I do not understand your question, please rephrase , thank you.

Depending on the country, In yemen its 15, that I know. In Saudi Arabia its 18. Confirmed.

Proof for interpol. http://www.interpol.int/Public/Children/SexualAbuse/NationalLaws/csaSaudiArabia.pdf

Age of maturity and age of consent is necessary before marriage can be approved by a shariah court. I think Shariah legal age is 15, but to be honest, thats even not what this thread is about.

I am responding, because you tend to accuse without facts.

Sharia law forbids arranged marriage or any marriage that is forced or false in any way.

Please quote where exactly I support what you claim I support, dont assume, its wrong.

So you still think its muslims that are bad? Not humans?

There is law against forced Marriages actually. Or am I wrong?

You are also pulling Crimes supposedly perpetuated by muslims from the net. How about I pull a christian one?

http://exchristian.net/2/2005/11/police-say-youth-pastor-killed-wife.php

This is a Pastor. Are we allowed to reach into the same conclusion you are reaching based on your refrences? No I suppose not, your case is different

@babyosisi

Being liberal or not, are they muslims? Yes I suppose, exactly.

Now I do have a problem with the way you quickly assume that its ok for you to assume that whatever you think as right is right.

Whatever a group of people deem as acceptable should be respected, and thats exactly what the western world preaches, with all their freedom reforms.

If we do want to disagree with that, we should have a tangible generally acceptable humanitarian belief to support our choice.

If you point at Saudi Arabia for early marriages, I would point at the western world, for frequent Rapes, What we term as adultery, Murder, Teenage Pregnancy etc etc. How about legalising Prostitution?

We tend to think we are ok, and the school of taught we follow is ok, and there is nothing wrong with things arround us, and we direct our sentiments towards those we think we have superiority over, when in reality, all that is arround us stinks just the same way things we then to critisise stinks.

The question is, is that acceptable?

babyosisi:

another article in our very own backyard.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/africanlives/ivory/ivory.htm

And this link is supposed to tell us what exactly?

Yes in countries like Saudi arabia where Shariah is supposedly practiced, you don't find women driving because they are not allowed to do so. This has made a lot of western activitist especially those that believe in Women freedom to question such act, but the question we need to ask ourselves is,

Is this particular act inherent in countries like Egypt, Tunisia or even Lebanon?'

What does this tell us?

I think whatever condition of living an arabian chooses to adhere to, should be accepted just the way it is, just the same way, you would be arrested in the USA, if you tried jogging naked on the streets. They call it indecent behaviour.

In this thread, I find three particular topic areas interesting.

1. Religion.
2. Context of Abstract.
3. Definition of terrorism.

The first subject of discuss, which is Religion, tends to be used as a weapon, on the basis of supposed member behavioral observed proofs, and some choose to take a defensive position to save themeselves from being guilty, of what they term wrong, by saying their line of belief is not what they term as Religion. Surprisingly someone said Christianity is not a religion along the line. That I find very interesting.

The context of abstract, is another area that has been evasively used along st the line of argument, A possible derived conclusion on that would be, its OK for me to quote from your Reference to Authority, without paying attention to the context of the Abstract, but its not OK for you to quote from my Reference to Authority without paying attention to the Abstract. That to many of us in this thread is an acceptable method to smear those that you do not agree with.

The definition of terrorism is notoriously difficult: the term has been given a variety of definitions, many of which contradict others; and definitions are colored by political ideology, location, and perspective. The audience in this thread should be taken into account when such a term is used.

My advice to anybody henceforth that chooses to argue for or against the topic of this thread, is to evaluate himself or herself, before choosing to use any tactics. Methods such as attacking the arguer, quoting out of context, quoting without proofs, using fallacious and insensible line of arguments should be avoided.

This is meant for the educated thread contributors only, who plan to adhere to intellectual methods of discuss.

Please always remember this revelations are from Hadith not Al-Quran.

* According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha (ra) was born about eight years before Hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari (kitabu'l-tafseer) Ayesha (ra) is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur'an, was revealed, "I was a young girl". The 54th surah of the Qur'an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Ayesha (ra) had not only been born before the revelation of the referred surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not an infant (sibyah) at that time. Obviously, if this narrative is held to be true, it is in clear contradiction with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah. I see absolutely no reason that after the comments of the experts on the narratives of Hisham ibn `urwah, why we should not accept this narrative to be more accurate.

* According to a number of narratives, Ayesha (ra) accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back. Ayesha's (ra) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud clearly indicate that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to accompany men to the battle fields to help them, not to be a burden on them.

* According to almost all the historians Asma (ra), the elder sister of Ayesha (ra) was ten years older than Ayesha (ra). It is reported in Taqri'bu'l-tehzi'b as well as Al-bidayah wa'l-nihayah that Asma (ra) died in 73 hijrah when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma (ra) was 100 years old in 73 hijrah she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma (ra) was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha (ra) should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Ayesha (ra), if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH, was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.

* Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history, while mentioning Abu Bakr (ra) reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah -- the pre Islamic period. Obviously, if Ayesha (ra) was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH -- the time she most likely got married.

* According to Ibn Hisham, the historian, Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam quite some time before Umar ibn Khattab (ra). This shows that Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam during the first year of Islam. While, if the narrative of Ayesha's (ra) marriage at seven years of age is held to be true, Ayesha (ra) should not have been born during the first year of Islam.

* Tabari has also reported that at the time Abu Bakr planned on migrating to Habshah (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am -- with whose son Ayesha (ra) was engaged -- and asked him to take Ayesha (ra) in his house as his son's wife. Mut`am refused, because Abu Bakr had embraced Islam, and subsequently his son divorced Ayesha (ra). Now, if Ayesha (ra) was only seven years old at the time of her marriage, she could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr decided on migrating to Habshah. On the basis of this report it seems only reasonable to assume that Ayesha (ra) had not only been born 8 years before hijrah, but was also a young lady, quite prepared for marriage.

* According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of Khadijah (ra), when Khaulah (ra) came to the Prophet (pbuh) advising him to marry again, the Prophet (pbuh) asked her regarding the choices she had in her mind. Khaulah said: "You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)". When the Prophet (pbuh) asked about who the virgin was, Khaulah proposed Ayesha's (ra) name. All those who know the Arabic language, are aware that the word "bikr" in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine year old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier is "Jariyah". "Bikr" on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady, and obviously a nine year old is not a "lady".

* According to Ibn Hajar, Fatimah (ra) was five years older than Ayesha (ra). Fatimah (ra) is reported to have been born when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35 years old. Thus, even if this information is taken to be correct, Ayesha (ra) could by no means be less than 14 years old at the time of hijrah, and 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage.


These are some of the major points that go against accepting the commonly known narrative regarding Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of her marriage.

Now the question is why the emphasis? Since the age at which she married the prophet is not really known specifically?

davidylan:

As usual, you take the cowards way out because you have exhausted your shallow knowledge.

Exactly Because from your understanding cowards are those who choose to argue based on facts laid down, if that is so I agree to your definition of being a coward.

davidylan:

Go and listen more at friday prayers and come back.

Besides you don't need to be provocative at your ending to get your points across. We could always have a nice conversation without your hatred revealing itself childishly.

You know what, we are just going in a cycle, and honestly I do think I am better off letting you think whatever you want to think, because I have discovered that you don't want to reason beyond what you have made yourself to believe.

Hence I am ending this debate, when you are ready to provide tangible proofs to whatever you accuse Islam of, Do let me know. I would be glad to continue, until then, have a nice day.

davidylan:

You can't come across what you have not researched. Any rational human being can rationalise anything on the earth. The power of logic is not the sole preserve of islam. With the numerous contradictions in the quran, it is amazing some still find it "logical" for a 50 yr old marrying a 6 yr old does not in any way connote rational logic.

There you go again accusing without a proof? This is more the reason why, I wanted to stop arguing with you, because it is a total waste of time. You keep accusing and accusing, without any proof. And you claim to stand for the truth?

davidylan:

@ logical

I perfectly understand the difference between "traditions" and "doctrines". Islam is a religion based on the traditions of men and here is what the bible has to say:

Mark 7:8
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Hmm, the bible says, the bible says. Islam is a religion based on tradition, rather I would say that, Islam is a tradition of itself not a tradition of man.

Misinterpretations can turn it, into the tradition of man, but untill then , it remains the tradition of itself. So let me guess you are not a catholic?

davidylan:

@ logical
Well you haven't made much sense in most of your disjointed posts.
Sorry, that's where the line is drawn between the bible and the quran. Your quran NEEDS to be validated by using "human standard of logic" which you laughably pass off as a "gift of God to man". Sorry, even traditionalists and hindus can use "human standard of logic" to validate their own practices, it does not make islam any different.

Interesting didn't know that, maybe you might want to quote one of those tradionalists or hindus doctrine that is quiet logical, because I havent come across any, and hence I don't agree. Would really appreciate it.

davidylan:

thanks logical,

u just helped me make up my mind. If there was ever any doubt at all it is now cleared, i for one do not want to be a part of a religion were "much of it" is mere abstract terms, "all hadith" is questionable and depends on a "chain of narration" for proof of validity and clearly based niot really on what "god" says but on the "rich traditions" and "how it was done by the prophet"!

All I can say is huuuuuuuuuuuuh?

TayoD:

@Logical,

From my understanding, the Qu'ran wasn't written down by Muhammad because he was an illiterate. If that is so, I assume that his recitations must have been recorded by the very same people around him who wrote down the 'Hadiths".

The recordings of the hadith started 250years after the death of the prophet by Islamic scholars and philosophers, I taught I mentioned that before? Or you just choose to turn a blind eye to that fact again

@TayoD , Have you validated the bible? What acceptable human standards did you use to validate it? I for one, have validated many Islamic preachings using the human standard of logic, a gift of God to man.

@Gwaine,
I have learnt something by reading all of your posts in the religion section, and that thing is, I am better of not arguing with you . This is because from what I have discovered, you don't reason beyond what you have been taught or fed with. You don't see beyond the circle of quoting and quoting what the bible says, even though you perfectly know, that the bible is only approved by christians as a valid document.

What are you trying to achieve? Let me guess , are you trying to push Christianity down my throat , I hope not

@Davidlyan
The hadith is not the basis of Islamic belief, do you really understand the difference between tradition and doctrine?

When I say much of islam, I was reffering to the tenets of islams, otherwise known as pillars (The profession of faith in Allah , salat, zakat, ramadhan, hajj) maybe that is more explanatory, because its more of practice not necessarily a doctrine, and therefore requires a traditional documentation to guide in achieving that particular practice properly.

TayoD:

Logical,

Can you provide us with the source of the information that Muhammad married an 8 year old girl? And why is that source now suspect? What makes these other sources you quoted more acceptable than the one that gave the world the age of 8?
I hope we won't get a new information now telling us Muhammad's first wife was not actually decades older than he was.

@TayoD
Well maybe you might want to direct that question to the person that started the accusation?
All sources of the hadith are suspects, thats where for every hadith there must be a check on its chain of narrations.

davidylan:

@ logical
If that is true then what is the significance of the quran since it is just a collection of "mere abstract texts"?
why would it be appropriate to use the hadith in some situations e.g prayer and fasting and then innapropriate to quote it as a reliable source when it comes to the "deeds" of the prophet e.g his marriage?

It's not just mere abstract's David, its a message from God. When I said much of Islam would be mere abstract without the hadith. You might want to ask, what the "much of Islam" was? So I was talking about some activities such as Prayers for example. In the Quran it says Pray(perform salat), but the precise guide of how prayers(salat) was done by the prophet, or is supposed to be done is not there, so based on the hadiths account from different first sources, more of a rich tradition, you can refer to the context and chain of narrations to support that account, on how it was exactly done, or supposed to be done.

So the Hadith is not appropriate in one condition and inappropriate in another condition. We muslims only approve a message of the hadith if the chain of narrations all support the account of that message.

All hadith's are questionable, every muslim knows that. hence a proof is needed based on the context and chain of narrations, because of its nature.

Anybody can just wake up and said, he heared the prophet said something or people said something. But how many first source report of that account do we have, to support that report? Thats what we muslims call a chain of narration.

Do we know that the idea of religion being a barrier to a successful marriage is only isolated to countries like Nigeria?

I wonder whether you guys are even reading each others post. I suppose this has become just post and I would post in return. Na wa o.

Misconceptions, Confusions,

When you cook food for example, and the food get spoiled, did you create the algae or whatever micro organisms that spoil the food? OK thats out of context, here we are using the relativity of the factors that brought about the properties of what we term as "evil". Am I correct?

Great, Did God create free will? Well according to Islamic teachings, Yes , you have a free will, you can decide to jump and you can decide not too, , and so is the ability to choose on which choice to make, which means you were given the ability to jump and the ability to control yourself not to jump, so in fact you have the ability either to jump or not to jump.

Now what is evil?
Evil is simply the quality of being morally bad or wrong. Now is this a property?

Yes this is a property, So yes God created the evil property, at the same time, God created the good property.

Then also God created what we Muslims call, Free will (The choice property based on another property, conscious and feelings); the ability to make that choice based on your "feeling" property to which you have control too.

So the question is, by God creating that evil property, does it make God evil? No it does not.

As long as God created conscious, good, and free will, God just gave us the chance to be decisive in how we want our future(our after life) to be and there comes the question of the purpose of life, which I think its too broad and way out of the subject of this thread.

So by God creating the evil property , that does not make God evil, rather it makes God beyond what we call perfect, to create such functionality into a living thing, and yes God created evil.

remy_jims:

I'd be grateful if someone here can tell me the invocations during sujud while reading the qur'an(i mean when you reach the places of sujud during recitation of the qur'an)-both the transliteration and translation in english

Subhana rabbee al-A'la wa bi hamdi
"Glory be to my Lord, the Most High. God is greater than everything else."

Muhammad's marriage to Aisha logically answered in the context of historical references that counters the first source that mentions the exact age. https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-14674.64.html#msg462673

According to the Qur'an, hadith means 'story', 'news', 'report' or 'narration' [/b]and it is used in the Qur'an a number of times in these senses. In practice, the word hadith, to most people calling themselves Muslim, means the [b]reported [/b]sayings and practices of the Prophet. The operative word here is[b] 'reported'. The Hadith literature was collected by word of mouth, about 250 years after the death of the Prophet. The Hadiths – as the Hadith literature is commonly called – can be classified roughly in four categories:

1. What the Prophet said.

2. What the Prophet did.

3. What the Prophet silently approved of, in others.

4. Hadiths which give descriptions of what the Prophet was like.

In a more precise way, A historical account of, how it was like, during the prophet's time.

It helps if put in right context with the chain of narrations that support a specific report, in giving us the glimpse of the nature and enviroment, besides how the life of the first muslims was like, and hence sometimes can be used in making decisions based on the contextual refrences.

Much of Islam will remain mere abstract concepts without Hadith. Muslims would never know how to pray, fast, pay zakah, or make pilgrimage without the illustration found in Hadith, for these acts of worship remain as abstract imperatives in the Qur’an. So I think that answers your question.

Please always remember this revelations are from Hadith not Al-Quran.

* According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha (ra) was born about eight years before Hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari (kitabu'l-tafseer) Ayesha (ra) is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur'an, was revealed, "I was a young girl". The 54th surah of the Qur'an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Ayesha (ra) had not only been born before the revelation of the referred surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not an infant (sibyah) at that time. Obviously, if this narrative is held to be true, it is in clear contradiction with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah. I see absolutely no reason that after the comments of the experts on the narratives of Hisham ibn `urwah, why we should not accept this narrative to be more accurate.

* According to a number of narratives, Ayesha (ra) accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back. Ayesha's (ra) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud clearly indicate that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to accompany men to the battle fields to help them, not to be a burden on them.

* According to almost all the historians Asma (ra), the elder sister of Ayesha (ra) was ten years older than Ayesha (ra). It is reported in Taqri'bu'l-tehzi'b as well as Al-bidayah wa'l-nihayah that Asma (ra) died in 73 hijrah when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma (ra) was 100 years old in 73 hijrah she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma (ra) was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha (ra) should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Ayesha (ra), if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH, was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.

* Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history, while mentioning Abu Bakr (ra) reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah -- the pre Islamic period. Obviously, if Ayesha (ra) was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH -- the time she most likely got married.

* According to Ibn Hisham, the historian, Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam quite some time before Umar ibn Khattab (ra). This shows that Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam during the first year of Islam. While, if the narrative of Ayesha's (ra) marriage at seven years of age is held to be true, Ayesha (ra) should not have been born during the first year of Islam.

* Tabari has also reported that at the time Abu Bakr planned on migrating to Habshah (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am -- with whose son Ayesha (ra) was engaged -- and asked him to take Ayesha (ra) in his house as his son's wife. Mut`am refused, because Abu Bakr had embraced Islam, and subsequently his son divorced Ayesha (ra). Now, if Ayesha (ra) was only seven years old at the time of her marriage, she could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr decided on migrating to Habshah. On the basis of this report it seems only reasonable to assume that Ayesha (ra) had not only been born 8 years before hijrah, but was also a young lady, quite prepared for marriage.

* According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of Khadijah (ra), when Khaulah (ra) came to the Prophet (pbuh) advising him to marry again, the Prophet (pbuh) asked her regarding the choices she had in her mind. Khaulah said: "You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)". When the Prophet (pbuh) asked about who the virgin was, Khaulah proposed Ayesha's (ra) name. All those who know the Arabic language, are aware that the word "bikr" in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine year old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier is "Jariyah". "Bikr" on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady, and obviously a nine year old is not a "lady".

* According to Ibn Hajar, Fatimah (ra) was five years older than Ayesha (ra). Fatimah (ra) is reported to have been born when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35 years old. Thus, even if this information is taken to be correct, Ayesha (ra) could by no means be less than 14 years old at the time of hijrah, and 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage.


These are some of the major points that go against accepting the commonly known narrative regarding Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of her marriage.

Now the question is why the emphasis? Since the age at which she married the prophet is not really known specifically?

Hmm nice change of topic direction.

mlks_baby:

@Logical,

I need to clarify a few things from you, though I'd leave Gwaine to post his own rejoinder to yours. So, are you trying to say that the event of Muhammad getting married to an under-aged girl is only an idea sourced from Davidylan or what? And even then, Imam Ali's marriage to Fatima ('prophet' Muhammad's daughter) is "to name a few"? I thought you would give more examples of the common practice among people 1000 years ago, not state another Islamic practice of older men marrying under-aged kids! Fatima was 9 years old when she was giving in marriage to Muhammad's cousin, Ali. Is that the same thing as the 50-something year old prophet taking a 6 y.o kid to wife?? Please help clear these issues.

If you don't mind, can you please bring the historical refrences to your accusation? That would be much appreciated. Thanks.

This I say because I have been reading very good arguments based on that revelation of Aisha marrying Muhammad (S.A.W) at 9 years old.

m4malik:

@Logical,

Salam. I don't know when this idea began to be interpolated into Islamic thinking - that it is the pre-requisite to believe in the message of both; that is, both Christianity and Islam? Well, that all depends on whether Islam actually recognizes the message of Jesus Christ: sample a few below -

Message of christianity? I don't recollect saying so, Christianity according to my understanding is not the message of Jesus. Rather the messages re-created or re-interpreted by so called disciplies or kings, or even the church.

Believing in the message of Jesus, is as simple as that, I have to as a pre-requisite to being a muslim, but that never means the Bible, or the so called revelations in the bible?

You keep quoting the bible as if I believe in it? Its like quoting from the book of Dan Brown, because you seem to believe in a religion that is formed based on this man's interpretation of history, and you expect me to believe it? Why should I?

Rather I would prefer a standard, which is simply "LOGIC", the God's gift to man.

TayoD:

Logical,

How can you compare Adam to Christ. First Adam was created to foreshadow Christ. The fact that he had to 'sleep' and a woman created from his side was to bring him to be a better representation of what He typifies - Christ and His Church.

Was I? I was just trying to create an argument on the inferences used by christians to explain Jesus divinity? Besides what you just said, CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH?

If I might ask did Christ have a church, I taught he was more of a preacher?

TayoD:

For your information, Adam and all creation was created by Christ who only entered the realm of time into a body we know as Jesus.

And based on this are you concluding that Jesus is just a symbol based on christianity teachings? So let me guess you are worshiping the symbol just like the Budhist etc do?

TayoD:

It is Muhammad who passed on innacuracies to the Qu'ran through the stories he must have heard about the Bible. Going by what you guys say, he was said to be illeterate. If he can't read, then he must have been going by what he must have been told which was outright fables and innacuracies.

I have always maintained that if Muslims are sincere, all they need do is to find the Bible mauscripts that existed in the days of Muhammad, and compare it to what Muhammad says. If both are not the same, then only one person must be a liar: Muhammad, and all you people must have been led astray.

Currently its not about inaccuracies because if we use the standard "LOGIC", assuming that I do not believe in the bible the same time you do not believe in the Quran, claiming it is polluted.

Now so are we allowed to apply logic to its teachings to justify, not just blind faith, considering that Christians claim that faith is blind?

So you are saying there were Arabic versions of the bible 1500 years ago, because from what I understand from what you wrote, you are assuming that The Quran was the work of plagarism, by a person who was unlettered? Interesting deduction.

It's very simple Adam (may the peace of Allah be upon him) wasn't conceived, and that does not make him Supernatural.

Be and surely it was, of the past, why should it be treated different on another situation?

If we are using the basis of source to existence, to judge, then Adam should be more greater. I think?

According to Islam Jesus (may the peace of Allah be upon him) never died Rather he was replaced and he ascended to Heaven. So really comparison is unwarranted, and Islamic preachings never claim there are similarities nor do they preach it, rather they necessity to acknowledge and believe in the message of both as a pre-requisite.

So really we are not trying to prove anything in regards to similarity, rather we are passing a message of Islamic teachings across, and clearing the doubts and inaccuracies.

@Gwaine
There you go again, this is exactly the problem. Pick one point, leave the others.

How many of Muhammad's disciples actually married under-aged girls as did their
prophet Muhammad? Notice that it is said that Muhammad married Aisha when she
was 6 y.o. and "consumated" the marriage when she was 9 y.o. What then do you
understand by the marriage being "consumated" when she was not even quite in
her first decade?

There are quiet a few, based on the historical facts, example Fatima's marriage to Ali, to name a few. You see the problem is you don't even know where this historical facts are gotten from, and you really don't know anything about Islamic history from what I can tell now. You are just using one fact someone raised such as Davidlyan etc,

You guys just pick one historical occurence and infer that that must be a unique occurence of that era.

The question still hasnt be answered, at what age do people marry 1000 years ago?

Now on my argument in regards to bible, what I was saying exactly wasnt a verse, I was talking in regards to the books in the bible, like for example the book of Luke. It would state at the top before the verses. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE.

You might want to educate yourself on Islam before you pickup something out of nowhere and shout "blasphemy".

I decided to dig the forum to look for my points in regards to the marriage of Muhammad (S.A.W) even though I am very sure my codebators would refuse to read it, or take my point into consideration.

Aisha might be nine, and we are also allowed to deduce that marriage might implied sex right away or vice versa?

But lets ask ourselves a simple question, was the practice of marrying girls at the age of 9, one thousand plus years ago acceptable by cultures then?

I guess most of us Learned history in school, which implies we went to school at the first place, so I guess we all would reason objectively in that regards. But if you happen not too, then I would encourage you to desist from reading my futher points.

Things to note:

1. Most people one thousand years ago married at a very young age, even at birth in some cultures.

2. The definition of culture.

3. If marrying at an early age, during the past is acceptable, why is it not now? Culture evolution of course.

4. What is acceptable by a specific group is culture, should be used to judge them. This can thus allow us to reach a conclusion that the practice of that past can be said to be acceptable because it is the culture of which their ethics is developed from. I am assuming we know the definition of ethics.

5. When I argue, I debate based on what the other co-debater lays down, and I make sure, his angle of reasoning comes into peace with the truth besides giving a perfect explanation to why it is so.

6. There is no where in the teachings of Islam, that promotes marriage at a young age, rather it encourages marriage when you are matured and able.

To conclude on the marriage or sex case, the culture of the past, remains the culture of the past, and the culture of today should never be used to judge the culture of the past, because the people of the past lived by the standards that which today you deem to claim as unacceptable, due to the so called "evolution" of cultures and civilizations.

Well my forefathers weren't evil with their cultures I really don't know about yours

What amazes me, is that this accusation is coming from people that actually went to school. History is not taught in school to criticize the past, rather it is taught to educate people of the differences.

If you are not going to argue based on my points raised, please do not reply to my debate.

Hmm they leave when they do not have answers? Well if you have been on this section long enough, and not taking sides because you tend to come from one religion or another, you would know that infact I have answered questions in relative to Muhammads Marriage before, and this thread is not the first thread raising the same sentiment.

What all of you christian sympathizers fail to understand is that, there is a clear cut, between a bias discussion that is full of vulgarity and one that is based on simple reasoning and threated with calmness. I am only interested in discussions that treats all points raised, into consideration.

As I clearly stated in my earlier post, I am not ready to be having a discussion with someone that turns a blind eye to the points I have already raised in my debate.

That being said, have you yourself the sympathizer really read through my premises? I doubt so. Because if you had, and you are giving a fair judgment to points laid down, based on what you know. You wouldn't say otherwise. So my withdrawing from a discussion like this, is not about a battle retreat, rather its a smart thing to do. This is because if you are very familiar with this section you would know well, that I haven't failed to explain something to a level beyond reasonable doubt, if given a chance too.

But could someone please explain as to why, I should continue having a debate in a thread, where the laid down premises are not taking into consideration and judged by what it means according to what that co-debator understands, rather as a response, attacks comes from different angles un-objectively?

I really do not see a reason why I should continue, except the co-debator is ready to give an eye and ear to every laid down points. If he is ready, then I am willing to carry on with an intellectual debate.

@David,

I would really love to continue this debate, but it seems that you are turning a blind eye to laid down facts, so I am resting my case in regards to your arguments. I am not here to be having a conversation with someone that chooses not to listen rather wants to be listened to.

"The Gospel According to Davidylan, "

davidylan:

Don't confuse yourself, both are one and the same, since when did of begin to connote something different?

Or rather its you turning a blind eye to the supporting premise?