Shia view on sex with pre-pubertal girls

[Montalban]

To believe in the Kuran/Hadis or not to, is Muslims’ headache and not non-muslims.

There’s so many things wrong with this statement

a) you make argument about the Bible, thus you don’t play by your own rules. Look up ‘hypocritical’.
b) your beliefs are of concern to me when you offer one aspect of your religion and are devious about presenting others. You do everything here under the sun to avoid the evidence. Even to the point of questioning it, when it’s from your sources.
c) I’ve cited Moslem advice sites. Are you saying that they aren’t capable of commentating on your hadith – do they not believe?
d) you have changed your argument from one questioning the evidence (from the Hadith) to now appealing to non-Moslems just to ignore that very evidence – because it’s some kind of problem for you – it must be because it’s obviously unreliable.

My simple question is, for you to accuse or blame someone rightfully as ‘dirty man’ you need an evidence that is acceptable according to your own standards and for people of all faith/no faith an evidence/proof that is impartial, independent and verifiable.

It doesn’t matter whether I believe it to be true, it’s whether you do.

Let me give you an example.

There are people out there who are called/like tobe called Christians (follower of Christ) and they according to their “evidence” believe that Pope is an antiChrist. Just because these Christians believe and have “evidence” of Pope being an antiChrist, does it really makes Pope an antiChrist?

The problem with that is that such people would then be called to examine the evidence. You simply call it into question when it is from yourselves. This evidence would be disputed. The fact that it is disputed would, hopefully lead to a discussion. And you’d not likely find any evidence from Catholic sources agreeing that he was. This is a different case where your own evidence is in agreement – she was nine.

In a court of law when all parties accept the evidence, then it’s not further challenged. It’s called logic. Evidence not in dispute is not in dispute. (the only ‘dispute’ you can come up with is that it’s not my problem if there’s a problem)

You believe the Hadith. I believe you believe the Hadith. Your own experts also agree with it. There are all of one voice, Muhammad had sex with a nine year old girl. Your hadith are explicit. What is the problem you have with your own hadith? Given that you all believe that, the lengths you go to hide the fact that Muhammad did what he did. I guess you don’t put it atop the brochure when people call in to discuss your religion. And this then leads to the next subject.

What remains is whether you or I believe that this makes him (to use YOUR words) a “dirty old man”. I asked pro-universal a direct question on this very matter and have been ignored.

But anticipating that you *may * discuss this you need to consider that if you truly believe that a girl is capable of adult consent simply because she’s three months past her first menstruation, then why don’t Islamic nations also give her the right to vote, and to drive a car at the same age?

You must in part realise she’s not really an ‘adult’. You must also realise the shame of such beliefs bring, or you’d be more open about them.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

JMM:

You still did not realise the baselessness of your argument.

Yes I have.
JMM:

How do YOU know Muhammed INFACT as a 53 year old man had sex with a 9 year old child Aisha?

I know because the Islamic historical sources tell me that this is so.
JMM:

You believe in this, based on what verifiable impartial independent evidence?

Based on the Islamic sources – now are you saying the sahih hadiths are false?

If something is true it is true regardless of who believes in it. If you believe the world is flat it does not make it so – the world will still be a globe no matter what you believe.
JMM:

And you said “this too is according to Islamic historical records”. But Islamic historical records also say Muhammed was last Prophet of God. Do you believe in this evidence of him being the last Prophet of God, too?

No – the Islamic historical records say Muhammad claimed to be the last prophet of God. There is a difference between the claims people make and what people believe. Just because you believe the Muhammad was the last prophet of God does not make it so.

Let me make this clear:

1. Islamic historical records say Muhammad was a Meccan born in the 7th century. His father was Abdallah and his mother was Aminah. This is historical fact – it does not rely on one’s beliefs.
2. Islamic historical records say Muhammad claimed to be the last prophet of God. The statement that he claimed to be the last prophet of God is an historical fact and therefore, true. But whether his claim is true is debatable.

You’re basically saying that since I am not a Muslim I have no right to present Islamic historical evidence to discuss Muhammad and Islam. This is untrue. You don’t have to be a Muslim to discuss historical facts. You don’t even have to be a Muslim to discuss Islamic beliefs. You only have to decide what is historical truth and what is ‘belief’.

 

[Montalban]

You still did not realise the baselessness of your argument.

How do YOU know Muhammad INFACT as a 53 year old man had sex with a 9 year old child Aisha? You believe in this, based on what verifiable impartial independent evidence?

And you said “this too is according to Islamic historical records”. But Islamic historical records also say Muhammad was last Prophet of God. Do you believe in this evidence of him being the last Prophet of God, too?

I read Homer’s account of the Trojan Wars. I’ve no doubt this event took place, even though Homer talks of pagan gods helping the Greeks in the process.

There’s a difference between ‘history’ and ‘philosophical speculation’.

Hadith history says Aisha was nine. You believe it. I believe you believe it. It’s strictly speaking irrelevant (to me and to this argument) that you also believe that he was the last prophet. Though this too would be ‘disputed’ by other evidence anyway, such as from the Gospels… but that’s for another debate.

You seem to think issue a) that is not in dispute must mean we must also accept issue b) which is in dispute.

It just doesn’t logically follow.

Likewise I can believe that the American colonies separated from Britain. And so can you. I might have a belief that the reason ‘why?’ they did this. And this might differ from you, even though we both accept that they did in fact separate. It simply does not follow that if we agree with one thing we must agree with everything. The fact (in this case) of separation is easier to prove than a speculation on the motives.

You believe Muhammad was motivated by your god al-lah. And we can differ on this.

 

[JMM159]

Based on the Islamic sources – now are you saying the sahih hadiths are false?

Whether all or most or some Hadis (reports) of vast collection of Hadis are true or false is to be decided by the Muslims as their faith based on their own priniciples adopted/inherited from their own sources.
What they believe and base their faith is one thing. What you a non Muslims have to do with their belief/evidence? Do you agree with the rest of what same source say?

How do you know only certain things which you presented here is indeed/infact good enough evidence for an “independent” like you to label a certain man as ‘dirty man’, and the whole rest evidences of same Muslim sources are not worthy to present nor discuss which say he was a noble man?

 

[JMM159]

Montalban,
Pay attention to what is being said by others and think carefully before responding. Don’t waste your time with your senslessness as you too are doing the same as Rodrigo Bivar is doing.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Whether all or most or some Hadis (reports) of vast collection of Hadis are true or false is to be decided by the Muslims as their faith based on their own priniciples adopted/inherited from their own sources.
What they believe and base their faith is one thing. What you a non Muslims have to do with their belief/evidence? Do you agree with the rest of what same source say?

No. This is a non-sequitar. We non-Muslims rely on Islamic historical sources for historical information - just like we rely on the historians of Christianity to tell us about the history of Christianity. Just like we rely on the historians of Greek history to tell us about Greek history. You don’t have to believe in Roman religion to understand Roman history. You don’t have to believe in Greek Gods to understand Greek history.

You are basically saying that since I am not a Muslim and don’t believe in Islam I have no right to provide Islamic evidence. This is false. You have to understand the difference between historical facts and religious beliefs.

Let me make this clear again:

A. Muhammad claimed “Muhammad was the last prophet of God” = historical fact. This is true regardless of whether one is a Muslim or not.

B. “Muhammad was the last prophet of God” = not an historical fact but a religious belief. This is only believed to be true by Muslims and not by non-Muslims.

See the difference? I am only interested in point A which is true for everyone.
JMM:

How do you know only certain things which you presented here is indeed/infact good enough evidence for an “independent” like you to label a certain man as ‘dirty man’, and the whole rest evidences of same Muslim sources are not worthy to present nor discuss which say he was a noble man?

Read what I wrote above - I rely on historical facts from the Muslims themselves. If the Muslims tell me that certain historical facts are true - I hold them to be true because those facts are unchanged regardless of one’s religious beliefs.

However when Muslims tell me that certain religious beliefs are true - I don’t hold these to be true because these are NOT historical facts but religious beliefs and are thus contingent on one’s beliefs.

See the difference? I am trying to be very patient and polite with you. However, this is a discussion forum on ‘Non-Catholic Religions’. This is a discussion forum for people of all faiths or non-faiths to discuss all non-Catholic religions, including Islam.

If you want to discuss Islam with Muslims only you are in the wrong place.

 

[JMM159]

If something is true it is true regardless of who believes in it

But how do you know what is infact true? What proof do you have to convince a person who does not beleiv in any source of Islam as reliable/believeable/worthy?

Let’s say if a non Christran person like you goes to a secular court and wants Court to declare that Pope is an antiChrist and presents his “proof/evidence” from those Christian sources who labled Pope as an antiChrist, then do you think court must accept his evidence/proof as fact/truth and declare Pope an antiChrist? If no, why not?

If you believe the world is flat it does not make it so – the world will still be a globe no matter what you believe.

Exactly.

Now do you realise how this example perfectly befits on your own baseless arguments?

You accused a certain man (Prophet of Muslims) as a ‘dirty’ with your own standards which has no base at all, then expecting from more than 1.5 billion Muslims to accept your accusation as a fact. Aren’t you out of your mind?

 

[JMM159]

Let me make this clear again:

A. Muhammad claimed “Muhammad was the last prophet of God” = historical fact. This is true regardless of whether one is a Muslim or not.

B. “Muhammad was the last prophet of God” = not an historical fact but a religious belief. This is only believed to be true by Muslims and not by non-Muslims.

See the difference? I am only interested in point A which is true for everyone.

loooooooooooooool

Since you are only interested in Point A (of your own standard),
where in the Kuran and in the whole vast collections of Hadis (reports of/about Muhammed collected by the Muslims from tru/false/reliable/weak sources) Muhammed claimed that he married to a 9 year old child?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

But how do you know what is infact true?

Certain things are accepted to be true because we accept the reliability of the source. In this way, we don’t have to reinvent the wheel everytime we do something.

I have said before: if we were interested in Greek history we read and accept the Greek historians. We don’t have to believe in Greek Gods to understand and access Greek history. This is true of all history of all peoples. If we were interested in Chinese history we read Chinese historical sources - we don’t have to believe in Buddhism or Confucianism or Taoism.

In this case Muslim historians tell us (the world - not just Muslims) that certain things happened in Islamic history. We, non-Muslim, accept that what they tell us are true, unless we have evidence to the contrary. The onus of proof is not on us.

Therefore, as far as Islamic historical facts are concerned we go to the Islamic historical sources. Unless we find something contradictory, we give the benefit of the doubt to those Islamic historical sources.
JMM:

What proof do you have to convince a person who does not beleiv in any source of Islam as reliable/believeable/worthy?

Those are not the people who will be swayed by any arguments. They are people like you.

You will find that non-Muslims, despite not believing in Islam, will believe as true Islamic historical facts as generally agreed by the authoritative historians (in this case, the Islamic historians). This is because historical facts are NOT religious beliefs. Whether they are true or not does not depend on the beliefs of the person.
JMM:

Let’s say if a non Christran person like you goes to a secular court and wants Court to declare that Pope is an antiChrist and presents his “proof/evidence” from those Christian sources who labled Pope as an antiChrist, then do you think court must accept his evidence/proof as fact/truth and declare Pope an antiChrist? If no, why not?

Is the Christian doctrine of the anti-Christ a religious belief or an historical fact?

You keep on mixing up religious beliefs (which depend on the person’s religion) and historical facts (which do not depend on the person’s religion).
JMM:

Exactly.

Now do you realise how this example perfectly befits on your own baseless arguments?

You have completely failed to understand the point. Muhammad being a 53 year old man who had sex with a 9 year old girl is an historical fact. It is like the fact that the world is a globe.

This is not dependent on anyone’s religious belief. You might believe that the world is flat but it doesn’t change the fact that the world is a globe.

Thus, instead of proving your point - it completely disproves you.
JMM:

You accused a certain man (Prophet of Muslims) as a ‘dirty’ with your own standards which has no base at all, then expecting from more than 1.5 billion Muslims to accept your accusation as a fact.

I don’t expect any Muslims to accept my accusation at all. I know Muslims regard a 53 year old man who had sex with a 9 year old girl to be ‘the best person who ever lived’.

However, non-Muslims would not share this view. Thus, I really am not reaching out to Muslims but am merely pointing out to non-Muslims what sort of people Muslims are and what sort of a person Muhammad was - from historical records, not religious beliefs.

Aren’t you out of your mind?

No, but apparently you are.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

loooooooooooooool

Since you are only interested in Point A (of your own standard),
where in the Kuran and in the whole vast collections of Hadis (reports of/about Muhammed collected by the Muslims from tru/false/reliable/weak sources) Muhammed claimed that he married to a 9 year old child?

The “Muhammad said he was the last prophet of God” example was given by you. I merely used it as an example to teach you about the difference between historical facts (which does not depend on one’s religious beliefs) and religious beliefs (which do depend on one’s religious beliefs).

A. Muhammad claim “Muhammad was the last prophet of God” is an historical fact.

B. “Muhammad was the last prophet of God” is a religious belief.

See the difference?

In the hadiths, you would know that Muhammad does not (generally) narrate directly, except through narrators.

Here in this sahih Bukhari hadith, Aisha narrated that Muhammad married her when she was 6 and had sex with her when she was 9.

Narrated Aisha: 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 (i.e., till his death). Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64

This is an historical fact told to us by Aisha. Muslim scholars have studied these and declared the hadith to be authentic. That is sufficient for us. There is nothing here in this hadith at all about religious beliefs - it is 100% historical facts.

 

[pro_universal]

Looks like Rodrigo is struggling to regain some credibility.

Here’s a hint: More thinking, less posting. That’s what you need Bivar

 

[Montalban]

Montalban,
Pay attention to what is being said by others and think carefully before responding. Don’t waste your time with your senslessness as you too are doing the same as Rodrigo Bivar is doing.

Ouch!

 

[JMM159]

Certain things are accepted to be true because we accept the reliability of the source. In this way, we don’t have to reinvent the wheel everytime we do something.

By saying “we accept the reliability of the source” you meant, you accept the reliability of the source of Islamic traditions more than or atleast same as Muslims’ belief in them?

looooool

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

JMM:

By saying “we accept the reliability of the source” you meant, you accept the reliability of the source of Islamic traditions more than or atleast same as Muslims’ belief in them?

looooool

Muslims accept the reliability of their historical sources just the same as everyone else. The issue of religious belief is another matter - as only Muslims believe those and non-Muslims don’t.

I will give you a simple example. Muslims and non-Muslims believe that Muhammad existed. How do we know this? From the same historical sources you don’t want us to use as evidence against you.

You have no problem with us accepting the historicity of Muhammad, do you? Do we have to be Muslims to believe Muhammad existed? No we don’t.

So the same with other historical facts about Muhammad. After all, we don’t deny Muhammad ever existed just because we are non-Muslims.

 

[Montalban]

Looks like Rodrigo is struggling to regain some credibility.

Here’s a hint: More thinking, less posting. That’s what you need Bivar

Why do you insist on going for the man? Let’s please try to stay with discussing each other’s replies, not each other.

No argument presented by you or your colleague has worked beyond at best in a self-defeating sense. Your hadith claim she was nine. Your experts claim she was nine because the Hadith says so.

I’ll let Muslims respond to you two…

"Of the four ahâdîth in Sahîh al-Bukhari, two were narrated from cAishah (7:64 and 7:65), one from Abû Hishâm (5:236) and one via 'Ursa (7:88). All three of the ahâdîth in Sahîh Muslim have cAishah as a narrator. Additionally, all of the ahâdîth in both books agree that the marriage betrothal contract took place when cAishah was “six years old”, but was not consummated until she was “nine years old”. Additionally, a hadîth with the same text (matn) is reported in Sunan Abû Dâwûd. Needless to say, this evidence is - Islamically speaking - overwhelmingly strong and Muslims who deny it do so only by sacrificing their intellectual honesty, pure faith or both.

This evidence having been established, there doesn’t seem much room for debate about cAishah’s age amongst believing Muslims. Until someone proves that in the Arabic language “nine years old” means something other than “nine years old”, then we should all be firm in our belief that she was “nine years old” (as if there’s a reason or need to believe otherwise!?!). In spite of these facts, there are still some Muslim authors that have somehow (?) managed to push cAishah’s age out to as far as “fourteen or fifteen years old” at the time of her marriage to the Prophet(P). It should come as no surprise, however, that none of them ever offer any proof, evidence or references for their opinions. This can be said with the utmost confidence, since certainly none of them can produce sources more authentic than the hadîth collections of Imâms al-Bukhârî and Muslim! Based on the research that I’ve done, I feel that there is a common source for those who claim that cAishah’s age was “fourteen or fifteen years old” at the time of the marriage. This source is The Biographies of Prominent Muslims which is published in book form, on CD-ROM and is posted in several places on the Internet. Just another example of why going to the sources is important . . ."

islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/aishah.html

(We concur with the general contents of the article.

and Allah Ta’ala Knows Best Mufti Ebrahim Desai islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=6618)

If Islam is so confused as to need to attempt all arguments at once it may point to the ultimate source of this ‘faith’.

 

[Montalban]

By saying “we accept the reliability of the source” you meant, you accept the reliability of the source of Islamic traditions more than or atleast same as Muslims’ belief in them?

This has already been addressed you accept these sources in toto.

Your sources claim she was nine. Simply repeating the same flawed argument won’t make it right - nor will calling upon me to just re-read it. It gets no better on re-reading.

Your experts believe it.
Q: Aalim has proved thru his research that Aisha’s (Rad.) age was not 9 at the time of her marriage, she was 19. one of the Raavi, due to weak memory started giving false hadith

1. If you made a mistake while performing the missed Rakaats, then you must compensate for that by making Sajdah-e-Sahw.
2. It is advisable to make Mashwara (consult) and/or make Istikhaara in all major issues even if one is confident. Our knowledge and insight is limited. The guidance of Allah Ta’ala is perfect and absolute.
3. Hadhrat Aaisha (Radhiallaahu Anha) was married at the age of six. The Ahaadith pertaining to this are in Bukhari and Muslim, all the narrators of these Ahaadith are authentic.

and Allah Ta’ala Knows Best
Mufti Ebrahim Desai
islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=6778

Unable to deal with this your arguments remain confused.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Looks like Rodrigo is struggling to regain some credibility.

Here’s a hint: More thinking, less posting. That’s what you need Bivar

You are indeed a master at the logical fallacy of the argumentum ad hominem. This, coming from a fool of a lawyer who doesn’t know the meaning of ‘age of consent’ and who lied about me claiming that there is uniform law on marriage in the US - so where’s the post where I said there is uniform law on marriage in the US? You can’t find any? I thought you wouldn’t.

Here’s a hint: More thinking, less ad hominems. That’s what you need Muslim.

 

[pro_universal]

You are indeed a master at the logical fallacy of the argumentum ad hominem. This, coming from a fool of a lawyer who doesn’t know the meaning of ‘age of consent’ and who lied about me claiming that there is uniform law on marriage in the US - so where’s the post where I said there is uniform law on marriage in the US? You can’t find any? I thought you wouldn’t.

Here’s a hint: More thinking, less ad hominems. That’s what you need Muslim.

Oh yes rodrigo, name calling increases your credibility too. So much.

You have no credibility left…your antics and angry reactions to being exposed just make you look petty on top of it all.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

What JMM is basically trying to tell us is that Muslims may bring Islamic historical sources to defend Islam because they are Muslims, while we non-Muslims have no right to bring these same sources to attack Islam because we are non-Muslims.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Oh yes rodrigo, name calling increases your credibility too. So much.

You have no credibility left…your antics and angry reactions to being exposed just make you look petty on top of it all.

I am content to let the Catholics and other readers decide who among us is credible and who is not.

You, on the other hand, have demonstrated your inability to stop using logical fallacies, including ad verecundiam and ad hominems, all over this forum.

I do stand on my record of debating you - as I have completely demolished every nonsensical assertions you have made.

Now, where is that post in which you claimed I said there was uniform law on marriage in the US? As a lawyer you should know this principle: Actori incumbit probatio.

Or didn’t they teach you that at Tehran University Law School?