KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
So much for your "open-minded, careful research, looking into the matter myself, etc"
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Prophet Muhammad did not marry a child
- Thread starter Starlight
- Start date
BrightShadow
Active Member
And you know how? Correct, from hadith (hadith that are considered to be unreliable, btw - I'm sure you can appreciate the irony here
So once again, you are using a hadith as evidencethat Muhammad prohibited the use of hadith.
Pretty much everything you write begins with a wrong premise. You are assuming wholeheartedly that my position is - all Ahadith are false. That is a wrong premise. I am repeatedly saying - all Ahidith are not false. Many have a true basis. ONLY the Ahadith that contradict with Quran are false! If you are not able to comprehend that then rest of the conversation is irrelevant and fruitless! Your entire arguments are based this false premise. You also do wrong interpretations of Quran due to out of context and lack of background knowledge!
Many things can be taken from the Ahadith including many historical components. "Word of mouth" that came through the generations - can also be considered BUT ONLY if it aligns with Quran and DOESN"T contradict with the Quran. Harmless stuff regarding rituals, prayer, fasting etc. can be considered - only if it doesn't contradict with the teachings of Quran. If Muhammad prayed an extra prayer at a certain time of the month or if Muhammad fasted an extra day on a certain time of the month - then that can be considered informative and can be considered by his followers as a sound and doable practice! No harm in it! No controversies! BUT fundamental concepts cannot be entertained that contradict with the Quran. Nothing controversial should not be incorporated into the belief system via Ahadith.
Understand that first - before commenting.
You are getting amused at a non-existent irony! An irony you created within your own head! You are using a false irony that I am using information from history and Ahadith while at the same time not believing in any ahadith at all. That is false! I am tired of repeating the same thing!
Anyhow, regarding OP - READ post number 104 in this thread. I think it's on page number 6. Firedragon has explained better and given some light regarding the unreliability and inaccuracy of the Hadith mentioning Aisha's age! Take a look and learn or don't!
By the way, look at the following verse.... I found something that applies to you!
[Quran 6:112] And thus We have made for every prophet an enemy - devils from mankind and jinn, inspiring to one another decorative speech in delusion. But if your Lord had willed, they would not have done it, so leave them and that which they invent.
[Quran 6:113] And [it is] so the hearts of those who disbelieve in the Hereafter will incline toward it and that they will be satisfied with it and that they will commit that which they are committing.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
Your position seems to be all over the place.
You reject sahih hadith but accept questionable hadith.
As has been established, the hadith that mention Aisha's age do not contradict the Quran, so by your argument they are true.
Muhammad marrying a young girl only seems controversial when viewed through a 21st century, western moral lens. In the context of 7th century Arabia, there was nothing controversial about it. Which is why no one questioned or challenged it until recently.
@firedragon adds nothing new to the conversation. The Quran verse he refers to does not mention any age and does not suggest anything other than having reached the Islamic age of maturity - which comes with the first period or wet dream. His implication that the Quran requires some test of financial acumen in order for women to be married is utter nonsense.
The "evidence in the hadith" for Aisha being much older is layers of assumption and conjecture requiring many dates and ages to be correct (including someone living to be 100
), and all from lower grade hadith than the ones explicitly stating her age.By the way, look at the following verse.... I found something that applies to you!
What? So you are saying that I (and other sceptics) are only doing what we do because Allah created us specifically to criticise Islam?
That makes less sense than no sense!
And presumably we won't be held responsible by him for our disbelief because we are only doing what he programmed us to do - which is a relief!
BrightShadow
Active Member
Everything is questionable until they pass the reliability test against Quran!
Established by whom? It completely contradicts with Quran! Even in one of my last post I told you - that 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].
Even in our society we cannot handover inherited property to orphans when they are kids! Court system has to wait until they are adults.
Check the verse [Quran 4:6]. By default - marriage age definition is given there!
Anyhow, check out post# 104 on page 6 of this thread. It seems this Hadith came from unreliable source. If this Hadith was true then reliable source would have narrated as well. That was the argument!
Other verses talk about punishments!
I did a lot of studying of Islam over the years, too. I'm not speaking from ignorance. It's not my fault that Bukhari says Aisha was a little girl when Mo abused her, and that that is one of the most esteemed collections of ahadith in Islam. I didn't write it. So getting mad at people like me for bringing it up doesn't make sense. It's not like we're making it up.
I'm sorry you lost your faith as a Christian, but as a Christian, Jesus Christ is Lord, God and King. He is the full and eternal revelation of God to the universe. Mo doesn't have much of a use to a Christian. He was just a man. Prophets aren't that big of a deal in Christianity as anyone can be a prophet, it's one of the gifts of faith. It's not an exclusive vocation that means you're special. Christ and St. Paul also warned us against false prophets and those that would teach a faith different from the faith once and for all handed down to us.
The sects that are teaching that Christ has somehow already returned are teaching deception, imo, and it's not just Baha'is that are mislead there. JWs also believe such things. When Christ truly does return, there will be no doubt from anyone for we will all unquestionably behold it. I'll stick with what the Bible and the faith handed down by the fathers to the Church. God is not the author of confusion.
Last edited:
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
A test which seems to be entirely subject to confirmation bias and cultural imperialism.
For example, you keep insisting that the several sahih hadith regarding Aisha's age are false because they contradict the Quran, but the only argument to see to offer in support is that marrying a young girl is unacceptable by 21st century western morals and therefore your ideal of Muhammad would not do it - not because there is anything in the Quran that prohibits or even discourages marrying young girls.
By the contents of the Quran!
Yet more bare assertion.
You have that the wrong way round. It does not set any age for marriage. Nor does it say that a woman has to be financially astute to be able to marry. It is about when orphans may be allowed to gain their inheritance.
It says... When they have reached marriageable age (which is determined by the first period or wet dream, the sign of reaching adulthood), then see if they are responsible enough to be given their inheritance.
There you go again, imposing 21st century western ideals on to 7thC Arab life. What we consider an adult today in the west is not what Islam considered an adult in the 7th century.
Seriously, you really need to understand that things were very different then.
Ok. What age do you think that verse specifies for marriage? Please show your workings.
Which hadith are you claiming is from an unreliable source?
The hadith about Aisha's age have not considered unreliable by Muslim scholars, and are only being questioned by apologists today because of the obvious moral problem with Muhammad marrying and having sex with a child.
"The definition of the age of ‘Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) when the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) did the marriage contract with her as being six years, and of the age when he consummated the marriage with her as being nine years, is not a matter of ijtihad (individual opinion) on the part of the scholars, such that we could argue whether it is right or wrong; rather this is a historical narration which is proven by evidence that confirms its soundness and the necessity of accepting it." How Old Was ‘Aishah When She Married the Prophet ? - Islam Question & Answer
A long and detailed explanation from an established, mainstream, modern scholar, including refutations of all the claims that she was much older. However, I am predicting that you will simply reject all of that and continue to repeat your flawed arguments
But if Allah is just, he will not punish someone for something that is not their fault. That goes without saying. And you argued that my scepticism is Allah's doing, not mine. He made me this way.
Augustus
…
If infanticide was common, and there was a preference for boys, then female infanticide would be common.
5% of families committing infanticide would, imo, make it common (done often and prevalent) and widespread (distributed across society). It would be a reasonable statement to make as common is very subjective and varies massively depending on the topic discussed and depends on expected prevalence.
If 5% of families in a society had a child with birth defects due to environmental pollution, it would be fair to say birth defects due to pollution were common and widespread.
During the Arab slave trade, how many women were captured? Did they run out?
There is your answer.
Why should we trust Islamic theology written centuries after the fact?
What would be the evidence for this?
Other than the Islamic sources that you insist are unreliable when it suits you, but also reliable when it suits you, what is the evidence either way?
Why should we assume that Muhammad was the cause of the violence and instability, rather than the person who emerged on top at the end of a period of violence and instability?
In the preceding century or so the Christian Roman aligned Axumites invaded Persian aligned Jewish Himyar; The Persians conquered the region, the Romans conquered it back; there was a major plague; Roman aligned Ghassanids fought Persian aligned Lakhmids; Rome likely lost the ability to pay many of its Arab mercenaries, and unemployed soldiers always cause problems; Arab raids on the Empires likely saw less and less resistance, which led to the idea of conquest.
It was hardly a stable, peaceful region until Muhammad came along.
It's a bit like the fall of the Western Roman Empire: the Roman auxiliaries gradually gained power vis-a-vis their tribal rivals due to their association with Rome, the money it brought in and their improved organisation capacities and then they capitalised on the weakness of their former bosses.
BrightShadow
Active Member
Obviously this is rubbish. Just use your head once a while!
Who collected this? When did he collect? Where does the chain show it came from?
Who collected this? Answer: Bukhari and Muslim.
When did they collect? Answer: More than 200 years after Muhammad.
Where the chain ended? Answer: Grand nephew of Aisha who heard from father (nephew of Aisha)
Muhammad al-Bukhari was born in Uzbekistan 178 years after Muhammad passed away
Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj was born in Iran approx. 190 years after Muhammad passed away.
Urwah ibn az-Zubayr (nephew of Aisha) was born in Medina approx. 12 years after Muhammad passed away
Hisham ibn Urwah (grand nephew of Aisha) was born in Medina approx. 48 years after Muhammad passed away
Let me get this straight. Bukhari and Muslim collected Hadith more than 200 years after Muhammad passed away and they found a chain that led them to Hisham (Grand nephew of Aisha). Let's forget about 200 years of information passing hands - lets concentrate on Hisham (who was born 48 years after Muhammad) heard from his father (who was nephew of Aisha) that Aisha (his aunt) told him her age when she married Muhammad!
Wow! Should we believe this story?
A grand nephew heard from his father! None of them were even alive to see Muhammad!
By the way - do any aunt tell their nephew how old she was when she got married?
Why would a nephew even ask such a question? And why would he tell his son?
Oh! Let's not forget more than 200 years passed before someone even traced the chain!
If you think that this adds up and holds water then shame on you!
All I can say is .... Truth can prevail through reasoning in this case!
[Quran 8:22] "Indeed, the worst of living creatures in sight of Allah are the deaf and dumb who do not use reason."
So, better learn to use reason!
You twist everything in your favor. It is child's play! You probably think no one notices this tactics. Where did I argued that? The verse shows God allowed it. How "allowed" became God's doing? You chose to do it. God is not making you do anything! It is all your doing! You corrupted yourself!
Last edited:
You are assuming bad faith here. Most people just want to know if the story is true or false. The problem is it is not demonstrably true or demonstrably false.
As a rumour founded at the least by hagiographic believing Muslims i think we have no way of knowing if it is true or false.
That's not my position, i think the hadith are unreliable. But as with any rumour there is the possibility that it is true too. So it seems dogmatic to hold any certainty that it definitely wasn't true.
Especially when as you say we don't have a birth certificate, therefore we can't disprove it.
In my opinion.
With hadiths it depends on the topic.
The only Word of God in Islam is the Holy Quran. That is the only authoritative 100% accurate truth. Whereas hadiths are not the Word of God but recorded some 200 years later. So to me only the Quran matters. Others can believe what they like. That is between them and God.
It’s very sad to see Christians repeat the mistakes of those gone before who denounced Christ because He didn’t appear in the manner expected. Now Christ has returned in the Person of Baha’u’llah and once again we see those claiming loyalty and faithfulness to the Lord, denounce Him as an imposter without a shred of evidence.
Christ said to ‘watch and pray’. To take for granted He hasn’t come is to not watch at all. Christ would never have said He would come as a thief or to watch if His coming could not be missed. Unfortunately it was missed by billions. Very sad but it appears we don’t learn from history. I never gave up my belief in Christ. I confirmed and proved my faithfulness to Him by accepting Him when He returned. Had I rejected Baha’u’llah I would have been unfaithful to Christ and to denounce Baha’u’llah is to denounce Christ Himself and I could never do that.
Every time God sends His Messengers, the former religion always condemns Him as an imposter. The Bible is full of prophecies regarding Muhammad and Baha’u’llah and they are set out so beautifully.
Thats a very fair statement for the information which is available.
Other information exists which places Aisha historically and can determine that her approximate age and it rules out that she could have been anything less than 15 when she consumed her marriage but mostly places her around 19 years of age.
If anyone wants to research that it is freely available on the internet.
I'm not sure what you mean by "historically".
I know of other hadith considered weak which modern westernised apologists latch onto and attempt to use to refute Aisha having a young age, but the problem is, say you have multiple hadith considered sahih which suggests one age and another weaker hadith which suggests another age, we have the following possibilities;
1. They could both be wrong.
2. One of them could be correct.
If option 2 is correct what is the justification for saying the weaker hadith is the correct one? Is it just a case of choosing the one you want to be true?
Or is there some other information you were referring to which you claim it rules out that she could have been less than 15?
If so dont let fear of being refuted hold you back from sharing.
In my opinion.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
In human life. Biology of humans changes always. Genesis status in living human body presence.
A healers medical advice.
Girls women bleeding periods now are earlier Inherited again than they used to be. Just as before.
Warning sign.
Humans hence had to apply a law rule what age a female sister was mature enough to be both a mother with a baby.
As a wife.
As changed atmosphere made a human man's cell as a theist of science change. As him claiming he spoke on behalf of two human bio forms in thesis. Changed human cells structure.
When he hadn't owned female human biology. Bleeding womb.
Why girls biology period began earlier.
It was all medical evidence that human men sciences agreed between two men had changed life on earth by converting earths fused tablets.
Two tablets.
Mountain raised ∆ body.
O ground earth body.
Mass plus pressure very different histories.
A healers medical advice.
Girls women bleeding periods now are earlier Inherited again than they used to be. Just as before.
Warning sign.
Humans hence had to apply a law rule what age a female sister was mature enough to be both a mother with a baby.
As a wife.
As changed atmosphere made a human man's cell as a theist of science change. As him claiming he spoke on behalf of two human bio forms in thesis. Changed human cells structure.
When he hadn't owned female human biology. Bleeding womb.
Why girls biology period began earlier.
It was all medical evidence that human men sciences agreed between two men had changed life on earth by converting earths fused tablets.
Two tablets.
Mountain raised ∆ body.
O ground earth body.
Mass plus pressure very different histories.
This is just one example and there are many more. You can do your own research if you have time.
What was Ayesha’s (ra) Age at the Time of Her Marriage?
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
Two unsupported assertions do not a valid argument make.
Your "opinion" of what defines "common" is not the same as mine. Or the dictionary's. Or "common" usage.
5% of the population doing something does not make it "common", by any rational definition.
No it wouldn't. "A small but significant percentage" would be better. And if they all lived in one area it would not be "widespread".
Anyway, attempting to redefine words is a common apologists' tactic and I have indulged you far beyond what is reasonable.
Augustus
…
You seem not to understand language very well then.
When basically everyone in a given society personally knows someone who has done X, it is fair to say X is common. Especially when in most societies almost no one would be expected to know someone who had done X.
Off you pop then.
We'll note you failed once again to provide any actual history to support your claims about pre-Islamic Arabia and instead quibbled a subjective definition. I guess you must be an apologist then
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
So you reject a detailed and fully referenced essay on the matter by an authoritative, mainstream Islamic scholar as "rubbish".
Who collected this? When did he collect? Where does the chain show it came from?
Who collected this? Answer: Bukhari and Muslim.
When did they collect? Answer: More than 200 years after Muhammad.
Where the chain ended? Answer: Grand nephew of Aisha who heard from father (nephew of Aisha)
Muhammad al-Bukhari was born in Uzbekistan 178 years after Muhammad passed away
Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj was born in Iran approx. 190 years after Muhammad passed away.
Urwah ibn az-Zubayr (nephew of Aisha) was born in Medina approx. 12 years after Muhammad passed away
Hisham ibn Urwah (grand nephew of Aisha) was born in Medina approx. 48 years after Muhammad passed away
Let me get this straight. Bukhari and Muslim collected Hadith more than 200 years after Muhammad passed away and they found a chain that led them to Hisham (Grand nephew of Aisha). Let's forget about 200 years of information passing hands - lets concentrate on Hisham (who was born 48 years after Muhammad) heard from his father (who was nephew of Aisha) that Aisha (his aunt) told him her age when she married Muhammad!
Wow! Should we believe this story?
A grand nephew heard from his father! None of them were even alive to see Muhammad!
By the way - do any aunt tell their nephew how old she was when she got married?
Why would a nephew even ask such a question? And why would he tell his son?
Oh! Let's not forget more than 200 years passed before someone even traced the chain!
If you think that this adds up and holds water then shame on you!
All I can say is .... Truth can prevail through reasoning in this case!
[Quran 8:22] "Indeed, the worst of living creatures in sight of Allah are the deaf and dumb who do not use reason."
So, better learn to use reason![/quote] Once again, if you reject the hadith on principle, you can't even claim that Aisha existed.
If you accept hadith based on reliable and authentic chains of narration (in the Islamic context), then you accept the ones about Aisha's age.
That article goes into great detail refuting the arguments you have cited for Aisha existing but being older. You don't think you need to address those?
What's more, if you reject hearsay written down some time after the event both in principle, and because the described events seem unlikely - then you must also reject the Quran itself.
And once again, you simply ignored most of the points I raised and arguments I made. You really don't have a leg to stand on here.
Your problem here (as with many religionists) is that your lack of exercising your critical faculties means that you don't appreciate the implication of what you say.You twist everything in your favor. It is child's play! You probably think no one notices this tactics. Where did I argued that? The verse shows God allowed it. How "allowed" became God's doing? You chose to do it. God is not making you do anything! It is all your doing! You corrupted yourself!
"And thus We have made for every prophet an enemy - devils from mankind and jinn, inspiring to one another decorative speech in delusion". [/quote] Here, Allah is saying that people who attack the prophet with argument were deliberately created by himself.
Or in other words, by quoting that verse at me, you are saying...
"my scepticism is Allah's doing, not mine. He made me this way."
Words. They have meaning...
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
And the topic is the story of Aisha's necklace.
I asked you "How does the the hadith about Aisha's necklace agree with the Quran?"
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
Cheat!
You just said that you don't accept the hadith. Now you are relying on unreliable hadith to argue against reliable ones.
The article I linked deals with this in great detail. Why don't you address that?
Brilliant!
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
Bingo!