If Hitler won - the history would have been written differently. You would have been writing in German and singing a German song!
On similar grounds - trace the chain and check the source of your hadith and see where it takes you. You may find - it will lead you to Aisha's opponent!

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.

Your love for Ahadith and trust in Ahadith is mind boggling. If you were a Muslim - you would have been one of those extremists. IMO

Sane and educated Muslims do not have faith in all Ahadith. I have never met any such Muslims! There was one guy here named Shakeel but I haven't seen him for a while.
Both Bukhari and Muslim has Hadith indicating drinking Camel pee can heal you from sickness. Do you know any sane Muslim drinking camel pee?
If there is one sick Hadith like that - then why wouldn't there be more? I would question anyone's sanity who would claim to believe in ALL Ahadith!

The hadith are Aisha's "birth certificate" which confirms her age.

Hadith confirming Aisha's age is corrupted. There was a feud among Muslims after Muhammad passed away regarding leadership. One group was with Aisha and another group was against her. You love history - why don't you read some? Learn about the feud! Learn about the origins of sects.
Common sense should tell you that the group against Aisha could have tried to undermine her and attack her character. History tells us repeatedly that this sort of things happen. Many leaders are accused by multiple women for sexual abusing them 20-30 years after the incident supposedly occurred. Sometimes the allegations could be true but many times they are false! These allegations are made for political reasons. At least two of the Supreme court Judges were accused by women. Both of those judges got appointed because obviously majority didn't believe their accuser.
The Hadith you have is a result of such a scenario! It is fabricated! It is a lie! It made into history (Ahadith) due to political reasons. IMO. Ignore it and tell any Muslims who believe it - to ignore it!

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.

Your renowned Islamic scholars wrote the rumor as they heard it from someone generations later. They just documented the rumors! Of course - they did a disservice to their religion by writing some of these rumors down. IMO. When Jesus was alive - God allowed him to heal some people. Even though Jesus repeatedly said - that he cannot do anything on his own - some people still started a rumor that Jesus was son of god. Look at the result of that rumor! Jesus had to go through crucifixion just to prove that rumor false. A real god would have walked out of that predicament but Jesus didn't! That shows Jesus wasn't god! IMO
God didn't let Jesus walk out of there because then all the Romans and Jews would also wrongfully start to believe Jesus must have been god. Just imagine how much damage that would have cause! Hence, Jesus had to go through the crucifixion. IMO. Similarly the rumor of Aisha's age was just a rumor and your so-called scholars just wrote down the rumor that floated around for centuries. They were collecting to preserve whatever they thought was authentic - so a wide spread rumor made its way into their collection because this particular rumor was too widespread centuries ago - for political reasons.

Yes they did. Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Kathir, Hisham, Al Tabari, Ibn Ishaq, Shaykh al Munajjid, etc, etc...

They wrote down what they heard from John who heard it from his grandfather, who heard it from his friend, who heard it from his grandfather, who heard it from his co-worker, who heard it from his neighbor, who heard it from his grandfather who heard it from his aunt, who heard it from his neighbor, who heard it from his uncle, who used to live next to Aisha's nephew's grandchild and heard from him and who heard it from his grandfather who claimed to be Aisha's nephew, who never really knew how old his aunt really was when she married Muhammad because no one kept track of birth years back then really. How many of us know how old our Aunts were when they married? So. yeah, nice chain of reliable source you got there!

Similar way another hadith is documented by the same scholars that tells some gullible Muslims that - camel pee is like a medicine! How many of your scholars are drinking camel pee? How many recommending to drink it? I would question anyone's intelligence if they even consider drinking camel pee just because it is in the Ahadith!
Instead of telling Muslims to discard some of the Ahadith that is obviously lies - you are selling it for profit (personal gain). How selfish is that?
Ahadiths should be taken with a grain of salt! Otherwise you will end up drinking camel pee!
Just like any religion - a part of Muslims are ignorant, they are gullible, they are easily manipulated by prevailing beliefs that started as a rumor. They don't question anything even though Quran directs them to question everything before believing! Mass majority, however are not so gullible!

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.

Ahadith are like the senate bills - many things are in there that no one even bothers to look. But this doesn't mean they agree with it when they pass it! Muslims (in general) do not consult all Ahadith on a daily basis. IMO. They learn basic ritual/ practices and have a basic faith system. Many don't even bother to read the Quran! Some may say they believe in the Ahadith. Tell them to drink camel pee then! Then they will run and open the book! Only book to follow is the Quran!

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.

Of course, all educated and mass majority have realized it - but the rumors are written down centuries ago and now to refute it - you need counter evidence. That is the irony of things! If someone tries to erase it from the collection then people like you will get annoyed! So, most sane and educated Muslim are just discarding it and ignoring it and only taking information from Ahadith what seems reliable! They are doing the right thing by ignoring it because Quran tells them to do just that!

Look at these verses from the Quran...

Following verse discourages every Muslim from seeking truth anywhere other than the Quran. If Aisha's age isn't mentioned in Quran then it doesn't mean any Muslim need to run to Ahadith and believe something from it. God is asking Muslims to be content with what the Quran provides. A person has to give consent to marry and divorce by themselves (not by their parents!). Everyone knows a child can be manipulated. They cannot give consent at age 9. So, common sense says Quran is against anyone from marrying children! So, regarding who to marry and what age etc. - your basic judgment should guide you to someone who can give you consent! No need to consult history (Ahadith) because history cannot guarantee what is correct and what is false.

[Quran 6:114] Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than Allah? - when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail." They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt.

[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"

So, according to Quran - only Quran is reliable source of information!

The following verse in Quran is telling Muslims to ignore Ahadith that contradicts with Quran.
[Quran 45:6] "These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what statement (hadith) after Allah and His verses will they believe?"

Everything that contradicts with Quran and came before and after Quran is asked to be ignored in the following verse!
[Quran 77:50] "Then in what statement after the Qur'an will they believe?"

In the following verse Muslims are asked not to indulge in other books that provides information that contradicts with Quran...
[Quran 68:36-38] "What is [the matter] with you? How do you judge? Or do you have a book / scripture in which you learn that indeed for you in it is whatever you choose?"

As you see, these verses and more verses like these - certainly confirming all Muslim that ONLY Quran should be consulted and trusted. Everything else should be questioned!
Ahadith in general - are not an authentic and reliable record of Muhammad's life! No history is reliable. Everything in history is subjective and written by someone who can be biased. Some Ahadith can be true but many are fabricated! So, get rid of your Ahadith approach and try and sell something new!

So, again, 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!

 

[KWED]

You ate your cake already. You no longer possess your cake.
On one hand - you question Muhammad's existence and on other hand you claim "history" suggests Muhammad did this and did that! That continue to amaze me! That is a perfect example of double standard! Let the people who actually believe Muhammad existed - worry about what he did and didn't do!

Oh dear god, not this again.
I already explained that there are two separate concepts here. Actual history and Islamic history. They are not the same thing. I do not consider everything in the Quran and hadith as historically accurate, however, in the context of Islamic belief, when highlighting inconsistencies or contradictions, I will assume it has the same veracity as my interlocutor does.
Get it?

What's more, I was explaining how "history" works in a general sense. We do not need a time machine to get a reasonable picture of past events if there is sufficient textual and/or archaeological evidence.

History tells us - it is written by conquerors or whoever can influence it! History shows us - it is not reliable and must not be trusted without questioning. If Hitler won - the history would have been written differently. You would have been writing in German and singing a German song!
On similar grounds - trace the chain and check the source of your hadith and see where it takes you. You may find - it will lead you to Aisha's opponent!

Are you high? Are you claiming that sahih hadith collections were compiles by enemies of Islam?

Your love for Ahadith and trust in Ahadith is mind boggling. If you were a Muslim - you would have been one of those extremists. IMO

Starting to suspect that you simply do not have the capacity for meaningful debate.

Sane and educated Muslims do not have faith in all Ahadith. I have never met any such Muslims!

Yes they do. The vast majority accept the sahih collections as reliable and authentic. You are either being woefully ignorant or deliberately dishonest here.

most sane and educated Muslim are just discarding it and ignoring it

So you are saying that every Muslim who accepts Aisha's age as recorded in the hadith are insane and uneducated. Yikes! You really do have a very low opinion of most Muslims, don't you?
Even a committed sceptic like myself understands that most Muslims are simply indoctrinated from infancy and their beliefs do not usually reflect on their sanity or level of education.

Both Bukhari and Muslim has Hadith indicating drinking Camel pee can heal you from sickness. Do you know any sane Muslim drinking camel pee?

The WHO has actually issued a warning for people not to drink it as a cure...
https://www.usnews.com/news/article...ng-camel-urine-world-health-organization-says
This is why people drink camel urine
Here are a selection of authentic modern Islamic scholar sources confirming that drinking camel urine is beneficial...
The urine of camels as medicine - Islamweb - Fatwas
Drinking of camel urine as medicine according to Sahi Bukhari. Volume 7, -
Prophet Muhammad, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, instructing the sick to drink camel urine for cure - Islamweb - Fatwas
Dr Zakir Naik on drinking Camel Urine

If there is one sick Hadith like that - then why wouldn't there be more? I would question anyone's sanity who would claim to believe in ALL Ahadith!

Drinking camel urine as a cure is mentioned in the hadith because it was a belief at the time. It seems bonkers to us today, but once again, you are merely committing cultural imperialism.

Look at these verses from the Quran...

Following verse discourages every Muslim from seeking truth anywhere other than the Quran. If Aisha's age isn't mentioned in Quran then it doesn't mean any Muslim need to run to Ahadith and believe something from it. God is asking Muslims to be content with what the Quran provides. A person has to give consent to marry and divorce by themselves (not by their parents!). Everyone knows a child can be manipulated. They cannot give consent at age 9. So, common sense says Quran is against anyone from marrying children! So, regarding who to marry and what age etc. - your basic judgment should guide you to someone who can give you consent! No need to consult history (Ahadith) because history cannot guarantee what is correct and what is false.

[Quran 6:114] Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than Allah? - when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail." They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt.

[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"

So, according to Quran - only Quran is reliable source of information!

The following verse in Quran is telling Muslims to ignore Ahadith that contradicts with Quran.
[Quran 45:6] "These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what statement (hadith) after Allah and His verses will they believe?"

Everything that contradicts with Quran and came before and after Quran is asked to be ignored in the following verse!
[Quran 77:50] "Then in what statement after the Qur'an will they believe?"

In the following verse Muslims are asked not to indulge in other books that provides information that contradicts with Quran...
[Quran 68:36-38] "What is [the matter] with you? How do you judge? Or do you have a book / scripture in which you learn that indeed for you in it is whatever you choose?"

As you see, these verses and more verses like these - certainly confirming all Muslim that ONLY Quran should be consulted and trusted. Everything else should be questioned!
Ahadith in general - are not an authentic and reliable record of Muhammad's life! No history is reliable. Everything in history is subjective and written by someone who can be biased. Some Ahadith can be true but many are fabricated! So, get rid of your Ahadith approach and try and sell something new!

"O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger" - 4:59
This is clearly telling Muslims that Muhammad is also a source of binding information, not just the Quran.

So, again, Muhammad did not, could not, would not marry a child!

In your opinion, based on your 21st century, western morals. The (Islamic) evidence suggests otherwise. Historical evidence also shows it is a possibility.

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!

And yet Billions of Muslims have revered Muhammad for 1400 years, usually accepting that he married a child. It is your argument that lacks logic.

 

[Augustus]

This is just question begging. You can't simply assert that "female infanticide was common where polygamy was rampant". You need to present evidence to argument to support your claim.

For someone so quick to cry fallacy, I note you have added the word "rampant". As I said, polygamy was usually the preserve of elite males because they had sufficient resources.

What I said was that numerous societies practiced both polygamy and infanticide, thus you claim that the practice of polygamy .

An example would be China (concubinage is functionally the same given powerful men take more than their fair share of women)

Concubinage in China - Wikipedia
Female infanticide in China - Wikipedia

Other examples I mentioned previously (!kung, some Australian Aborigines and some Mongols).

Given we know that neither polygamy or infanticide are rare in human history, it's unsurprising that they co-existed in some societies.

That many people practiced it more than occasionally.

Even in societies where it is common, few individuals would practice it anything other than occasionally for obvious reasons.

"From actual history" we know that there were fewer battles, less military conflict, more stable society in the region before the rise of Islam than immediately after. Obviously, once Muhammad and his successors had invaded, conquered and suppressed the local populations, things quietened down considerably. Kinda how empire building works. And the imperialists will usually claim to have brought peace and stability to the barbarous and warlike natives.

Raiding was common before Islam, and there were many wars before Islam.

As such what "actual history" can you provide to support your claim that "Caravans used to travel the length and breadth or Arabia with little or no military protection."?

 

[BrightShadow]

If you want to believe A God who sent Muhammad to correct "people of the book" would allow future followers of Islam to fall into similar predicament where they also would be following some new controversial books (Ahadith) that were collected and written at least 214 years after Muhammad passed away - then be my guest. BUT that would be a wrong conclusion! IMO. It is not what God asked!
It is illogical that a God would ask Muslims to follow Muhammad based on hearsays that were written centuries after Muhammad passed away. Muhammad and his successors (next leaders) made sure nothing was written down during their life time - other than Quran! Why do you think they did that if Ahadith needed to be followed? Abu Bakr burned the books of Hadith, Omar even jailed the narrators of Hadith. Most of the close companions of Muhammad did not relay any Hadith while they were alive. Muhammad specifically asked nothing about him to be written down because he didn't want anything circulating other than the Quran!

Read the history (your favorite subject)! Ban on Hadith lasted until the period of Umar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz and that is for approximately over hundred years after Muhammad. Systematic collection began even after another hundred years later. Anyone following anything that contradicts with the Quran from these new books are again "people of the book"! IMO. After that huge gap - nothing can be accepted without questioning it, nothing that contradicts with Quran!

"O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger" - 4:59
This is clearly telling Muslims that Muhammad is also a source of binding information, not just the Quran.

There is no problem with Quran telling Muslims to obey the Messenger (Muhammad) but it is about following harmless things for extra credits such as prayers and maybe everyday rituals etc. Quran is not telling any Muslim to adopt anything controversial especially something that conflicts with the Quran. Quran claims to be complete and sufficient for any future Muslim. [Quran 6:115]. It claims it has every example needed to figure out things [Quran 39:27]. It claims it is totally consistent [Quran 39:23] and Quran warns against reading any other verses other than Quran [Quran 45:6]. The words in Quran cannot be changed [Quran 18:27] So, any Ahadith contradicting with Quran's core teaching and any controversial Hadith - should be deemed untrustworthy to follow! It is as simple as that!

Muhammad wasn't allowed to introduce anything new and controversial that Quran didn't cover or indorse already. Future Muslims aren't asked to follow something in the name of Muhammad that cannot be verified! The verse you provided is about basic stuff that collaborates with the Quran. Not questionable stuff!

[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......

So, anything that seems suspicious and contradicts with Quran's core teachings - should not be followed regardless of whose name is used behind indorsement!
Core teachings of Islam are to believe in ONE God, lead a righteous life and believe in the judgement day.

To marry means you need consent. Quran asked to get consent. A child cannot give consent. Quran also gave indication what the marriage age should be. At marriage time a person should be of sound judgment and have enough wisdom so that property can be transferred to them [Quran 4:6].
So, use your common sense and figure out that - to lead a righteous life you must get consent before you marry someone and the person you are marrying should be of sound judgment who qualifies and should be old enough to own property in her own name. Does a 9 year old girl qualifies in that category? Of course not! So, tell the ignorant Muslims who doesn't understand this - and advice them not marry children - rather than telling them it is okay.
No need to complicate the matter and drag on this!

 

[KWED]

For someone so quick to cry fallacy, I note you have added the word "rampant". As I said, polygamy was usually the preserve of elite males because they had sufficient resources.

Perhaps (although wives were an asset as well as a liability). But the point here is the claim that it was rampant.
And remember that this discussion originated from @TransmutingSoul quoting Abdulbaha - "the Arabian father often buried his own daughter alive".
Not "Infanticide was sometimes practiced".

What I said was that numerous societies practiced both polygamy and infanticide, thus you claim that the practice of polygamy .

And I have never denied it, so not sure what your point is.
My point was that rampant polygamy, and common and widespread female infanticide are mutually incompatible.

Raiding was common before Islam, and there were many wars before Islam.

But there simply weren't as many battles.

As such what "actual history" can you provide to support your claim that "Caravans used to travel the length and breadth or Arabia with little or no military protection."?

Because there was a major war between two major powers, with regular and large-scale attacks on caravans. Before that state of affairs, during a time of relative peace, there would not be the same need for military protection.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.

Yes I understand that concept. We have what is called Pilgrims Notes but they do not possess the same authority as the Word of God. They also may not be wholly accurate.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.

Thanks for respecting my different viewpoints. They may not be right for you but Baha’u’llah teaches us to try very hard to stay on good terms with everyone despite opposite beliefs. So in that spirit I wish you well and respect your views. It’s best only to believe what your mind tells you to.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.

Hi brother. I have some beautiful catholic friends who just dropped in today. They are so loving and kind and we even had a prayer together.

I respect your views but I believe Jesus was perfect as well.

I too thought a lot of bad things about Muhammad and Islam but after looking into the matter myself privately I found that these things just aren’t true and a grave injustice is being done to an innocent person in Muhammad. Just as a former catholic, the reason I left the church was because I found that Muhammad had been mentioned in the Bible allegorically in Revelation and that Christ had already returned.

So of course I am wedded to Jesus in my heart but I also accept the whole truth now and not just the parts I was taught to believe in Sunday School and Mass. But as I said, I wish you well brother. God bless and stay safe.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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?

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

The Quran does mention Aisha.

Aisha was defended by God Himself in the Holy Quran.

Here is an article regarding the story.

How Allah defended Aisha ؓ from allegations of Zina?

And here are the Quran verses defending her innocence and that she had not committed adultery or any immorality.

Surah An-Nur - 11-21 - Quran.com

The thing to note here is that God does not defend satanic or evil deeds and this is one example where God defended Aisha. God had a lot of time for her in the Quran that 11 verses were revealed just to defend her innocence.

That which is falsely imputed to both Aisha and Muhammad is just another slander against her and God made clear she is not involved in immorality.

So the Quran has spoken highly of both Muhammad and Aisha.

 

[KWED]

If you want to believe A God who sent Muhammad to correct "people of the book" would allow future followers of Islam to fall into similar predicament where they also would be following some new controversial books (Ahadith) that were collected and written at least 214 years after Muhammad passed away - then be my guest. BUT that would be a wrong conclusion! IMO. It is not what God asked!

I do not believe that there is a god to send messengers. However, over a billion Muslims not only believe that, but also believe that the records of the words and deeds of the messenger are a vital part of Islam. As I said, it is not your place to tell Muslims what they should believe, just as it is not Muslims' place to tell you what to believe.

The Quran (which you claim is infallible) said to "obey the messenger". How can Muslims do that if they do not know what the messenger said?

It is illogical that a God would ask

Whoah! It is illogical to claim that a god exists in the first place.

Muslims to follow Muhammad based on hearsays that were written centuries after Muhammad passed away.

But to Muslims they are not "merely hearsay written centuries after the event". They are carefully authenticated, accurate records of the words and deeds of the messenger. You really need to get your head around that concept.
Basically your argument here is "I don't believe their belief, there it odd false".

Muhammad and his successors (next leaders) made sure nothing was written down during their life time - other than Quran!

The Quran was not written down during Muhammad's lifetime. Ir was mostly orally transmitted. Therefore by your argument you cannot accept the Quran as accurate.

Why do you think they did that if Ahadith needed to be followed?

Because 7th century Arabia was essentially a culture of oral transmission, not written.

Abu Bakr burned the books of Hadith, Omar even jailed the narrators of Hadith.

And you know how? Correct, from hadith (hadith that are considered to be unreliable, btw - I'm sure you can appreciate the irony here )

Most of the close companions of Muhammad did not relay any Hadith while they were alive.

Erm, yes they did. That is what "narrated by" means at the beginning of a hadith. It lets us know who the eye-witness was. There are about 17,000 hadith narrated by Muhammad's conditions. Not sure how you think someone can tell someone something when they are dead.

Muhammad specifically asked nothing about him to be written down because he didn't want anything circulating other than the Quran!

So once again, you are using a hadith as evidencethat Muhammad prohibited the use of hadith.

However, I acknowledge that both the Quran and sunnah contain self-contradictory passages. Just more evidence that Muhammad made stuff up as he went along. Islamic scholars have had to come up with tortured apologetics in attempts to reconcile these contradictions.

Read the history (your favorite subject)!

Ban on Hadith lasted until the period of Umar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz and that is for approximately over hundred years after Muhammad. Systematic collection began even after another hundred years later. Anyone following anything that contradicts with the Quran from these new books are again "people of the book"! IMO. After that huge gap - nothing can be accepted without questioning it, nothing that contradicts with Quran!

Umar was worried about committing hadith to writing. Other companions wanted them written down. Not sure why you think that affects their importance as a part of the Islamic canon? Remember that oral transmission was an established and legitimate method in ancient Arabia. It was how the Quran was initially transmitted, after all - and you claim that it infallible.

There is no problem with Quran telling Muslims to obey the Messenger (Muhammad) but it is about following harmless things for extra credits such as prayers and maybe everyday rituals etc. Quran is not telling any Muslim to adopt anything controversial especially something that conflicts with the Quran. Quran claims to be complete and sufficient for any future Muslim. [Quran 6:115]. It claims it has every example needed to figure out things [Quran 39:27]. It claims it is totally consistent [Quran 39:23] and Quran warns against reading any other verses other than Quran [Quran 45:6]. The words in Quran cannot be changed [Quran 18:27] So, any Ahadith contradicting with Quran's core teaching and any controversial Hadith - should be deemed untrustworthy to follow! It is as simple as that!

Ok. So you accept the principle of hadith - unless the hadith says something that conflicts with your 21st century, western morality - which you assume is the moral framework used in the Quran.

Muhammad wasn't allowed to introduce anything new and controversial that Quran didn't cover or indorse already. Future Muslims aren't asked to follow something in the name of Muhammad that cannot be verified! The verse you provided is about basic stuff that collaborates with the Quran. Not questionable stuff!

Marrying young girls is not prohibited in the Quran, and it is tacitly approved, so a hadith recording Muhammad marrying a young girl does not contradict the Quran. That is all.
Islamic scholar have been aware of both the content of the Quran, and those hadith. Why do you think not one of them raised an objection? Because not one of them saw any conflict. You only see a conflict because you assume the Quran follows 21st century western morality - which is obvious nonsense. It follows 7th century Arabian morality.

[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......

But Allah didn't punish Muhammad for inventing anything in his name, so the hadith are therefore authentic.
It's like saying "If I am guilty, may god strike me down now". If he doesn't, you are therefore innocent (or there is no god).

So, anything that seems suspicious and contradicts with Quran's core teachings - should not be followed regardless of whose name is used behind indorsement!
Core teachings of Islam are to believe in ONE God, lead a righteous life and believe in the judgement day.

You seem confused here. You are actually arguing in favour of the hadith about Aisha's age, because they do not contradict Islam's core teachings.
Remember that "a righteous life" is in the context of 7th century Arabia, not the 21st century west. This is a concept that you really need to try and understand. And a righteous life in a 7thC Arab context included things like owning slaves, torturing people to death, hunting down and killing opponents, treating prisoners harshly, etc (all mentioned in the Quran). So why you think marrying a young girls is too extreme to consider is baffling.

To marry means you need consent. Quran asked to get consent.

No it doesn't. There is nothing in the Quran that says a girl or woman must give her consent to be married or a female slave must consent to sex with her owner.

A child cannot give consent.

There you go with your 21st century western morals again, you cultural imperialist.
Also, Islam considers a female to be an adult after their first period, which can be as young as 8 (which is probably why Muhammad waited until Aisha was 9 to have sex with her after a ceremonial marriage when she was 6.

Quran also gave indication

what the marriage age should be. At marriage time a person should be of sound judgment and have enough wisdom so that property can be transferred to them [Quran 4:6].

The age of responsibility in Islam comes with the first wet dream or period.

So, use your common sense and figure out that

Is this 21st century western common sense, or 7th century Arabian common sense?

to lead a righteous life you must get consent before you marry someone

Not according to the Quran.

and the person you are marrying should be of sound judgment who qualifies and should be old enough to own property in her own name. Does a 9 year old girl qualifies in that category? Of course not!

Unfortunately, she does under Islamic rules.
I agree that to us in the west in the 21st century it appears barbaric, but you really need to remember that we are taking about life in 7th century Arabia here, where slavery, sex slaves, torture, gender discrimination, etc were commonplace and accepted as a normal part of life.

So, tell the ignorant Muslims who doesn't understand this - and advice them not marry children - rather than telling them it is okay.
No need to complicate the matter and drag on this!

Who's telling them it is ok? Only the Quran and sunnah. I fully support child marriage being illegal.
The thing is, history (and god, if he existed) don't care about your feelings and your modern morality.

To the best of our knowledge, Muhammad married a young girl.
Is this a problem in an historical context? Absolutely not.
Is it a problem in the context of the ultimate role model for all humanity? Absolutely!

 

[loverofhumanity]

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?

Ok so we see it differently. For example. There is history behind the verses of the Quran. You said that there were no verses regarding Aisha because perhaps you did not read the name Aisha mentioned. But in various English translations you will find it is mentioned. So there is more to a passage than it’s literal meaning. Having understood many of these so called violent passages in their proper context, I realised that those who are just referring to the verse literally would misunderstand the context and oppose the Quran and Muhammad.

Thankfully I am in the situation of having some grasp of context so knowing that I realise there are a great many misunderstandings being promoted about Islam which simply aren’t true if one knows the context.

So to me I see that Muhammad was a perfect Being sent by God and with a most beautiful Book that has so many spiritual gems such as to return good for evil and such.

As I said, it’s context that if read just literally can be very misleading. Reading the Quran in context comes with many years of study. I too found many verses alarming and violent until I began to understand better the context. It’s not a novel but a very deep history as well.

 

[KWED]

I too thought a lot of bad things about Muhammad and Islam but after looking into the matter myself privately I found that these things just aren’t true and a grave injustice is being done to an innocent person in Muhammad.

What did this "private research" consist of? Let me guess - reading the writings of Bahaullah?

Just as a former catholic, the reason I left the church was because I found that Muhammad had been mentioned in the Bible allegorically in Revelation and that Christ had already returned.

Which passages mention Muhammad?
(BTW, when you say "allegorically", do you mean "not actually"?)

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.

Because of Baha’u’llah. If you ever find out Who Baha’u’llah is then you might understand why the certainty. I just want to add. Regardless of differing views, I respect you that you seem to question so intensely. That is excellent as we have all been spoon fed for centuries so a questioning mind is the best way to be. I found what I did by asking the hard questions so please always keep questioning as it’s better than being brain dead and blindly following just everyone else.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.

I think that we all examine it individually with the resources available to us then make our decision. I’m making a decision as a Baha’i on this issue as the teachings of Baha’u’llah are very clear about the station of Muhammad and the Quran.

But I respect your right to come to your own conclusion in this matter.

 

[KWED]

The Quran does mention Aisha.

No, it does not.

Aisha was defended by God Himself in the Holy Quran.
Here is an article regarding the story.
How Allah defended Aisha ؓ from allegations of Zina?
And here are the Quran verses defending her innocence and that she had not committed adultery or any immorality.
Surah An-Nur - 11-21 - Quran.com

There is no mention of Aisha, only of an event where someone was accused of something.

The only way you have of connecting Aisha to those verses if through hadith. But you reject the hadith, so a bit of a conundrum.
BTW, in the hadith in question Aisha describes herself as "still a young girl", even some time after their marriage, and as someone so small that the people lifting a howdah didn't notice that she wasn't in it.
Also, if Aisha was innocent, why did Allah wait over a month before revealing her innocence to Muhammad, thus fuelling the rumours and causing both Aisha and Muhammad great distress?

 

[loverofhumanity]

What did this "private research" consist of? Let me guess - reading the writings of Bahaullah?

Which passages mention Muhammad?
(BTW, when you say "allegorically", do you mean "not actually"?)

Yes Writings of Baha’u’llah mainly the Book of Certitude and Gleanings of the Writings of Baha’u’llah. The Quran, Bible, other religions Holy Books and much much more. I’m a Counsellor and also teach mindfulness as we need to allow our thoughts to grow and develop but often a single mindset can block us from progressing.

I was posting at Jihad Watch for about 3 years and so regular exposure to Robert Spencer’s claims and arguments against Islam and accusing it to be violent. In honesty I found he regularly used English translations out of context and avoided translations which would debunk his view. For example there is a passage in the Quran which says do not make alliances (Political) with Christians but he would find a translation which doesn’t give the proper meaning and just says ‘friends’ and claim that the Quran tells Muslims not to befriend Christians which is false because other passages praise Christians. He would play on verses taken out of context and I would fully investigate it and found it to be unsubstantiated.

I consulted all the material I could find and hadiths I found were frowned upon by the Quran as it said that ‘this Book is the best of all hadiths’. So getting to know both the views of Islam opposers and apologists helped me learn a lot.

I visited a few other sites too and stayed for a while and found them the same. They try and manipulate the audiences ignorance of Islam to turn them against it but I found them to be covering up context or excluding verses to create a false impression which people who were basically ignorant of the Quran/Muhammad/Islam swallowed hook, line and sinker.

Some people are out there wanting to create hatred, prejudices and even start a war but I would rather focus on reconciliation, bridge building and eliminating prejudices.

I think the path forward is to find what we have in common and work together on eliminating the negative rhetoric which only causes disharmony and don’t we have enough of that in this world.

 

[loverofhumanity]

No, it does not.

There is no mention of Aisha, only of an event where someone was accused of something.

The only way you have of connecting Aisha to those verses if through hadith. But you reject the hadith, so a bit of a conundrum.
BTW, in the hadith in question Aisha describes herself as "still a young girl", even some time after their marriage, and as someone so small that the people lifting a howdah didn't notice that she wasn't in it.
Also, if Aisha was innocent, why did Allah wait over a month before revealing her innocence to Muhammad, thus fuelling the rumours and causing both Aisha and Muhammad great distress?

In some English translations Aisha is used so the Arabic might be more clear.

As I stated before, you’re entitled to your views and I of course see if differently.

 

[KWED]

Ok so we see it differently.

Ya don't say?

You said that there were no verses regarding Aisha because perhaps you did not read the name Aisha mentioned. But in various English translations you will find it is mentioned. So there is more to a passage than it’s literal meaning.

The reference to her is inferred because of the connection to those verses by several hadith. However, if you reject the hadith you cannot make that connection.

Having understood many of these so called violent passages in their proper context, I realised that those who are just referring to the verse literally would misunderstand the context and oppose the Quran and Muhammad. Thankfully I am in the situation of having some grasp of context so knowing that I realise there are a great many misunderstandings being promoted about Islam which simply aren’t true if one knows the context.

There are verses (like 5:33, 9:5, 24:2, 47:4, etc) explicitly prescribe or promote violence. What is the "context" that renders those verses non-violent (or the violence acceptable, if that is what you actually meant).

So to me I see that Muhammad was a perfect Being sent by God and with a most beautiful Book that has so many spiritual gems such as to return good for evil and such.

Ah, is that the "context" you were referring to? Confirmation bias and question begging.
You assume that Muhammad and the Quran are non-violent by default, therefore anything apparently violent must actually be non-violent.

As I said, it’s context that if read just literally can be very misleading. Reading the Quran in context comes with many years of study. I too found many verses alarming and violent until I began to understand better the context.

"But Context!" is not an argument in itself. You need to explain what that context is, how it changes the apparent meaning.

It’s not a novel but a very deep history as well.

Why would Allah waste precious space in his final, perfect, complete guide for all humanity telling stories about past events, sometimes repeating them several times? Why not just simply list, clearly and concisely, all the things we must and must not do?
If Allah really wanted Islam to be a religion of only peace, tolerance and equality, why include the violence, intolerance and discrimination in the Quran - especially if he didn't mean it?

 

[loverofhumanity]

No, it does not.

There is no mention of Aisha, only of an event where someone was accused of something.

The only way you have of connecting Aisha to those verses if through hadith. But you reject the hadith, so a bit of a conundrum.
BTW, in the hadith in question Aisha describes herself as "still a young girl", even some time after their marriage, and as someone so small that the people lifting a howdah didn't notice that she wasn't in it.
Also, if Aisha was innocent, why did Allah wait over a month before revealing her innocence to Muhammad, thus fuelling the rumours and causing both Aisha and Muhammad great distress?

Hadiths are only rejected if they contradict the Quran. In this instance it appears that the hadith is correct.

Baha’u’llah we believe was a Prophet of God so whenever He wrote, that became the Word of God. And when He quoted hadiths they then became the Word of God also. So we understand that hadiths can be true but not all of them especially any hadith making remarks about Muhammad that go against the Quran.