Age of Hazrat Aisha was not 6 or 9 at the time of her marriage with Prophet of Islam (sa)

[Jayhawker Soule]

um...I just refuted the OP.

It's telling that you think so.

 

[Shad]

Please note:

حدث على بن محمد عمن حدثه ومن ذكرت من شيوخه قال: تزوج أبو بكر في الجاهلية قتيلة - ووافقه على
ذلك الواقدي الكلبي - قالوا: وهي قتيلة ابنة عبد العزى بن عبد بن أسعد بن جابر بن مالك بن حسل بن عامر بن
لؤي فولدت له عبد الله أسماء. وتزوج أيضًا في الجاهلية أم رومان بنت عامر بن عمير بن ذهل بن دهمان بن
الحارث بن غنم بن مالك بن كنانة - وقال بعضهم: هي أم رومان بنت عامر بن عويمر بن عبد شمس بن عتاب
بن أذنية بن سبيع بن دهمان بن الحارث بن غنم بن مالك بن كنانة - فولدت له عبد الرحمن وعائشة فكل هؤلاء
الأربعة من أولاده ولدوا من زوجتيه اللتين سميناهما في الجاهلية

Tabari's quotation

-------------

It goes like this:

فكل هؤلاء
الأربعة من أولاده ولدوا من زوجتيه اللتين سميناهما في الجاهلي

All four of his [i.e. Abu Bakr's] children were born of his two wives
---- the names of whom we have already mentioned ----- during the pre-Islamic
period.

=Wording "the names of whom we already mentioned" is like within parenthesis.
=Tabari has already stated that these four children were born from the wives whom Abu Bakr had already married in Jaheliyah i.e time of ignorance (before Islam time).

Read my comment again. I said the following citation is not Tabari "All four of [Abu Bakr’s] children were born of his two wives—the names of whom we have already mentioned—during the pre-Islamic period [i.e. pre-610 A.D.].”" Not that his children were never mentioed. Heck you can not even cite the source from Tabari but a different one. Do you see the difference between "what was cited" and what you posted? Also it says he, Abu Bakr, was married to their mothers before Islam not that they were born before it. Read your own source again. You should also read the references to her age at marriage which is 9

We are through our Eid after Ramadhan. Why would I like to start such issue about revered elder?
Actually, someone started something yesterday about the issue in another area. I was told not to answer there, and open a thread in debate area. So with sadness I did so. ....There is nothing to discuss. Some unfortunate things are happening in Middle east. Muslims are weak. People [who even do not know or practice their own ancient religion] find good target of it for shooting practice.

You read poorly and make an false conclusion.


Even if suppose [big one] she was under age, why local people, her family, father, tribe etc did not protest. ......It would have been good opportunity for foes to highlight the issue.......Clearly nothing wrong took place. .....In hot weather people become adult sooner.......Whatever the case was, it was not wrong.

They didn't know any better due to ignorance. In modern times we now know the dangers of the such marriages and the acts that follow marriage. Just because a group in their ignorance thinks something is right doesn't make it so

 

[Shad]

Brother Dawud. Please try to understand from the perspective of Sunni Muslims for whom Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari are important hadith books. If you look at the second video I posted in my original post on this thread, you will see the sheikh rather eloquently *defend* the hadiths and the fact that Mohammed consummated his marriage with Ayesha when she was 9 years old.

So, from the POV of Sunni Muslims, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH MOHAMMED CONSUMMATING HIS MARRIAGE WITH AYESHA WHEN SHE WAS 9 YEARS OLD. It was the culture at that time. Even I, as a non-Muslim find this to be a rather unfair way of criticizing Islam. Why do you feel that you need to defend the actions of Mohammed? If Mohammed had indeed consummated his marriage with Ayesha when she was 9 years old, would that disrupt your faith? Would you stop being Muslim?

Apologize for shouting, but I really wanted to get that across to you.

You, being an Ahmadi want Sunni Muslims to stop being Sunni by not following their hadith books. Am I right?

The limitation of time and place shouldn't be an excuse for one's acts. Otherwise we can begin to defend all sorts of ideas nor consider such acts or person praise worthy.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

The limitation of time and place shouldn't be an excuse for one's acts. Otherwise we can begin to defend all sorts of ideas nor consider such acts or person praise worthy.

And especially when the people making such cop-outs claim that their religion and accompanying moral source are true and perfect for all time. It comes across as rather hypocritical.

 

[Shad]

And especially when the people making such cop-outs claim that their religion and accompanying moral source are true and perfect for all time. It comes across as rather hypocritical.

Well it opens a floodgate they do not anticipate namely relative morality as they must use it to defend their idols unwittingly. One can take all of or any part of Islam following the same time/place limitation to dismiss it. Islam emerged in the 7th century Arabia thus is no longer applicable to the 21st century global community.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Well it opens a floodgate they do not anticipate namely relative morality as they must use it to defend their idols unwittingly. One can take all of or any part of Islam following the same time/place limitation to dismiss it. Islam emerged in the 7th century Arabia thus is no longer applicable to the 21st century global community.

Some of the Qur'aan's teachings were indeed only applicable to the time and society of Prophet Muhammad (saws). But some of them have more universal applicability. One can be too quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Shad]

Some of the Qur'aan's teachings were indeed only applicable to the time and society of Prophet Muhammad (saws). But some of them have more universal applicability. One can be too quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

A problem with this is you need secondary sources in order to provide the context to separate the limited from universal. Which goes right back to reliability of, or lack of, secondary sources and interpretation. More so "flawed human morality" was an acceptable grounding for these limited teaching which calls into question the "universal" being nothing more than what we deem acceptable now following inter-subjective morality which become imposed on to the text as "God's work". Human development guides interpretation rather than interpretation guiding human development.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

A problem with this is you need secondary sources in order to provide the context to separate the limited from universal. Which goes right back to reliability of, or lack of, secondary sources and interpretation. More so "flawed human morality" was an acceptable grounding for these limited teaching which calls into question the "universal" being nothing more than what we deem acceptable now following inter-subjective morality which become imposed on to the text as "God's work". Human development guides interpretation rather than interpretation guiding human development.

And/or one can ask for guidance from God, and use one's (God-given) brain.

 

[Shad]

And/or one can ask for guidance from God, and use one's (God-given) brain.

This is nothing but projection and presupposition ad hoc.

 

[Sakeenah]

We should look at this issue from a historical point of view.

In the middle ages in the west and east marriage took place at a young age for both men and women. In the west some noble-born or royal girls were bethroted and married before the age of 10.There was a perception that once a girl began her period that she was considered to be of marriageable age. Marriages of noble or royal girls was mostly for political and dynastic considerations.
If we look at it from this perspective Aysha marrying at the age of 9 was considered normal in ALL societies at that time and even before that time.

I can understand that some people have an issue with girls marrying at that age in the middle ages. But I think it's quite hypocritical to only mention the marriage of Aysha and not the other noble or royal women in other societies . People should try to be just and not let hate cloud their judgement.


Personally I believe norms and values change with time and historically age of marriage is one of them. Just to make things clear I don't support 9 year old girls getting married..I'm just saying people have to look at this historically.

 

[firedragon]

What

Sorry.

Ayesha was 6 at marriage and your prophet penetrated her when she was 9. No way on earth you can dance around this my friend without disowning your own scriptures.

See links below.

https://archive.org/details/TheAgeOfAishahsMarriageBetweenHistoriansAndHadithScholars

What Scripture?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

This is nothing but projection and presupposition ad hoc.

You are entitled to your opinion.

 

[Shad]

You are entitled to your opinion.

That isn't an opinion. You made a statement such as "God given brain" which is your view point not mine. This view point is only acceptable to you and those that agree. This is projection nothing more.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

We should look at this issue from a historical point of view.

In the middle ages in the west and east marriage took place at a young age for both men and women. In the west some noble-born or royal girls were bethroted and married before the age of 10.There was a perception that once a girl began her period that she was considered to be of marriageable age. Marriages of noble or royal girls was mostly for political and dynastic considerations.
If we look at it from this perspective Aysha marrying at the age of 9 was considered normal in ALL societies at that time and even before that time.

I can understand that some people have an issue with girls marrying at that age in the middle ages. But I think it's quite hypocritical to only mention the marriage of Aysha and not the other noble or royal women in other societies .

Muhammad's marriage to Aisha is singular in importance because it is claimed he was a moral pillar of society, that he was in direct contact with the supreme source of morality & moral authority in all creation and that he's an example for Muslims in this day and age to emulate. In other words, he should have known better! Allah should have known better. For Muslims to claim Muhammad had access to moral authority that non-Muslims did not while simultaneously excusing his actions by saying 'well everyone else did it so that makes it okay' is hypocrisy of the highest order. It's claiming Muhammad was more moral than non-Muslims while at the same time using them as a benchmark for the morality of his actions.

People should try to be just and not let hate cloud their judgement.

And you should try to understand that criticisms of Islam and aspects of Islam can arise from concerns not motivated by hatred or fear. We have legitimate concerns - especially when Muslims have to resort to double standards to get their arguments across.

Personally I believe norms and values change with time and historically age of marriage is one of them. Just to make things clear I don't support 9 year old girls getting married..I'm just saying people have to look at this historically.

Fair enough. At the same time though if Muslims are going to claim that Muhammad is a man for Muslims to emulate even today, then the temporal & cultural context of his actions is rendered irrelevant.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

That isn't an opinion. You made a statement such as "God given brain" which is your view point not mine. This view point is only acceptable to you and those that agree. This is projection nothing more.

I have my opinions/viewpoints and you have yours, that is all I was saying.

 

[Shad]

I have my opinions/viewpoints and you have yours, that is all I was saying.

Sure. Just avoid the projection. More so would my reasoning be acceptable for dismissing Islam or is it only acceptable when one has already accepted it? To me you have invoked human reasoning but are more than likely to dismiss it when it does not align with your views.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Sure. Just avoid the projection. More so would my reasoning be acceptable for dismissing Islam or is it only acceptable when one has already accepted it? To me you have invoked human reasoning but are more than likely to dismiss it when it does not align with your views.

I'm not sure I understand your reference to projection in your previous post and here. And where do you think I have invoked human reasoning here and then dismissed it when it does not align with my views?

 

[Shad]

I'm not sure I understand your reference to projection in your previous post and here. And where do you think I have invoked human reasoning here and then dismissed it when it does not align with my views?

God given brain is the projection point.

My point about human reasoning is would you accept it if used to dismiss the Quran as easily as you accept it for interpretation of the Quran.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

God given brain is the projection point.

I'm afraid I still don't follow you - what do you mean by projection here?

My point about human reasoning is would you accept it if used to dismiss the Quran as easily as you accept it for interpretation of the Quran.

Ah, by human reasoning, you mean by using my God-given brain?

 

[Shad]

I'm afraid I still don't follow you - what do you mean by projection here?

Since I do not believe in God having a God given brain is nonsense from my point of view.

Ah, by human reasoning, you mean by using my God-given brain?

Didn't you mean this when you are talking about using our own minds to come to a conclusion?