Muhammed pbuh married a 9 year old

[Karachi]

This is totally untrue and a major fallacy which has been spread since the early days of Islam by zanadiqa who infiltrated both the Sunni and Shia schools of thought in Islam, holy prophet Muhammad صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم did not marry A'isha (radi'Allahu anha) at such a young age.

1. Hadith literature is a dubious source of information fraught with many deficiencies, internal contradictions and errors.

2. Even if we accept the saheeh sitta (Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abdu Dawud, Ibn Majah, Nisa'ee) unquestioningly as most traditional Sunnis do even then there are contradictions and discrepancies.

3. To say that a Muhaddith (collector of hadith) made an error does not make you an "infidel", "apostate" (Kafir, murtad) as some of the Wahabis on this forum will say but is an opinion.

Even one of their great heroes, Nasirudeen Al Albanee frequently rejected Bukhari's gradation of many hadeeth.


4. Even the sirah literature is dubious and the first known work of sirah (biography of the holy prophet Muhammad صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) is Ibn Ishaq.

Ibn Ishaq was the grandson of an Iraqi Christian and kicked out of Medina for allegedly lying about the prophet in terms of hadith narration.

Here is more:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Ish...ns.2C_survival


Only the Quran is divine and are the words of Allah ta'ala and are free from error.

The works of Tajik scholars such as Imam Bukhari (he was from Bukhara given to the Uzbek Soviet Republic by the Soviets but actually Tajik-Farsi speaking land) are not infallible or free from error.


5. The Quran itself alludes to marriage only being after someone is "Mubaligh" (reached, i.e. reached puberty).




Quran Surah An-Nisaa, 6.

May Allah ta'ala bless our holy prophet Muhammad صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم and his noble family and companions and ummah and all of the prophets and messengers and may Allah protect their honour and dignity from being defiled by the successors of the zanadiqa.

Ameen, thumma ameen.

yeah true, if muslims only used quran as their source, a lot of this stuff wouldn't even come up anyways. But unfortunately there are muslims willing to kill over these things in the hadiths, be it weak ones

[Bengal_Tiger]

yeah true, if muslims only used quran as their source, a lot of this stuff wouldn't even come up anyways. But unfortunately there are muslims willing to kill over these things in the hadiths, be it weak ones

Karachi brother, you seem like a good man.

I don't like to get in to religious discussions or debates on this forum much because of the many trolls here and people with diseases in their heart (e.g. Shamlawar Khurasani, Qaish and others) but my last comment on this thread are two fold.

1. Always try to be sincere to Allah and ask him for guidance. Islam is simple.

Pray, eat halal, give zakah and charity, fast, go to Hajj once and generally be an honest person with nice character. There are some other things e.g. don't take interest, dress modestly etc but Islam is not complicated.

Anything complex, just stay away from it if you're not sure about it.


2. The "Islam" of the scholars from the early days of Islam, has been corrupted to produce a very intolerant and aggressive ideology which is anti-women.

This is not the true Islam. We have to follow prophet Muhammad صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم and his authentic sayings - which conform to and do not contradict Islam - but Bukhari is not divine revelation and merely the work of a Tajik who lived a few centuries after holy prophet Muhammad صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم.


If you are disillusioned by Muslims today I will leave you with a picture of a true Muslim and one of the greatest Muslims of this era.

[Khostai]

if you actually read everything from OP you would know how to respond. But considering how you are blind, deaf and dumb you're to biased.

This kind of replies don't hep at all, he just asked a question and wants a honest discussion, you atacking him just shows how insecure you are about your own faith. -_-

[Badlun]

Muhammad being a prophet,who each action is a sunna,an act of virtue ,should not have married a 9 years old kid as till today and for many centuries,when people will follow Muhammad as role model will practice child marriages.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Bengali pussy cat says those who follow Hadith are zanadiqah. Zindiq means a kaafir who pretends to be Muslim and tries to corrupt religion of Islam from within.

So basically, Bengali Pussycat just called all Muslims kafirs.

[khushal]

Historically, leaders who married did so to unite tribes, ethnic groups, societies, etc. Which is why many European Monarchs often married 6-12 year old girls to end wars for example the war between the English and the French in late 14th century.

http://www.history.ac.uk/richardII/isabelle.html

One must ask why Aishas marriage was never questioned by people of the time or by people for 1400 years after the time. It seems like people of today are ignorant of history.

Another proof that Karachi is an uneducated fool who live in a cave.

[khushal]

Bengali pussy cat says those who follow Hadith are zanadiqah. Zindiq means a kaafir who pretends to be Muslim and tries to corrupt religion of Islam from within.

So basically, Bengali Pussycat just called all Muslims kafirs.

You say that people disagree with you are Kafir as though you are some holy prophet. There is no difference between his ignorance and your ignorance.

[Badlun]

Historically, leaders who married did so to unite tribes, ethnic groups, societies, etc. Which is why many European Monarchs often married 6-12 year old girls to end wars for example the war between the English and the French in late 14th century.

http://www.history.ac.uk/richardII/isabelle.html

One must ask why Aishas marriage was never questioned by people of the time or by people for 1400 years after the time. It seems like people of today are ignorant of history.

Another proof that Karachi is an uneducated fool who live in a cave.

One mistake by a king does not justify child marriage of a prophet. People did not object because he abused his status of the prophet. Who will oppose a prophet?
And what polítical or other benifit ensued this marriage? There was no feud or dar between Muhammad and Abubakar.

[khushal]

One mistake by a king does not justify child marriage of a prophet. People did not object because he abused his status of the prophet. Who will oppose a prophet?

Its not about a mistake by a king, this was the norm through human history. Badi between people were abolished by marriages where one can see this clearly in pashtunwali.

And what polítical or other benifit ensued this marriage? There was no feud or dar between Muhammad and Abubakar.

Quraysh was a tribe that was fraught with clan warfare. It wasnt about the two men but about their clans and the unity of the tribe.

But the main question is that why was this marriage never questioned by people of the time or by people for the next 1400 years after the fact.

[Karachi]

Historically, leaders who married did so to unite tribes, ethnic groups, societies, etc. Which is why many European Monarchs often married 6-12 year old girls to end wars for example the war between the English and the French in late 14th century.
http://www.history.ac.uk/richardII/isabelle.html

One must ask why Aishas marriage was never questioned by people of the time or by people for 1400 years after the time. It seems like people of today are ignorant of history.

Another proof that Karachi is an uneducated fool who live in a cave.

so you are saying it is correct to marry a 9 year old for a 54 year old man?

If something was normal before, does it mean it has be normal today? specially when scientifically it is proven that it is very dangerous for a girl to have sex that young

There was a 8 year yemeni girl who died because of this: http://www.theguardian.com/global-de...e-dies-wedding

[khushal]

It was also customary for the monarch of the conqueror party to marry women from the conquered monarchs to unite the two warring parties. Historically marriage was a union of people, clans, tribes, nations, societies.

The reason you dont know this is because you have grown up in a society where marriages are meaningless. People having divorce parties. Having b@stard kids is the norm and children are considered a liability instead of asset. Historically, these things were not normal.

[Badlun]

Its not about a mistake by a king, this was the norm through human history. Badi between people were abolished by marriages where one can see this clearly in pashtunwali.



Quraysh was a tribe that was fraught with clan warfare. It wasnt about the two men but about their clans and the unity of the tribe.

But the main question is that why was this marriage never questioned by people of the time or by people for the next 1400 years after the fact.

Please note the following
1. Marriage must be based on love and family concerns not as a business or deal. Women are human beings. They are not objects or commodities to be used for settling disputes. A prophet for all times must not set wrong trends.

2. Muslims did not object to this marriage because who will object their prophet whose every action has divine inspiration. Non Muslims always objected to this marriage and even this marriage made the prophet a laughing stock and people called him pedophile.

[khushal]

Please note the following
1. Marriage must be based on love and family concerns not as a business or deal. Women are human beings. They are not objects or commodities to be used for settling disputes. A prophet for all times must not set wrong trends.

Marriage is a contract even in the West which is why divorces are handled in courts. The love between the two people is none of your business, that is between the two people. If it was only love, than the marriage itself would not exist, it would just be a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship which is actually today's norm which is a reason there are so many b@astard kids with no family structure or values.

Aishas description of her relationship exists to this day, why don't you read up on it.

Also Pashtunwali, which you advocate so much, actually considers females as property.

2. Muslims did not object to this marriage because who will object their prophet whose every action has divine inspiration. Non Muslims always objected to this marriage and even this marriage made the prophet a laughing stock and people called him pedophile.

No they didn't.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/17/muhammad-aisha-truth

Interestingly, of the many criticisms of Muhammad made at the time by his opponents, none focused on Aisha's age at marriage.

[khushal]

In the West where marriages have become meaningless, it is the female that pushes for the marriage contract because she wants some rights that the marriage contract offers. The male is biologically programmed to just spread his seed and jump from woman to woman. Marriage contract is for the protection of the female from abuse. The love is between the two people and that is no ones business.

What do you want to do, create a police force that investigates if married people love each other or not. You have a very backward caveman mentality badlun.

[کیش]

This kind of replies don't hep at all, he just asked a question and wants a honest discussion, you atacking him just shows how insecure you are about your own faith. -_-

That's a response to someone who doesn't understand logic and is blind deaf and dumb when it comes to gaining knowledge. if i explain how 1 + 1 = 2. You will say no 1 + 1 = 11. since you're adding the 1 to the other 1.

And i could care less at what age was Aisha was when she got married. Doesn't change if she was 5, 9 or 55. It happened 1,500 years ago get over it.