Palestinians participate in a mass wedding

[querying]

Your right- I should look at my sources before posting.
However Mary was not much much MUCH older than six years old (p.s: didnt Muhammed (pbuh) get married to her when she was 9?) she was 12-14. And so was Muhammed (pbuh)'s marriage arranged

wasalam

This is not true, and has been debated and admitted by other Muslims on this site countless times.

Mohammed married Aisha at 6 years old, allegedly “thighed” her before the age of 9 (according to some Hadiths, I’ve read), and had full sexual intercourse with her at 9 years old.

Mary was realistically in her early teen years- PAST the age of PUBERTY- when she married Joseph- and remains a perpetual virgin.

 

[Hadi]

• According to hadith in Bukhari and Muslim, Aisha is said to have joined Muhammad on the raid that culminated in the Battle of Badr, in 624 CE. However, because no one below the age of 15 was allowed to accompany raiding parties, Aisha should have been at least 15 in 624 CE and thus at least 13 when she was married following the Hijra in 622 CE.
• Ibn Hisham’s recension of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rashul Allah, the earliest surviving biography of Muhammad, records Aisha as 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 three years of age, which would make her at least 15 in 622 CE.
• Tabari also 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, making Aisha at least 12 in 622 CE.
• According to Ibn Hajar, Fatima was five years older than Aisha. Fatima is reported to have been born when Muhammad was thirty-five years old, meaning Aisha was born when he was forty years old, and thus 12 when Muhammad married at fifty-two.
• According to the generally accepted tradition, Aisha was born about eight years before Hijrah. However, according to another narrative in Bukhari (Kitaab al-Tafseer) Aisha 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.
• According to almost all the historians, Asma the elder sister of Aisha, was ten years older than Aisha. It is reported in Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb as well as Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah that Asma died in the 73rd year after migration of Muhammad when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma was 100 years old in the 73rd year after Migration to Medina, she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of migration. If Asma was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Aisha should have been 17 or **18 **years old at that time. Thus, Aisha - if she got married in 1 AH (after Migration to Medina) or 2 AH - was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.
• According to many Ahadith in Bukhari, it is believed Aisha participated in the battle of Badr and Uhud.Also in Bukhari (Kitabu’l-maghazi) Ibn `Umar states that the Prophet did not permit me to participate in Uhud, as at that time, I was 14 years old. But on the day of Khandaq, when I was 15 years old, the Prophet permitted my participation. So if it was not allowed to participate in Uhud for people younger than 15, then Aisha would be atleast 15 in those battles, making her age atleast 13 to 14 at the time of marriage.
• Tabaqat ibn Sa’d, 8:58; Ansab al-Ashraf, 1:410. Opinions are in disagreement concerning her marriage with Muhammad. Their marriage seems to have taken place either two of five years after the Migration (Usd al-ghaba, 5:501)

 

[cthulhubryan]

A year after his wife’s death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age.

newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm

Great so according to christians, Joseph was a pedophile and Mary was his child bride…similar to Muhammed and Ayesha [spitting removed]

wasalam

Once again, not even close. Mary was 12-14. In other words, old enough to be married in a culture where life expectancy was lower.

Ayesha was 8 or 9. Purely a child.

Joseph married someone who was (rather obviously) old enough to be married and start a family. Ayesha was still a child.

Therefore, it logically follows: Joseph married a girl (really a woman in her culture) who was quite younger than he but then again they never consummated the marriage.

Mahomet took and raped a 9 year old. Even in the most backwards of cultures 9 years old is too young to marry as the have not even begun puberty.

Do not try to cover Joseph with the fetid stench of Mahomet’s deeds.

 

[cthulhubryan]

refute what he said then

wasalam

You are kidding right? The Answering Christianity and Osama Abdallah claimed that Jesus had Breasts Enough said.

 

[ZAKI]

Once again, not even close. Mary was 12-14. In other words, old enough to be married in a culture where life expectancy was lower.

Ayesha was 8 or 9. Purely a child.

Joseph married someone who was (rather obviously) old enough to be married and start a family. Ayesha was still a child.

Therefore, it logically follows: Joseph married a girl (really a woman in her culture) who was quite younger than he but then again they never consummated the marriage.

Mahomet took and raped a 9 year old. Even in the most backwards of cultures 9 years old is too young to marry as the have not even begun puberty.

Do not try to cover Joseph with the fetid stench of Mahomet’s deeds.

I see you have not read Hadi’s post above yours, if Hadi is right then there was no difference between the age of ayesha and mary and if he is wrong and ayesha was 9, then the difference was 3 years.
yeah and for the last bit: whatever
wasalam

 

[ZAKI]

You are kidding right? The Answering Christianity and Osama Abdallah claimed that Jesus had Breasts Enough said.

YOUR kidding right? Can you read properly or are you just so blinded by faith that you can’t even read then article properly? I read the article and straight from the beginning I knew that it wasn’t them claiming this it was a christian source claiming it and they were saying how this must be false and that the Islamic Jesus is superior.
Btw, how old are you?

wasalam

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

And so was Muhammed (pbuh)'s marriage arranged

He had a dream. This dream supposedly OK’d him to marry then have sex with someone even Muslims admit was too young to have sex with. Aisha herself admitted that Mohammad said this to her. Whether or not he waited until puberty, you can’t based romantic relationships with a little girl based on a subjective dream.

As I said, I’m amazed Chris Hansen never had that excuse. “Well I dreamed about her, that means it’s OK!”

 

[ZAKI]

He had a dream. This dream supposedly OK’d him to marry then have sex with someone even Muslims admit was too young to have sex with. Aisha herself admitted that Mohammad said this to her. Whether or not he waited until puberty, you can’t based romantic relationships with a little girl based on a subjective dream.

As I said, I’m amazed Chris Hansen never had that excuse. “Well I dreamed about her, that means it’s OK!”

there is a difference between a dream and a dream inspired by God.
ur veering off joseph

wasalam

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

there is a difference between a dream and a dream inspired by God.
ur veering off joseph

wasalam

My friend, you need to study logical fallacies a bit more before accusing any one of committing one. The topic was Mohammad’s relationship with Aisha in relation to why people were responding to pictures of Hamas weddings a certain way. Joseph was being veered to by you to get off the subject.

And how do you know the dream was inspired by God? Who could confirm it? Please present something other than Mohammad’s word to prove it.

 

[ZAKI]

My friend, you need to study logical fallacies a bit more before accusing any one of committing one. The topic was Mohammad’s relationship with Aisha in relation to why people were responding to pictures of Hamas weddings a certain way. Joseph was being veered to by you to get off the subject.

And how do you know the dream was inspired by God? Who could confirm it? Please present something other than Mohammad’s word to prove it.

The whole topic of Muhammed (pbuh) and Ayesha (ra) was a way to veer this off anyways.
I’m surprised Byzantine Wolf. As a person who was once a muslim you would know that Muhammed (pbuh)'s word would be enough for anything.
I would also have thought you would’ve known something else: Always assume the best of your brother.
You see as a muslim, I would believe what a fellow muslim said even if he wasn’t a trustworthy prophet. I would accept his word even if he had no proof.
Is there any proof that God exists? At the end of the day there isn’t…it requires faith.
I have faith that a prophet who was the most honest and trustworthy person in Arabia to being truthful enough to not lying about his prophethood and making up a dream.

wasalam

 

[dzheremi]

I’m surprised Byzantine Wolf. As a person who was once a muslim you would know that Muhammed (pbuh)'s word would be enough for anything.

Here we have it, in black and white: Muhammad’s word alone justifies ANYTHING. Scary.

You see as a muslim, I would believe what a fellow muslim said even if he wasn’t a trustworthy prophet. I would accept his word even if he had no proof.

Well that’s just foolish.

Is there any proof that God exists? At the end of the day there isn’t…it requires faith. I have faith that a prophet who was the most honest and trustworthy person in Arabia to being truthful enough to not lying about his prophethood and making up a dream.

wasalam

Forgive me, akhy, but it seems to me that you are equating or at least blurring the lines between your faith in God and your faith in Muhammad. How exactly is this in line with Islam’s claim of strict monotheism?

I’m glad Byzantine Wolf didn’t give his brain over to Muhammad.

 

[ZAKI]

Here we have it, in black and white: Muhammad’s word alone justifies ANYTHING. Scary.

Does not Jesus’ word (for you) justify everything?

Well that’s just foolish.

Why do you think that?

Forgive me, akhy, but it seems to me that you are equating or at least blurring the lines between your faith in God and your faith in Muhammad. How exactly is this in line with Islam’s claim of strict monotheism?

I’m glad Byzantine Wolf didn’t give his brain over to Muhammad.

Muhammed (pbuh) is a prophet and nothing more…nothing less. This doesn’t have to do with anything with comparing God and Muhammed (pbuh)…it is about the concept of FAITH. Re-read my post.

wasalam

 

[dzheremi]

Does not Jesus’ word (for you) justify everything?

Jesus Christ is GOD. God needs no justification. That is the difference. Since you don’t believe that Muhammad is God (I’m assuming…), I find your admission as to the inviolability of Muhammad’s word to be very revealing and disturbing.

Why do you think that?

Unquestioning allegiance to a man of questionable character such as Muhammad is dangerous. There is the issue of the so-called “satanic verses”, Muhammad’s intial insecurity regarding the true nature of the apparation and thus the foundation of his subsequent prophethood, etc. etc.

Muhammed (pbuh) is a prophet and nothing more…nothing less. This doesn’t have to do with anything with comparing God and Muhammed (pbuh)…it is about the concept of FAITH. Re-read my post.

I have re-read your post. I still object to it. Not all faith is of the same import.

 

[ZAKI]

Jesus Christ is GOD. God needs no justification. That is the difference. Since you don’t believe that Muhammad is God (I’m assuming…), I find your admission as to the inviolability of Muhammad’s word to be very revealing and disturbing.

Very well. Does not Mose’s word (for you) justify everything?
Or what about a trustworthy and honest individual…that you know is trustworthy and honest-won’t you take his word?

Unquestioning allegiance to a man of questionable character such as Muhammad is dangerous. There is the issue of the so-called “satanic verses”, Muhammad’s intial insecurity regarding the true nature of the apparation and thus the foundation of his subsequent prophethood, etc. etc.

Wouldn’t you want to assume the best of your fellow christian brother? Such as when they are lying-you would want to think that they are truthful unless it is plainly obvious that they are lying and even then try to find an excuse for them? That is one of the concepts of brotherhood. And that is why (then) the muslim ummah was so strong-they all cared and loved each other like brothers—whether black or white.

I have re-read your post. I still object to it. Not all faith is of the same import.

why???

wasalam

 

[dzheremi]

Very well. Does not Mose’s word (for you) justify everything?

No, it does not. Furthermore, I don’t understand your desire or presupposition that one person’s word should justify everything.

Or what about a trustworthy and honest individual…that you know is trustworthy and honest-won’t you take his word?

I would, sure. This is different than saying that whatever they say justifies everything or any particular thing. Someone can be trustworthy and still be wrong. In fact, the two are not logically related.

Wouldn’t you want to assume the best of your fellow christian brother?

Indeed. I would love to be able to assume the best of everyone, not just Christians. But this is not always the best policy.

Such as when they are lying-you would want to think that they are truthful

Of course. No one wants assume that their brother is a liar.

unless it is plainly obvious that they are lying and even then try to find an excuse for them?

Ooo…no, no, no. Definitely not!

That is one of the concepts of brotherhood.

It most certainly is not. Admonishment is a big concept in Christianity. If a brother is in error, we must correct him in a spirit of love so that he comes back to the correct understanding of the issue at hand.

And that is why (then) the muslim ummah was so strong-they all cared and loved each other like brothers—whether black or white.

This is a non-sequitur. We are not discussing racism or anything of the sort.

why???

Because faith in Muhammad and faith in God are not rationally comparable. Let me illustrate it to you this way: I believe my father when he tells me that he loves me. If he does not really love me, if he is lying, then I will be hurt, but I will not begin to doubt that he is in fact my father. Faith in God is to a different end than faith in Muhammad, because Muhammad and God are inherently unequal.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

The whole topic of Muhammed (pbuh) and Ayesha (ra) was a way to veer this off anyways.
I’m surprised Byzantine Wolf. As a person who was once a muslim you would know that Muhammed (pbuh)'s word would be enough for anything.
I would also have thought you would’ve known something else: Always assume the best of your brother.
You see as a muslim, I would believe what a fellow muslim said even if he wasn’t a trustworthy prophet. I would accept his word even if he had no proof.
Is there any proof that God exists? At the end of the day there isn’t…it requires faith.
I have faith that a prophet who was the most honest and trustworthy person in Arabia to being truthful enough to not lying about his prophethood and making up a dream.

Yes, at one point I trusted Mohammad. I found out, after I did more research, that many of his revelations were convenient and questionable - similar to the leaders of cults.

As for your comment “I would accept his word even if he had no proof” and “I would believe what a fellow muslim said even if he wasn’t a trustworthy prophet”…that is just truly disheartening that you admit to accepting a lie simply because someone belongs to your faith, even if there is no proof and he is not trustworthy. That is not wisdom, that is self-destruction.

We have nothing else to discuss here. Good day.

 

[ZAKI]

Yes, at one point I trusted Mohammad. I found out, after I did more research, that many of his revelations were convenient and questionable - similar to the leaders of cults.

As for your comment “I would accept his word even if he had no proof” and “I would believe what a fellow muslim said even if he wasn’t a trustworthy prophet”…that is just truly disheartening that you admit to accepting a lie simply because someone belongs to your faith, even if there is no proof and he is not trustworthy. That is not wisdom, that is self-destruction.

We have nothing else to discuss here. Good day.

i never said if they lied…
i said if they say something without proof, then ill prefer to believe them then think them as liars. which revelations were convenient and questionable?

wasalam

 

[Jay53]

i never said if they lied…
i said if they say something without proof, then ill prefer to believe them then think them as liars. which revelations were convenient and questionable?

wasalam

Then are you an Ahmadi? Do you believe fellow Muslims who came along and said (without proof) that Jesus was on the cross, was miraculously healed and went off to India to live to be 123 and die there peacefully?

 

[ZAKI]

Then are you an Ahmadi? Do you believe fellow Muslims who came along and said (without proof) that Jesus was on the cross, was miraculously healed and went off to India to live to be 123 and die there peacefully?

no but if they have faith that it happened without any proof than that is good for them
do you believe that God (without proof) actually exists??? OF COURSE YOU DO! we all do!

wasalam

 

[Jay53]

no but if they have faith that it happened without any proof than that is good for them
do you believe that God (without proof) actually exists??? OF COURSE YOU DO! we all do!

wasalam

But I definitely don’t believe Muhammad when he contradicts previous scriptures from God and contradicts history as people have witnessed it. I have seen no reason to believe that any of his revelations are from God. As I have tried to point out, I know many trustworthy people, but I certainly wouldn’t believe them as having revelations from God if they contradict what has already been deemed to be from God.

Why aren’t you Ahmadi - why don’t you believe in what they say has been revealed to them - or to the Mormons for that matter. Are you saying they are not trustworthy people?