The new Islam megathread part 3

[cloudybay]

A small and forgotten state where slavery still exists in the name of Islam

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2009/05/090528_slavery_wt_sl.shtml

[Starchitect]

Short answer...

 

....no, it is backward

[tab1]

I am sorry but I really can't be bothered to reply to what is a book size post of Plek's, simply too long and boring with you said I said rubbish. Simply put the Islamophobes only bring up the Prophet's marriage with Aisha, arrangements of which took place when she was very young but consummated when she around 17. Lies gather pace when other tactics are used to defame such as terrorism as being part of religion rubbish, and orders to kill all non believers, and sharia law as being part of Islam.

Sharia law was part of the state of Islam as it was governed in the caliphate system. The state doesn't exist and neither does sharia law. No amount of tab1 explaining it to certain rulers changes the fact that the state of Islam does not exist anymore. The personal law of conduct for a Muslim is also referred to as Sharia, and relates to things like fasting in Ramadan, praying and giving to charity and personal conduct in general. That is the sharia most Muslims are happy to accept as part of their lives because there is no outside compulsion to follow them to the letter.

The abhorrent conduct of some of the rulers of Muslim countries and dictatorships that exist alone or with the American blessings have nothing to do with Islam as a religion and to use suppression of Muslims by some of their rulers to blame islam is disingenuous to say the least.

The lengthy style of dissecting each statement to take the debate away from the topic to personal bickering is Plek's speciality, but I haven’t the time for that tonight.

[plekhanov]

tab1 as I and others have demonstrated in this thread for something that "doesn't exist" Sharia law still seems to get applied a whole hell of a lot to other people by Islamic clerics acting upon their understanding of Islam.

 

Just because you might not agree with their understanding of Islam magically mean they haven't acted in a coercive manner in the name of Islam.

 

If as you claim it is a lie to describe "sharia law as being part of Islam" then what is it part of? Does that mean all the many millions of Muslims who sincerely believe it to be part of Islam are all lying?

 

You last post is little more than one of the most tortuous employments for the no true scotsman fallacy I've seen for quite a while.

[f0rd]

I am sorry but I really can't be bothered to reply to what is a book size post of Plek's,[/Quote]

Were you not bothered to reply to mine as well?

simply too long and boring with you said I said rubbish. Simply put the Islamophobes only bring up the Prophet's marriage with Aisha,[/QUote]

I didn't until now.

arrangements of which took place when she was very young but consummated when she around 17.[/Quote]

17, where did you get this from?

 

Can you actually present any source that lists 17 that has any validity in any primary text?

 

From the Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64

 

"that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years"

 

Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236

 

"Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old."

 

Now do you have any source for this claim of 17 in primary source texts or is this just blatant dishonest on your part?

 

*snip*

 

I have read this, but will deal with it if you respond to my last post and deal with the issue above.

[plekhanov]

Oh come on f0rd don't you realise that Bukhari was obviously one of the many scurrilous Islamophobic Muslim scholars who compiled the Hadith.

 

He must have been sent back in time by George Bush to blacken Mohamed's name and discredit Islam by putting lots of stuff in the Hadith that he knew would make Islam look really bad by liberal democratic standards.

 

How else do you explain all the bloodthirsty intolerance (and of course the glorification of paedophilia) in the Hadith?

[tab1]

Were you not bothered to reply to mine as well?

 

I didn't until now.

 

17, where did you get this from?

 

Can you actually present any source that lists 17 that has any validity in any primary text?

 

From the Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64

 

"that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years"

 

Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236

 

"Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old."

 

Now do you have any source for this claim of 17 in primary source texts or is this just blatant dishonest on your part?

 

 

 

I have read this, but will deal with it if you respond to my last post and deal with the issue above.

I really am pushed for time but I will give you your answer. The age of Aisha at the time of marriage is not only established through one Hadith of Bukhari. There are other events and changing circumstances that can be dated and the dates compared to get approximate her age.

One note of caution about taking Hadith at face value is that no where is any hadith accepted as correct when it obviously contradicts the Qur'an. Many instances exist where hadith contradicts the Qur'an and the Qur'an takes precedence. The Qur'an in this case directs that a woman can marry and not an adolescent girl and the prophet's marriage to such a young girl would have caused an outcry even in those days. What do you think is the reason there was no protest? remember Islam was in it's infancy and even a small doubt would have lost it followers, and there was no dictatorship that people wouldn't have questioned the marriage.

 

Accuracy of the Hadith is indeed questioned by scholars, as the bulk of the narration is from an elderly gent who is mentioned here;

ABOUT AUTHENTICITY OF HADITHS THAT PUT HER AGE TO BE 9

1. Most of the narratives regarding Aisha's age are reported only by Hisham ibn Urwa reporting on the authority of his father. All the narratives of this event have been reported through narrators from Iraq, where Hisham ibn Urwa is reported to have shifted after living in Madinah for seventy-one years. It is reported in one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions ascribed to Muhammad that Yaqub ibn Shaibah said, "narratives reported by Hisham are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq". It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham, which were reported through people of Iraq.Another book on the narrators of the traditions of Muhammad reports that when he was old, Hisham's memory suffered quite badly.

 

2. Reports regarding Aisha's age were recorded during the Abbasid caliphate when Aisha's youth might be deliberately emphasized

 

3. Mohammed (pbuh) said "A women must be consulted and get her permission to make the marriage valid". According to another report, Aisha at the age of nine was rather more interested to play with toy-horses than to take up the responsible task of a wife.[18] The permission of an immature girl cannot be a valid authorization for marriage.

4. Comparison of hadith of Aisha's age with hadith of Laylat al-Qadr, in which 1 was used for 21, 3 for 23, 5 for 25 and so on, suggest that maybe Aisha's reports were transmitted literally and 16 became 6 and 19 became 9, as it is a way of talking in Arabic language when base is already known.

After looking at above mentioned evidence one thing is proved beyond any doubts that there was no way Aisha Sadiqa was 9 years of age at the time of her marriage to Mohammed pbuh. At minimum and I emphasize at MINIMUM she was 14 years old however the evidence strongly suggests to be between 18 to 21 years of age when Aisha Sadiqa married Rasool Allah pbuh.

 

This whole age issue is fitna (mischief) created by the opposers and the non muslims of the time in Iraq by changing or coming up with these hadiths regarding her age which to this day has been used to defame our prophet and muslims however the history and evidence speaks for itself.

 

And

EVIDANCE THAT HER AGE WAS MORE THAN 9.

If one looks into historical facts and traditions of the time we will find over whelming evidence that her age can never be 9 at the time marriage was consummated, it is impossible when one looks at other hadiths and quotations from Rasool Allah pbuh and

Saying of other Sahabahs R.A. Some of the earliest historians from Islamic world that wrote books about Islamic history are Ibn Ishaq and Tabari they were within couple of hundred years after Rasool Allah pbuh passed away and they gathered information from there grandfathers and other elder people, so when looking at how they collected history it puts them very close to the time when actually Aisha Sadiqa passed away.

So these historical facts have been gathered generation or two after Sahabahs. Let’s look at the evidence that her age was way more than 9 years. Note: Aisha Sadiqa was one of the four children of Abu Bakar Radi Allah Tala Anha.

 

1.Tabari reports that Abu Bakr's four children were all born during the Jahiliyyah, the pre Islamic period, which could be said to have ended in 610 CE, when Rasool Allah pbuh started preaching Islam and after that for 11 years Rasool Allah pbuh preached in Macca before migrating to Madina and in Madina the marriage was consummated. So if one takes worst case scenario that she was borned at the last year of jahiliya which puts her age minimum of 12 while in medina and when consummated to be about 13 that is worst case scenario, however according to Tabari they were all born During jahiliya which can be taken as at least few years before the start of Islam.

 

2. Tabari reports that Abu Bakr wished to spare Aisha the discomforts of a journey to Ethiopia soon after 615 CE when early Muslims first migrated there to avoid persecution, and tried to bring forward her marriage to Mut`am's son. Mut`am refused because Abu Bakr had converted to Islam, but if Aisha was already of marriageable age in 615 CE, she must have been older than nine in 622 CE. (p.91)

This migration was in the early years of Islam and quite before migration to Madina where Aisha Sadiqa went to Rasool Allah pbuh home as wife. This puts her age at minimum 16 to 17 and as high as 20 to 22

 

3. Ibn Hisham's recension of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rashul Allah, the earliest surviving biography of Rasool Allah pbuh, records that Aisha Sadiqa having converted to Islam before Umar ibn al-Khattab, during the first few years of Islam around 610 CE. In order to accept Islam she must have been walking and talking, hence at least six years of age, which would make her at least 18 to 19least fifteen in 622 CE.

 

4. According to hadith in Bukhari and Muslim, Aisha Sadiqa is quoted as saying to have joined Rasool Allah pbuh on the raid that turned into Battle of Badar in 624 CE. And than 625 CE in the Battle of Uhud. As at that time anyone under the age of 15 was not allowed to accompany the raiding parties so at that time Aisha Sadiqa must have been at minimum 15 or higher in 624CE, thus at least 13 to 14 (Minimum)when she was married in 622CE.

 

5. Aisha Sadiqa is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur’an, was revealed, "I was a young girl". The 54th Surah of the Qur'an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Aisha had not only been born before the revelation of the referred Surah, but was actually a young girl, not even only an infant at that time. So if this age is assumed to be 7 to 14 years then her age at the time of marriage would be 14 to 21.

6. According to almost all the historians, Asma the elder sister of Aisha, was ten years older than Aisha. Asma is reported to die in the 73 AH, when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma was 100 years old in the 73 AH, she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of Migration to Medina (1 AH). If Asma was 27 or 28 years old at that time, Aisha should have been at least 17 or 18 years old at the same time. Thus, Aisha - if she got married in 1 AH or 2 AH - was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.

[tab1]

tab1 as I and others have demonstrated in this thread for something that "doesn't exist" Sharia law still seems to get applied a whole hell of a lot to other people by Islamic clerics acting upon their understanding of Islam.

 

Just because you might not agree with their understanding of Islam magically mean they haven't acted in a coercive manner in the name of Islam.

 

If as you claim it is a lie to describe "sharia law as being part of Islam" then what is it part of? Does that mean all the many millions of Muslims who sincerely believe it to be part of Islam are all lying?

 

You last post is little more than one of the most tortuous employments for the no true scotsman fallacy I've seen for quite a while.

All Muslims don’t think alike Plek, and of the almost two Billion Muslims there may be many many Millions who don’t know or even care about the trivial things you are accusing them of. Now have you a point of discussion on Islam other than the sensational two or three points you and your friends dig up at every Islam thread? Let's not post the boring "I said you said" time wasting posts, but actually discuss the religion of Abraham and the differences that have come about and why.

[tab1]

Oh come on f0rd don't you realise that Bukhari was obviously one of the many scurrilous Islamophobic Muslim scholars who compiled the Hadith.

 

He must have been sent back in time by George Bush to blacken Mohamed's name and discredit Islam by putting lots of stuff in the Hadith that he knew would make Islam look really bad by liberal democratic standards.

 

How else do you explain all the bloodthirsty intolerance (and of course the glorification of paedophilia) in the Hadith?

And you want to be respected as a serious poster?

[tab1]

A small and forgotten state where slavery still exists in the name of Islam

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2009/05/090528_slavery_wt_sl.shtml

Read the article dear and see if you can find the illusive name of Islam in there?