632-800

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Marrying a child or having sex with a child is a crime in today's world but as you made that event limited only to that time with no repercussions like the recent decision of a Pakistani Mulla that child marriage is allowed in Islam, then no point in discussing this issue further.

Hardly, the discussion recurs because you consistently have made it recur. We have reached this deduction many many times in the past but your insistence that often restarts the discussion centers around the Prophet Muhammad's personal decision without investigating the shades of complexity to both his marriage and in fact many marriages across history.

You selectively hone in on the Prophet so as to malign him as a person with the excuse that you are attempting to "purify" Islam despite the fact that the overwhelming mass of Muslims both now and across the centuries in no way discerned his teachings/sunnah to advise the particular action you take offense to.... and in fact as we proved, the majority of historical thought processes did not hi-light this aspect of his biography because it was not considered an aberration or crime for most of recorded human history.

Question1:
So I am asking you to clarify once again, Muhammad (S) specific marriage to Ayesha, what are you accusing the Prophet Muhammad (S) of?

Question2:
Did his compatriots, Muslims and non and most of the rest of the world in the 600s AD view his action as criminal in your estimation?

[khushal]

Badlun is not trying o purify Islam but to modify it. He and people like him ie Lenin and Stalin are of the belief that religion is the root of hostility across humanity and therefore should be abolished completely. Herat has given much evidence that religion will always be with us, therefore his, Lenin and Stalins efforts are not only useless but their efforts create conflict itself.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Here in the UK, there is much that is wrong with our post secondary but pre-university education system (i.e. the A Level system) but there is an absolute gem in it that I recently discovered -quite late since Ive already finished my A Levels- this is the supplementary (universities will not give any weight to it for admission so many people simply do it for its own sake) A Level known as critical thinking. This emerald of a course is dedicated, except at much greater length, to what we learn at any decent introductory philosophy course: the science and art of precise reasoning. If there is anything that all education systems must make compulsory for all its citizens, I think it is this.
Here is a concept that I think it is quite pertinent to both sides of the debate here: motivated reasoning. The Skepdic dictionary defines it thus:

http://www.skepdic.com/motivatedreasoning.html

BarakzaiAbdali is correct in that child marriages were the norm for most of human history; the evidence for this need not only come from prominent historical cases but actually can be readily inferred from the historical data on human life history traits, in particular the average life expectancy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
For much of human history, the average life expectancy was typically below 30: it is not very difficult to see what this implies for the average age of human mating in the ancient world.

On the other hand, the issue here is that everyone is confounding is for ought (although to be fair, this is a more than common blunder in ethics).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

For example, prostitution is a very widespread practice, both geographically and historically, yet somehow I doubt our religious friends would therefore accept that as a legitimate premise for an ethnical case for prostitution. There is growing evidence (from the twin studies of behavioural genetics, to the neuroimaging studies of neurobiology, to the kin-selection arguments of evolutionary biology) that homosexuality (rather sexual orientation in general), another widespread practice, has at least some root in biology - yet again, I doubt that religious folk would accept this as a premise for an ethical case for homosexuality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology...al_orientation

Cherry-picking (i.e. a form of motivated reasoning) from the historical and scientific data to support your favourite brand of ideology seems to be the standard ratiocinative modus operandi of ideologues.

The real issue here, secularist and religious friends, is not whether child marriages were a natural occurrence or not but that, if the practice is given prescriptive sanction (ought) today, where even in the most backward of places such as Afghanistan, life expectancy is over 50, can the practice be morally justified (ought)? We need not limit ourselves to ethics, the problem of the female part of the species being little more than a sexual relief, offspring producing, home-caring commodity that plagues much of the third world (there seems to be a correlation with age of marriage, I wonder why?) is indeed a monumental economic problem, for it constrains an economy's most crucial capital of all -human capital. That is not to say that changing a social structure is an easy task but this is discourse.

Of course, this is a value-laden request, not everyone values reason and evidence as a framework for ethics and economics: there are folk who accept the dogmas of their ideology in its place and Im afraid reasoning with such folk is pointless (something to do with Robert Trivers theory of self-deception as an adaptive evolutionary strategy).

I don't disagree we are all a big dogmatic. My contention is that people argue by innuendo while claiming the garb of "Islamic Protection." Both of us having some root in our ancestor societies have an understanding of what informed sunni orthodoxy claims and perhaps does not claim.

For instance, we can both be reasonably certain that sunni orthodoxy never lays down the claim that Muhammad was "all knowing." That in and of itself would contradict that key aspect of his being and written teaching, that he was but a man.

This means that if Muhammad utilized a medicinal cure of the day that is not utilized currently - one cannot claim that he staked out his intellectual dominion over all of science and medicine to come.

In another instance, he married his cousin, yet no written orthodox opinion exists in classical Islamic jurisprudence that attempts to say "A cousin with a particularly bad disease recessive gene MUST marry another with a particularly bad recessive gene that we know both have because the Prophet's single marriage negates the genetic concept of consanguinity by simple way of miracle"

There are cultures, particularly southern Pakistani, that do try to pressure and legitimize what is becoming a socially unacceptable norm (cousin marriages)... but they have yet to be able to provide an edict or basis in the religion that makes it a good deed or a virtuous pathway. As we know consanguinous marriages also occurred cross culturally and across religious groups, to somehow cast a leader's singular decision (out of 9 other marriage decisions) as the end all be all can be appropriately termed as non evidence based. Equally non evidence based is to heap the blame at the feet of a law codifier for others' misuse of that law unless something is explicitly stated in that law.

Insinuating into the Quranic Text or into the Prophetic example that permission and action begets exhortation is intellectually dishonest. For by that same token the same man also made generalizations about moderation in all things and not partaking in excessive actions. And beyond that.. what of the particulars like the hadith demand for consent, etc.? adding to the complexity in this discussion.

Nor can we derive that a singular instance of example somehow places a wholesale ban on a person being able to utilize evidence at hand. So for instance, in that same example given above, if two cousins decide that they dont want to marry, and there exists a genetic reason as well, there is really nothing in the corpus of all of hadith or Quranic literature that inhibits their particular decision. To claim such is the case is to once again malign a law code without an expansive evaluation of it or to evaluate whether the person using or misusing the law is really reaching to provide evidences for their position.

The issue here is that a value judgement is being leveled against the Prophet Muhammad based on recent (and I emphasize recent) Western mores to somehow intimate that he was somehow a deviant or an aberration among his peers and then, a further insidious intimation that even if that were not provable, then his whole culture that may have accepted it was some aberration in history worthy of opprobrium for being a culture of molesters.

[Badlun]

Question1:
So I am asking you to clarify once again, Muhammad (S) specific marriage to Ayesha, what are you accusing the Prophet Muhammad (S) of?

Question2:
Did his compatriots, Muslims and non and most of the rest of the world in the 600s AD view his action as criminal in your estimation?

1. In today's world it is a crime to have sex with a child. Age of Aisha is enough to denounce Muhammad for having had sex with a nine-year-old, and critics refer to Muhammad as a pedophile.

As critics say,Aisha was about the same age as Muhammad’s granddaughter, and a better way for Muhammad to make Abu Bakr (Aisha'a father) a relative would have been to adopt Aisha as his own daughter and marry her off.

Legal implications of this marriage entail definition of baloghat. Pertaining to marriage, baligh is related to the Arabic legal expression, hatta tutiqa'l-rijal, which means that the a wedding may not take place until the girl is physically fit to engage in sexual intercourse. Ayesha marriage give permission to marry children.

It is false that it was an arranged marriage.
Sahih Bukhari 7.18
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."

But this moral relativist Prophet would use the same excuse to reject a woman he did not like.

Sahih Bukhari V.7, B62, N. 37
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

It was said to the Prophet, "Won't you marry the daughter of Hamza?" He said, "She is my foster niece (brother's daughter). "

Hamza and Abu Bakr both were the foster brothers of Muhammad. But Ayesha must have been too pretty for the Prophet to abide by the codes of ethics and custom.

In the following Hadith he confided to Ahesha that he had dreamed of her before soliciting her from her father.

Sahih Bukhari 9.140
Narrated 'Aisha:
Allah's Apostle said to me, "You were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, 'Uncover (her),' and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.

Is it not a crime to marry a child playing with dolls?

Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151
Narrated 'Aisha:
I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

However, we cannot forgive with the same amnesty those who claimed to be the standard of rectitude amongst mankind. If average people could not distinguish the right from the wrong, the messengers of God, if they were from God, should have known better.

If we cannot follow the morality of Muhammad any more, if what he said and did do not fit in this modern day, why we need Muhammad?

2. Have you read Al Razi statement?

Zakaria Ar-Razi, one of the greatest minds of Islamic world, attacked religion in general and Islam in particular with a force unthinkable in this day. He wrote:

“The prophets—these billy goats with long beards, cannot claim any intellectual or spiritual superiority. These billy goats pretend to come with a message from God, all the while exhausting themselves in spouting their lies, and imposing on the masses blind obedience to the "words of the master." The miracles of the prophets are impostures, based on trickery, or the stories regarding them are lies. The falseness of what all the prophets say is evident in the fact that they contradict one another: one affirms what the other denies, and yet each claims to be the sole depository of the truth; thus the New Testament contradicts the Torah, the Koran the New Testament. As for the Koran, it is but an assorted mixture of "absurd and inconsistent fables," which has ridiculously been judged inimitable, when, in fact, its language, style, and its much vaunted "eloquence" are far from being faultless. Custom, tradition, and intellectual laziness lead men to follow their religious leaders blindly. Religions have been the sole cause of the bloody wars that have ravaged mankind. Religions have also been resolutely hostile to philosophical speculation and to scientific research. The so-called holy scriptures are worthless and have done more harm than good, whereas the "writings of the ancients like Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, and Hippocrates have rendered much greater service to humanity."

If a critic can write int his way about religion, there would have been a lot of criticism of this marriage but we may not have evidence of that now. But if it was ignored out of fear or respect, it does not validate the act. More research is required which may reveal that this child marriage was criticized by others.

(Some parts of this post are taken from other sources)

[BarakzaiAbdali]

1. In today's world it is a crime to have sex with a child. Age of Aisha is enough to denounce Muhammad for having had sex with a nine-year-old, and critics refer to Muhammad as a pedophile.

As critics say,Aisha was about the same age as Muhammad’s granddaughter, and a better way for Muhammad to make Abu Bakr (Aisha'a father) a relative would have been to adopt Aisha as his own daughter and marry her off.

Legal implications of this marriage entail definition of baloghat. Pertaining to marriage, baligh is related to the Arabic legal expression, hatta tutiqa'l-rijal, which means that the a wedding may not take place until the girl is physically fit to engage in sexual intercourse. Ayesha marriage give permission to marry children.

It is false that it was an arranged marriage.
Sahih Bukhari 7.18
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."

As previously, this was already addressed. This event occurred AFTER Kholah proposed the marriage to him. That was in the original source provided above which once again references Tabari, Bukhari, Muslim, etc. Once again, here is the full source and discussion since true to your deviant self, you are truncating the story:

http://books.google.com/books?id=6nUfcmY5wBoC&pg=PA158&lpg=PA158&dq=aisha+khawlah+bint+hakim+sauda+tabari&source=bl&ots=nHDoJ-h6lW&sig=M9JkzmoiPAqo_mVNRVnuVUyKqeg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IBXQU6q8J4abyASPyYGQDA&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=aisha%20khawlah%20bint%20hakim%20sauda%20tabari&f=false

The Tabari Bukhari and Muslim reference are given by the author and then the story progresses to the hadith where Abu Bakr is approached. Nice try on your part to get by with a fabrication though.

In Virtuous Women in Mythology and Holy Books; refer to page 158 which continues on to where Abu Bakr is approached after Kholah proposes the idea.

And to BUTTRESS this, here is the Sahih Bukhari narration from the DIRECT source:
Sahih Al Bukhari, the Early Years of Islam a translation by Asad

It appears that the initiative in the matter of his marriage to Aisha did not proceed from the Prophet himself. After Khadijah's death he was so depressed and dispirited that his companions were afraid for his life (Ibn Sa'ad VIII, 41). Thereupon a Muslim woman, Khawlah Bint Hakim, requested him to remarry and suggested two women, the middle aged Sawdah bint zamaah, widow of a companion and the young daughter of Abu Bakr, Aisha: And the Prophet allowed Khawlah to arrange matters on his behalf (Ibn Hanbal VI, 210 f)....

http://books.google.com/books?id=oWy...rriage&f=false


But this moral relativist Prophet would use the same excuse to reject a woman he did not like.

Sahih Bukhari V.7, B62, N. 37
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

It was said to the Prophet, "Won't you marry the daughter of Hamza?" He said, "She is my foster niece (brother's daughter). "

Don't act so uneducated. Foster siblings are not permitted in marriage. If the word in the original is "foster" then the Prophet is pointing out if Hamza and him were suckled off the same wet nurse at some point he cannot marry the girl.

In fact this is what Ibn Saad narrated.

At Uhud, there died as a martyr.... Hamza... he was the FOSTER BROTHER OF THE PROPHET as also was Abu Salama ... all were SUCKLED BY THUWAYBAH, the freed woman of Abu Lahab, this fact being established in a reliable hadith account

see how stupid you are? You cannot even get the basic facts right and are trying to discuss the big picture things. Now, having made such a simple mistake and insulting the Prophet while you were at it, you look like a fool.

And control your idiot tongue when speaking about the Prophet in the tone you used.

Hamza and Abu Bakr both were the foster brothers of Muhammad. But Ayesha must have been too pretty for the Prophet to abide by the codes of ethics and custom.

In the following Hadith he confided to Ahesha that he had dreamed of her before soliciting her from her father.

Sahih Bukhari 9.140
Narrated 'Aisha:
Allah's Apostle said to me, "You were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, 'Uncover (her),' and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.


Same issue as per above. No sequence is given as to when this occurred, i.e. before or after Kholah approached him

Is it not a crime to marry a child playing with dolls?

Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151
Narrated 'Aisha:
I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

Did you miss the part where it said she had not yet reached puberty? Like the same retarded process you initiated above, you started the whole argument all over just to be proven wrong again.

However, we cannot forgive with the same amnesty those who claimed to be the standard of rectitude amongst mankind. If average people could not distinguish the right from the wrong, the messengers of God, if they were from God, should have known better.

Once again, Historian's Fallacy, but what else can one expect from the insane agenda of a militant secularist?

If we cannot follow the morality of Muhammad any more, if what he said and did do not fit in this modern day, why we need Muhammad?

To the contrary, if it is between following a masochistic fool like you and a great man and paragon of virtue like him, we continue to need his guiding light on a daily basis and we need to dispose of your ideologies in some non intellectual dumping ground.

2. Have you read Al Razi statement?

Zakaria Ar-Razi, one of the greatest minds of Islamic world, attacked religion in general and Islam in particular with a force unthinkable in this day. He wrote:

“The prophets—these billy goats with long beards, cannot claim any intellectual or spiritual superiority. These billy goats pretend to come with a message from God, all the while exhausting themselves in spouting their lies, and imposing on the masses blind obedience to the "words of the master." The miracles of the prophets are impostures, based on trickery, or the stories regarding them are lies. The falseness of what all the prophets say is evident in the fact that they contradict one another: one affirms what the other denies, and yet each claims to be the sole depository of the truth; thus the New Testament contradicts the Torah, the Koran the New Testament. As for the Koran, it is but an assorted mixture of "absurd and inconsistent fables," which has ridiculously been judged inimitable, when, in fact, its language, style, and its much vaunted "eloquence" are far from being faultless. Custom, tradition, and intellectual laziness lead men to follow their religious leaders blindly. Religions have been the sole cause of the bloody wars that have ravaged mankind. Religions have also been resolutely hostile to philosophical speculation and to scientific research. The so-called holy scriptures are worthless and have done more harm than good, whereas the "writings of the ancients like Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, and Hippocrates have rendered much greater service to humanity."

If a critic can write int his way about religion, there would have been a lot of criticism of this marriage but we may not have evidence of that now. But if it was ignored out of fear or respect, it does not validate the act. More research is required which may reveal that this child marriage was criticized by others.

First of all, who gives a damn what his opinion is? Its irrelevant. Second look at your idiotic jump to conclusion yet again. Not even the European sources or other polemicists who had nothing to fear either in proximity or retribution ever bought it up. Yet we are supposed to make some random a-ss assumption that the evidence exists because you say it does? That defies logic or reality and pretty much typifies your approach to things

(Some parts of this post are taken from other sources)

Yes they certainly were taken from other sources, but your brain has the inability to coherently validate evidence. This is a proven fact

x

[BarakzaiAbdali]

1. In today's world it is a crime to have sex with a child. Age of Aisha is enough to denounce Muhammad for having had sex with a nine-year-old, and critics refer to Muhammad as a pedophile.

As critics say,Aisha was about the same age as Muhammad’s granddaughter, and a better way for Muhammad to make Abu Bakr (Aisha'a father) a relative would have been to adopt Aisha as his own daughter and marry her off.

Legal implications of this marriage entail definition of baloghat. Pertaining to marriage, baligh is related to the Arabic legal expression, hatta tutiqa'l-rijal, which means that the a wedding may not take place until the girl is physically fit to engage in sexual intercourse. Ayesha marriage give permission to marry children.

It is false that it was an arranged marriage.
Sahih Bukhari 7.18
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."

But this moral relativist Prophet would use the same excuse to reject a woman he did not like.

Sahih Bukhari V.7, B62, N. 37
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

It was said to the Prophet, "Won't you marry the daughter of Hamza?" He said, "She is my foster niece (brother's daughter). "

Hamza and Abu Bakr both were the foster brothers of Muhammad. But Ayesha must have been too pretty for the Prophet to abide by the codes of ethics and custom.

In the following Hadith he confided to Ahesha that he had dreamed of her before soliciting her from her father.

Sahih Bukhari 9.140
Narrated 'Aisha:
Allah's Apostle said to me, "You were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, 'Uncover (her),' and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.

Is it not a crime to marry a child playing with dolls?

Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151
Narrated 'Aisha:
I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

However, we cannot forgive with the same amnesty those who claimed to be the standard of rectitude amongst mankind. If average people could not distinguish the right from the wrong, the messengers of God, if they were from God, should have known better.

If we cannot follow the morality of Muhammad any more, if what he said and did do not fit in this modern day, why we need Muhammad?

2. Have you read Al Razi statement?

Zakaria Ar-Razi, one of the greatest minds of Islamic world, attacked religion in general and Islam in particular with a force unthinkable in this day. He wrote:

“The prophets—these billy goats with long beards, cannot claim any intellectual or spiritual superiority. These billy goats pretend to come with a message from God, all the while exhausting themselves in spouting their lies, and imposing on the masses blind obedience to the "words of the master." The miracles of the prophets are impostures, based on trickery, or the stories regarding them are lies. The falseness of what all the prophets say is evident in the fact that they contradict one another: one affirms what the other denies, and yet each claims to be the sole depository of the truth; thus the New Testament contradicts the Torah, the Koran the New Testament. As for the Koran, it is but an assorted mixture of "absurd and inconsistent fables," which has ridiculously been judged inimitable, when, in fact, its language, style, and its much vaunted "eloquence" are far from being faultless. Custom, tradition, and intellectual laziness lead men to follow their religious leaders blindly. Religions have been the sole cause of the bloody wars that have ravaged mankind. Religions have also been resolutely hostile to philosophical speculation and to scientific research. The so-called holy scriptures are worthless and have done more harm than good, whereas the "writings of the ancients like Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, and Hippocrates have rendered much greater service to humanity."

If a critic can write int his way about religion, there would have been a lot of criticism of this marriage but we may not have evidence of that now. But if it was ignored out of fear or respect, it does not validate the act. More research is required which may reveal that this child marriage was criticized by others.

(Some parts of this post are taken from other sources)

So now that you were proven wrong definitively, answer the questions:

1) What crime are YOU, not critics accusing the Prophet Muhammad (S) of?
2) Do you have proof that his contemporaries (detractors around the world or colleagues) viewed his marriage as criminal?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Because it is so important to show how devious [MENTION=1034]Badlun[/MENTION] is and how much of a blatant liar he is, and how clearly he denigrates and insults the Prophet, I am going to reproduce parts of his key post here before he can offer any alterations:

Directly from Badlun above:
Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."

But this moral relativist Prophet would use the same excuse to reject a woman he did not like.

Sahih Bukhari V.7, B62, N. 37
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

It was said to the Prophet, "Won't you marry the daughter of Hamza?" He said, "She is my foster niece (brother's daughter). "

Hamza and Abu Bakr both were the foster brothers of Muhammad. But Ayesha must have been too pretty for the Prophet to abide by the codes of ethics and custom.

I have hi-lited in red the key parts to Badlun's errant argument and put the sentence in yellow hi-lite where he made his crucial mistake

Lets look at the charges Badlun levels at the Holy Prophet. We must forgive Badlun because this is his militant secularism dominating his brain:

He refers to the Prophet Muhammad as a "moral relativist" implying he (the Prophet) was lacking in moral certainty and was basically misusing his authority to his own benefit.

He goes on to level the charge that the Prophet was using cop outs and excuses.

Additionally, he assigns the Prophet an air of duplicity with respect to his rejection of Hamzah's daughter and infers that sexuality had more to do with it.

But he slipped up. He stupidly confused the concepts of "brothers in religion" with "foster brother" as Muslims know the term. Those of us who know our religion, especially Pashtuns, know that those that are suckled by the same woman are FOSTER brothers and sisters. Badlun, true to form imposed his poor understanding of the term to make HUGE and broad assessments of The Holiest of Holy Prophets.

So now, besides the reference I gave above, here is another nail in Badlun's intellectual coffin to show he clearly lacks comprehensive interpretation and evidence vetting abilities.

So here is the famed Tabaqat of Ibn Saad:

http://www.soebratie.nl/religie/hadith/IbnSad.html

Volume 1, Parts 1.27.1
He (lbn Said) said: Muhammad Ibn `Umar Ibn Waqid al-Aslami informed us; he said: Musa lbn Shaybah related to me on the authority of 'Umayrah Bint `Ubayd Allah Ibn Ka`b Ibn Malik, she on the authority of Barrah Bint Abi Tajrah; she said:

The first (woman) who suckled the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, was Thuwaybah (who nursed him) with the milk of her son who was called Masruh, several days before the arrival of Halimah. She had suckled Hamzah Ibn `Abd al-Muttlib before and Abu Salamah Ibn `Abd al-As'ad al-Makhzumi after him Prophet.

So like a lemming running over a cliff, Badlun stupidly tried to use the foster sister comment (not understanding that it is ENTIRELY different than the spiritual brotherhood in Islam concept) to prove that the Prophet was motivated by his own desires as opposed to a fixed moral code.

Ironically, the hadith above proves the EXACT opposite - it shows that the Prophet adhered to the Quranic ordinance regarding milk suckling related siblings!

I think that Badlun needs to be held to a standard because generally he emits tons of oral diarrhea here without a thorough cross examination.

And now that aspect of his behavior led him to not just analyze, but to actually insult and insinuate against the Prophet of God

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Additionally, he makes another large scale mistake with this quote:

It is false that it was an arranged marriage.
Sahih Bukhari 7.18
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."

He sounds pretty confident in his assertion doesn't he (hi-lited in red)? But we are about to prove a pattern of behavior with Badlun...

I refer you all to the famed historian and Professor Emeritus Nabia Abbott at University of Chicago:

http://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchi...iam_Abbott.pdf

Here is her magna opus

Aisha the Beloved of Mohammad (Full Text courtesy of U Chicago) page 2:

http://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchi...ocs/aishah.pdf

Though the advantages of a marriage between Mohammad and the Family of Abu Bakr may have been early and readily evident to both parties, yet it seems that neither of them was the first to conceive the idea of a marriage between the elderly Mohammad and the child Aisha. Tradition generally credits a maternal aunt of Mohammad, Khawlah Bint Hakim (1,2) with putting the idea in Mohammad's head... She was close enough to him to feel free to suggest that he marry again.
"Whom Shall I marry O Khawlah? You women are the best knowing in these matters," answered Mohammad.
"If you wish a virgin, there is the daughter of him whom you love best, Aisha Bint Abi Bakr; but if you wish a nonvirgin, there is the widow Sawdah bint Zamah who believed in you and followed you."
"Go" said Mohammad "Bespeak them both for me"
So Khawlah went on her congenial mission first to the house of Abu Bakr, where she broke the news to Aisha's mothers who deferred the matter to her husband. Abu Bakr seemed uncertain as to the propriety or even legality of marrying his daughter to his "brother" Mohammad. Mohammad, however, hastened to ease his mind by reminding him that they were brothers in faith only.

Her subreference?

(1,2) Once again, Ibn Sa'ad Tabaqat Volume VIII and Ibn Hanbal Volume 6

Two Sahih Hadith Cannons from Professor Emeritus Nabia Abbott

And we see the crucial missionary style cut and play Badlun made by claiming the story was false without merit... and jumping to conclusions that the blue bolded part was all that happened, whereas we see clearly the sequence was:

Khawla approaches the Prophet to see if he would consider marrying again ---> The Prophet NOR Abu Bakr had broached the issue before ---> The Prophet sent her to Abu Bakr to make the requests ---> Abu Bakr wanted to ensure that his spiritual brotherhood with the Prophet would not be a hindrance ---> The Prophet as Bukhari notes, reassured him this was not the case.

STRIKE 2 BADLUN.

[Toramana]

If you agree that the marriage of Ayesha was a happening only for that time and does not fall in the definition of Sunna and Muslims should not emulate this example and many Muslims and Pashtun child marriages today are not inspired by Ayesha marriage then for me this chapter is closed.

I already told you that I take it as his personal act and not a Sunna. The problem is that Muhamamd was a prophet, not a king or doctor so his actions would remain limited to his life time. People follow him in his each and every word and action after 1400 years and justify their evil actions by saying that they do the way their prophet did.

That is the problem, Badlun. The problem are the implications keeping in mind the emphasis Muslims place on the following of Sunnah and the acceptance of a Sunnath as the only righteous act till eternity.

Our dear Mullah Barakzai with that mountain of ego and the habit of interpreting Islam as it suits his interests will never like his own daughter to be married at such a young age, when she is not mature physically, psychologically, and emotionally.

Neither can he say it categorically that such an act belonged to only that time and is no longer applicable in the present time. He knows very well what can be the reaction from the clergy.

I myself believe this act of the Prophet(PBUH) belonged only to that time done under the special circumstances and isn't obligatory any longer.

[jankhan]

We can see clearly that DR Barakzai answers Badlun's and Toramana's each and every sentence with examples and references but you these twos are of high level munafiqeen, repeating the same thing again and again which shows their intellect level and stuburness.
The schools and the kind of your education that you have got should be banned because you both have not learnt a single thing from there.
Go back to school hahahahahah

[Toramana]

We can see clearly that DR Barakzai answers Badlun's and Toramana's each and every sentence with examples and references but you these twos are of high level munafiqeen, repeating the same thing again and again which shows their intellect level and stuburness.
The schools and the kind of your education that you have got should be banned because you both have not learnt a single thing from there.
Go back to school hahahahahah

Agha matal dai, "pa pradu ghwalo poskai achawal". Instead of harping on the weak argument by Barakzai, do you have anything of substance to say?

[jankhan]

Agha matal dai, "pa pradu ghwalo poskai achawal". Instead of harping on the weak argument by Barakzai, do you have anything of substance to say?

omar de der dai kho da aqal dakke khass haraam dai. mashar sarray ye. khwala sama khwazawa aw jawabona warkrra da Dr Barakzai pa daleel sara, pa dalla tob sara na.

taso dwarro la hagha yo Dr Barakzai pura dai.
daa raata owaya taso dwarra che rojey nissay aw ka na dwarra pa daka khetta oda kegay ??

Badlun ta waya da rojey na newo la para bahane ma gora, aw lagay rojay wanissa che daa ghatta khetta de laga kama shi.... hahaha

[BarakzaiAbdali]

That is the problem, Badlun. The problem are the implications keeping in mind the emphasis Muslims place on the following of Sunnah and the acceptance of a Sunnath as the only righteous act till eternity.

Which corpus or cannon codifies this as sunnah- since were it understood by the learned Sunni scholars as sunna, why would we not hear about Hanbali, Hanafi, Maliki etc all rushing to emulate it as such? But we don't. So your premise is stupid to begin with.

Moreover why fixate on this act being interpreted supposedly as sunnah instead of say, marrying a woman 25 years senior??? See how ignorant your contention is?

Our dear Mullah Barakzai with that mountain of ego and the habit of interpreting Islam as it suits his interests will never like his own daughter to be married at such a young age, when she is not mature physically, psychologically, and emotionally.

Because there is no sunnah order, wajib, or fard. Even Abu bakr was asked - not ordered. Once again stupid typical small minded small brained terroristic militant secular talking points do you in.

Neither can he say it categorically that such an act belonged to only that time and is no longer applicable in the present time. He knows very well what can be the reaction from the clergy.

Clergy and ulema are not co-equal and I have no issue making my case regarding Gods verse .... "Till he reveals a better way" being the crux of an orthodox argument. Nor do we see the madhab scholars making or enacting it as sunnah mental nitwit in any of their classical writings.

I myself believe this act of the Prophet(PBUH) belonged only to that time done under the special circumstances and isn't obligatory any longer.

Who said it was fard much less sunnah? Your moronic meandering makes it seem as if 1 billion Muslims are climbing over each other to complete a nonexistent fardh. You yourself are aligning with badloony tunes who above called the Prophet unethical and mocked him. Like attracts like I guess.

X

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Agha matal dai, "pa pradu ghwalo poskai achawal". Instead of harping on the weak argument by Barakzai, do you have anything of substance to say?

1) Pray tell, which of it is weak? The part where your buddy Badloony Tunes looks the part of the fool wherein he attempted to show the Prophet had lax or convenient ethics and showed he had no notion of even the basic aspect of Islam that even a child knows (e.g. milk suckled siblings are viewed in Islamic law as equivalent to biological siblings)?

Or the part where he claimed that Khowlah Bint Hakim had no role only to be shown to be that he was a dunce who had no inkling of the sirah or biography of the Prophet in classical sources?

2) When you talk about substance I assume you mean he has no inclination to blaspheme, insult, or denigrate the Prophet of God. So the answer is no, he likely has nothing stupid to say of the likes of that pseudo intellectual flatus that passed out of your and Badlun's mouths that ends up being wrong 99.5% of the time.

[Badlun]

Is this hadith false that The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage?

Is brotherhood other than the blood brother are not the same? Brother in faith or foster brother , both are not sons of the same father.

What is the definition of Sunna? Is it not what prophet did and hadith what prophet said? Prophet married a child, thus it is what he did and thus it is Sunna? Do you say that child marriage is not allowed in Islam?