Prophet Muhammad did not marry a child

[KWED]

Because of Baha’u’llah.

That is just moving the goalposts
How are you 100% certain that Bahaullah (I know who he is) is right about the Quran?.

I found what I did by asking the hard questions so please always keep questioning

What were the "hard questions" you asked about the Quran's authenticity, and the existence of the god of Islam?

as it’s better than being brain dead and blindly following just everyone else.

Do you agree with Bahaullah when he said that you must follow god's word, even if it is nonsensical?

 

[danieldemol]

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.

There used to be someone around here with a clever signature which said something along the lines of, "but if I agreed with you we would both be wrong".

Eliminating negative rhetoric is fine if by that you mean eliminating ad-hominem, but I doubt you do since you keep trying to portray those who say Muhammad may have married a 9 year old as slanderers when for the vast majority of people who say that it simply isn't true.

This gives me the impression that by "eliminating negative rhetoric" what you really mean is eliminating any words you find yourself in disagreement with. Which brings me to recall that signature i mentioned.

In my opinion.

 

[KWED]

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.

So you believe the Bahai narrative about Muhammad because Bahaullah told you that is what you need to believe?

 

[KWED]

Yes Writings of Baha’u’llah mainly the Book of Certitude and Gleanings of the Writings of Baha’u’llah.

Well, there's an immediate red flag to an open-minded or objective researcher - "The Book of Certitude"!

The Quran,

As the Quran contains a fair bit of violence, intolerance and discrimination, how did reading it convince you that it contains no violence, intolerance and discrimination?

Bible, other religions Holy Books and much much more.

What can the Bible teach us about Muhammad and Islam?
Which other books?

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.

So how does that position reconcile itself with your belief that all Bahaullah's claims are necessarily true?

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.

I agree that there are people on both sides of the debate who take an irrational and agenda-driven, blinkered approach to religion.
While it is nonsense that the Quran is only violent and intolerant, or that it commands Muslims to kill non-Muslims in general terms, etc, it is equally untrue claim that it does not contain violence, intolerance and discrimination towards those who refuse to submit to Islam. There is a rational, reasonable middle ground.

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.

So what you are saying here is that he is wrong to select a translation that supports his position, but is ok when you do it?

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.

How do you establish "context" for Quran verses without the relevant hadith?

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.

TBH, I have found Muslim apologists equally guilty of manipulation, disingenuousness and misrepresentation. You do it yourself with your cherry-picking of verses and hadith.

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.

The issue is about what the Quran and sunnah actually say, not about the kind of world we want to live in. The Quran contains passages that clearly promote division and hate and violence. It also contains passages that promote unity, peace and tolerance. The key is that the latter verses seem to rely on submitting to Islam. How many of the verses promoting violence and intolerance contain the proviso "but if they submit to Islam..."?

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.

Politically that is obviously a sensible approach. However, this is about analysis of ancient scripture.

Do you think that people researching WW2 should be told to ignore all the nasty stuff and only focus on what the sides had in common in order to promote harmony between the various parties today? Of course not. That would be utterly ridiculous!

Islam has a problem in the context of the modern world because of the content of its scriptures, because it was based on 7th century Arabian attitudes and behaviour, and because the content is claimed to be perfect and unchangeable.
Simply ignoring the unacceptable won't make it go away. Somehow, people need to change their attitude toward the Quran (and hadith) so that the unacceptable can be criticised and removed.
The first step in fixing a problem is accepting that you have one.

 

[KWED]

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

You will notice that the few translations that mention Aisha all have the reference to her in brackets. This indicates an addition that is not in the original text.
The original Arabic does not mention her.

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

As JP Moynihan said "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts".
Either the original text of the Quran mentions her or it doesn't.
It doesn't (fact), so your "opinion" is meaningless.

You also didn't address the other, equally important points I raised in that post.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Ya don't say?

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.

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).

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.

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

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?

The Quran explains many things especially war and fighting and it states in certain passages that killing is forbidden but in others prescribes defense and justice. It’s verses like this one below which you are not quoting which kills the argument of vengeful violence. The Quran distinguishes between good people who have done no harm and those who have committed violence against Muslims. Self explanatory but you omit it why? Why do you omit verses and passages like those below? That’s not just or fair cherry picking to suit your bias but deliberately not presenting the complete picture of why all the violence occurred which is explained below. Why are you distorting the fact that the Quran has made fighting conditional on being attacked first and non violence and even kindness to those who do not attack Muslims? Have you read or studied the Quran at all?

“Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who did not fight you for your religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal justly” [8] “It is only in regards to those who fought you for your religion, have driven you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out, that Allah forbids you to take them as allies. And whoever takes them as Allies, then those are the oppressors” [9] Holy Quran, Surat (Al Mumtahina) Ch (60), verses (8-9)

 

[KWED]

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

But the hadith states that she was a young girl (whose weight was not noticeable, so physically very small) - a concept that you have already rejected.

Baha’u’llah we believe was a Prophet of God

Why? What is the evidence?

so whenever He wrote, that became the Word of God.

Which you are obliged to accept without question, even if it is nonsensical. Which doesn't support your claim careful research and open-mindedness.

And when He quoted hadiths they then became the Word of God also.

Whoah! So the hadith are mere fabrications written years after the event, but they can also be the actual word of god! Do you not see the terrible inconsistency in your position?

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.

The Quran says nothing about not marrying young girls but it does imply that young girls can be married - so how is marrying a young girl going against it?

 

[loverofhumanity]

That is just moving the goalposts
How are you 100% certain that Bahaullah (I know who he is) is right about the Quran?.

What were the "hard questions" you asked about the Quran's authenticity, and the existence of the god of Islam?

Do you agree with Bahaullah when he said that you must follow god's word, even if it is nonsensical?

Do you know anything about Baha’u’llah? From my investigation, He is the Promised One foretold by all the major religions. Again, years of research. I believe His Word is the Word of God and that He has innate infallible knowledge and so accept whatever He says.

When I was an atheist I asked all the same questions and eventually I found out the truth. But that is my journey and you have yours and must go your way.

 

[loverofhumanity]

There used to be someone around here with a clever signature which said something along the lines of, "but if I agreed with you we would both be wrong".

Eliminating negative rhetoric is fine if by that you mean eliminating ad-hominem, but I doubt you do since you keep trying to portray those who say Muhammad may have married a 9 year old as slanderers when for the vast majority of people who say that it simply isn't true.

This gives me the impression that by "eliminating negative rhetoric" what you really mean is eliminating any words you find yourself in disagreement with. Which brings me to recall that signature i mentioned.

In my opinion.

Hi Daniel. The fact is that there is no proof or evidence to support those accusations. No one can produce a birth certificate or proof of age. So people are free to believe what they want. But I believe it is gutter posting to try and defame Muhammad and Islam and offend Muslims and is against the spirit of just and fair debate.

The entire purpose of the dialogue is to Muslim bash and I think it’s not what RF stands for. Muslims are good and peaceful people but have to put up with people with ill intent accusing their Prophet of being a pedophile without any proof whatsoever especially when the Quran says differently. But I’ve wasted too much time on this thread. It’s just not worth debating because there’s clearly no proof.

I think it’s highly hypocritical that people not believing in Muhammad or the Quran suddenly have the strongest belief in a hadith.

 

[loverofhumanity]

But the hadith states that she was a young girl (whose weight was not noticeable, so physically very small) - a concept that you have already rejected.

Why? What is the evidence?

Which you are obliged to accept without question, even if it is nonsensical. Which doesn't support your claim careful research and open-mindedness.

Whoah! So the hadith are mere fabrications written years after the event, but they can also be the actual word of god! Do you not see the terrible inconsistency in your position?

The Quran says nothing about not marrying young girls but it does imply that young girls can be married - so how is marrying a young girl going against it?

If a hadith agrees with the Quran it is true but the Quran does not confirm the hadith at all.

 

[KWED]

The Quran explains many things especially war and fighting and it states in certain passages that killing is forbidden but in others prescribes defense and justice.

Ok. So you now admit that the Quran does contain violence, but claim that the violence is justified. Why didn't you just say that in the beginning?

It’s verses like this one below which you are not quoting which kills the argument of vengeful violence. [/quote] It doesn't, which I shall address in a mo.

The Quran distinguishes between good people who have done no harm and those who have committed violence against Muslims.

It is irrelevant what arguments you use to justify the violence, it is still condoning violence.

Self explanatory but you omit it why? Why do you omit verses and passages like those below? That’s not just or fair cherry picking to suit your bias but deliberately not presenting the complete picture of why all the violence occurred which is explained below.

I am not cherry-picking because I acknowledge that there are contradictory passages. Also, the verse you quote doesn't actually say what you claim (more in a mo).

Why are you distorting the fact that the Quran has made fighting conditional on being attacked first

But it doesn't always. For example, 9:5 says to kill the idolators wherever you find them, ambush them and besiege them". That is not "self defence".
Or 8:39 which says to "fight the disbelievers until all religion is for Allah". That is an open-ended instruction to fight until a goal has been achieved.

and non violence and even kindness to those who do not attack Muslims? Have you read or studied the Quran at all?

Funny!
The message varies depending on which passages you read. As I said, you cannot simply point to one verse that does not mention violence and cry "See, no violence in the Quran!" That is called the fallacy of composition.

“Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who did not fight you for your religion and did not drive you out of your homes.

Note that it doesn't say "you must" or "Allah commands". It merely says that you are "not forbidden" from dealing justly and kindly with people who didn't oppose you. So you can be unkind and unjust if you want.
If a cinema has a sign saying "you are not forbidden from bringing your own food and drink", what would you think that means? That you can or can't bring your own food and drink in?
Correct, that you can. It is up to you.

 

[Augustus]

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".

I would say any society where even a few % of children were deliberately killed would mean infanticide was common.

It's such a subjective term in a context like this which is so out of sync with modern sensibiities.

My point was that rampant polygamy, and common and widespread female infanticide are mutually incompatible.

So given that we know polygamy was very rarely "rampant" in any society, you accept that there was indeed a chance there was common female infanticide among the Arabs.

(also they are not mutually incompatible if you have an external source of women and girls)

But there simply weren't as many battles.

So you have no historical evidence, correct?

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.

So you have no evidence for your claim that "Caravans used to travel the length and breadth or Arabia with little or no military protection."

Piracy and banditry have always been common. Arabia was full of imperial, tribal and sectarian rivalries in the centuries leading up to Islam's emergence. Why should we assume it was safe?

The decline of Roman and Persian power in the region might well have lead to an increase in banditry and small scale conflict as they stopped paying as many Arabs as foedearti and many of these took to raiding the Empires and others.

Muhammad and the Arab conquests might well have been more the result of declining imperial power, not the cause of it.

 

[KWED]

Hi Daniel. The fact is that there is no proof or evidence to support those accusations. No one can produce a birth certificate or proof of age. So people are free to believe what they want. But I believe it is gutter posting to try and defame Muhammad and Islam and offend Muslims and is against the spirit of just and fair debate.

*sigh*
Once again, you are simply ignoring the hard fact that over most Muslims accept sahih hadith as accurate and reliable. You are simply telling them y=they are all wrong because you don't like what it says - which ironically just confirms @danieldemol's point.

The entire purpose of the dialogue is to Muslim bash and I think it’s not what RF stands for.

So now you are calling Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Kathir, Hisham, Bukhari, Muslim, etc, etc, "Muslim bashers".

Muslims are good and peaceful people

Most are. Some aren't. Just like everyone else.

but have to put up with people with ill intent accusing their Prophet of being a pedophile

I agree that is wrong. The term "paedophile" is inaccurate and is not supported by the evidence. Only one of his wives was very young. His first wife was much older than him (but she was very rich and his boss, so who knows what his motivation was there).

without any proof whatsoever

Oh dear god. You are now just being deliberately dishonest. There is scriptural evidence. You just choose to ignore it.

especially when the Quran says differently.

More dishonesty. The Quran does not mention Aisha. It does not prohibit marrying young girls. It implies that very young girls can be married.

But I’ve wasted too much time on this thread. It’s just not worth debating because there’s clearly no proof.

Unfortunately, you merely have an opinion that is contradicted by the available evidence. You judgement is clouded by attempting to force 21st century, western morals on to life in 7th century Arabia.

I think it’s highly hypocritical that people not believing in Muhammad or the Quran suddenly have the strongest belief in a hadith.

I have explained this many times, so whether your claim is through dishonesty or ignorance is anyone's guess.
It is irrelevant if sceptics believe sahih hadith are historically accurate, most Muslims do. So, when discussing Islamic ideology, it is entirely acceptable to argue from that position.

Presumably you do not believe in the Norse gods, but if someone told you that Thor carried scythe, you would feel justified in pointing out what the Norse sagas actually say about him.

 

[KWED]

If a hadith agrees with the Quran it is true but the Quran does not confirm the hadith at all.

Did you just ignore all of my post and respond with one line about something irrelevant?
(Rhetorical question btw)

If a hadith agrees with the Quran it is true but the Quran does not confirm the hadith at all.

How does the the hadith about Aisha's necklace agree with the Quran?
(Another rhetorical question. It doesn't. Almost every element of the very long hadith are not mentioned in the Quran).
So by your argument, that hadith is not true.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Ok. So you now admit that the Quran does contain violence, but claim that the violence is justified. Why didn't you just say that in the beginning?

It’s verses like this one below which you are not quoting which kills the argument of vengeful violence.

It doesn't, which I shall address in a mo.

It is irrelevant what arguments you use to justify the violence, it is still condoning violence.

I am not cherry-picking because I acknowledge that there are contradictory passages. Also, the verse you quote doesn't actually say what you claim (more in a mo).

But it doesn't always. For example, 9:5 says to kill the idolators wherever you find them, ambush them and besiege them". That is not "self defence".
Or 8:39 which says to "fight the disbelievers until all religion is for Allah". That is an open-ended instruction to fight until a goal has been achieved.

Funny!
The message varies depending on which passages you read. As I said, you cannot simply point to one verse that does not mention violence and cry "See, no violence in the Quran!" That is called the fallacy of composition.

Note that it doesn't say "you must" or "Allah commands". It merely says that you are "not forbidden" from dealing justly and kindly with people who didn't oppose you. So you can be unkind and unjust if you want.
If a cinema has a sign saying "you are not forbidden from bringing your own food and drink", what would you think that means? That you can or can't bring your own food and drink in?
Correct, that you can. It is up to you.
[/QUOTE]

The Quran’s version is that they were forced out of their homes, persecuted and exiled for their belief in one God by those who regarded belief in one God as a threat to their idol worship and all the money it generated. (360 gods) As the Quran was revealed during the lifetime of Muhammad so it is the only eye witness account of events which unfolded.

People who don’t accept the Quran have no first party historical document to refer to so we can go back and forth forever as I accept the Quran and you do not.

The only other way we could possibly know fact from fancy were if another Messenger of God appeared and set things right. Baha’is believe Baha’u’llah and His Son Abdul-Baha did just that and that we do have knowledge from an infallible Source that these accusations and such are false.

But you don’t accept Baha’u’llah either so then are you claiming your interpretation of events is accurate when you weren’t even there or that you have another source of infallible knowledge or your interpretation is perfect?

You might call what I believe is nonsense to you but that is only your opinion. My belief is that my information comes from an infallible Source but as you don’t agree then there’s no point in trying to continue this dialogue is there?

 

[KWED]

I would say any society where even a few % of children were deliberately killed would mean infanticide was common.

Female infanticide!
Also, your definition of "common" is highly suspect!
Common: Occurring, found, or done often; prevalent." (OED)
Often: Frequently; many times. (OED)
Prevalent: Widespread in a particular area or at a particular time. (OED)
Widespread: Found or distributed over a large area or number of people.
You get the idea.

I am happy to accept that maybe 5% of families committed infanticide because of the inability to support the children.
However, the claim that female infanticide was done often, by a large number of people, is simply not supported by the evidence.

It's such a subjective term in a context like this which is so out of sync with modern sensibiities.

But the issue isn't how we consider it now. It is whether it was often carried out then.

So given that we know polygamy was very rarely "rampant" in any society, you accept that there was indeed a chance there was common female infanticide among the Arabs.

*sigh*
The issue here is the Islamic claim, that in pre-Islamic society, rampant polygamy was a major issue.

(also they are not mutually incompatible if you have an external source of women and girls)

If everyone is taking women from everyone else, then the problem remains.

So you have no historical evidence, correct?

Wrong. Just look at the historical record of battles in immediately pre-Islamic Arabia to those immediately after. There are far more after than before.

So you have no evidence for your claim that "Caravans used to travel the length and breadth or Arabia with little or no military protection."

Ok. I'll amend that to "less military protection than was required after Muhammad started his repeated raids on caravans with large forces, compared to the banditry that occurred before then".
Happy?

Muhammad and the Arab conquests might well have been more the result of declining imperial power, not the cause of it.

Another straw man.

Do you have any argument for the immediate pre-islamic period being more violent and less stable than the period of Islamic expansion in the mid 7th century?
If not, I'm not sure where you thought you were going with all this.

 

[loverofhumanity]

*sigh*
Once again, you are simply ignoring the hard fact that over most Muslims accept sahih hadith as accurate and reliable. You are simply telling them y=they are all wrong because you don't like what it says - which ironically just confirms @danieldemol's point.

So now you are calling Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Kathir, Hisham, Bukhari, Muslim, etc, etc, "Muslim bashers".

Most are. Some aren't. Just like everyone else.

I agree that is wrong. The term "paedophile" is inaccurate and is not supported by the evidence. Only one of his wives was very young. His first wife was much older than him (but she was very rich and his boss, so who knows what his motivation was there).

Oh dear god. You are now just being deliberately dishonest. There is scriptural evidence. You just choose to ignore it.

More dishonesty. The Quran does not mention Aisha. It does not prohibit marrying young girls. It implies that very young girls can be married.

Unfortunately, you merely have an opinion that is contradicted by the available evidence. You judgement is clouded by attempting to force 21st century, western morals on to life in 7th century Arabia.

I have explained this many times, so whether your claim is through dishonesty or ignorance is anyone's guess.
It is irrelevant if sceptics believe sahih hadith are historically accurate, most Muslims do. So, when discussing Islamic ideology, it is entirely acceptable to argue from that position.

Presumably you do not believe in the Norse gods, but if someone told you that Thor carried scythe, you would feel justified in pointing out what the Norse sagas actually say about him.

People are free to believe what they wish but that doesn’t mean it is true. So let those who believe these lies believe them if they wish and from my viewpoint it is untrue. If to them the hadith is true then they are free as are you to believe it. I do not.

 

[loverofhumanity]

So you believe the Bahai narrative about Muhammad because Bahaullah told you that is what you need to believe?

It makes perfect sense to me.

 

[KWED]

The Quran’s version is that they were forced out of their homes, persecuted and exiled for their belief in one God by those who regarded belief in one God as a threat to their idol worship and all the money it generated. (360 gods) As the Quran was revealed during the lifetime of Muhammad so it is the only eye witness account of events which unfolded.

Nonsense! Muhammad and the early Muslims were forced to leave Mecca because of repeated and ongoing blasphemy and refusal to abide by social norms.
Remember that there were already Christians and Jews (and Zoroastrians) living and worshiping in and around Mecca, but the Quraysh didn't have an issue with them. Why not, if you claim that the Quraysh hated monotheism?
The Quraysh offered Muhammad a compromise deal where Islam would be incorporated into the group of religions followed in Mecca. He refused (which is the supposed origin of verse 109:6)

People who don’t accept the Quran have no first party historical document to refer to so we can go back and forth forever as I accept the Quran and you do not.

Huh? Of course I accept the Quran as a source in an Islamic context.

The only other way we could possibly know fact from fancy were if another Messenger of God appeared and set things right. Baha’is believe Baha’u’llah and His Son Abdul-Baha did just that and that we do have knowledge from an infallible Source that these accusations and such are false.

1. There could be transmissions of eye-witness or contemporary accounts (which is what much of "history" is composed of).
1. Someone claiming to be a messenger of god does not make their claims reliable, especially if they provide no support other than the claim that they are a messenger of god!

But you don’t accept Baha’u’llah either

There is literally no reason to assume Bahaullah's opinions on Muhammad are historically reliable - especially if they contradict the Quran, hadith, early biographies, etc.

so then are you claiming your interpretation of events is accurate when you weren’t even there or that you have another source of infallible knowledge or your interpretation is perfect?

No. I am claiming that in the absence of any any more reliable evidence, the hadith and works like the Sirat Rasul Allah are the best we have.

You might call what I believe is nonsense to you but that is only your opinion. My belief is that my information comes from an infallible Source but as you don’t agree then there’s no point in trying to continue this dialogue is there?

In notice that once again you have completely ignored my responses to your points and arguments.
So yes, it does seem pointless if you are not going to debate in good faith.

 

[KWED]

People are free to believe what they wish but that doesn’t mean it is true.

Correct!!

So let those who believe these lies believe them if they wish and from my viewpoint it is untrue.

You do realise that this statement applies just as much to you as to them, if not more so?