Aisha's age at the time of her marriage
- Thread starter TempestOfTempo
- Start date
So there is not distinction between the ages of females? A baby girl is no different in terms of feminine status compared to the woman who bore her?
We don't have the intellect to deduce which meaning of this word in it's context?
And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, "Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper"? (4:75)
wa-mā lakum lā tuqātilūna fī sabīli llāhi wa-l-mustaḍʿafīna mina r-rijāli wa-n-nisāʾi wa-l-wildāni lladhīna yaqūlūna rabbanā ʾakhrijnā min hādhihi l-qaryati ẓ-ẓālimi ʾahluhā wa-jʿal lanā min ladunka waliyyan wa-jʿal lanā min ladunka naṣīra
Do you mean to say in this verse the word nisaa' is also referring to females of any age? Despite the word "children" following after it.
Too many wacky people on this forum. I don't mean eccentric, but flat out crazy nuts. Who in their right mind would make and post videos on YouTube that clearly puts their insanity on display? I watched the 4 minute video, and was actually embarrassed for him. Weirdo
Its all there. Nisa can refer to a girl in general depending on context. The same way the word female is used in english. Its not hard to understand.
amaranthine
Established
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2020
- Messages
- 303
9,10,11,12... year old girl is still a child, so in no way is bubbajay's use of the word "p***philia" wrong nor is it exclusive to liberals (?!). Welcome to the real world, where maturity does not equal menstruation status.
amaranthine
Established
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2020
- Messages
- 303
I don't truly follow. You are saying that it is satanic to NOT equate the age of puberty with the age of consent?
The smell of enmity is rife in here.
It is clear that there is a personal vendetta, to the point of obsession. The issue isn't with being disgusted by the act of p***philia but more specifically "Muslim pedophiles". The fixation on Aisha's age upon her marriage loses sight of the bigger picture. She may or may not have been 6 or 9 and thirdly she may also have been neither.
The claim that the Quran promotes such kinds of people is unfounded.
And Allah has made for you from yourselves mates and has made for you from your mates sons and grandchildren and has provided for you from the good things. Then in falsehood do they believe and in the favor of Allah they disbelieve? (16:72)
Why would it be decreed to marry a prepubescent girl if she can't bear children?
Divorced women remain in waiting for three periods, and it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs if they believe in Allah and the Last Day. (2:2228)
If she has not experienced her menses yet, why must she wait for 3 cycles when the man wants to divorce her? This verse also talks about what is created in the womb, we know this can only mean a fertilized egg.
But also there are other verses that talks about not consummating the marriage.
There is no blame upon you if you divorce women you have not touched nor specified for them an obligation (2:236)
And if you divorce them before you have touched them and you have already specified for them an obligation, then [give] half of what you specified - unless they forego the right or the one in whose hand is the marriage contract foregoes it. (2:237
O you who have believed, when you marry believing women and then divorce them before you have touched them, then there is not for you any waiting period to count concerning them. So provide for them and give them a gracious release. (33:49)
It really doesn't fit the profile that is being accused. Any sound minded person will not give their daughters up for marriage at that age nor would any sound man would want to marry such a young girl.
If it bothers you that much that you are convinced this is the teachings from the Quran, how is it different from laws made to protect these very said child? According to ICAP:
It is clear that there is a personal vendetta, to the point of obsession. The issue isn't with being disgusted by the act of p***philia but more specifically "Muslim pedophiles". The fixation on Aisha's age upon her marriage loses sight of the bigger picture. She may or may not have been 6 or 9 and thirdly she may also have been neither.
The claim that the Quran promotes such kinds of people is unfounded.
And Allah has made for you from yourselves mates and has made for you from your mates sons and grandchildren and has provided for you from the good things. Then in falsehood do they believe and in the favor of Allah they disbelieve? (16:72)
Why would it be decreed to marry a prepubescent girl if she can't bear children?
Divorced women remain in waiting for three periods, and it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs if they believe in Allah and the Last Day. (2:2228)
If she has not experienced her menses yet, why must she wait for 3 cycles when the man wants to divorce her? This verse also talks about what is created in the womb, we know this can only mean a fertilized egg.
But also there are other verses that talks about not consummating the marriage.
There is no blame upon you if you divorce women you have not touched nor specified for them an obligation (2:236)
And if you divorce them before you have touched them and you have already specified for them an obligation, then [give] half of what you specified - unless they forego the right or the one in whose hand is the marriage contract foregoes it. (2:237
O you who have believed, when you marry believing women and then divorce them before you have touched them, then there is not for you any waiting period to count concerning them. So provide for them and give them a gracious release. (33:49)
It really doesn't fit the profile that is being accused. Any sound minded person will not give their daughters up for marriage at that age nor would any sound man would want to marry such a young girl.
If it bothers you that much that you are convinced this is the teachings from the Quran, how is it different from laws made to protect these very said child? According to ICAP:
- Sexual abuse statistics vary between countries and reports, but are consistently alarming: Research indicates that up to 36% of girls and 29% of boys have suffered child sexual abuse; up to 46% girls and 20% boys have experienced sexual coercion.(The 57th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights)
Tell all that to the thousands of Muslim pedos married to children today. I posted the 100% proof the Quran mentions prepubescent children in context of marriage and divorce. Your apologetics have failed. You people are sickening.
Attack and avoid the question.
What about these 70 000 members? Or do they have to be married before they can be held accountable?
"An Internet p***phile ring with up to 70,000 members — thought to be the world's largest —has been uncovered by police "
Massive online pedophile ring busted by cops
An Internet p***phile ring with up to 70,000 members — thought to be the world's largest —has been uncovered by police, a security official said Wednesday.
quit trying to divert attention and blame elsewhere. The thread is about the pedo Muhammad and his six year old "bride".Attack and avoid the question.
What about these 70 000 members? Or do they have to be married before they can be held accountable?
"An Internet p***phile ring with up to 70,000 members — thought to be the world's largest —has been uncovered by police "
Massive online pedophile ring busted by cops
An Internet p***phile ring with up to 70,000 members — thought to be the world's largest —has been uncovered by police, a security official said Wednesday.www.nbcnews.com
TempestOfTempo
Superstar
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2018
- Messages
- 8,773
I understand your post and would like to address part of it: "There is no religious scriptures here, but there are laws to prevent sex with a minor but they are not adhered to. Why not address that?"
I agree regarding the global push (mainly via media) to sexualize children amongst themselves and promote them as sexually attractive to adults. Those agendas are in full swing and are primarily of a secular nature. But religion is supposed to offer respite from the madness and I feel its important to address ones own yard before complaining about a neighbors mess so... Im trying to to make clear publicly whats-what regarding this situation from sound basis, both Islamic and chronological...
We know LOTS of Muslims do engage in these acts and many of them have the nerve to cite theological justifications to excuse their crimes. So I am trying to create a moral line in the sand which can translate to a physical one... any and all child abuse activities must be immediately investigated and if there are real child safety issues, immediately confronted. And Muslims should be the first to stand up to this abomination, but you can read for yourself posts by those claiming to be Muslim who are full-on for a 6-9 age range, and anything else is unacceptable to them. They have to know what they are supporting... they know the reality of how this faulty interpretation scheme is being used to abuse multitudes of children all over the world... there is nothing positive about the impact this theological self-deception has on children in specific and society in general... yet they still support it, promote it and attack those who attempt to confront it. And there are other threads to discuss other child abuse phenomenon, networks and etc... some of which offer fine and valid investigations worthy of our time and efforts as well.
But the point of this discussion is to maintain focus on the topic and see if any of the 6-9 proponents can address the info presented and counter it with something logical and/or provable. You see the results of their efforts so far...
TempestOfTempo
Superstar
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2018
- Messages
- 8,773
Guess this is it? This is the best defense the Desert Rose/Bubbasparkles crowds could muster in support of their lie? A false history intended to justify the horrors of child abuse? They have so much to share in other threads when the topic comes up... yet where the focus is maintained on the subject, they seem to want no serious interaction or dialog.
AspiringSoul
Star
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2017
- Messages
- 3,996
im not of the 69 camp, but i certainly have my view on it all. problem is, would you understandi t? would you legitimately take an active interest in what i have to say?
ive touched on it numerous times in the past, on here, and it gets ignored or goes over people's heads.
so for the record, my opinion is not orthodox, it is my own rational take on hadith..and ive been studying hadith since i was 10 yrs old. ive studied them far far longer than i have done the bible, but collectively studying other religions aswell as history, kingdoms/empires, rulers, influencers etc, i can say i have a better idea than most.
there's a text called the Bahman Yast. it is a strange zoroastrian book of 'end times prophecy' which appeared in the 6th century AD, attributed to Zoroaster himself.
Now the book with it's prophecies, speaksof all out war between the wonderful, good, pious and pure Iran and it's allys from the east, against the evil 'demons with dishevelled hair' from europe (the byzantines, the greeks ie the christians).
eg
O Zaratûst the Spîtâmân! they will lead these Iranian countries of Aûharmazd into a desire for evil, into tyranny and misgovernment, those demons with dishevelled hair who are deceivers, so that what, they say they do not do, and they are of a vile religion, so that what they do not say they do. 29. And their assistance and promise have no sincerity, there is no law, they preserve no security, and on the support they provide no one relies; with deceit, rapacity, and misgovernment they will devastate these my Iranian countries
Now this text begins by describing a giant tree extending to heaven, made up of 4 parts. Gold, Silver, Bronze and Iron, pertaining to 4 ages.
Zaratûst asked for immortality from Aûharmazd, then Aûharmazd displayed the omniscient wisdom to Zaratûst, and through it he beheld the root of a tree, on which were four branches, one golden, one of silver, one of steel, and one was mixed up with iron.
This is a major clue that it was clearly a forgery ripping off Daniel 2, hence it would have been a jewish forgery, since we know historically jews were well placed in positions of power, in iran. So what of it's intent?
clearly we know jews would have hated christinas back then. jewish messianicism, leading to the sassanian vs byzantine wars. Get it? it had a political purpose and people believed it.
However it does get way more interesting if you see things from my pov. The sassanian-byzantine wars, led to the sassanian victory and thus led to a new jewish-sassanian vassal state in Jerusalem led by a few thousand jews. This just happened to take place in the lifetime of Mohammad, right at the cusp of his journey as a prophet. So whilst it was a propanda peice, what it represented was the heart and desire of the jewish nation and their world view.
See, im familiar with the law of attraction, i understand how inner beliefs reflect in the material experience, things we see in our reality are a manifestation or reflection of deeper beliefs. This is where the game of religious manipulation of the masses turns eg just like the Bahman yast itself had massive consequences right away.
See, jewish messianicism of the 6th and 7th century also gave rise to various jewish 'prophecies' and amongst them was a deep belief if a Messiah ben Joseph/suffering servant..and a messiah ben david/king. This dualistic messianic ideal lead to a guy called Nehemiah Ben Hushiel becoming the 'messiah ben joseph'. He was supposed to die..to usher ihn the arrival of the davidic messiah.
Nehemiah ben Hushiel - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The only thing is when Ben hushiel was killed, the jews didnt find their davidic messiah in Madina (as per the isaiah 42 new song prophecy), but instead....it was an arab. Hushiel was killed in 619 and the hijra/migration of Mohammad took place 3.5 YRS LATER in 622.
no one else would pick up on this but me (srsly, no ego, it's true though, im too familiar with bible prophecy so i get the themes at play here).
You're probably not familiar with the story of Mohammad's arrival in Madina, i don't want to get into that too much other than to say that the jews celebrated his arrival expecting a jewish messiah. one of the stories in hadith around this is the story of Heraclius the byzantine emperor. it says he saw a dream that a prophet was coming to circumcised people (ie jews) and so his desire was to wipe out jews (given the context of the wars and bloodshed that took place in jerusalem, leading to thousands and thousands of christians being killed by jews and persians, it was understandable he wanted an end to it all). So basically the judeo-christian world never saw an arab prophet coming. im sure christians would have been expecting the antichrist, you know 'the wilderness'..and the jews would have expected the messiah.
Why did their desire not materialise exactly how they willed it? to understand that, you have to accept that the jews are under a collective curse since they rejected Jesus and their lack of temple is proof of this. Read the punishments part of
Leviticus 26
Bible Gateway passage: Leviticus 26 - New International Version
Reward for Obedience - “‘Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God. “‘Observe my Sabbaths and have reverence for my sanctuary. I am the LORD. “‘If you follow my decrees and are...
You will plant seed in vain, because your enemies will eat it.
17 I will set my face against you so that you will be defeated by your enemies; those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee even when no one is pursuing you.
my understansing of the seed of faith, is that it represents intent..and the fruit represents the object of our desires...eg our goal, what we want.
eg the jews planted the seeds of a messianic archetype that instead came to arabs, in accordance with the punishments theme..and hence Mohammad..and this further led to all the messianic dreams of rule over the whole region, going into arab hands.
Now the bit where i get into the hadith.
we have this hadith
Hadith of black flags - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
see, the Abbasid caliphate who were ruling the sunni world from persia at that time, happened to have the Black flags. So this hadith wasnt a real prophecy at all but a manipulated forgery created by the abbasid's to consolidate their legitimacy as the true rulers of the muslim world, in the face of shia resistance.
yet...this hadith is plagarised from the Bahman yast..how ironic
'For the support of the countries of Iran is the innumerable army of the east; its having exalted banners', is that they have a banner of tiger skin (bôpar pôst), and their wind banner is white cotton[6]; innumerable are the mounted troops, and they ride up to the lurking-holes[7] of the demons; they will slay so that a thousand women can afterwards see and kiss but one man.
whilst this may seem trivial, the abbasids ruled over persia from persia...and thus adopting existing persian centric themes would also help them remain in power. They changed up the colours to black (in line with their own). What they were doing was legitimising their rule using existing beliefs/archetypes. Yet again this reflects the collective messianic dream, that seed planted by jews. it reflected their propanda, their deception and their dreams..playing out through abbasids instead.
the ensuing wars between the abbasids and byzantines were by design too.
Byzantine–Arab wars (780–1180) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Finally im going to relate this to the topic of Aisha. The shia and the sunni sides were building legitimacy through the manipulation of religion and this was done on the shia side their own persian scholars collecting/writing 'hadith'...and likewise the sunnis were doing the same.
the shia being devoted to Ali, Fatima, Hassan and Hussain...hated Aisha as she was the daughter of Abu Bakr who was the first caliph.
The shia camp spread propaganda against Aisha to break morale and make people reject the other side. Amongst them, they abuse Aisha, call her a whore, an adulteress and accuse her of poisoning and killing the prophet.
no word of a lie, they absolutely hate her till this day and it has become even more fashionable today in the age of youtube/facebook and intense sectarianism, to attack her.
Shia view of Aisha - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
THUS, the abbasid's response was to instead claim Aisha as a child bride, as a pure and noble innocent woman and attribute the majority of sunni hadith to her name.
As for my view of all the sunni hadith collections..i treat them as sources of information and within that, im open to questioning the intent. most are probably legit and have an actual oral tradition behind them, but many are political propaganda work.
Hence many muslims argue that Aisha was a lot older by using other sources of information and being rational. However many more cling to the original narration version because they dare not question 'hadith'. they were brainwashed to believe in 'QURAN AND HADITH/SUNNAH ONLY'.
however the Quran actually says
KITAB/SCRIPTURE AND HIKMAH/WISDOM
Our Lord! Send amongst them a Messenger of their own (and indeed Allah answered their invocation by sending Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم), who shall recite unto them Your Verses and instruct them in the Book (this Qur'an) and Al-Hikmah (Wisdom). Verily! You are the All-Mighty, the All-Wise."
(سورة البقرة, Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #129)
now im certain there is a lot of hikmah/wisdom contained in hadith. ive studied them from age 10 like i said, there is a treasure trove of material in them..but there is also darker stuff that was clearly forged with political intent.
the element of sunnah, of following Mohammad, applicable through Quranic verses, was for those muslims present at the time with the prophet. Eg THEY had to follow him (goes without saying). However the Quran certianly didnt endorse material that was gathered and written over 2 centuries later. Hadith have no quranic confirmation, no divine protection. in fact it directly warns muslims against that
And so We have appointed for every Prophet enemies - Shayatin (devils) among mankind and jinn, inspiring one another with adorned speech as a delusion (or by way of deception). If your Lord had so willed, they would not have done it; so leave them alone with their fabrications. (Tafsir Qurtubi)
(سورة الأنعام, Al-An'aam, Chapter #6, Verse #112)
ie the Quran clearly insists that every prophet had enemies from men, lying with 'adorned speech' as a deception....
how could that happen? it clearly wouldnt come from people outside of the religion, it would have to c ome from within it, hence this extends to hadith aswell.
113. (And this is in order) that the hearts of those who disbelieve in the Hereafter may incline to such (deceit), and that they may remain pleased with it, and that they may commit what they are committing (all kinds of sins and evil deeds).
have a little think on this one given your accusation of muslims using hadith to justidy pedophillia (and i agree with you on that, it's true, but only a minority do that).
Now you know what does come with divine confirmation? the Torah and Gospel DO. You've seen how most muslims view those books..so you certainly cant tell me that the majority of muslims who are openly dissing the bible, are correct (at least on their analysis of islam/the Quran) and that im wrong. I look at hadith, as i said, as historical sources of information, which is exactly what they are. I'm open minde enough to question their origin and purpose/intent within the political climate of the time. it doesnt mean i have all the answers, but at least i remain cautious.
Still, it is more convenient for xtians to really just push my points aside and stick to the dominant narratives in these exchanges to have the upper hand. for xtians, it is absolutely necessary that Mohammad was having sex with a 9 yr old child.
However for me, it makes no sense. There is no evidence of any controversy surrounding this in early islam (and i believe there would have been, it's too big an age difference for people to not jump on it back then even). Aisha was older in other sources. Even in Saheeh Bukhari, where this 'hadith' originates from, we get this one
Narrated 'Aisha: (the wife of the Prophet) I had seen my parents following Islam since I attained the age of puberty. Not a day passed but the Prophet visited us, both in the mornings and evenings. My father Abii Bakr thought of building a mosque in the courtyard of his house and he did so. He used to pray and recite the Qur'an in it. The pagan women and their children used to stand by him and look at him with surprise. Abu Bakr was a Softhearted person and could not help weeping while reciting the Quran. The chiefs of the Quraish pagans became afraid of that (i.e. that their children and women might be affected by the recitation of Quran)." (Book #8, Hadith #465)
He would have married her in 619/20...and he declared prophethood in 610, Abu Bakr was his first follower after his wife and uncle-in-law...eg she was already at the age of puberty at 610. she would be at least 19/20 by this point..which is exactly in line with other sources.
Lastly....
im also familiar with how the christian side has debated with muslims on this particular hadith aswell.
eg
here, the xtian side claimed that the original is a poor translation and then they present us with the 'correct' one...
“Narrated Aisha: (wife of the Prophet) Since I reached the age WHEN I COULD REMEMBER THINGS, I have seen my parents worshipping according to the right faith of Islam. Not a single day passed but Allah's Apostle visited us both in the morning and in the evening..." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 37, Number 494)
The word used in this hadith was Aqal, meaning 'intellect'.
ie 'age of intellect'
According to Islamic jurists, human irads or niyah or qasd or free will, aqal or ability to judge right and wrong, and courage are formed before the age of puberty (Tamyiz) and between the age of puberty, and after the age of puberty (Taklif), his intellect (Aql), that is, wisdom and judgment, attains perfection.
so you have it more like this
Narrated 'Aisha: (the wife of the Prophet) I had seen my parents following Islam since I attained the age of INTELLECT Not a day passed but the Prophet visited us, both in the mornings and evenings. My father Abii Bakr thought of building a mosque in the courtyard of his house and he did so. He used to pray and recite the Qur'an in it. The pagan women and their children used to stand by him and look at him with surprise. Abu Bakr was a Softhearted person and could not help weeping while reciting the Quran. The chiefs of the Quraish pagans became afraid of that (i.e. that their children and women might be affected by the recitation of Quran)." (Book #8, Hadith #465)
big difference between the age of intellect (knowing right or wrong, posessing free will etc) and 'the age of rememberance'.
eg i remember many things from age 3...but i wasnt at the age of aql according to my parents, until i was 10..that's when i went to high school. my parents told me fasting was now compulsory on me as was salat 5 times a day.
literally Aisha was saying her parents started following islam when she was at the age of intellect. Meaning she was born anywhere from 8-10 yrs before 610.
get it?
now this hadith is in the same Bukhari collection, this contradicts the 69 version...
thus proving my own points about hadith as historical sources of information that have been tampered with for political intent...not all but some, that is when they were serving the interests of the caliphate.
in this hadith Aisha talks about the pagan woman and 'their children' looking at the prophet 'with surprise'. what age would children need to be at to look at the prophet with surprise with some understanding/notion of who he was and his intentions? they'd be 7 at least mean...so she was referring to them as 'children' ie she was older.
need me to go on?
TempestOfTempo
Superstar
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2018
- Messages
- 8,773
Please feel free to continue if you like, theres a lot to consider here and I really thank you for posting this info and your perspectives on the matter. A few things of particular notice...im not of the 69 camp, but i certainly have my view on it all. problem is, would you understandi t? would you legitimately take an active interest in what i have to say?
ive touched on it numerous times in the past, on here, and it gets ignored or goes over people's heads.
so for the record, my opinion is not orthodox, it is my own rational take on hadith..and ive been studying hadith since i was 10 yrs old. ive studied them far far longer than i have done the bible, but collectively studying other religions aswell as history, kingdoms/empires, rulers, influencers etc, i can say i have a better idea than most.
there's a text called the Bahman Yast. it is a strange zoroastrian book of 'end times prophecy' which appeared in the 6th century AD, attributed to Zoroaster himself.
Now the book with it's prophecies, speaksof all out war between the wonderful, good, pious and pure Iran and it's allys from the east, against the evil 'demons with dishevelled hair' from europe (the byzantines, the greeks ie the christians).
eg
O Zaratûst the Spîtâmân! they will lead these Iranian countries of Aûharmazd into a desire for evil, into tyranny and misgovernment, those demons with dishevelled hair who are deceivers, so that what, they say they do not do, and they are of a vile religion, so that what they do not say they do. 29. And their assistance and promise have no sincerity, there is no law, they preserve no security, and on the support they provide no one relies; with deceit, rapacity, and misgovernment they will devastate these my Iranian countries
Now this text begins by describing a giant tree extending to heaven, made up of 4 parts. Gold, Silver, Bronze and Iron, pertaining to 4 ages.
Zaratûst asked for immortality from Aûharmazd, then Aûharmazd displayed the omniscient wisdom to Zaratûst, and through it he beheld the root of a tree, on which were four branches, one golden, one of silver, one of steel, and one was mixed up with iron.
This is a major clue that it was clearly a forgery ripping off Daniel 2, hence it would have been a jewish forgery, since we know historically jews were well placed in positions of power, in iran. So what of it's intent?
clearly we know jews would have hated christinas back then. jewish messianicism, leading to the sassanian vs byzantine wars. Get it? it had a political purpose and people believed it.
However it does get way more interesting if you see things from my pov. The sassanian-byzantine wars, led to the sassanian victory and thus led to a new jewish-sassanian vassal state in Jerusalem led by a few thousand jews. This just happened to take place in the lifetime of Mohammad, right at the cusp of his journey as a prophet. So whilst it was a propanda peice, what it represented was the heart and desire of the jewish nation and their world view.
See, im familiar with the law of attraction, i understand how inner beliefs reflect in the material experience, things we see in our reality are a manifestation or reflection of deeper beliefs. This is where the game of religious manipulation of the masses turns eg just like the Bahman yast itself had massive consequences right away.
See, jewish messianicism of the 6th and 7th century also gave rise to various jewish 'prophecies' and amongst them was a deep belief if a Messiah ben Joseph/suffering servant..and a messiah ben david/king. This dualistic messianic ideal lead to a guy called Nehemiah Ben Hushiel becoming the 'messiah ben joseph'. He was supposed to die..to usher ihn the arrival of the davidic messiah.
(im not making this up, its real history, most christians dont know there even was a jewish state back then all in the time of Mohammad? as if that wasnt relevant at all?).Nehemiah ben Hushiel - Wikipedia
The only thing is when Ben hushiel was killed, the jews didnt find their davidic messiah in Madina (as per the isaiah 42 new song prophecy), but instead....it was an arab. Hushiel was killed in 619 and the hijra/migration of Mohammad took place 3.5 YRS LATER in 622.
no one else would pick up on this but me (srsly, no ego, it's true though, im too familiar with bible prophecy so i get the themes at play here).
You're probably not familiar with the story of Mohammad's arrival in Madina, i don't want to get into that too much other than to say that the jews celebrated his arrival expecting a jewish messiah. one of the stories in hadith around this is the story of Heraclius the byzantine emperor. it says he saw a dream that a prophet was coming to circumcised people (ie jews) and so his desire was to wipe out jews (given the context of the wars and bloodshed that took place in jerusalem, leading to thousands and thousands of christians being killed by jews and persians, it was understandable he wanted an end to it all). So basically the judeo-christian world never saw an arab prophet coming. im sure christians would have been expecting the antichrist, you know 'the wilderness'..and the jews would have expected the messiah.
Why did their desire not materialise exactly how they willed it? to understand that, you have to accept that the jews are under a collective curse since they rejected Jesus and their lack of temple is proof of this. Read the punishments part of
Leviticus 26
Bible Gateway passage: Leviticus 26 - New International Version
Reward for Obedience - “‘Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God. “‘Observe my Sabbaths and have reverence for my sanctuary. I am the LORD. “‘If you follow my decrees and are...www.biblegateway.com
You will plant seed in vain, because your enemies will eat it.
17 I will set my face against you so that you will be defeated by your enemies; those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee even when no one is pursuing you.
my understansing of the seed of faith, is that it represents intent..and the fruit represents the object of our desires...eg our goal, what we want.
eg the jews planted the seeds of a messianic archetype that instead came to arabs, in accordance with the punishments theme..and hence Mohammad..and this further led to all the messianic dreams of rule over the whole region, going into arab hands.
Now the bit where i get into the hadith.
we have this hadith
Hadith of black flags - Wikipedia
see, the Abbasid caliphate who were ruling the sunni world from persia at that time, happened to have the Black flags. So this hadith wasnt a real prophecy at all but a manipulated forgery created by the abbasid's to consolidate their legitimacy as the true rulers of the muslim world, in the face of shia resistance.
yet...this hadith is plagarised from the Bahman yast..how ironic
'For the support of the countries of Iran is the innumerable army of the east; its having exalted banners', is that they have a banner of tiger skin (bôpar pôst), and their wind banner is white cotton[6]; innumerable are the mounted troops, and they ride up to the lurking-holes[7] of the demons; they will slay so that a thousand women can afterwards see and kiss but one man.
whilst this may seem trivial, the abbasids ruled over persia from persia...and thus adopting existing persian centric themes would also help them remain in power. They changed up the colours to black (in line with their own). What they were doing was legitimising their rule using existing beliefs/archetypes. Yet again this reflects the collective messianic dream, that seed planted by jews. it reflected their propanda, their deception and their dreams..playing out through abbasids instead.
the ensuing wars between the abbasids and byzantines were by design too.
Byzantine–Arab wars (780–1180) - Wikipedia
Finally im going to relate this to the topic of Aisha. The shia and the sunni sides were building legitimacy through the manipulation of religion and this was done on the shia side their own persian scholars collecting/writing 'hadith'...and likewise the sunnis were doing the same.
the shia being devoted to Ali, Fatima, Hassan and Hussain...hated Aisha as she was the daughter of Abu Bakr who was the first caliph.
The shia camp spread propaganda against Aisha to break morale and make people reject the other side. Amongst them, they abuse Aisha, call her a whore, an adulteress and accuse her of poisoning and killing the prophet.
no word of a lie, they absolutely hate her till this day and it has become even more fashionable today in the age of youtube/facebook and intense sectarianism, to attack her.
Shia view of Aisha - Wikipedia
THUS, the abbasid's response was to instead claim Aisha as a child bride, as a pure and noble innocent woman and attribute the majority of sunni hadith to her name.
As for my view of all the sunni hadith collections..i treat them as sources of information and within that, im open to questioning the intent. most are probably legit and have an actual oral tradition behind them, but many are political propaganda work.
Hence many muslims argue that Aisha was a lot older by using other sources of information and being rational. However many more cling to the original narration version because they dare not question 'hadith'. they were brainwashed to believe in 'QURAN AND HADITH/SUNNAH ONLY'.
however the Quran actually says
KITAB/SCRIPTURE AND HIKMAH/WISDOM
Our Lord! Send amongst them a Messenger of their own (and indeed Allah answered their invocation by sending Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم), who shall recite unto them Your Verses and instruct them in the Book (this Qur'an) and Al-Hikmah (Wisdom). Verily! You are the All-Mighty, the All-Wise."
(سورة البقرة, Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #129)
now im certain there is a lot of hikmah/wisdom contained in hadith. ive studied them from age 10 like i said, there is a treasure trove of material in them..but there is also darker stuff that was clearly forged with political intent.
the element of sunnah, of following Mohammad, applicable through Quranic verses, was for those muslims present at the time with the prophet. Eg THEY had to follow him (goes without saying). However the Quran certianly didnt endorse material that was gathered and written over 2 centuries later. Hadith have no quranic confirmation, no divine protection. in fact it directly warns muslims against that
And so We have appointed for every Prophet enemies - Shayatin (devils) among mankind and jinn, inspiring one another with adorned speech as a delusion (or by way of deception). If your Lord had so willed, they would not have done it; so leave them alone with their fabrications. (Tafsir Qurtubi)
(سورة الأنعام, Al-An'aam, Chapter #6, Verse #112)
ie the Quran clearly insists that every prophet had enemies from men, lying with 'adorned speech' as a deception....
how could that happen? it clearly wouldnt come from people outside of the religion, it would have to c ome from within it, hence this extends to hadith aswell.
113. (And this is in order) that the hearts of those who disbelieve in the Hereafter may incline to such (deceit), and that they may remain pleased with it, and that they may commit what they are committing (all kinds of sins and evil deeds).
have a little think on this one given your accusation of muslims using hadith to justidy pedophillia (and i agree with you on that, it's true, but only a minority do that).
Now you know what does come with divine confirmation? the Torah and Gospel DO. You've seen how most muslims view those books..so you certainly cant tell me that the majority of muslims who are openly dissing the bible, are correct (at least on their analysis of islam/the Quran) and that im wrong. I look at hadith, as i said, as historical sources of information, which is exactly what they are. I'm open minde enough to question their origin and purpose/intent within the political climate of the time. it doesnt mean i have all the answers, but at least i remain cautious.
Still, it is more convenient for xtians to really just push my points aside and stick to the dominant narratives in these exchanges to have the upper hand. for xtians, it is absolutely necessary that Mohammad was having sex with a 9 yr old child.
However for me, it makes no sense. There is no evidence of any controversy surrounding this in early islam (and i believe there would have been, it's too big an age difference for people to not jump on it back then even). Aisha was older in other sources. Even in Saheeh Bukhari, where this 'hadith' originates from, we get this one
Narrated 'Aisha: (the wife of the Prophet) I had seen my parents following Islam since I attained the age of puberty. Not a day passed but the Prophet visited us, both in the mornings and evenings. My father Abii Bakr thought of building a mosque in the courtyard of his house and he did so. He used to pray and recite the Qur'an in it. The pagan women and their children used to stand by him and look at him with surprise. Abu Bakr was a Softhearted person and could not help weeping while reciting the Quran. The chiefs of the Quraish pagans became afraid of that (i.e. that their children and women might be affected by the recitation of Quran)." (Book #8, Hadith #465)
He would have married her in 619/20...and he declared prophethood in 610, Abu Bakr was his first follower after his wife and uncle-in-law...eg she was already at the age of puberty at 610. she would be at least 19/20 by this point..which is exactly in line with other sources.
Lastly....
im also familiar with how the christian side has debated with muslims on this particular hadith aswell.
eg
here, the xtian side claimed that the original is a poor translation and then they present us with the 'correct' one...
“Narrated Aisha: (wife of the Prophet) Since I reached the age WHEN I COULD REMEMBER THINGS, I have seen my parents worshipping according to the right faith of Islam. Not a single day passed but Allah's Apostle visited us both in the morning and in the evening..." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 37, Number 494)
The word used in this hadith was Aqal, meaning 'intellect'.
ie 'age of intellect'
According to Islamic jurists, human irads or niyah or qasd or free will, aqal or ability to judge right and wrong, and courage are formed before the age of puberty (Tamyiz) and between the age of puberty, and after the age of puberty (Taklif), his intellect (Aql), that is, wisdom and judgment, attains perfection.
so you have it more like this
Narrated 'Aisha: (the wife of the Prophet) I had seen my parents following Islam since I attained the age of INTELLECT Not a day passed but the Prophet visited us, both in the mornings and evenings. My father Abii Bakr thought of building a mosque in the courtyard of his house and he did so. He used to pray and recite the Qur'an in it. The pagan women and their children used to stand by him and look at him with surprise. Abu Bakr was a Softhearted person and could not help weeping while reciting the Quran. The chiefs of the Quraish pagans became afraid of that (i.e. that their children and women might be affected by the recitation of Quran)." (Book #8, Hadith #465)
big difference between the age of intellect (knowing right or wrong, posessing free will etc) and 'the age of rememberance'.
eg i remember many things from age 3...but i wasnt at the age of aql according to my parents, until i was 10..that's when i went to high school. my parents told me fasting was now compulsory on me as was salat 5 times a day.
literally Aisha was saying her parents started following islam when she was at the age of intellect. Meaning she was born anywhere from 8-10 yrs before 610.
get it?
now this hadith is in the same Bukhari collection, this contradicts the 69 version...
thus proving my own points about hadith as historical sources of information that have been tampered with for political intent...not all but some, that is when they were serving the interests of the caliphate.
in this hadith Aisha talks about the pagan woman and 'their children' looking at the prophet 'with surprise'. what age would children need to be at to look at the prophet with surprise with some understanding/notion of who he was and his intentions? they'd be 7 at least mean...so she was referring to them as 'children' ie she was older.
need me to go on?
- "The only thing is when Ben hushiel was killed, the jews didnt find their davidic messiah in Madina (as per the isaiah 42 new song prophecy), but instead....it was an arab."
I see the logic here, and Muhammed was certainly an Arab, but wouldnt he himself also be considered a Semite as well?
- "The sassanian-byzantine wars, led to the sassanian victory and thus led to a new jewish-sassanian vassal state in Jerusalem led by a few thousand jews."
And this would have been the amalgamation of tribes (many Jewish) who invited/accepted Muhammed into Madina eh?
- "THUS, the abbasid's response was to instead claim Aisha as a child bride, as a pure and noble innocent woman and attribute the majority of sunni hadith to her name."
Other posters have mentioned something similar in various places on the VC site, but none that I read have gone into the detail you provided here.
- "As for my view of all the sunni hadith collections..i treat them as sources of information and within that, im open to questioning the intent. most are probably legit and have an actual oral tradition behind them, but many are political propaganda work."
Hence many muslims argue that Aisha was a lot older by using other sources of information and being rational. However many more cling to the original narration version because they dare not question 'hadith'. they were brainwashed to believe in 'QURAN AND HADITH/SUNNAH ONLY'.
however the Quran actually says KITAB/SCRIPTURE AND HIKMAH/WISDOM"
I have a similar perspective regarding hadeeth.
- "Hadith have no quranic confirmation, no divine protection. in fact it directly warns muslims against that"
This is also similar to my position on the matter.
- "have a little think on this one given your accusation of muslims using hadith to justidy pedophillia (and i agree with you on that, it's true, but only a minority do that)."
Imo its a sizeable minority but with over a billion Muslims, it adds up to a lot of people. They still know its wrong, so the hadeeth justification is utilized because as you mentioned, the knee-jerk reaction of many Muslims to defend hadeeth (even when it contradicts both Quranic and chronological science) provides overwhelming cover for their actions. I also think once that slippery slope is exposed, it becomes easier for the weak and corrupt to apply this compromised logic to any child (grooming gangs and etc.) not just ones they deem to be "Muslim"
- "Now you know what does come with divine confirmation? the Torah and Gospel DO. You've seen how most muslims view those books..so you certainly cant tell me that the majority of muslims who are openly dissing the bible, are correct"
Good point.
- "I look at hadith, as i said, as historical sources of information, which is exactly what they are. I'm open minde enough to question their origin and purpose/intent within the political climate of the time. it doesnt mean i have all the answers, but at least i remain cautious."
This seems like a healthy balance.
- "Even in Saheeh Bukhari, where this 'hadith' originates from, we get this one
Narrated 'Aisha: (the wife of the Prophet) I had seen my parents following Islam since I attained the age of puberty. Not a day passed but the Prophet visited us, both in the mornings and evenings. My father Abii Bakr thought of building a mosque in the courtyard of his house and he did so. He used to pray and recite the Qur'an in it. The pagan women and their children used to stand by him and look at him with surprise. Abu Bakr was a Softhearted person and could not help weeping while reciting the Quran. The chiefs of the Quraish pagans became afraid of that (i.e. that their children and women might be affected by the recitation of Quran)." (Book #8, Hadith #465)
He would have married her in 619/20...and he declared prophethood in 610, Abu Bakr was his first follower after his wife and uncle-in-law...eg she was already at the age of puberty at 610. she would be at least 19/20 by this point..which is exactly in line with other sources."
"literally Aisha was saying her parents started following islam when she was at the age of intellect. Meaning she was born anywhere from 8-10 yrs before 610."
This does seem correct and fits with the chronologically proven timeline...
There is a lot of info here to look over, I really thank you for sharing all of this and making these perspectives available.
AspiringSoul
Star
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2017
- Messages
- 3,996
1) I see the logic here, and Muhammed was certainly an Arab, but wouldnt he himself also be considered a Semite as well?
Heraclius didnt know a lot about the arab peninsula nor would he have cared. He was at war against persia and dealing with jews. In the hadith it says that he learned about arabs as circumcised people only after. So his first instinct/reaction was to go after jews and prevent that. When he was told it was an arab, he didnt take much notice.
2) And this would have been the amalgamation of tribes (many Jewish) who invited/accepted Muhammed into Madina eh?
Mohammad married Saffiyah, a jewish woman. Whether it is to believed or not, this is the story attributed to her
Safiyyah (May Allah be pleased with her) came from a family that held a significant amount of power. Her father, Huyayy ibn Akhtab was a leader of one of the largest Jewish tribes living in Madinah. Safiyyah narrates:
I was my father’s and my uncle’s favorite child. When the Messenger of Allah came to Madinah and stayed at Quba, my parents went to him at night. And when they looked disconcerted and worn out, I received them cheerfully but to my surprise no one of them turned to me. They were so grieved that they did not feel my presence. I heard my uncle, Abu Yasir, saying to my father, “Is it really him?” He said, “Yes, by Allah”. My uncle said: “Can you recognize him and confirm this?” He said, “Yes”. My uncle said, “How do you feel towards him?” He said, “By Allah I shall be his enemy as long as I live.”
'is it him?'
it doesnt mention jewish messianicism at all in muslim texts. they werent familiar with what jews did in persia and Jerusalem completely, i mean the depth of it, the beliefs/ideas. this is stuff im familiar with because it's all online, inc rabbinic tradition prevalent in that time.
it's really my own interpretation or suggestion that the whole energy behind the jewish expectation is because they truely believed HE was supposed to be their messiah. That connects back to the story of Heraclius too.
I mean the jewish temple was under construction just prior to this. After Ben Hushiel's death, the christians began dismantling whatever structure was there. This is significant powerful stuff...and it just happens in the same time period as Mohammad? there has to be a strong connection.
Now read from Isaiah 42:18
Bible Gateway passage: Isaiah 42 - New International Version
The Servant of the LORD - “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations. He will not shout or cry out, or raise his voice in the streets. A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will...
Jesus in his first period on earth, played the passive messiah, the suffering servant, Hence the first part of isaiah 42 speaks of Jesus, in the passive sense
2 He will not shout or cry out,
or raise his voice in the streets.
now on that note, if you read the tao te ching, the idea is that passive leads to active eg yin to yang and vice versa.
examples
If you want to become straight, let yourself be crooked. If you want to become full, let yourself be empty. If you want to be reborn, let yourself die. If you want to be given everything, give everything up.
If you want to shrink something, you must first allow it to expand. If you want to get rid of something, you must first allow it to flourish. If you want to take something, you must first allow it to be given. This is called the subtle perception of the way things are. The soft overcomes the hard. The slow overcomes the fast. Let your workings remain a mystery. Just show people the results.
they call this the path of non-action. the idea being to remain internally centered and allow the natural qualities to take care of the actions by extention eg the inner to outer.
that is the path of faith.
the path of right-action is adherance to the law. it is active. it's doing external works to transform the inner.
this also represents the passive and active aspects of the messianic archetype.
Isaiah 42's new song represents that active side...the opposite of Jesus eg 'shout/celebrate' as opposed to 'not shout or raise your voice'.
i believe this is fulfilled by islam. Judaism's position is there after the 2 religions are witnessed, from 42:18 onwards.
it is a condemnation...
so it adds up for me, makes sense why the jews rejected Mohammad.
another example is when the jews tested Jesus, they brought up adultery and he said 'he who is without sin may cast the first stone'.
they asked Mohammad for his ruling and he told them to bring the Torah, then forced them to stone them (and btw in hadith, that verse is reffered to as THE DIVINE VERSE OF RAJM/Stoning).
the people of madina were actually more inclinded towards judaism because they looked upto jews, who were smarter, more learned, better travelled than they were. it is part of why the ansar (muslims from Madina) were so willing to demand stoning to death for their own adultery even when Mohammad was unwilling.
i honestly think that period before Mohammad arrived in Madina, would have been a nice little golden period for jews away from the troubles up north and without the extremities of the torah. to an extent i can understand why it would piss them off to have an arab prophet, it just meant trouble for them. Even if they accepted him, their position was lost.
Once Mohammad called them out for disobeying the Torah...it was either 'follow your torah properly, or accept my Quran instead'. Either one, it wasnt the freedom and good position they were enjoying before. Nor was he their saviour against the Byzantines.
3)
Imo its a sizeable minority but with over a billion Muslims, it adds up to a lot of people. They still know its wrong, so the hadeeth justification is utilized because as you mentioned, the knee-jerk reaction of many Muslims to defend hadeeth (even when it contradicts both Quranic and chronological science) provides overwhelming cover for their actions. I also think once that slippery slope is exposed, it becomes easier for the weak and corrupt to apply this compromised logic to any child (grooming gangs and etc.) not just ones they deem to be "Muslim"
there are many eschatological hadith highlighting the lack of quality amongst muslims in the future.
'mosques will be full, but ignorance will be widespread'.
'you will be loam foam on the sea' (eg having no control).
grooming gangs have no justification whatsoever though. islam cant be manipulated on that front. they take and deal drugs, they drink and deal alcohol, they commit adultery, they outright r*pe...
that's death penalty shit right there.
now men marrying underage girls who are post-puberty, that is normal in the muslim world. in pakistan girls leave school at 15/16 and so a lotof 15 yr olds literally marry as soon as they've left school, to men in their 20s, that's normal.
old men marrying actual children pre-puberty, ive seen that only in the media...and it is very very very rare. it can only exist if there's some tribal type of set up where a man with some social rank in his own circle can get away with it. it can only happen where that hole tribe is removed from normal society eg nomads.
It was Persians who tried to rebuild it along with the Jews, not Arabs. The Persians at the time were Zoroastrians. Also Christians didnt have anything to do with it failing, there was a falling out between the Persians and the Judaics. Crazy how history tends to change drastically on this forum.
TempestOfTempo
Superstar
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2018
- Messages
- 8,773
"grooming gangs have no justification whatsoever though. islam cant be manipulated on that front."1) I see the logic here, and Muhammed was certainly an Arab, but wouldnt he himself also be considered a Semite as well?
Heraclius didnt know a lot about the arab peninsula nor would he have cared. He was at war against persia and dealing with jews. In the hadith it says that he learned about arabs as circumcised people only after. So his first instinct/reaction was to go after jews and prevent that. When he was told it was an arab, he didnt take much notice.
2) And this would have been the amalgamation of tribes (many Jewish) who invited/accepted Muhammed into Madina eh?
Mohammad married Saffiyah, a jewish woman. Whether it is to believed or not, this is the story attributed to her
Safiyyah (May Allah be pleased with her) came from a family that held a significant amount of power. Her father, Huyayy ibn Akhtab was a leader of one of the largest Jewish tribes living in Madinah. Safiyyah narrates:
I was my father’s and my uncle’s favorite child. When the Messenger of Allah came to Madinah and stayed at Quba, my parents went to him at night. And when they looked disconcerted and worn out, I received them cheerfully but to my surprise no one of them turned to me. They were so grieved that they did not feel my presence. I heard my uncle, Abu Yasir, saying to my father, “Is it really him?” He said, “Yes, by Allah”. My uncle said: “Can you recognize him and confirm this?” He said, “Yes”. My uncle said, “How do you feel towards him?” He said, “By Allah I shall be his enemy as long as I live.”
'is it him?'
it doesnt mention jewish messianicism at all in muslim texts. they werent familiar with what jews did in persia and Jerusalem completely, i mean the depth of it, the beliefs/ideas. this is stuff im familiar with because it's all online, inc rabbinic tradition prevalent in that time.
it's really my own interpretation or suggestion that the whole energy behind the jewish expectation is because they truely believed HE was supposed to be their messiah. That connects back to the story of Heraclius too.
I mean the jewish temple was under construction just prior to this. After Ben Hushiel's death, the christians began dismantling whatever structure was there. This is significant powerful stuff...and it just happens in the same time period as Mohammad? there has to be a strong connection.
Now read from Isaiah 42:18
ive touched on this topic before..Bible Gateway passage: Isaiah 42 - New International Version
The Servant of the LORD - “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations. He will not shout or cry out, or raise his voice in the streets. A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will...www.biblegateway.com
Jesus in his first period on earth, played the passive messiah, the suffering servant, Hence the first part of isaiah 42 speaks of Jesus, in the passive sense
2 He will not shout or cry out,
or raise his voice in the streets.
now on that note, if you read the tao te ching, the idea is that passive leads to active eg yin to yang and vice versa.
examples
If you want to become straight, let yourself be crooked. If you want to become full, let yourself be empty. If you want to be reborn, let yourself die. If you want to be given everything, give everything up.
If you want to shrink something, you must first allow it to expand. If you want to get rid of something, you must first allow it to flourish. If you want to take something, you must first allow it to be given. This is called the subtle perception of the way things are. The soft overcomes the hard. The slow overcomes the fast. Let your workings remain a mystery. Just show people the results.
they call this the path of non-action. the idea being to remain internally centered and allow the natural qualities to take care of the actions by extention eg the inner to outer.
that is the path of faith.
the path of right-action is adherance to the law. it is active. it's doing external works to transform the inner.
this also represents the passive and active aspects of the messianic archetype.
Isaiah 42's new song represents that active side...the opposite of Jesus eg 'shout/celebrate' as opposed to 'not shout or raise your voice'.
i believe this is fulfilled by islam. Judaism's position is there after the 2 religions are witnessed, from 42:18 onwards.
it is a condemnation...
so it adds up for me, makes sense why the jews rejected Mohammad.
another example is when the jews tested Jesus, they brought up adultery and he said 'he who is without sin may cast the first stone'.
they asked Mohammad for his ruling and he told them to bring the Torah, then forced them to stone them (and btw in hadith, that verse is reffered to as THE DIVINE VERSE OF RAJM/Stoning).
the people of madina were actually more inclinded towards judaism because they looked upto jews, who were smarter, more learned, better travelled than they were. it is part of why the ansar (muslims from Madina) were so willing to demand stoning to death for their own adultery even when Mohammad was unwilling.
i honestly think that period before Mohammad arrived in Madina, would have been a nice little golden period for jews away from the troubles up north and without the extremities of the torah. to an extent i can understand why it would piss them off to have an arab prophet, it just meant trouble for them. Even if they accepted him, their position was lost.
Once Mohammad called them out for disobeying the Torah...it was either 'follow your torah properly, or accept my Quran instead'. Either one, it wasnt the freedom and good position they were enjoying before. Nor was he their saviour against the Byzantines.
3)
Imo its a sizeable minority but with over a billion Muslims, it adds up to a lot of people. They still know its wrong, so the hadeeth justification is utilized because as you mentioned, the knee-jerk reaction of many Muslims to defend hadeeth (even when it contradicts both Quranic and chronological science) provides overwhelming cover for their actions. I also think once that slippery slope is exposed, it becomes easier for the weak and corrupt to apply this compromised logic to any child (grooming gangs and etc.) not just ones they deem to be "Muslim"
there are many eschatological hadith highlighting the lack of quality amongst muslims in the future.
'mosques will be full, but ignorance will be widespread'.
'you will be loam foam on the sea' (eg having no control).
grooming gangs have no justification whatsoever though. islam cant be manipulated on that front. they take and deal drugs, they drink and deal alcohol, they commit adultery, they outright r*pe...
that's death penalty shit right there.
now men marrying underage girls who are post-puberty, that is normal in the muslim world. in pakistan girls leave school at 15/16 and so a lotof 15 yr olds literally marry as soon as they've left school, to men in their 20s, that's normal.
old men marrying actual children pre-puberty, ive seen that only in the media...and it is very very very rare. it can only exist if there's some tribal type of set up where a man with some social rank in his own circle can get away with it. it can only happen where that hole tribe is removed from normal society eg nomads.
I agree there is no justification possible, but I also know that once a behavior is normalized (even in secret among its own, limited participants) it can creep into other places. I also know that there are a number of higher-profile child marriages where the "groom" wasnt some sod-busting dirt farmer... they were wealthy, elite men with the resources to openly engage in child abuse.
As for Muhammed's Jewish wife... it was my impression there were many prisoners after a specific battle or raid and among them were some high ranking Jewish people. When the daughter of one of those tribal leaders petitioned Muhammed for his release via payment, he counter-offered with a marriage proposal. She accepted and once people found out that their new prisoners were now members of Muhammeds immediate family, they released them all. It has been quite a while since I heard this so I may have made some errors in my recollection of the matter.
Last edited:
TempestOfTempo
Superstar
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2018
- Messages
- 8,773
"It was Persians who tried to rebuild it along with the Jews, not Arabs."
Rebuild what exactly sparkledoofus?
TempestOfTempo
Superstar
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2018
- Messages
- 8,773
It appears the debate has been settled? No serious refutation was offered here in response to the evidence presented that Aisha was somewhere between 17-19 when her and Muhammed married.