Prophet Muhammad did not marry a child

[KWED]

Not so much an enemy just misinformed

You called people who accept hadith "enemies of Islam" etc.

as Islam was founded on the Quran not hadiths.

Bahaism was "founded on the writings of Bahaullah", sport presumably you reject any later additions?

The Baha’i view is that religion is renewed from age to age and the subsequent Prophet will clear up misunderstandings.

Why are there "misunderstandings" about god's infallible, revealed message?

For example in the Quran it addresses the issue of Christ being the physical son of God and refutes it as even the Bible states that God is Spirit.

The Bible and the Quran are two separate books, from two separate religions. The author of the Quran has no right telling Christians what to believe.

Another issue is the trinity which the Quran rejects.

So what? Islam is not Christianity.

With Baha’u’llah and His Successor His Son Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, all considered infallible,

Why do you think they are infallible?
Do you agree with everything they said?

we have been given various narratives of Islam and of course it disagrees with the current views among Muslims, their scholars and many ideas that have crept into Islam based on misinterpretations of the Quran.

With all due respect, why do you think Muslim scholars misrepresent the Quran, while Bahais know better? Sounds pretty arrogant to me.
If Muslims tried to tell you what was wrong with Bahaism, would you accept it? Would you think "well, they must be right because they sound pretty certain"?
Of course not.

So we give no credibility to hadiths at all and don’t use them or read from them in our Houses of Worship.

But you just admitted that Bahaullah used hadith, and you have used them yourself in an attempt to establish Aisha's age at marriage.

We follow all the Baha’i interpretations of any Islamic Teaching because we believe this knowledge comes from God.

But why should anyone take it seriously when it contradicts established, actual Islamic reaching?

And why are you so certain that Bahaullah and his successors were revealing god's word? How do you know they weren't delusional, mistaken or dishonest? (Note: and answer that involves "because they said so", or words to that effect, can be dismissed by default).

 

[KWED]

Which of the following seems more natural to you?

a) Fortunately, covid infections remain quite uncommon; last week only 5% of the UK population had covid.

b) Unfortunately, covid infections remain common and widespread; last week 5% of the UK population had covid.

Hmm, I wonder...

During a pandemic, the latter. Otherwise, the former. Seems pretty straightforward. (Sorry, forgot that you don't do nuance or context).

A better example for social practices would be marriage. Does 5% of the population getting married make it common and widespread? Obviously not.
Something more distasteful, perhaps?
Is circumcision "common and widespread" if only 5% of the population are victims?

You do struggle to make inferences, don't you?

Perhaps you don't understand what "relatively" means. It means "compared to". Arabia was less peaceful and stable after Muhammad started his expansionist military campaigns compared to before. That isn't claiming that it was "peaceful and stable" before. Not a difficult concept to grasp, but I accept that if you didn't grasp it you may not have been committing a straw man.

The people who cry strawman the most frequently usually do so as a result of their own comprehension errors.

Obviously something you just made up.

1. You claimed "Caravans used to travel the length and breadth or Arabia with little or no military protection" before Muhammad

I have already amended 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".".
More bad faith debating, I see.

I just noted several wars that are not from Islamic theology,

So you admit that your earlier claim that evidence for battles was only from Islamic theology was just more hot air.

But, I'm saying the only evidence for numerous thing you keep citing as history are only known from Islamic sources.

So what. My entire point here was about Islamic claims. I have never, anywhere, claimed that the claims of Islamc ideology or scripture amount to historical evidence. So another straw man (perhaps try googling the term as you seem somewhat confused by it).

You keep saying what Muhammad did, for example raiding caravans, or what was happening in Mecca pre-Muhammad, etc. Where does this information come from? Why is it reliable?

*sigh*
Islamic context, remember. In a strictly historical context, Muhammad may not have existed, which by your some want bizarre argument would mean simply not discussing Islam until his existence, and actions, had been verified.
Like so many apologists, in your attempts to deflect and distract from the actual issue at hand, you end up painting yourself into a corner.

If you have any evidence to support Bahaullah's claim that "Arab fathers would often bury their female daughters alive", then feel free to present it.
Otherwise, you can join me in dismissing it.

 

[BrightShadow]

So you reject a detailed and fully referenced essay on the matter by an authoritative, mainstream Islamic scholar as "rubbish".

When looking into a religion - it is better for you to consult its primary doctrine alone. Do not look at its practitioners as practitioners' opinions are not decisive and conclusive regarding any matter. You (IMO) are a true believer of these clerics and your so-called authoritative scholars. In my opinion - people like that are very gullible.

I gave you the following verses already... read them again..

[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?"
[Quran 77:50] "Then in what statement after the Qur'an will they believe?"
[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?"

Stop indorsing Ahadith! Let those so-called scholars say and do what they please!

I thought my last post made it more than clear that anyone who came to your conclusion regarding Aisha's age - is totally biased (wants to believe in a lie due to gullibility or loyalty or due to wicked desires) or they are simply dilutional!

But you are like a runaway train! You keep going!

I told you - many different ways that - Quran told every believer to reject future gossips. But you insist on believing gossips that were collected more that 200 years later. This gossip (hearsay) was supposedly generated by Aisha's grand nephew but there is no sure way to assign it to him either! The source is extremely questionable. A grand nephew's supposed testimony! Why anyone in their sane mind accept that?

You are not using your common sense! I told you it is unlikely a nephew can ask a question like that to his aunt. None of us ever ask our aunt how old she was when she married (especially if the aunt married before we were even born!) Further more, let's say the aunt told the nephew - still what reason did the nephew have to tell his son approx 50-60 years later when the son grew up? The only reason I can think a father would tell his son something like that - has to do with self interest (ulterior motives)! Did he marry someone young? Was he trying to justify it to his son? There has to be a reason! I don't feel a need to check the history. You love history. You do the math! Other than that - there is no reason for a father to tell his son about it. IMO
So, it is illogical for us to believe this story after more 1400 years! These nephew or grand nephew in question, weren't even born when the wedding took place. They were born years after Muhammad passed away!

[Quran 8:22] "Indeed, the worst of living creatures in sight of Allah are the deaf and dumb who do not use reason."

Why do you have so much trust in these sources? Some Muslim don't question it - because they are not using their better judgments. They are content with whatever some cleric fed them - they are biased! What is your reason for believing? Why are you not questioning this yourself?
Millions of educated Muslims are highly critical of some of these Ahadith. They are not adhering to these ancient hearsays. Even for you - it is time to shake it off!

"my scepticism is Allah's doing, not mine. He made me this way."

You are twisting words but by doing so - you are proudly admitting to be wicked!
I believe God did make the entity named Devil. Due to arrogance, temptations and pride he drifted off from the true path.
But there are many copycats and wannabes. Which one are you?

 

[loverofhumanity]

You called people who accept hadith "enemies of Islam" etc.

Bahaism was "founded on the writings of Bahaullah", sport presumably you reject any later additions?

Why are there "misunderstandings" about god's infallible, revealed message?

The Bible and the Quran are two separate books, from two separate religions. The author of the Quran has no right telling Christians what to believe.

So what? Islam is not Christianity.

Why do you think they are infallible?
Do you agree with everything they said?

With all due respect, why do you think Muslim scholars misrepresent the Quran, while Bahais know better? Sounds pretty arrogant to me.
If Muslims tried to tell you what was wrong with Bahaism, would you accept it? Would you think "well, they must be right because they sound pretty certain"?
Of course not.

But you just admitted that Bahaullah used hadith, and you have used them yourself in an attempt to establish Aisha's age at marriage.


But why should anyone take it seriously when it contradicts established, actual Islamic reaching?

And why are you so certain that Bahaullah and his successors were revealing god's word? How do you know they weren't delusional, mistaken or dishonest? (Note: and answer that involves "because they said so", or words to that effect, can be dismissed by default).

There are many who seek to defame Muhammad and Islam. Some are enemies many just are not very well informed and jump on the critical bandwagon out of boredom.

Baha’u’llah, unlike previous religions, appointed a Successor and I fully accept Them.

It depends on an individual’s social construct. Some construct a mindset to be positive, or negative or fault find so it depends a lot on motive. My belief is that humans can never ever be fully impartial so we will always have bias except when we turn to an unbiased source such as a Prophet of God.

Baha’is believe that God’s Faith is only one religion that evolves over time. So the newer Prophet, Who is sent by the same God has authority to correct any misunderstandings or misinterpretations by anyone of past religions. For example, Baha’u’llah if He is Christ returned in the glory of the Father has full authority to correct or explain anything about any religion as His mandate is given by God. God owns the religions not the priests or followers, so God is free to judge.

As God is All Knowing I believe and trust His Messengers and Holy Books. I firmly believe that God’s Messengers are our only source of completely unbiased truth. We can never be fully impartial. Only God can.

My opinion is Muslims are good people with beautiful cultures and traditions. Baha’u’llah addressed Muslim clerics and kings announcing to them He was the Promised One of the Quran. I agree fully after investigating His claims.

My personal opinion,is that I believe Muslims and Baha’is have different views but we agree on That Muhammad is a Prophet and the Quran is from God.

With hadiths I linked to that website to point out that hadiths are unreliable. My judgement about the matter is based on what the Quran and Baha’u’llah say about Muhammad not any hadiths.

It’s up to Muslims whether they look into Baha’u’llah or not. That’s their own choice and up to them.

I wish I could answer why I accept Baha’u’llah directly to you but it’s very difficult unless I could connect my mind to yours via a mind meld or usb because language is a very poor vehicle to translate many truths into. It’s not just a belief but a ‘consciousness’ a ‘being’. How to convey ‘knowing’ in words? I believe we are all spiritual beings and that innately we are born with an instinct to recognise God by His Prophets if our hearts are pure.

The heart i believe is like a mirror. If it is turned towards the sun it reflects it or the ground. But if it is unclean it will reflect nothing and then claim there is no sun or God. So purity of heart is essential not just intellect and reason.

Quoting Baha’u’llah Himself this is my best answer at the moment and also to refer you to the Book of Certitude.

The Kitáb-i-Íqán | Bahá’í Reference Library

How great the multitude of truths which the garment of words can never contain! How vast the number of such verities as no expression can adequately describe, whose significance can never be unfolded, and to which not even the remotest allusions can be made! (Baha’u’llah)

It was not only His Life and Words but the relevancy of His Teachings for our day and age.

 

[KWED]

anyone who came to your conclusion regarding Aisha's age - is totally biased (wants to believe in a lie due to gullibility or loyalty or due to wicked desires) or they are simply dilutional!

1. It is not "my conclusion". It is the consensus amongst Islamic scholars and accepted by the majority of Muslims.
1. So you are dismissing the majority of Muslims, and Islamic scholars as "biased, gullible and wicked". Yikes, not even a militant sceptic like myself would go that far!

I told you - many different ways that - Quran told every believer to reject future gossips.

That is your own biased, gullible opinion. However, The majority of Islamic scholars, many of whom have spent lifetimes devoted to studying and analysing the Quran, do not agree with you.
Now, when it comes to the meaning of the Quran in an Islamic context, who is the better authority - hundreds of devout scholars, fluent in Classical Arabic, or some random person on the internet?

But you insist on believing gossips that were collected more that 200 years later. This gossip (hearsay) was supposedly generated by Aisha's grand nephew but there is no sure way to assign it to him either! The source is extremely questionable. A grand nephew's supposed testimony! Why anyone in their sane mind accept that?

As I keep saying, Islamic scholars have a very rigorous method of determining reliability and chains of narration. Something you seem to have no knowledge of.
And calling the majority of Muslims insane? Not a good look.

You are not using your common sense! I told you it is unlikely a nephew can ask a question like that to his aunt. None of us ever ask our aunt how old she was when she married (especially if the aunt married before we were even born!) Further more, let's say the aunt told the nephew - still what reason did the nephew have to tell his son approx 50-60 years later when the son grew up? The only reason I can think a father would tell his son something like that - has to do with self interest (ulterior motives)! Did he marry someone young? Was he trying to justify it to his son? There has to be a reason! I don't feel a need to check the history. You love history. You do the math! Other than that - there is no reason for a father to tell his son about it. IMO
So, it is illogical for us to believe this story after more 1400 years! These nephew or grand nephew in question, weren't even born when the wedding took place. They were born years after Muhammad passed away!

Yes, we get it. You have no idea how hadith work.

[Quran 8:22]

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

There Allah is referring to disbelievers who reject Islam, not to Muslims who accept the sunnah as a valid record of Muhammad's life.
Ironically, because you reject the sunnah , that verse is referring to you!
Of course, you are completely unable to appreciate that.

Some Muslim don't question it - because they are not using their better judgments. They are content with whatever some cleric fed them - they are biased!

That applies to most religionists.

What is your reason for believing? Why are you not questioning this yourself?

Why do you think I believe Islmic Scripture?

Millions of educated Muslims are highly critical of some of these Ahadith.

Some modernist Muslims are uncomfortable with some stuff in the sunnah and the Quran. And rightly so.

You are twisting words but by doing so - you are proudly admitting to be wicked!
I believe God did make the entity named Devil. Due to arrogance, temptations and pride he drifted off from the true path.
But there are many copycats and wannabes. Which one are you?

You quoted a Quran verse that said "And thus We have made for every prophet an enemy - devils from mankind and jinn, inspiring to one another decorative speech in delusion".
That is not referring to "the devil". It is referring to people who oppose and attack the prophets. Note there phrases "devils from mankind" and "inspiring one another".
You clearly implied that I was one of those. And Allah said that he makes them.
Therefore, the logical implication is that Allah caused me to be a critic of Muhammad. And if that is the case, I cannot be held responsible.

I am not "twisting your words", I am "explaining them to you" as you clearly don't fully understand what it is you are saying - as is often the case with apologists who regurgitate dogma rather than constructing cogent arguments through reason.

 

[Augustus]

During a pandemic, the latter. Otherwise, the former. Seems pretty straightforward. (Sorry, forgot that you don't do nuance or context).

As for nuance, you were the one getting obsessed with the OED rather than appreciating usage is context dependent.

So you now basically what I said, what "common" means is contextually dependent and a 5% prevalence can be common if significantly higher than what is expected/what is normal (there isn't some unique 'pandemic' clause after all).

If the average person today read the sentence "In KWEDland, infanticide is unfortunately common and widespread with around 1/20 children being killed by their parents" they wouldn't find it incongruous.

On the other hand, if they read "In KWEDland, infanticide is fortunately quite uncommon with only around 1/20 children being killed by their parents" they certainly would find it very incongruous.

No need to pretend otherwise. It is pretty straightforward.

I rest my case.

Obviously something you just made up.

Nope. It's a very clear RF pattern. Those who cry strawman ad nauseam are fortunately pretty rare.

I have already amended 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".".
More bad faith debating, I see.

I asked for actual historical evidence in favour of this position that references the specifics on which you base this claim.

So you admit that your earlier claim that evidence for battles was only from Islamic theology was just more hot air.

Now who is bad faith debating, try not missing out the parts of sentences that answer your question See the trend - you accuse me of X, then immediately do X yourself. Let he who is without sin..., pot/kettle, etc.

I just noted several wars that are not from Islamic theology, so perhaps you can work out your mistake. Numerous battles are only known from Islamic sources of course though.

AFAIK you haven't referenced any specific battles, so which battles in Arabia are you talking about?

So what. My entire point here was about Islamic claims. I have never, anywhere, claimed that the claims of Islamc ideology or scripture amount to historical evidence. So another straw man (perhaps try googling the term as you seem somewhat confused by it).

As I made very clear, I was talking about actual history. I'm an atheist, I see no need to defend Islamic orthodoxy. See what I mean about those who cry strawman the most usually doing so through poor comprehension.

Islamic context, remember. In a strictly historical context, Muhammad may not have existed, which by your some want bizarre argument would mean simply not discussing Islam until his existence, and actions, had been verified.
Like so many apologists, in your attempts to deflect and distract from the actual issue at hand, you end up painting yourself into a corner.

Before I was "an apologist for the definition of words" and now I'm apparently an apologist for actual history or something

Again, I was talking about actual, secular history, and you can certainly discuss Islam and what happened using critical historical methodologies.

For example, we know there is very strong historical evidence from non-Muslim sources for Muhammad existing.

If you have any evidence to support Bahaullah's claim that "Arab fathers would often bury their female daughters alive", then feel free to present it.
Otherwise, you can join me in dismissing it.

As explained, it may or may not be true. We can't really know either way.

You accepted 5% is potentially possible, and we've established that it's pretty clear that if the average person read the sentence "In KWEDland, infanticide is unfortunately common and widespread with around 1/20 children being killed by their parents", they wouldn't find it incongruous.

So your argument is basically a semantic quibble.

 

[BrightShadow]

It is not "my conclusion". It is the consensus amongst Islamic scholars and accepted by the majority of Muslims.

If you are indorsing it then it is your conclusion as well!
By the way - it is your opinion that majority of Muslims accept all Ahadith. My experience totally differs from yours.

Quran represents Islam. Not the practitioners! Learn to separate the two!

Believe the practitioners, if you like but chances are you will be misguided. Just look at modern day's Christianity. Other than a few sects - almost all believe in Jesus as a deity. So, what is the point of listening to clerics and so-called authoritative scholars of Christianity who spent lifetime devoting to the study and analyzation of the Bible? All those scholars still came to the wrong conclusion that Jesus was a deity! IMO

Are you calling all Christian scholars right about Christianity? Remember - practitioners don't represent the religion - Bible does! Learn the difference!

Should we listen to scholars or the Bible? Even in a book that has been corrupted for centuries via intentional or unintentional means - even then in the Bible - Jesus never claimed to be God and asked anyone to worship him! Not a single verse where he demanded he was god and people should worship him. In the contrary - Jesus claimed the opposite! He went up the mountain to pray to the real God. He told Satan to stand beside him and worship the real God. He said he can do nothing on his own. Even on the cross he asked the real God - if there was another way! Etc. etc. etc.
Similarly should we listen to your beloved scholars or should we listen to the Quran?

As I keep saying, Islamic scholars have a very rigorous method of determining reliability and chains of narration. Something you seem to have no knowledge of.

Their so-called rigorous method and the chain took them to grand nephew of Aisha! What reason do you have to believe the grand nephew of Aisha? You never answered this! He claimed to have heard it from his father who supposedly heard it from his aunt? Why would you believe the grand nephew even if the chain is authentic? Please answer this!

Say something about your grand aunt and see if your mother or your sister believes you - let alone the rest of the world!

Yes, we get it. You have no idea how hadith work.

You seems to understand it and that is why you are indorsing the process. So, why don't you explain - how it works? Why don't you explain why should we believe the grand nephew (even if he really claimed to have heard it from his father)?????

Do you believe all Muslims after Muhammad were righteous? Why did they broke up in sects and why did so many were assassinated in civil conflicts? Most of the immediate successors of Muhammad were assassinated. Do you know the history? It is your favorite subject! Isn't it?

 

[KWED]

As explained, it may or may not be true. We can't really know either way.

So it is wrong to claim that it did happen.

There, that wasn't too difficult, was it?

So your argument is basically a semantic quibble.

I assume this was an attempt at irony.

 

[Augustus]

So it is wrong to claim that it did happen.

There, that wasn't too difficult, was it?

Your argument was that it didn't happen.

But to answer your question, if someone said it was an objective historical fact that I must accept, I'd agree they were wrong.

If someone believed it happened, it's not entirely unreasonable.

The Islamic narrative, like usual, is just a story to explain a passage in the Quran. But, one might question why the Quran mentions it if it was not a custom (there are obviously many other explanations too).

Ultimately though, Muslims and others who believe in the God of the Quran and atheists don't use the same standards to evaluate the Quran (and to a lesser extent hadiths). One group thinks it is divinely preserved, and historical memory is miraculously preserved, the other starts from the assumption God played no role.

It's not surprising they weight evidence differently when they use different methodologies.

I think their methodology is wrong, but generally find it pointless to discuss as there is no resolution (it is different if they expect me to believe for critical historical reasons of course as we are both playing by the same rules).

I assume this was an attempt at irony.

You seem to be confusing yourself.

I explained that polygamy and infanticide happened together in numerous societies, your argument against it was based entirely on quibbling the term "common", so I pointed out you were mistaken.

There is a big difference between trying to base an entire argument on the claim someone is wrong for using a word in a perfectly normal manner versus responding to this claim by pointing out that, in fact, they are simply using the word in a perfectly normal manner while also making a substantial point regarding the coexistence of polygamy and infanticide.

 

[KWED]

If you are indorsing it then it is your conclusion as well!

No. I am merely pointing out what the conclusion of the vast majority of Islamic scholars is. You are claiming that most Islamic scholars reject the hadith that specific Aisha's age. You are wrong.

By the way - it is your opinion that majority of Muslims accept all Ahadith. My experience totally differs from yours.

I have never made that claim.
The majority accept the principle of hadith - which includes the different grades. Therefore they do not accept all hadith as equally authentic and reliable. The hadith recording Aisha's age are graded "sahih" (sound, authentic).
I suggest you read up a bit on how the hadith system works.

Quran represents Islam.

Not the practitioners! Learn to separate the two!

As far as Islam and most Muslims are concerned, Islam is represented and defined by the Quran and the sunnah/hadith. That is an undeniable fact. Your personal refusal to accept it is irrelevant.

 

[BrightShadow]

No. I am merely pointing out what the conclusion of the vast majority of Islamic scholars is. You are claiming that most Islamic scholars reject the hadith that specific Aisha's age. You are wrong.

Read some of your own posts! You are so passionately pointing out the authenticity of these Ahadith that it seems like you believe in these Ahadith more than any Islamic scholars ever believed!
Most Muslims don't think about Ahadith the way you do. They think of it as spare documents. They only consult it -if there is a need to understand the context of a verse from Quran. No one (I know) believe in this particular Hadith regarding Aisha's age- the way you do. Why would they? This is one man's story!

Bukhari collected his collection more than 200 years after Muhammad passed away. However, some of the Ahadith he and his companion collected can be useful here and there. That is why when he presented his collection - many Muslims may have quietly overlooked some questionable ones among them for centuries! I told you - it is like the senate bill. Many things sneak in any given senate bill but law makers don't read everything before signing. They only concentrate on important issues. That is how many bills pass as tag-alongs! Sometimes the lawmakers purposely overlook some stuff in the bill - so that the more important bill passes! So, that is how this inaccurate Hadith survived - as in a package deal! Of course you will still argue about being Sahih. Sahih means authentic or sound but it is about the chain being sound! The link is sound. However, it doesn't guarantee the substance or the truthfulness of the original narrator being sound at all! In other words - even if the nephew said it (to his son) - it doesn't make it true! Bukhari couldn't go back in time and ask Aisha. So, any argument of the "claim" being sahih is baseless!
Try to understand the difference between a "chain" being sound and "claim" being sound!

The hadith recording Aisha's age are graded "sahih" (sound, authentic).

Ok, if you say so. Lets take your claim under consideration - still it is stated that it came from grand nephew who heard it from his father. The chain stops there. So, what authenticity can anyone provide that the grand nephew or his father spoke the truth? Are you saying - Aisha's nephew cannot lie about aunt's age? Back in the days (without birth certificate) anyone could lie about his/her age. Many people didn't even care which day they were born - let alone which year! Did your grand mother or great grand mother care about which year they were born? Maybe your immediate grandmother did, but how about go back 1400 years - did your great, great, great ......grandmother care about which calendar year she was born?

So the argument regarding authenticity of the Hadith that talks about Aisha's age - is a joke!

I suggest you read up a bit on how the hadith system works.

You have faith in this system. So why don't you answer the question I asked?
Why should anyone in their sane mind believe Aisha's grand nephew Hisham who claimed to have heard it from his father Urwah?

Do your history research and see whether or not Urwah had reasons to lower his aunt's age to safeguard his aunt from the rumors about her character. He may even have more reasons. So, why not address those concerns before indorsing his Hadith? This Hadith didn't come from other more secure sources! Why is that?
Muslims never felt a need to think about it. But no one (I know readily believes it either). Everyone uses their brain except you! IMO

As far as Islam and most Muslims are concerned, Islam is represented and defined by the Quran and the sunnah/hadith. That is an undeniable fact. Your personal refusal to accept it is irrelevant.

Islam is represented and defined by Quran ONLY. Quran testifies that.
[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?"
[Quran 77:50] "Then in what statement after the Qur'an will they believe?"

Read verses [Quran 6:114-117], [Quran 18:27], [Quran 39:23]

Hadith weren't even there for more than first two hundred years! So, what represented Islam then?

Life will get hard for you in the upcoming years - because you will find less and less of your beloved scholars supporting your claim! So, think ahead and find new product for your store!

 

[firedragon]

Finally we come to the first hadith that is listed as contrary to the hadith of 9 years old, it says "I was a young girl" (at the time of the authorship of the 54th surah of the
Quran). Assuming this means that Aisha was not an infant (I've got no knowledge of Arabic so can't comment on that, although it sound funny inEnglish because in English it is possible for a female to be both a young girl and an infant), both hadith can't be true, the question is how did you decide one hadith to be "historical" and not the other? Is it just picking the hadith that aligns with your desire for it to be true?

"Jaariyathu Alabu" which means "a young girl at playful age". In the Fusha atthuraath, it would be around 10 in age. In arabic there are different words representing girls of different ages. You don't call a toddler for example as Jaariyah.

54th chapter was revealed according to the same tradition in 614. The marriage supposedly happened in 624. You can do the math.

 

[firedragon]

Finally we come to the first hadith that is listed as contrary to the hadith of 9 years old, it says "I was a young girl" (at the time of the authorship of the 54th surah of the
Quran). Assuming this means that Aisha was not an infant (I've got no knowledge of Arabic so can't comment on that, although it sound funny inEnglish because in English it is possible for a female to be both a young girl and an infant), both hadith can't be true, the question is how did you decide one hadith to be "historical" and not the other? Is it just picking the hadith that aligns with your desire for it to be true?

"Jaariyathu Alabu" which means "a young girl at playful age". In the Fusha atthuraath, it would be around 10 in age lowest. In arabic there are different words representing girls of different ages. You don't call a toddler for example as Jaariyah. Never.

54th chapter was revealed according to the same tradition in 614. The marriage supposedly happened in 624. You can do the math.

 

[firedragon]

As to Islam, Baha'is accept only the Qur'an as legitimate scripture WITH THE EXCEPTION of the few Hadith which Baha'u'llah actually quoted Himself! So arguing about hadiths has no real meaning for me.

That's not right. You should read what the Bab said about ahadith.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That's not right. You should read what the Bab said about ahadith.

Do you have a reference? I know He does refer to certain hadiths if that’s what you mean.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That's not right. You should read what the Bab said about ahadith.

I have found this reference.


“How numerous the verses which have been revealed concerning the grievous tests ye shall experience on the Day of Judgement, yet it appeareth that ye have never perused them; and how vast the number of revealed traditions regarding the trials which will overtake you on the Day of Our Return, and yet ye seem never to have set your eyes upon them.”

Excerpt from
Selections from the Writings of the Báb
The Báb

In the Baha’i Faith, once a specific hadith is written by either the Bab or Baha’u’llah, we consider it to be the Word of God and no longer a hadith as the Manifestation has endowed it with His Authority which we believe comes from God.

There may also have been hadiths referred to by Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi. In these cases we would accept the authenticity of the hadith as we consider both Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi we’re endowed with infalliblity through successorship in Will and testaments.

 

[firedragon]

Do you have a reference? I know He does refer to certain hadiths if that’s what you mean.

Read Dhalail al Sabah.

 

[firedragon]

I have found this reference.


“How numerous the verses which have been revealed concerning the grievous tests ye shall experience on the Day of Judgement, yet it appeareth that ye have never perused them; and how vast the number of revealed traditions regarding the trials which will overtake you on the Day of Our Return, and yet ye seem never to have set your eyes upon them.”

Excerpt from
Selections from the Writings of the Báb
The Báb

In the Baha’i Faith, once a specific hadith is written by either the Bab or Baha’u’llah, we consider it to be the Word of God and no longer a hadith as the Manifestation has endowed it with His Authority which we believe comes from God.

There may also have been hadiths referred to by Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi. In these cases we would accept the authenticity of the hadith as we consider both Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi we’re endowed with infalliblity through successorship in Will and testaments.

None of that is relevant.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Read Dhalail al Sabah.

Is there an authorised English translation of that Tablet or scripture?

 

[firedragon]

Is there an authorised English translation of that Tablet or scripture?

I am not so sure.