• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Muhammad

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
As I said, theology and history are not the same. You could always try to read for yourself rather than uncritically swallowing "muslin" theology as fact too.

Do you take the word of Christians on the Gospel narratives over critical historical scholarship too?

Also it was actually the word of a scholar from the University of Notre Dame published in a peer-reviewed journal, but I understand why you feel the need to try to misrepresent this fact rather than respond to it rationally.



If you were as well informed as you claim, and put a bit of effort into actually reading before hitting the reply button, you'd be able to work out why that source doesn't contradict what I said at all. The Dunning-Kruger effect always seems to get in the way of you actually understanding anything though.

As such it's a waste of time expending any more effort trying to get you to the point where you can start to understand the difference between religious narratives and actual history.

History and theology have agreed for 1400 years, recently apologists have tried changing history to massage their theology. All they can do is go by what is known or believed to be known, otherwise they are guessing and making up whatever suites their "scholarship". You are welcome to accept revisionist history.

Please show me where i have misrepresented anything, if you cant when i will accept a your apology.

Of course your source contradicted your claim. It made a suggestion as you highlighted, not a definitive claim


Edit: while you are trying to dig out where i have misrepresented anything you can also try finding anywhere where i have made any claim about being well informed (as you claim). When you come up with a blank i will accept your apology for that too.
 
Last edited:

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
giphy.gif


It is not true that Muhammad have plenty of wives.
Based on some sources: He only had 11 and 4 sex slaves
He was divorced 4 times, otherwise he would have had 15 wives to speak of

Ask any Muslim [if you have the patience] if you hate to accept information in the internet


Refer to an encyclopedia for each of their names - like Encyclopedia Britannica for a more reliable source

Aishah | Biography, Marriage, & Facts
Khadijah | Biography, Women, & Islam

Or from an ex Muslim who could give some inside info on matters like these.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
giphy.gif


It is not true that Muhammad have plenty of wives.
Based on some sources: He only had 11 and 4 sex slaves
He was divorced 4 times, otherwise he would have had 15 wives to speak of

Ask any Muslim [if you have the patience] if you hate to accept information in the internet


Refer to an encyclopedia for each of their names - like Encyclopedia Britannica for a more reliable source

Aishah | Biography, Marriage, & Facts
Khadijah | Biography, Women, & Islam

Or from an ex Muslim who could give some inside info on matters like these.
Two good references and unproven charges (4 sex slaves). Yup, "here we go again" indeed.

The Aishah web page said this: When Muhammad died in 632, ʿĀʾishah was left a childless widow of about 18, although some sources suggest she was older.

In other words, her age at marriage is not clear given the different sources the Britannica notes exist.
 

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
Two good references and unproven charges (4 sex slaves). Yup, "here we go again" indeed.

The Aishah web page said this: When Muhammad died in 632, ʿĀʾishah was left a childless widow of about 18, although some sources suggest she was older.

In other words, her age at marriage is not clear given the different sources the Britannica notes exist.

Āʾishah's age is not clear as Britannica notes
And when it is not clear
Anyone can assume that she was older.

monkey-puppet-omg-shock-gif.gif


How I wish that was a fact.
But Muslim writings say otherwise.

Sahih al-Bukhari Book of Marriage Hadith 88 — Muflihun

Narrated 'Ursa:

The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
حَدَّثَنَا قَبِيصَةُ بْنُ عُقْبَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ عُرْوَةَ، عَنْ عُرْوَةَ، تَزَوَّجَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم عَائِشَةَ وَهْىَ ابْنَةُ سِتٍّ وَبَنَى بِهَا وَهْىَ ابْنَةُ تِسْعٍ وَمَكَثَتْ عِنْدَهُ تِسْعًا‏.‏

source.gif

main-qimg-c60fe1da492bfec41071ad7290edf432


Sahih al-Bukhari Book of Merits of Al-Ansaar Hadith 234 — Mu

Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (Arabic: صحيح البخاري‎) is one of the Kutub al-Sittah (six major hadith collections) of Sunni Islam, compiled by Persian scholar Muhammad al-Bukhari. It was completed around 846 CE / 232 AH. Sunni Muslims view this as one of the two most trusted collections of hadith along with Sahih Muslim.[1][2] The Arabic word sahih translates as authentic or correct.[3] Sahih al-Bukhari, together with Sahih Muslim is known as Sahihayn.

 
History and theology have agreed for 1400 years

An interesting stance for a 'secular rationalist' to take certainly...

Ignoring the fact that this would require you to agree that Muhammad split the moon in half and flew to heaven on a winged mule, this is untrue even from the perspective of Muslim history, never mind secular history. Rather than accept you don't know what you are talking about, you have gone full Islamic apologetics here: 'the religious narrative is and always has been perfect'.

Actually, given we are talking about the Sunni/Shia split it should be perfectly obvious even to you that theology and history haven't agreed for 1400 years given that the 2 sects disagree on both theology and history.

while you are trying to dig out where i have misrepresented anything you can also try finding anywhere where i have made any claim about being well informed (as you claim).

Misrepresentation has been explained twice already there wont be a 3rd, please try to read posts properly before replying, but let's celebrate that finally we can agree on something :D

I'm happy to agree you are poorly informed, completely uninterested in becoming better informed and will continue to reject out of hand any expert scholarship that disagrees with your admittedly uninformed opinion as you need to protect your ego. For example:

Proto-Sunni” is found, e.g., in G. Juynboll, “An Excursus on ahl as-sunnah in connection with Van Ess Theologie und Gesellschaft, vol. IV”, Der Islam 75 (1998), 318–330; P. Crone, Slaves on Horses (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1980); M. Cooperson, Al Ma’mun (Oxford: One World, 2005); D. Tor, Violent Order: Religious Warfare, Chivalry, and the Ayyar Phenomenon in the Medieval Islamic World (Wurzburg: Ergon Verlag, 2007); M. Zaman, Religion and Politics under the Early Abbasids: The Emergence of the Proto-Sunni Elite (Leiden: Brill, 1997); C. Melchert, “Basran Origins of Classical Sufism,” Der Islam (2005), 82:2, p. 221–240; G. Hawting, The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam from Polemic to History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); S. Mourad, Early Islam between Myth and History : Al-Hasan Al-Basr ̄ı (d. 110H/728CE) and the Formation of His Legacy in Classical Islamic Scholarship (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 242; E. Kohlberg, “Introduction” in Shi‘ism, ed. E. Kohlberg (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003). Others use terms such as “nascent Sunnism.” Kuiper - Proto-Sunnism



Thanks for the chat.
 

Shia Islam

Quran and Ahlul-Bayt a.s.
Premium Member
I just read on Wikipedia that Muhammad married a six year old. I wasn't expecting to read that.

You need to read the Shia view too.

In Shia view, and in Shia Hadith, which are supported by some Sunni Hadith too. Ayesha was a divorced woman.

When you read the life of Muhammad you will see that he was not someone seeking worldly enjoyments.

When he was in his twenties he married his first wife, Khadija, who was 40 years old.

Then, when you read his life, you will see that he married Um-Salama, who was very hesitated to marry the prophet, because she think that she was an old woman. She was a widow.

We have posted many proofs before here in RF for our views. You can search.

Then why the Sunnis made this claim.

They want to prove that He was in love with his young wife, from whom they take much of their religion.

In Shia view, She was among the ones who have assassinated the prophet.

She also led an army against his true successor!!

She is Ayesha!!!!
 

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
https://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3353122,00.html

'Marrying prepuescent girls Okay'

"The Islamic state he predicts will have a single, life-time ruler with no opposition party or elections," explains the narrator.



A video purchased at a bookshop at the largest mosque in London, the Regents Park mosque, contained footage of a young, Saudi-trained Muslim cleric, Sheikh Faiz, who was seen saying: "Kafir (infidel)," as he drew an imaginary line on his forehead. "The worst word that can ever be written. A sign of infidelity. Disbelief. Filth. The sign of dirt." The preacher calls Jews "pigs," and said they would be "killed when the end of the world comes."



"This creature will say, oh Muslim, behind me is the Jew, come and kill him," the preacher shouts, before carrying out an impersonation of a pig sound, saying, "all of them," to the laughter of the audience.



The video showed a leading Muslim figure, who took part in a government taskforce to tackle extremism, comfortably taking part in a religious conference at the Birmingham mosque, in which discrimination against homosexuals was encouraged, as well as violence against girls who refused to wear the hijab.



"Allah has created the woman deficient," said the Birmingham mosque speaker. "Her intellect is incomplete, deficient. She may be suffering from hormones that will make her emotional. It takes two witnesses of a woman to equal the one witness of the man," he added.



A Saudi video on sale at one of the mosques showed a preacher saying: "Men are in charge of women. Wherever he goes, she should follow him. She shouldn't be allowed to leave the house without his permission."



Another sheikh on video says 10-year-old girls should be hit if they do not put on the hijab covering.



'The summit of Islam is jihad'

One speaker at a Birmingham mosque, Dr. Billal Phillips, said that the marriage of Islam's prophet, Muhammad to a nine year-old girl, Aisha, meant that contrary to modern laws, such marriages were acceptable.

child-brides.jpg


"The prophet Muhammad practically outlined the rules regarding marriage prior to puberty. With his practice, he clarified what is permissible, and that is why we shouldn't have any issues about an older man marrying a younger woman," he said. "It is looked down upon the society today, but we know that the prophet Muhammad practiced it. It wasn't abuse or exploitation, it was marriage," he added.



"Do you practice homosexuality with men? Take that homosexual man and throw him off the mountain," declared Abu Usama. He later was heard calling for Allah "to bring about the means and the ways" to "… go out and perform the jihad."



"The peak, the pinnacle, the crest, the highest point, the pivot, the summit of Islam is jihad," said Sheikh Faiz, on a DVD sold at the mosque in Birmingham.


upload_2020-7-19_16-25-21.jpeg
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
An interesting stance for a 'secular rationalist' to take certainly...

Ignoring the fact that this would require you to agree that Muhammad split the moon in half and flew to heaven on a winged mule,

Recounting events accepted by Muslims is a stance in what way?

Why would a documented schism require me to agree to a fairy story???

Oh, i see, you are once again attempting and failing to be condicending

Rather than accept you don't know what you are talking about, you have gone full Islamic apologetics here:

What a load of typical bull. The split occurred soon after Mohammed's death. Nothing apologetic about that fact. But feel free to rant in ignorant insults. It simply shows the quality of your argument


Actually, given we are talking about the Sunni/Shia split it should be perfectly obvious even to you that theology and history haven't agreed for 1400 years given that the 2 sects disagree on both theology and history.

Sheesh, more made up insult. How pathetic. The split occured in 632, both sunni and shia agree on this.


Misrepresentation has been explained twice already there wont be a 3rd,

Disagreement with your crazy claim is not misrepresentation.


I'm happy to agree you are poorly informed, completely uninterested in becoming better informed and will continue to reject out of hand any expert scholarship that disagrees with your admittedly uninformed opinion as you need to protect your ego. For example:

Again, how pathetic and how ignorant. But completely expected.
 

ronki23

Well-Known Member
I personally think it's a translation error. As others have said, this was written in the Hadith and not Qu'ran.
However, even though it's probably an error there are child marriages going on in the Middle East with little girls.

By the way, Mary was 12 or 13 when she had Jesus
 

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
I just read on Wikipedia that Muhammad married a six year old. I wasn't expecting to read that.

Imo it's a mistake to judge
I just read on Wikipedia that Muhammad married a six year old. I wasn't expecting to read that.

This, imo is not the way to view it,in Britain and Europe pacts were made with promise of marriage,it was the done thing those days.

The problem with it occurs because it's not perfect,an All knowing god wouldn't send a messenger to consummate what we ,well depending on your culture would consider a child,India springs to mind though as another.
 

Piculet

Active Member
Said by a true Sunni

I will repeat. "Are you saying that the split only occured on one side?"
You can admit you're biased and it's settled. I think you're not a Muslim so I assume you think you're being objective. If you want to believe the Shia narrative, okay, but if you do so, reject other narratives and pretend you're being objective — you're not convincing anyone but the Shias.
 
Why would a documented schism require me to agree to a fairy story???

Because it was only documented a couple of hundred years after the fact in the same theological sources, verified by the same methodology that confirms the reality of what you describe as 'a fairy story'.

You are advocating uncritical acceptance of these sources as historical fact.

You certainly believe that it is foolish to uncritically accept the Gospels as established historical fact as they are not written to be objective, secular history. The Gospels were even written down far closer to the actual events they describe and without the political baggage of being tied to an imperial project riven by factional war.

It really shouldn't be beyond you to join the dots here...

Oh, i see, you are once again attempting and failing to be condicending

Condescending dear, condescending ;)
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
You can admit you're biased and it's settled. I think you're not a Muslim so I assume you think you're being objective. If you want to believe the Shia narrative, okay, but if you do so, reject other narratives and pretend you're being objective — you're not convincing anyone but the Shias.

Correct,i im not a muslim, however, history tells us the schism occured in year 632.

If you can provid an alternative history (i have now asked twice with no reply) then please provide it.
 
Top