Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johnthebaptist1)
    There's no doubt about Muhammed's or Jesus' existance actually.
    Can. Worms everywhere.

    There is. There absolutely beyond question is doubt that Muhammed and Jesus existed.

    That's why 20% of the world are atheist/non religious and the rest are split among the five major religiouns and the countless smaller branches, cults and alien-worshippers....

    If there was no doubt, as you so blythely suggest, then the entire world would be a blend of Islamic and Christian.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chelski786)
    Is it ok to cause the deaths of iraqis for oil?
    No, but it's also not okay to kill innocent civilians in the name of Islam. Two wrongs don't make a right.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    And chelski786, I'm not sure what you intend to achieve with your own mix of aggression, personal attacks and intolerance, beyond looking like a bit of a ****.

    First of all, this thread is pointless. Secondly, the people who've said that Muhammed married a child are basing this on the majority of commonly-available evidence.

    And the reason they're not replying is not because they're shocked into defeat by an unsubstantiated video, but because they haven't watched it and geniunely don't care.

    It's clearly important to you, and I applaud that, but the world would have had one less argument in it if you'd kept this to yourself.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bananaslug77)
    No, but it's also not okay to kill innocent civilians in the name of Islam. Two wrongs don't make a right.
    Do you think that all these people really kill in the name of islam. Its all ********. These people kill for power not religion. They use religion as an excuse.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miraclefish)
    And chelski786, I'm not sure what you intend to achieve with your own mix of aggression, personal attacks and intolerance, beyond looking like a bit of a ****.

    First of all, this thread is pointless. Secondly, the people who've said that Muhammed married a child are basing this on the majority of commonly-available evidence.

    And the reason they're not replying is not because they're shocked into defeat by an unsubstantiated video, but because they haven't watched it and geniunely don't care.

    It's clearly important to you, and I applaud that, but the world would have had one less argument in it if you'd kept this to yourself.
    commonly available evidence? There is one small narration from an inaccurate hadith. There are numerous other hadiths which contrdict it. Why is there only one narration on this?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chelski786)
    Mods why did u delete this thread? I am showing a video which proves that Aisha was an adult when she married and you go ahead and delete it. Why? Are you trying to hide the truth?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXaw9UZlK_I
    Don't justify paedophiles. Get a life
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Read what I said again. To the majority of people, who haven't the time, interest or ability to research further, Aisha is known to have been very young when she married. Whether this is correct or not isn't for me to say - but it is the accepted wisdom of most people.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chelski786)
    Do you think that all these people really kill in the name of islam. Its all ********. These people kill for power not religion. They use religion as an excuse.
    Well that's what they claim to be killing for. Why do you think you can say otherwise? If they were suicide bombing for power it's a futile effort considering they are DEAD :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chelski786)
    commonly available evidence? There is one small narration from an inaccurate hadith. There are numerous other hadiths which contrdict it. Why is there only one narration on this?
    I notice you haven't replied to my replies to you, I wonder why? I also wonder why God, with his direct line to Mohammed, didn't say to him that he should state in the Quaran that she was 15 (or whatever age she was) because he would have known that all of this confusion and trouble would arise one day. The only conclusion one can draw is that either a) he is a paedophile and therefore isn't a prophet with a direct line to God, or b) he isn't a paedophile, but isn't a prophet because the Quaran fails to give accurate guidance with a key issue.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chelski786)
    Do you think that all these people really kill in the name of islam. Its all ********. These people kill for power not religion. They use religion as an excuse.
    what power did the terrorists the blew themselves up on the tube in 7/7 achieve?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bananaslug77)
    Well that's what they claim to be killing for. Why do you think you can say otherwise? If they were suicide bombing for power it's a futile effort considering they are DEAD
    Also, if it was just about power, and not because of Islam, where are all the Christians doing the same thing?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bananaslug77)
    Well that's what they claim to be killing for. Why do you think you can say otherwise? If they were suicide bombing for power it's a futile effort considering they are DEAD :rolleyes:
    The leaders of these groups attempt to achieve power not the actual bombers. The suicide bombers get brainwashed into thinking it is all for religion blah blah blah.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bananaslug77)
    Well that's what they claim to be killing for. Why do you think you can say otherwise? If they were suicide bombing for power it's a futile effort considering they are DEAD :rolleyes:
    Hi

    they don't kill for Islam, they kill because of political factors. If you would read the testimony of the suicide bombers they confirm this. Besides, suicide bombing was invented and dominated in its usage by non Muslims.. The sooner these issues are addressed the less bombs will go off.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_...ped_statements
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I am a muslim. I personally think she was 6-9.

    BEFORE YOU COMMENT ANY FURTHER WITH AN ATTACK OR ANYTHING IN REGARDS TO THIS SUBJECT, READ THIS AND LOOK AT THE LINKS.

    I would advise people to be intellectually honest rather than impose their views on a totally different way of life.

    Your great, great grand mum, not too long ago, was probably only 10 too.

    Look at these following links before passing any more judgements. I hope you could take the more intellectual approach to things:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/Muhaddit...19/KEwmfIgSQQU

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM4Iu...next=1&index=2

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYpH3QL0i9w

    I BET YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT MUHAMMAD PBUH WAS MARRIED TO A WOMAN 15 YEARS OLDER THAN HIM?
    I BET YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT MUHAMMAD WAS ALSO MARRIED TO A WOMAN FROM THE AGES 60-80 ACCORDING TO SOME SOURCES?

    Muhammad pbuh's marriages were not to build a lustful kingdom, nearly all were to build tribal ties, care for the widows because they used to be abandoned, care for the orphan females etc.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    I notice you haven't replied to my replies to you, I wonder why? I also wonder why God, with his direct line to Mohammed, didn't say to him that he should state in the Quaran that she was 15 (or whatever age she was) because he would have known that all of this confusion and trouble would arise one day. The only conclusion one can draw is that either a) he is a paedophile and therefore isn't a prophet with a direct line to God, or b) he isn't a paedophile, but isn't a prophet because the Quaran fails to give accurate guidance with a key issue.
    Yes, that hadith is talking about boys. They didnt want boys under 15 becuase they were too young and would be a burden on them. So, why would they let Ayesha come if she was only 9. Would she not be a burden? That fact she came surely shows she must have been 15 over.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chelski786)
    At the time when surah al qamar was revealed Ayesha said she was was young girl (young girl not an infant). She was not married at this point. This shows that Ayesha must have been over the age of 9 when she married. This is in the Bukhari books.

    Hadiths show that none under the age of 15 were not allowed on the battle ground. However, Aeisha accopmanied the prophet in the battle of Uhud. Women accopmanied men to battles to help them, not to be a burdern on them. So, at this time she cannot have been 9.
    Let me put it this way. These books of hadith are the most authentic after the Quran. I ask you to bring the ayat which is supposedly contradicts yet you bring me some strange argument and even say that Bukhari contradicts it self.

    So tell me where does this hadith rejection stop? A huge chunk of our religion is founded on these hadiths and rejecting authentic hadiths due to your nafs is a slippery slope that leads you to reject other authentic hadith. Eventually you end up following in the footsteps of the 'Quran-only' heretics.

    Thirdly, you bring these weak arguments that these hadiths some how contradict history yet tell me why none of the past scholars (Imam Ahmad, Shafie, Abu Hanifa, Malik, Nawawi, Al-Qurtubi, Ibn Hajar etc.) never spotted this huge flaw in the most authentic book of hadith. Why is it that it was Maulana Muhammad Ali in the 1920s/30s who was the first to argue against these hadiths?

    I'll just say this: if its in Bukhari and Muslim then its authentic and none of this historical context rubbish you are sprouting is needed.

    I'll leave with this:
    Due to the apparent ignorance of many Muslims, possibly due to reading "modernist" apologetic literature like that mentioned above, a look at what the authentic sources of Islam say about the age at which 'Aishah married the Prophet (saw) is in order. This way, before we move on to an analysis of the facts, we will first establish what the authentic Islamic facts are. At this point, it should be mentioned that it is absolutely pointless from an Islamic standpoint to say that the age of 'Aishah is "not found in the Qur'an", since the textual sources of Islam are made up of BOTH the Qur'an and the Sunnah - and the Qur'an tells us that. Now in regards to what the authentic Islamic sources actually say, it may come as a disappointment to some "modern" and "cultured" Muslims that there are four ahadith in Saheeh al-Bukhari and three ahadith in Saheeh Muslim which clearly state that 'Aishah was "nine years old" at the time that her marriage was consummated with the Prophet (P). These ahadith, with only slight variation, read as follows:

    'Aishah, may God be pleased with her, narrated that the Prophet (P) was betrothed (zawaj) to her when she was six years old and he consummated (nikah) his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years. (Saheeh al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64)

    Of the four ahadith in Saheeh al-Bukhari, two were narrated from 'Aishah (7:64 and 7:65), one from Abu Hishaam (5:236) and one via 'Ursa (7:88). All three of the ahadith in Saheeh Muslim have 'Aishah as a
    narrator. Additionally, all of the ahadith in both books agree that the marriage betrothal contract took place when 'Aishah was "six years old", but was not consummated until she was "nine years old".

    Additionally, a hadeeth with basically the same text (matn) is reported in Sunan Abu Dawood. Needless to say, this evidence is—Islamically speaking—overwhelmingly strong and Muslims who deny it do so only by sacrificing their intellectual honesty, pure faith or both.

    This evidence having been established, there doesn't seem much room for debate about 'Aishah's age amongst believing Muslims. Until someone proves that in the Arabic language "nine years old" means something other than "nine years old", then we should all be firm in our belief that she was "nine years old" (as if there's a reason or need to believe otherwise!?!). In spite of these facts, there are still some Muslim authors that have somehow managed to push 'Aishah's age out to as far as "fourteen or fifteen years old" at the time of her marriage to the Prophet (saw). It should come as no surprise, however, that none of them ever offer any proof, evidence or references for their opinions. This can be said with the utmost confidence, since certainly none
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Paedophilia is paedophilia in any time period. Men are not programmed to be attracted to children and never have been as it is almost impossible to impregnate them. If it was a cultural practise I would imagine it had less to do with attraction to children and more to do with resentment of women and the desire for a wife that was wholly obedient, the best way to get that was marry a little child and indoctrinate her to your ways. And given that sex was only allowed within marriage they probably ****** the child just to get relief.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Casse)
    Let me put it this way. These books of hadith are the most authentic after the Quran. I ask you to bring the ayat which is supposedly contradicts yet you bring me some strange argument and even say that Bukhari contradicts it self.
    So tell me where does this hadith rejection stop? A huge chunk of our religion is founded on these hadiths and rejecting authentic hadiths due to your nafs is a slippery slope that leads you to reject other authentic hadith. Eventually you end up following in the footsteps of the 'Quran-only' heretics.

    Thirdly, you bring these weak arguments that these hadiths some how contradict history yet tell me why none of the past scholars (Imam Ahmad, Shafie, Abu Hanifa, Malik, Nawawi, Al-Qurtubi, Ibn Hajar etc.) never spotted this huge flaw in the most authentic book of hadith. Why is it that it was Maulana Muhammad Ali in the 1920s/30s who was the first to argue against these hadiths?

    I'll just say this: if its in Bukhari and Muslim then its authentic and none of this historical context rubbish you are sprouting is needed.

    I'll leave with this:
    Are u stupid? The argument I gave to you about her age was taken from the Bukhari books. Yes, they do contradict each other. The books cannot be 100% accurate because they were written by man. There are bound to be mistakes. Go check yourself. I dont believe the hadith about her age being 9 as it is the only hadith which states it. Many, many hadiths in the BHUKARI books state otherwise. Understand?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chelski786)
    Yes, that hadith is talking about boys. They didnt want boys under 15 becuase they were too young and would be a burden on them. So, why would they let Ayesha come if she was only 9. Would she not be a burden? That fact she came surely shows she must have been 15 over.
    If they considered girls under the age of 15 a burden then that would be stated in the Quaran or the haddiths - it isn't. The duties of women on the battlefield were also different to that of men - men required strength to fight and lift equipment. Women just needed to be able to cook and tend wounds. I don't think many Muslims disagree that it is ok to marry a 13 year old as long as she is menstruating (indeed the Quaran/Haddith states that menstruation is the appropriate age to be allowed to marry). This means that many men in his army would have taken girls under 15 onto the battlefield, if they didn't because Mohammed said not to this would be stated in the Quaran/Haddiths.

    You also failed to address my second point: God told Mohammed so much knowledge to place in the Quaran - from how to brush your teeth, grow your beard, dress, pray, etc. Why wouldn't God have told him to state Aisha's age, given that it is causing so much trouble in this day and age? It is losing you countless followers, as well as countless potential followers. Not to mention it has caused many cases of paedophillia the world over, which all could have been stopped with one sentence - 'Aisha was 15 years old upon marrying Mohammed'.

    There are some serious holes in your logic if you think that the fact men weren't allowed to fight before 15 counters the other haddiths stating Aisha to be 9, as well as playing with dolls (something adults aren't allowed to do), when she married Mohammed.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I thought she was like 7 when they married
    either way if he was like 40 and knew her from a kid that's kinda gross anyways
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.